California Conservative

Because proud Republicans are harder to find.

In the city of oft-celebrated liberal “tolerance,” such an admission could risk job, friends, and personal safety.

Jeb Eddy joins thousands of demonstrators to protest the war in Iraq on Saturday. (AP photo by Noah Berger)

Yesterday, in an engaging post entitled, Anatomy of an anti-war puff piece, Jeff Goldstein dissected some biased reporting from the Associated Press. Goldstein writes:

“Only in a story that is desperately trying to hide its bias would the author find, foreground, and quote, as her initial interviewees, a couple who are surely the least politically representative of all those attending this rally: a pro-Bush Republican tandem so unversed in the Administration’s reasons for being in Iraq that they believe we should pull out before the mission is completed, and are basing that belief on a tired liberal talking point that conveniently ignores all the other reasons the Bushies outlined for the Iraq campaign. So, while Ms Kerr is certainly correct to note that political beliefs among the rallyers varies, her choice to highlight the most unrepresentative of the variants to open the story betrays her own rhetorical agenda—and does so in a way that is so obvious I’d be surprised to learn she thought it might actually fool anyone.”

As the photo above proves: there’s no greater fool like an old fool.

UPDATE: Reader Mark points us to Jeb Eddy’s campaign contributions going back to 1998. Looking more like a Democrat.) More in comments.

Another point made by Goldstein was the media’s participation to inflate the perception of major turnout by protesters.

“Typically when we hear of “thousands” protesting, we don’t expect we’ll need to rely on a kind of Clintonesque legal parsing to make the claim literally so; and yet that’s precisely what’s happening here, because, while “more than 2,000 people” technically qualifies as thousands, the phrase “rallied by the thousands” is suggestive of a bit more than the bare minimum at which “thousands” is even pluralized. And though Kerr may insist she’s referring to the international totals, the impression she leaves is that she is concentrating on the rally at the capital, where mothers and daughters and sisters from “far-flung places” “poured” in to protest the war.”

We wonder if Goldstein read the L.A. Times today, which reports:

“Capping a summer of rising discontent with the war in Iraq, tens of thousands of protesters marched through cities across the nation Saturday to demand the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Crowds shrugged off chilly rains and breakdowns in public transportation to greet Cindy Sheehan and her traveling antiwar vigil in Washington. In Los Angeles, actors and politicians led a long procession of protesters through downtown. And in San Diego, war veterans were among the thousands who gathered at a peaceful rally at a park. Thousands also protested in London.”

Such dedication. Such bravery. Such self-serving promotion.

“Many of the marchers said the events represented a growing momentum of discontent with the war and the Bush administration — leading to the rise of Sheehan’s movement.”

Did they really say that? Amazing. You’d think they might say something else?

Witnessing the collection of crazies that crawled out in San Francisco yesterday, we wondered where they’re usually hiding during the daylight. Everyone had something to complain about. Miserly loves company.

“The U.S. antiwar demonstrators were also joined by an amalgam of activists, including a contingent of anti-globalization protesters in town for a World Bank meeting. Sitting under tents and at card tables circling the Washington Monument, they promoted a grab bag of issues, including gay marriage and vegetarianism.”
. . .

The event drew an eclectic crowd whose grievances against the government were as diverse as the rhythmic chants that erupted up and down the march.

There was a “Buddhists Waging Peace” banner, “Terminate the Terminator” stickers, a “Healthcare Not Warfare” sign and a woman dressed as Mother Earth demanding more federal protections for the environment.

In viewing the people that came out to protest, we concluded that, by and large, these are typically the least productive citizens (in terms of fueling the economy by creating new industry and generating taxable income), and yet they are also the most costly: requiring the City’s police force to mobilize, protests are very expensive. But the taxpayers pick up the tab.

The organizers should be required to pay for the additional costs to the city.

James Lafferty, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild and one of the event’s chief organizers, said the Iraqi insurgency, support for Sheehan and the flawed federal response to Katrina were stoking opposition to the war and the administration.

Lawyers have deep pockets. They should be happy to pay since, as we see, they believe so strongly in the cause.

RELATED:
Confederate Yankee questions the “Huge Waves?”
SortaPundit discusses numbers inflation in UK reporting
KnightsSimplar is “Ashamed of Democratic Tactics”
Bill Quick calls Mr. Eddy a “Rethuglican”

“Peace Movement” Is Not So Peaceful:
Photos from San Francisco
March of The Moonbats: San Francisco
Anti-War Activists: Full of Protest, But No ANSWERs

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 25th, 2005 at 12:45 pm and is filed under Activism, Capitalism, Liberals, Media, San Francisco. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.