The Right Coast

Editor: Thomas A. Smith
University of San Diego
School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Friday, September 11, 2009

The Typical MSM Bull
Mike Rappaport

Whether one believes Joe Wilson's comment was appropriate, it is hardly unprecedented.  As usual, the Democrats have done far worse.  From Politico:

In 2004, Democrats delivered a “Chorus Of Boos” during Bush's Bush’s State Of The Union when he called for renewal of the Patriot Act., according to the Washington Times.

In 2005, Dems howled, hissed and shouted "No!" when Bush pushed for Social Security reform in the SOU:  "Foreshadowing the contentiousness of the coming debate, Democrats broke decorum and booed twice," according to the National Journal.

At the time, CNN's Bill Schneider remarked,  “It was unusual. I had never heard it at least at that level before. The Democrats clearly were booing, heckling, saying no when the president talked about the crisis in Social Security."

Moreover, Obama's claim that illegal immigrants won't be covered -- which sparked Wilson's outburst -- while technically accurate, doesn't quite tell the entire story. Some of the bills being considered in the House and Senate contain provisions locking in local statutes that prevent providers from inquiring about immigration status prior to treatment. And illegals are treated, and are bound to be treated, in ERs, covered by local, state and federal uninsured pools.

Yet, the MSM treats it as some kind of singular outrage, and some Democrats now seek to censor Wilson.  This is typical fare -- a dog bites man story.  If the MSM and the left Democrats were fair minded, that would be the man bites dog story.

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Typical MSM Bull
Mike Rappaport


Mike, this is pretty weak tea, I think. Do you think that boos are "worse" than being called a liar? I don't think most people would agree with that. At the least, it's hardly obvious. Secondly, the point is not only "technically accurate" (though it is that, too, showing that Wilson is either a liar himself or a fool, though most likely a mix of the two), it's fully accurate, and the supposed "counter" points cited in the quote are not relevant- they have nothing to do with the point in question. To imply that they do is again dishonest, or shows basic confusion, or both, making this a pretty poor article to use to support a point.

Posted by: Matt | Sep 12, 2009 9:37:58 AM