Thursday, the Associated Press's Matt Gouras "reported" ("Tea party vision for Mont. raising concerns") on legislative proposals in Montana. It got the attention of Rush Limbaugh, who skewered it as only Rush can.
Gouras's opening paragraphs read like a press release from an opposition party:
With each bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.
Their state would be a place where officials can ignore U.S. laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias.
His third paragraph uses the "some people" tactic, which more often than not is AP code for "people I found who agree with me":
But some residents, Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer and even some Republican lawmakers say the bills are making Montana into a laughingstock.
Limbaugh got wind of Gouras's gunk, and the self-described "America's anchorman" let it rip, and called out the wire service for selectivity in criticizing compliance with laws and the Constitution (link will go behind subscriber wall in a week; some paragraph breaks added by me; bolds are mine):
You want to hear something hilariously funny? This is from the Associated Press, State-Run out of Montana. Let me give you the headline: "'Tea Party Vision for Montana Raising Concerns' -- ..."
Now, this is not an editorial. It's supposed to be a news article. And when the AP writes that not everyone is buying their vision, or something, that means they disapprove of it and they manage to find a couple of people to quote who share their disapproval. It means the disapproval starts with AP, their premise and their narrative starts with them, and then they go out and try to find a couple people.
It's not that people in Montana are raising hell and AP hears about it and says, "Whoa, we got a story." This is AP creating a story. And what we have here is the Associated Press raging at a bunch of people who are passing laws which would, for example, ignore US laws.
What the hell is going on? We have the president of the United States himself saying, (paraphrasing) "That law doesn't count anymore, I'm not gonna defend that law, the Defense of Marriage Act." We have a president of the United States who himself is lawless. We went through this in great detail yesterday. Make no mistake. And it's not arguable. This is a lawless regime. And so here, the AP in Montana is about to have a conniption fit, they are having a conniption fit because of the Tea Party vision for Montana.
... Well, where are you, AP, on the defense of marriage and this regime simply choosing to ignore laws it doesn't like? How about when a president ignores various federal court rulings? A federal judge has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional. No big deal, we're gonna keep implementing it. And you're worried about lawlessness in Montana? We've had an administration that's come out and said, "You know what, this Defense of Marriage Act, it's been around since the Clinton years, we don't like it. We're not gonna defend it anymore." Lawlessness! The president does not have such authority, and yet the AP wants to tell us how off the tracks and wacko they're getting in Montana.
... (The AP's Gouras writes) "Arizona, Missouri and Tennessee are discussing the creation of a joint compact, like a treaty, opposing the 2010 health care law." It's already been declared unconstitutional, AP. "Idaho is considering a plan to nullify it, as is Montana." Why, how radical. All of this is happening within the bounds of the law. They're passing legislation to do this. They are not unilaterally implementing things, such as our president is doing.
Though there may be an exception out there somewhere, the establishment press on the whole hasn't even entertained the idea that the Obama administration's brazen continuance of Obamacare implementation is even the least bit problematic in light of Judge Roger Vinson's ruling in Florida. Page 75 of that ruling makes it very clear that this is completely contrary to what the judge expects. What about "the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction” don’t they understand?
Outfits like the AP seem to believe that it's more important to create stories based on their own preconceived notions about those who are opposing the advance of statism than it is to explore the legality of the statists' actions.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
