How to Make Jake Tapper Look Like a Fool

The first step is easy . . . let him create the illusion that he is attempting to be neutral and seek the truth. The second step is to put on your thinking cap (you know the one from Elementary school) and attempt to make sense of the crap. Here we go!

I appreciate Jake Tapper and his attempt to be non-partisan as a journalist but when you make mistakes as you attempt to justify false claims of an ad . . . then it gets tricky. It is astonishing to me to hear foul play on the conservative side when John McCain and Sarah Palin are allowed to distort and lie to the American people on a daily basis. Why are we not calling them out?

I am not a journalist. I am a partisan blogger. I am here to report the facts as they are distorted by the right wing. Let us examine Tapper’s claims and the fallacy in his argument.

Jake Tapper states, “Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has launched a new Spanish-language TV ad that seeks to paint Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as anti-immigrant, even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh.”

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

The only thing Tapper manages to get true is that Barack Obama has released a new Spanish-language TV ad. Tapper gets it wrong in the latter part of the statement where he claims that the ad, “ seeks to paint Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., as anti-immigrant, even tying the Republican to his longtime conservative talk-radio nemesis Rush Limbaugh.”

Opinion! Opinion! Opinion!

Tapper inferred incorrectly on the purpose of the ad. It did not seek to make John McCain as anti-immigrant and it did not attempt to tie McCain to Limbaugh. I gave more credit to Tapper then was due but unfortunately this is an Epic fail on his part. I suggest hitting the “delete post” option on your blog to avoid any more embarrassment. I am not even trying to poke holes in Tapper’s argument; they are just there like an elephant in the room.

If you watch the ad in its entirety, the claim is obvious. Here it is verbatim in case you missed it.

The narrator then says, “John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote…and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families. John McCain…more of the same old Republican tricks.”

Coincidentally, Tapper understands that the ad is “Dos Caras” or Two-Face yet makes the leap of faith and gets the argument of the ad wrong. Its like reading Goldilocks and the Three Bears and thinking that the moral of the story was to “always test the product you want” before you commit to it. As the ad title suggest, the advert is about how McCain is two-faced when it comes to Hispanic issues. McCain was against the DREAM Act before he was for it. He was for his own legislation offering comprehensive immigration reform before he was against.

It boils down to McCain succumbing to his base, which as the ad title suggest is Two-Face. It is an aggressive strategy but nonetheless Obama is on point.

Tapper’s first assertion or assumption is flawed. He claims, “First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.”

Really? You are going to bring up what is fair this late in the campaign season? Come on Tapper you are no novice when it comes to political campaigns. Leaving that aside though, Tapper’s claim that Obama was “tying Sen. McCain to Limbaugh” is wrong.

Tapper inferred this from the ad and although I cannot seem to trick my brain into coming up with the same conclusion, Tapper has every right to have an opinion of what he thinks the ad is trying to do- even if it is wrong.

Obama reminds the Spanish speaking voters that they have been insulted, put up with intolerance and have been marginalized. Later on in the ad Obama asserts how John McCain has catered to those individuals.

Here is where a simple minded individual can get lost. As the quotes of Rush Limbaugh are shown in the ad, it implies that Limbaugh is anti-immigration. Tapper adds, “the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context.”

Oh, really? So you mean Rush Limbaugh is really the savior and crusader for Hispanic immigrant rights? You mean to tell me that Obama got it wrong and Limbaugh is this innocent person that loves and welcomes people into this country?

How out of context can you get with the quote people? Tapper luckily puts it into context though. He sheds light into what Limbaugh meant by “unskilled stupid Mexicans.”

Tapper claims, “Not one of his most eloquent moments, to be sure, but his larger point was that NAFTA would mean that unskilled stupid Mexicans would be doing the jobs of unskilled stupid Americans.”

Limbaugh and eloquence are two words that do not share an affinity with each other. In fact, Tapper’s claim of “not one of his most eloquent moments” to describe the Limbaugh quote implies that Limbaugh deservers the honor of being an erudite speaker, but that is another story.

The fact is that Limbaugh referred to those unskilled Mexican workers as stupid. There is no out of context. Should we now tell unskilled American workers that they are stupid as well? That wont play well for Limbaugh, believe me. Even Tapper deep down finds it hard to justify Limbaugh’s quote.

Tapper notes, “I’m not going to defend how he said it, but to act as if this was just a moment of Limbaugh slurring Mexicans is not accurate. Though again, certainly if people were offended I could understand why.”

I do not if I should laugh or cry. In the same paragraph Tapper claims that, “to act as if this was just a moment of Limbaugh slurring Mexicans is not accurate,” yet he adds, “if people were offended I could understand why.”

Seriously, Tapper? You want to argue that it is not a slur but you do understand if some people find it offensive. Go back and take Lit 101.

Then Jake Tapper goes onto Limbaugh’s second quote. He states, “The second quote is totally unfair. In 2006, Limbaugh was mocking Mexican law.”

There goes the unfair argument to distract people into analyzing the statement that was purported by the advert. Tapper sheds light into what Limbaugh meant by the quote by claiming that Limbaugh “was mocking Mexican law.” Mocking . . . because that somehow make its more appropriate to make those assertions.

If Tapper had read the first statement made by Limbaugh in that quote he might gain insight of how Limbaugh’s quote was not taken out of context.

Rush Limbaugh stated, “Everybody's making immigration proposals these days. Let me add mine to the mix. Call it The Limbaugh Laws:”

Limbaugh attempted to be clever by creating Limbaugh Laws that were actual laws of Mexico. Nonetheless, Limbaugh’s quote comes from a Limbaugh law about protesting.

“And another thing: You don't have the right to protest. You're allowed no demonstrations, no foreign flag waving, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our President or his policies. You're a foreigner: shut your mouth or get out! And if you come here illegally, you're going to jail.

“You think the Limbaugh Laws are harsh? Well, every one of the laws I just mentioned are actual laws of Mexico today! That' how the Mexican government handles immigrants to their country. Yet Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets!

Limbaugh did make those statements and he made them because he did not like the Immigration rallies that were going on throughout the nation. His statement that “Mexicans come here illegally and protest in our streets!” should have been an indicator to Tapper of the sentiment that was brewing in Limbaugh’s distorted head.

Tapper claims, “But even if one is uninclined to see Limbaugh's quotes as having been taken unfairly out of context, linking them to McCain makes as much sense as running a quote from Bill Maher and linking it to Obama.”

First, the quotes are NOT of context. Second, Tapper you must be sleepy because I do not think you are stupid to not figure out the point of the advert. Let me help you. Here are the Cliff’s Notes versions.

Limbaugh's quotes were used to remind Spanish voters that McCain had catered to the Republican base and left them out in the cold. This is true and as the ad implies- Two-Face. On the second assertion though, Obama has not catered to Bill Maher's immigration stance as McCain has for Limbaugh.

Tapper only entertains the main message in one paragraph. He claims, “The greater implication the ad makes, however, is that McCain is no friend to Latinos at all, beyond issues of funding the DREAM act or how NCLB money is distributed. By linking McCain to Limbaugh’s quotes, twisting Limbaugh’s quotes, and tying McCain to more extremist anti-immigration voices, the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad. In Spanish, the word is erróneo.”

Instead of researching whether McCain was really “two-face” or not . . . Tapper dedicated the majority of his post on the two quotes by Limbaugh. McCain lies to Hispanic voters each and every day he claims to be fighting for them.

He was against his own legislation for immigration reform for crying out loud. The weak claim that we must secure our borders before we offer reform is a joke. How do you secure borders when you can’t even win a War that you have been claiming that we have won? How can you secure our borders when our Economy is in the dumps and you claim that the fundamentals are still strong?