Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Liberal Media Biased Agenda

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2011/12/15

Headline brought to you by the Redundant Department of Redundancy.

I remember reading a Liberal Mainstream Media (there’s that redundancy again) report concerning the TEA Party and how “nearly forty percent” hail from “The South” and how horrible that is! The South is taking over the nation! Run for the hills cities! We should discount the TEA Party because it is too heavily represented by The South!

Let’s look at some numbers, shall we? I mean, let’s actually do something the “journalist” doesn’t want you to do. First off, let’s agree that the TEA Party is mainly Conservative/Libertarian. I don’t believe even “journalists” would disagree with that.

So, the TEA Party is mainly Conservative/Libertarian, and “nearly forty percent” hail from “The South.” Let’s look at the historical record of voting for President in “The South.” Since I’m writing this on the fly, as I do nearly all my articles, let’s give a temporary definition of “The South” as being all states south of Maryland and the Ohio River and east of Colorado/New Mexico.

In the 2008 elections, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida were the only states in “The South” that went Democrat. (US Election

In the 2000 and 2004 elections, all of “The South” went Republican. In the 1996 elections, 7 of the 16 states in “The South” went Democrat, but 4 of those 7 failed to reach the 50 percent plateau. In the 1992 elections, but only 1 of those 7 states (Arkansas, the home state of Bill Clinton) reached the 50 percent plateau as Ross Perot siphoned off large chunks of Libertarian/Conservative voters.

In 1988, only one state (West Virginia) in “The South” broke Democrat, while two southern states broke more than 60 percent Republican. In 1984, only one single state (other than DC, which went 85 percent Democrat (who would’ve guessed? /snark)) went Democrat. That was Minnesota, the home state of Walter Mondale, and even then, it failed to reach the 50 percent plateau, going 49.72 percent Democrat to 49.54 percent Republican. (Note how close Ronald Reagan came to a 50-state sweep.) In “The South” only Tennessee failed to reach the 60 percent Republican plateau, coming in at 57.84 percent for Reagan. In fact, only 19 of the 50 states failed to reach the 60 percent Republican plateau, and only 1 of those 19 were in “The South.” (Note how a non-establishment Conservative fares with regular citizens, despite the Liberal Media Biased Agenda (Redundant Department of Redundancy at work again).) In 1980, the Democrat Jimmy Carter won only 6 states (12 percent of 50), with 2 of those 6 coming from the 16 states (12.5 percent of 16) that comprise my definition of “The South.” The only state that reached the 50 percent Democrat plateau was “The South” state of Georgia, Jimmy Carter’s home state.

As the historical record shows, from 1964 until now, with the exception of 1976 where the Watergate scandal decided the election, “The South” has been as Conservative or more Conservative than the rest of the country. And the Watergate scandal election of 1976, where Jimmy Carter, a Democrat ex-Governor from Georgia won “The South,” should also point out the position of “The South” in that they don’t brook no cheaters (a much more Conservative than Liberal position).

So it would make sense that a region of the country that has a 40-plus year history of being more Conservative than the rest of the nation would have a higher percentage of representation within a grass-roots Conservative movement. And that alone should wholly debunk the “oh noes! Teh South is gonna take over the country!” mantra of certain members of the Liberal Elite Mainstream Media Establishment (provided by the Redundant Department of Redundancy). But is that really the case? I’ve written in the past (in my Longitudinal Proof Of Media Bias article) about how the Mainstream Media’s editors are clearly more Liberal than the nation as a whole, and how the Mainstream Media’s “journalists” are clearly more Liberal than their editors (meaning the “journalists” are by far more Liberal than We the People). It is easy to compare their numbers to the population’s numbers and see how severely skewed the Mainstream Media is. But is the fact “nearly 40 percent of the TEA Party hails from The South” a true statement of the over-representation of Conservative might in “The South” or is that just a scare tactic?

As I’ve already shown, my definition of “The South” has 16 states, or 32 percent of all states. And that 32 percent of all states is more Conservative than the 68 percent of all states not represented in my definition of “The South.” That alone should show a more Conservative population matrix, and make “The South” more TEA Party-esque. And that alone should rebut the Liberal Mainstream Media Journalist (Redundant Department of Redundancy) alarm bells. But is “The South” actually more heavily represented within the TEA Party than the US as a whole? By elementary logic, it should be. But is it in actuality? Let’s look at the numbers.

The US Census Bureau (pdf) has a different definition of “The South” than my definition, as it eliminates Kansas and Missouri from my definition of “The South” and adds Maryland, Delaware, and DC to their definition of “The South.” According to the US Census Bureau, “The South” has clearly had a much higher rate of population growth than the Northeast and the Midwest, and the West’s population growth has been mostly in the least populous states. That would mean, by sheer population growth, “The South” would have a stronger say in national politics now than prior to 1980. Logic and math would demand so. But let’s dig deeper, shall we? According to the above Census Bureau pdf file,


The ten most populous states contained54.0 percent of the U.S. population in 2010 (similar to the percentage in 2000) with one-fourth (26.5 percent) of the U.S. population in the three largest states: California (the most populous state since the 1970 Census), Texas, and New York. These three states had April 1, 2010, populations of 37.3 million, 25.1 million, and 19.4 million, respectively. The next seven most populous states — Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina
— contained an additional 27.5 percent of the population. Nine of the ten largest states in 2000 were also among the ten largest
in 2010. North Carolina, which was the eleventh largest state in 2000, moved into the top ten for 2010 (tenth largest)—replacing New Jersey, which fell from ninth largest in 2000 to eleventh in 2010.

The ten most populous and the ten least populous states are distributed among the four regions. The South contained the greatest number (four) of the ten largest states, with three others in the Midwest, two in the Northeast, and one in the West. Furthermore, the Northeast contained four of the ten least populous states (Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), with three others in the West (Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming), two in the Midwest (North Dakota and South Dakota), and one in the South (Delaware).

Seeing as Maryland, at approaching 5.8 million people, falls far below New Jersey’s 11th place population total, at approaching 8.8 million people (see the above pdf), that means the 14 states of “The South” included in both the US Census Bureau’s definition and my definition contains the 2nd most populous state and 4 of the 10 most populous states without a single state among the least populous. (Delaware was the only state in the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” (which contains 32 percent of the states) that fell within the 10 least populous, but it is not part of my definition of “The South.”) With the Number Two and 4 of the top 10 most populous states (and only 1 of the 10 least populous states in the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” but not mine), the 16 states of “The South” (whichever 32 percent you select, mine or the US Census Bureau’s) is very clearly over-represented by total population. That means the total percentage of the numbers of whatever group needs to be “over-represented” in “The South” just to match the population distribution. Meaning over 32 percent of any group must necessarily be of “The South” if “The South” is to be properly proportionate to the actual population of the US.

According to “Figure 3” on the US Census Bureau’s pdf file, the 14 states both the US Census Bureau and I agree are part of “The South” have very clearly outperformed the Northeast and the Midwest in population growth. In 2000, the US Census Bureau’s definition of “The South” contained 35.6 percent of the total US Population, over-representing its 32 percent of total states. In 2010, that number changed to 37.1 percent of the total US Population (see above pdf), again over-representing its 32 percent share of total states, and very clearly outgrowing the rest of the nation. Is 37.1 percent of the total US Population “nearly 40 percent”? You be the judge. But by my definition of “The South”, the share of “The South” is even greater. Eliminate Delaware’s 897,934 and Maryland’s 5,773,552 and replace it with Kansas’ 2,853,118 and Missouri’s 5,988,927 and you increase “The South’s” share of population dramatically over the US Census Bureau’s apportionment. So, by my definition of “The South”, it is far closer to the 40 percent mark than the US Census Bureau shows (which is obviously “nearly” 40 percent).

The only question that remains is:
What definition of “The South” did the Liberal “journalist” from the Mainstream Media (Redundant Department of Redundancy working over-time) use to provide his scare-tactic alarm that “nearly 40 percent” of TEA Party members were from “The South”? Because “nearly 40 percent” of all US residents — and growing — live in “The South”, whether according to my definition or the US Census Bureau’s definition.

5 Responses to “Liberal Media Biased Agenda”

  1. […] or the US Census Bureau’s definition. _____________________________________ Cross-posted on Truth Before Dishonor Related postsThe Great Debt Default Crisis LieHouse and Senate Play Political Games of Chicken and […]


  2. […] or the US Census Bureau’s definition. _____________________________________ Cross-posted on Truth Before Dishonor Filed under Conservative, Culture and Society, Economics, Elections, History, Liberal, […]


  3. DNW said

    Gee, I wonder what percentage of people now living in the South, once lived in the North and are glad that they no longer do?

    Of course, “the South” is lib-speak for “racist”.

    “Anti-racism” being the handy-lever toward which white, institution dwelling, pseudo-males automatically gravitate in order to politically extract wealth from people who would just as soon studiously ignore an importunate and demanding white socialist as to yield to its cries and thereby become slave to it.

    If racism were to disappear as a cause though, what claim to your attention or concern would these squawking nihilists have? The establishment left needs racism. It’s the social justice cause through which they ultimately fill their rice bowls with the product of the life energies and labor of others.


  4. Yorkshire said


  5. Dana Pico said

    I noted in the Google News links in the left hand side bar of my site the following blurb: “Rick Perry collects early retirement, owes student loan – Boston Herald – 17 Dec 11 at 13:54.”

    Oh, good grief! I thought. I inferred what I believe was meant to be implied: that Rick Perry had some decades old student loan that he had stiffed. Fortunately, I followed the link, and actually read the article:

    Rick Perry collects early retirement, owes student loan,/h3>

    By Kim Geiger / Tribune Washington Bureau
    Saturday, December 17, 2011 – Added 4 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON — Texas Gov. Rick Perry makes nearly $225,000 a year, but a good chunk of it comes not from his state salary, but from his retirement benefits.

    Perry is paid $132,995 to run the state of Texas, but he also collects a monthly annuity of $7,698.96 — more than $92,000 per year — in early retirement, according to disclosure forms filed with the Federal Election Commission.

    Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan said the arrangement is “part of (Perry’s) standard financial planning” and “is consistent with Texas state law and Employee Retirement System rules,” citing what’s known as the “rule of 80,” which allows state employees to start drawing on their retirement if their age plus years of service credit totals at least 80.

    “The combination of Gov. Perry’s U.S. military service, state service and age exceeded the state-required 80 years and qualified him for the annuity,” Sullivan said. Perry, 61, started receiving the annuity on Jan. 31. He continues to pay a 6.5 percent withholding from his state salary to the state retirement system, Sullivan said.

    Perry has proposed slashing congressional salaries and has repeatedly called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.”

    In an interview with ABC News, Perry defended drawing early on his pension: “I think it’d be rather foolish to not access what you’ve earned.”

    “That’s been in place for decades and I bought my military time and then obviously the 25 years of public service time, so as you reach that age you become eligible for it, so I don’t find that to be, you know, out of the ordinary,” he said.

    Also in his disclosure report, Perry listed assets, including some land, a life insurance policy and investment funds, worth between $1.16 million and $2.4 million.

    His only liability is a 2006 student loan for between $100,000 and $250,000 with an interest rate of 3.875 percent. A second student loan with a higher interest rate — 8.35 percent — was paid in full earlier this year.

    Sullivan said the loan was used to send Perry’s son Griffin to Vanderbilt.

    Emphasis mine. And there you have it: what many people — your editor, certainly enough — would infer, that Governor Perry had a defaulted-upon student loan, is not the case at all. The Perrys took out student loans to put their son through college, have already paid off one of them, and as far as we know are at least current on the other; no mention was made of the Perrys being either behind or in default, and you can bet your last euro that if they were either behind or in default, the Boston Herald would have made sure we knew it. The Herald knew the truth, and printed the truth, but did so in a way in which the headline is deceiving and you had to read down to the ninth and tenth paragraphs — out of twelve — to get it.

    The professional media, biased against conservatives? Nawwww, can’t be.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: