In early 2009, angered at the rapid growth of governmental interference through its “housing bailout” plan, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli stated on the air that it was time for a “Chicago Tea Party” to voice outrage against the socialization of the American capitalist system.  The subsequent nation-wide, grass-roots movement of protests has been dubbed the “Tea Party” movement, and its participants as “tea partiers”.

The Left, unable to summon an intelligent response to the tea party movement, and caught off guard by the ferocity of the reaction of conservatives to the creeping socialism of the Obama administration, followed their typical strategy - childish crudeness.  In reaction to the movement, Leftist “personalities” introduced the use of a borderline pornographic phrase to describe the participants in the movement as “teabaggers”.  So why is this a problem?  I’ll leave the details for below the fold…

Read More →

-TobyToons

With the massive union and Phrma spending in support of President Obama’s health reform bill, supporters have outspent opponents five to one, according to the New York Times:

Supporters of Mr. Obama’s plan to overhaul the system have outspent opponents, with $24 million worth of advertising, compared with $9 million from opponents. An additional $24 million has been broadly spent in support of overhauling the system without backing a specific plan.

While President Obama is attempting to lay blame for his health care reform plan loss of support among the public because of health industry money, the big money, Phrma and the unions, is on his side: $48 million for Obamacare to $9 million against.

So, why is support dropping for President Obama personally? His health care plan specifically? And Democrats generally on the issue of health care, if the White House has a five to one dollar advantage on ad buys?

I’d say its the same reason the American public no longer trust the Democratic-boot-licking-national-television-media on health care reform, and the same reason that President Obama went after emails on the web — the American people know they cannot trust the mainstream media on health care reform. Similarily, the majority of Likely Voters now trust the GOP more than the Dems on health care.

So, the opponent’s message is getting to the American people via the web, and American public are tuning out the national-Obama-boot-licking-media.

In fact, the beginning of President Obama’s health care troubles began with his multi-hour ABC NEWS health care infomercial, when opponents took his quotes and began emailing them to their friends.

So when the liberals and the media and the Democrats start blaming the health care industry for blocking change, it’s not true, the health care industry is backing President Obama’s health reform at a rate of $5 in pro-Obama TV ad, for every $1 spent against.

Isn’t it just a pain in the neck when there’s an alternative media that prevents strict message control by a staged-photo-op of an administration and its willing mouthpieces in the MSM?

It’s painless for us, of course; rather, that pain is being felt in the necks of those who want to insist that a bow to a Saudi king isn’t a bow, that an omnibus spending bill with 9,000 earmarks is the beginning of earmark and fiscal reform, that indecisively waiting four days while an American ship’s Captain is held hostage on a rubber raft by four Somali pirates (before being bailed out by swift action by the hostage and a SEAL team) is bold, new leadership — and that a staged event with Obama voters only and a bunch of cameras handed out as props is a real sign of soldiers’ devotion to the new, inexperienced, non-military-friendly Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

That’s right: courtesy of our friend Dave Hinz at The Minority Report comes the true story of a staged photo-op between a president who cares only about controlled and contrived appearances, and the component of a deployed military that was hand-selected to give him the contrived appearance he and his handlers desired.

Read More →

The Politico takes a look at the current trend of reporters leaving their jobs to go work for politicians. Naturally, they go pretty uniformly for Democrats.

On Tuesday, Cox’s Scott Shepard joined Sen. John Kerry’s office as a speechwriter, becoming the second journalist this year to take a job under the Massachusetts Democrat. Investigative reporter Doug Frantz is now chief investigator under the Kerry-helmed Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A week before Zuckman announced that she’s headed for Obama’s Transportation Department, her Tribune colleague Peter Gosselin signed on as speechwriter for Obama’s treasury secretary, Tim Geithner.

In December, Jay Carney relinquished his perch as Time’s Washington bureau chief to become Vice President Joe Biden’s communications director. Warren Bass left the Washington Post’s Outlook section to write speeches and advise Dr. Susan Rice at the United Nations. Daniel W. Reilly left Politico to become communications director for Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) Linda Douglass left the National Journal for the Obama campaign back in May, and is expected to become assistant secretary for public affairs in the department of Health and Human Services.

Al Hunt does his best to spin this as a matter of economic circumstances. He says these journalists didn’t go with Bush in 2001 because back then no one thought about the newspaper industry going under.

That’s crap. He knows and we know that when you go work for a politician, you work for the party you align with. That’s what these reporters are doing. They would not have gone to work for John McCain had he won.

The more troubling question though is what happens to these people in four or eight years. Will they cross right back over into reporting? I would not be surprised. But we should be concerned.