The Light: Hillary

Hey, you just might. I admit, I was surprised to see that I agreed with at least one opinion of theirs. But I did. Turns out, the JournoListers hate Keith Olbermann, too! I know, right??

Now, I have said before I used to love the guy, DVR’ed him every night. But, once he started with the raging misogyny against Hillary Clinton, even defending David Schuster for calling Chelsea a whore and Hillary a pimp, I knew I could not stomach him anymore. But then again, I wasn’t an Obama sycophant like the vast majority of the JournoListers are, and Olbermann is. So imagine my surprise when I read that was one of the reasons they hate him, too:

[snip] At issue was a segment Olbermann had run about Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who stirred debate in 2009 when she defended traditional marriage.

Following the segment, the subject on Journolist was “I hate Keith Olbermann again,” and the members of the list let it rip.

The Nation’s Katha Pollitt began the group’s rant. “He and Michael Musto did this whole long riff about beauty contestant Carrie ‘opposite marriage’ Prejean’s breast implants, stupidity, breast implants, tacky clothes, earrings, breast implants. They went on and on about how she was ‘part plastic’ and pathetic. You’d think they were celibate vegans who spent their lives zen meditating. It was just a whole TV humiliation of her, and it made me feel sorry for her, which wasn’t easy,” Pollitt said.

Michael O’Hare, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the segment was “about as funny as a rubber crutch. Odd when a reasonable person’s internal alarm doesn’t go off in a situation like that …’I’m going to ridicule a girl who’s obviously at her personal limits just trying to look conventionally pretty on national TV? What does that make me’?”

O’Hare even suggested friends stage an intervention for Olbermann. “If anyone on the list is a friend of Olbermann, friendship demands that you give him a head-up about this lapse,” he said.

Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor and CNN contributor, said Olbermann’s root problem is his misogyny. “I can’t take him anytime. I think to write off his mysogyny (sic) as limited to Musto is just not accurate. That very much defined much of how he talked about Clinton as well as others.”

Zelizer was referring to a series of instances during the primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when critics from both sides of the aisle criticized Olbermann for allegedly sexist treatment towards Hillary. Olbermann was forced to apologize. [snip]

Click here to read the rest.

Incredible, isn’t it? A number of these folks really get it about Olbermann, and his blatant misogyny. No one was more surprised than I was, especially given the level of misogyny leveled at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by many on the left.

But still, Olbermann had some supporters, like David Roberts, who appreciated his getting out the liberal news to the masses, so there is that. But that is not so surprising.

And while I am on the whole JournoList thing again, Tucker Carlson, the Editor in Chief of Daily Caller has written a follow-up letter to address the expose of Journolist. He writes about the two arguments currently being used to justify what these journalists did, and some claims that they are making. Specifically, he wrote:

[snip]The response hasn’t been all that furious, actually, probably because there isn’t much for the exposed members of Journolist to say. We caught them. They’re ashamed. The wise ones are waiting for the tempest to pass.

There have, however, been two lines of argument that we probably ought to respond to, if only because they may harden into received wisdom if we don’t. The first is that our pieces have proved only that liberal journalists have liberal views, and that’s hardly news.

To be clear: We’re not contesting the right of anyone, journalist or not, to have political opinions. (I, for one, have made a pretty good living expressing mine.) What we object to is partisanship, which is by its nature dishonest, a species of intellectual corruption. Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too.

The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”

The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with. [snip]

Click here to read the rest of the letter by Carlson.

I recommend reading the entire series at Daily Caller. It is certainly informative, though the piece about Keith Olbermann cannot help but make me smile. He SO deserves to receive this disdain by some of the very elite of whom he seems to count himself. Teehee! It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving fellow. To quote Jeremiah Wright, “the chickens have come home to roost!”

And how.

/ Bumped up /

We knew this was happening – we knew that many in the MSM were protecting Obama, were refusing to vet him, to investigate allegations against him, or those with whom he was very close, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

But here’s the thing. A number of these journalists (and academics), including from major news outlets, wrote down their plans to do what they could to protect Obama, both in the Primaries, and in the General Election. And did they ever. Check out this interview with Tucker Carlson (I know, I know – he was horrible to Hillary Clinton, but he does acknowledge that these “journalists” worked against her, too). It is eye opening:

We knew it – we knew they were using the race card to help Obama, and to protect him from scrutiny. And use it they did, over and over, and over again. They STILL are using it, for that matter.

But wait, there’s more. In this report, more of the actual statements by some of the so-called journalists who colluded to help Obama are brought to light:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

And finally, and I bet you knew this was coming, these “journalists” are revealed to have coordinated attacks against Sarah Palin:

Daily Caller has much, much more on this topic, with more revelations each day, it seems (I am having some technical issues with my computer, so please forgive the lack of links to the actual stories).

I used to scoff at the charges of the “liberal bias” in the media. I thought they were ridiculous, sour grapes, and all of that. But this isn’t just bias, this is intentionally controlling news about one candidate, protecting a candidate from being properly vetted, and using a despicable tactic to deflect any questions, the race card. Despicable.

These people are not journalists, not by a long shot. Each and every one of them should lose their jobs over this. They shaped an entire election by their collusion, engaging in character assassinations, race baiting, and propaganda, to protect their chosen politician.

And they wonder why people in this country have lost faith in the media. After this revelation, they should wonder no more…

The Hopium Haze of Obama’s followers? Well, if Jon Stewart is an example, I’d have to say yes. Larry Johnson finally got me to start watching Stewart again after a long hiatus. The hiatus began when Stewart jumped on the Obama Sycophant Bandwagon. I was very disappointed that Stewart went that route, but he did.

I might add, after the big 18 minute speech, we can also add Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Howard Fineman to the list of people whose Obama-fog is being lifted. That’s quite a trifecta, and in large part due to the Obama speech about how we would deal with this devastating oil spill, all 18 minutes, which apparently lacked specificity. Just ask Olbermann. Wow, who even knew this was possible?

But to be fair, Stewart’s rehab back into the Reality-based community started earlier than the MSNBC Trifecta, not waiting for the speechifying of the Flawed Analogy Maker in Chief. At least from what I have seen in clips. But when I saw this on Tuesday night, I admit, I was stunned:

Holy moley – it’s as if this BP spill has finally broken through all of the Kool Aide induced amnesia, and some folks are finally starting to put together the pieces like we did during the primaries. Though Stewart missed one – that Obama as president also supports spying on American citizens. But other than that, it was as if Stewart finally decided to look at all of the things we had been screaming about in 2008 and 2009. Of course, he had to have the obligatory dig at Sarah Palin. We can’t have it all be about how hoodwinked the Obots were by Obama or else their heads might explode, so Stewart used the favorite punching bag of the Democrats, Sarah Palin, as a way to reduce tension in their brains. Whatever. Maybe he’ll get over that someday.

It should be interesting to see how Stewart responds to Obama’s Big Gulf Oil speech on Wednesday night’s show. If Tuesday night is any indication, Stewart may have finally gotten it. Perhaps he’ll report on the Safety Award the Obama Administration gave to the Deepwater Horizon, even though the Bush Administration gave it citations, or the lack of federal inspections, or that Obama only has 20 minutes scheduled for his big meeting with the BP Oil Execs (and, WTH with that??), or even why in the world Obama is still kowtowing to the unions and not waiving the Jones Act so other countries can come HELP US with this spill? Will more members of the MSM start to put these all together, or just leave it to a few sites while they continue to protect the Obama Presidency (how’s that working out for you now, Chris Matthews?)? Time will tell, and soon enough…

So, thanks, Larry, for helping me to go back to “The Daily Show.” Maybe there is some hope after all, you think?

/ Bumped up /

So much going on recently, like: DADT may be coming up for a vote in the House, but its repeal is far from guaranteed, especially with the Chiefs of the Four branches speaking out against repeal; The LA Times reported the hole was finally closed using the Top Kill method of pushing mud and stuff into it, but unfortunately, the news was a bit premature (it is slowing it down, though); and border issues still causing a stir, with the troops Obama wants to allocate going to deal with drugs and guns, not illegal immigrants, even in the face of a TERROR Alert being issued by homeland security. Just like Mexico told him to do – deal with guns and drugs, not stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the US. Hmmm. That sounds like dereliction of duty to me, not protecting the borders as required in the Constitution, but I’m not a lawyer, so…

Whew – makes me tired just thinking about it, not to mention angry, worried, and upset. I need a break. Maybe you do, too. Oh, this will still be political, but hopefully, it will also make you laugh, too.

Here’s the thing. There’s this “reporter” named Joe McGinniss. He is not a fan of Sarah Palin’s to put it MILDLY. McGinniss is currently writing an unauthorized biography of the former governor of Alaska. So, what did he do? He rented the house next door to hers so he could watch her morning, noon, and night for months. Oh, and when I say next door, I mean 15 feet away from her family. I am not kidding.

Check it out:

Holy moley. So, let me understand this – McGinniss threatens a reporter with the police for trespassing, while “invading the space” of the Palin family on a daily basis. I got ya. That sounds about right for the Palin haters. “Okay for me, not for thee” sort of thing. Seriously, though – McGinniss pulling this stunt says a whole lot about him, and his character. The sheer arrogance and hubris of such a move, figuratively and literally, is telling indeed.

But how about Todd’s skills with a saw? Here’s a closer look at the wall (from Greta van Susteren):

Now, that’s a good looking fence. Todd can come to my house and do carpentry work anytime.

Michelle Malkin has another suggestion given the quick wall building skills of Todd Palin and friends:

I nominate Todd Palin for border czar.

If only our federal government acted as swiftly and decisively to protect the nation’s borders from intrusion…

No kidding, huh? Someone who doesn’t drag his feet when decisive action is required. Obama could take a lesson from Todd. That’ll be the day…

Yet another crack in the Obama devotion from many in the MSM is surfacing. My colleague, Linda Anselmi, came across this article recently, and passed it on. This time, the focus is Obama’s bullying tendencies. This is not a new concept to me – I have been writing about what a bully Obama is since March of 2008. But the author of this piece works for CNBC. Yep – the Central Network (for) Barack Constantly. To see this headline come out of ANYTHING related to NBC is pretty startling, Obama is a Bully: Kneale.

Wowie zowie – no mincing words, just putting it out there. Welcome to the party, Mr. Kneale:

Will someone please rein in our relentlessly hectoring President? Barrack Hussein Obama has taken his gift for inspirational oratory—one of the traits that got him elected—and turned it into something darker and more insidious.

Oh, just stop right there. “Inspirational oratory”? You mean the vapid statements written for him that he read off TOTUS, or this:

I couldn’t listen to it all, either. Hardly eloquent, though, by any stretch of the imagination. Back to the point at hand:

Bam is a bully. Bad enough that he bashes Wall Street, but this President has gone farther than any in modern history in putting the wrong kind of “bully” back into what Teddy Roosevelt had called the bully pulpit.

Obama’s latest broadside came over the weekend, when he vehemently criticized the state of Arizona and its (Republican) governor for passing a tough new law on illegal immigration.

The President called the measure “misguided” and all but labeled it un-American. He even ordered the Department of Justice, before the ink on this bill-signing has even dried, to examine the civil-rights “implications” of the new law. Seems like the courts and rights groups could handle that once any problem actually emerges.

Can you remember any other modern President, wagging a finger from on high, so directly and bitterly criticizing a new law passed by any state?

This is hubris at best and ignorance of the Constitution at worst. The U.S. was founded in part on the precept of states’ rights as an important counterweight to a rapacious federal government. Thus a President must step softly here, questioning gently but avoiding rancor and browbeating.

Hold the phone – are you saying this so-called(by himself and his image creators) Constitutional Scholar doesn’t know the Constitution? Maybe it’s because this is a trumped up title, especially according to those who actually had to work with him at Chicago Law School. You know, at the position he was given by a Board member because he couldn’t get it on his own merits. That one. I know – a mere technicality, especially for his supporters.

Back to the article:

The new state law itself is disturbing, even detestable, and I don’t like it. It forces immigrants to carry with them proof of their legal status and lets cops demand to see the “papers” of anyone (read: any foreign-looking person) to make sure he didn’t sneak into the country. It smacks of Nazis in the Jewish ghetto in Poland.

HOW does this smack of Nazism? Legal immigrants in this country are REQUIRED to carry their Green Cards anyway. Why, if not to be able to produce them on demand? No one is talking about rounding up a bunch of people and putting them in ghettos or concentration camps. They are talking about, with probable cause, to ensure that someone who is engaging in questionable activities is an American citizen or LEGAL immigrant. This is a red herring, meant simply to distract from the issue. Sheesh.

Back to the Obama the Bully:

But it is the law, and Arizona’s people duly elected the legislators who voted for it. They acted, moreover, on an issue the feds clearly have botched—immigration—and are trying to protect the state’s citizens from an influx of drug-cartel violence from Mexico.

Rather than trash an entire state, Bam could have privately lobbied Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and urged her to veto the bill. Or he could have said, simply, that he hoped to pass better solutions at the federal level.

That would have been statesmanlike, but this President gets pouty whenever anyone dares to disagree with him. He seems to view dissension not as healthy public debate but as a suspicious, pernicious challenge to his omnipotence and popularity.

Obama the Bully, at his State of the Union address, had the temerity to criticize the Supreme Court of the United States for its new ruling that companies have a right to free speech in political campaign advertising (a right that unions already enjoyed, by the way). He did this as the justices themselves sat before him in the audience, paying their respects to a leader who showed them none.

Perhaps President Obama had forgotten an American civics lesson: The Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land. It is unseemly and disrespectful for a President to so bluntly and blatantly question the justices’ judgment and intent—especially right in front of their faces.

I can’t remember of any other President in my memory having done this. Nixon maybe? An unfortunate comparison, indeed.

Another civics lesson Obama seems to have missed is what is in the Constitution of the United States, and what is in the Declaration of Independence, again, not so great for an alleged scholar:

Right. I don’t know why Kneale is so surprised by this lack of decorum from Obama. He has done nothing but demonstrate a complete and utter lack of regard for decorum, stepping lightly, or exhibiting any modicum of humility, despite his claim that he is humble (missing the point of the word):

Similarly, President Obama maligns Wall Street for trying to have a say in financial reform and lobbying for its interests, though this input is a vital ingredient in any democratic process. Yet Obama doesn’t criticize giant unions like the AFL-CIO and the SEIU when they similarly lobby on fin-reg.

Why? Because the unions agree with him. Even though Wall Street has a far more legitimate claim to get involved in this debate than do the unions, which represent only 7% of the private work force and essentially should have no dog in this fight at all.

Hmm, now that I think about it, nor can I recall any other modern President who has spent so much effort lambasting his immediate predecessor. Reagan didn’t do it to Carter. Clinton didn’t do it to the first George Bush.

And the worst part is, we’re barely calling out Obama the Bully on this behavior at all. We are becoming entirely too accustomed to it, failing to see it for what it really is: a striking lack of civility, and an overflow of divisiveness, from a President who had promised to give us precisely the opposite.

Great – more from SEIU, the union that represents about 2 million people. Someone tell me again why they are so powerful? Are they now taking over for their sister organization, ACORN, since ACORN has been disgraced? Regardless, it is obscene for them to wield as much power in this country as they do, especially with Obama.

Yes, Obama is a bully. Anyone who TRULY watched him throughout the Primary Campaigns, or the Election Campaigns, knew that.

If you continue to doubt the bullying nature of Obama, check out this article in which he and his team call out SWAT cops on a peaceful gathering of Tea Partiers in Quincy, IL, Team Obama Calls Out Swat Team on Tea Party Patriots!. As you can see from the photo below, there was real cause for concern on the part of Obama and his people:

Ooohhhh, scary grandmotherly-looking women singing patriotic songs as you can hear in this clip (H/t to Logistics Monster):

Quite a difference from this recent protest in Arizona:
Yep, there is no doubt that Obama is a bully. There is also no doubt we are living in Upside Down World when SWAT cops are brought in against peaceful protesters, yet there is not an overwhelming presence in AZ when people are completely out of control. It is simply astonishing. Don’t you think?

One would certainly think so if this article is any indication, “Why Reporters Are Down On President Obama“. Color me a bit surprised to learn that reporters were down on Obama. I could be jaded after the overwhelmingly positive articles of him during the election, especially compared to favorable articles on Hillary Clinton, but I hadn’t noticed that they were “down on President Obama,” had you?

Heck, just today, the Washington Post put out a poll it did with ABC News in which the headline says things might be a bit hairy for incumbents for the next election, but that overall, Obama is seen as trustworthy on a number of issues. But what you DON’T learn in that article is the breakdown of the 1001 people polled, and how Obama’s positive numbers could be higher now than they were in a recent Gallup poll. Well, HotAir explains:

Why did Obama and the Democrats still manage to hold more trust over their GOP opponents? The pollster talked to more of them, that’s how — and more of them than they did in the last poll, relative to Republicans. In the March 26th poll, the WaPo/ABC sample had a D/R/I split of 34/24/38, giving Democrats a partisan advantage of 10 points in the poll. This time, the sample’s split went 34/23/38, and even the independents split in favor of the Democrats, 19/17, up from 17/17 last month. Just to give some perspective, the partisan gap from their November 2008 poll just before the election was nine points — and 26% of the sample was Republicans, compared to 23% now.

Given the expanding partisan gap shown in this poll, small wonder that Obama winds up with more trust than Republicans among respondents. It’s also no mystery why the WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama adding to his job approval rating, 54/44, when every other pollster has Obama sinking. That ten-point swing in the sample makes quite a difference.

It also makes a big difference in the consolation news the Post and ABC offered Democrats. The 46/32 split for Dems on trust by party shows that Democrats would be considerably narrower than the 14-point lead this survey shows. The eleven point lead that Obama has over the GOP for trust on the economy would be completely gone, and the 4-point edge Obama enjoys over Republicans on the deficit would have more than reversed itself.

So you can see why I was a bit surprised to see the Politico story indicating the love affair with Obama was over. Yet that is the claim in this lengthy article. (Let me say up front, I will not be including the whole thing here for space reasons, but I urge you to read the whole piece.)

And now to the story itself:

One of the enduring storylines of Barack Obama’s presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him.

“Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me,” Obama joked last year at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

But even then, only four months into his presidency, the joke fell flat. Now, a year later, with another correspondents’ dinner Saturday night likely to generate the familiar criticism of the press’s cozy relationship with power, the reality is even more at odds with the public perception.

President Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship – as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the last decade, reporters who cover the White House say.

Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors – and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:

— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost non-existent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic emails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call – or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.

— Except for a few reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach – even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.

— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper – the New York Times – enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face-time.

“They seem to want close the book on the highly secretive years of the Bush administration. However, in their relationship with the press, I think they’re doing what they think succeeded in helping Obama get elected,” said the New Yorker’s George Packer.

“I don’t think they need to be nice to reporters, but the White House seems to imagine that releasing information is like a tap that can be turned on and off at their whim,” Packer said.

Okay. You know what I am going to say about this already. Had they actually done their jobs during the campaign, looked at who Obama really is, his job performance (or lack thereof), refrained from categorizing him as “cool” when he was being arrogant and aloof, maybe they would not surprised now.

And they sure would not be surprised by this, had they followed his “career”:

Much of the criticism is off-the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross-section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.

“These are people who came in with every reporter giving them the benefit of the doubt,” said another reporter who regularly covers the White House. “They’ve lost all that goodwill.”

And this attitude, many believe, starts with the man at the top. Obama rarely lets a chance go by to make a critical or sarcastic comment about the press, its superficiality or its short-term mentality. He also hasn’t done a full-blown news conference for 10 months.

Obama’s White House aides can rightfully say they’ve set new standards for opening up access on several fronts, such as releasing previously secret visitors’ logs, expanding White House web content and offering more than 150 sit-down interviews with Obama to selected reporters.

But Gibbs is unapologetic about sometimes taking a hard line in his dealings with the press, saying it’s a response to the viral nature of modern media.

“There’s a danger in letting something go. Trust me, I read a lot of news every day. Not a day goes by that something that I didn’t pay enough attention to, or close attention to, doesn’t go from being myth to reality over the course of several hours,” Gibbs told POLITICO.

“I understand if you’re a reporter and get 95 percent right, and your word choice isn’t right on 5 percent. But that 5 percent goes on to become reality. I’ve got to live with that, when it may or may not be true,” Gibbs said. “It does make our jobs difficult.”

The correspondents association recently met with Gibbs to discuss, in the words of Bloomberg’s Ed Chen, “a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”

A few days later, Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”

Peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room.

Hold the phone. Did they agree with Chris Matthews that a journalist’s job was to make Obama’s presidency a successful one and that’s why they gave him goodwill he did not EARN?? If so, they are unclear about the role of a journalist in a free society.

At least they acknowledged the total Obama/Gibbs “Transparency” meme with the response it deserved – laughter.

Here are their beefs with the Obama Administration:

The press’s bill of particulars boils down to this:

Dodging questions

If you cover City Hall, you talk to the mayor. If you cover the Yankees, you’ll hang around Derek Jeter’s locker. The White House is no different, and aides past routinely filled that need by letting the press pool toss the president a couple of questions every so often, usually at one of the various events that fill his calendar every day.

Not Obama. He has severely cut back the informal exchanges with the press pool, marking a new low in presidential access.

The numbers speak for themselves: during his first year in office, President Bill Clinton did 252 such Q&A sessions—an average of one every weekday. Bush did 147. Obama did 46, according to Towson University Professor Martha Kumar.

“Too many of the president’s meetings are ‘no coverage’ for my taste,” said ABC’s Ann Compton. “That is a stark reduction in access for us.”

White House aides say Obama has hardly avoided the media. Indeed, he has done so many interviews that at times journalists have accused him of being overexposed. In his first year, Obama gave 161 interviews, according to Kumar’s tally. Bush and Clinton each did about 50.

Reporters point out that the Bush White House was no paragon of press transparency. And since the meeting with Gibbs this month, Obama took a couple of questions at a meeting with congressional leaders last week and still photographers got into a couple more events.

“I give credit to Robert for having the meeting, hearing our concerns and taking some action after the meeting to show that, while he may not agree to all the things we’re pushing for, he respects our concerns,” said CNN’s Ed Henry, the correspondents’ association’s secretary.

Playing favorites

It’s one thing to feed a scoop to the Times. Every White House does it.

But Team Obama did it right in front of the other reporters’ faces – then, in their view, lied about it.

Say Whaaaaa?? The Obama Administration LIED about something? Yeah, like every time Obama or Gibbs open their mouths. For the rest of this particular tale of how the White House dissed a whole bunch of reporters and lied about it, click HERE.

As for the New York Times being a favorite of the Administration, Spokesweasel Gibbs had this to say:

Gibbs denied an “unnecessary advantage” to the Times, while saying it has far more reporters covering topics of interest to the White House than most outlets. Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Dick Stevenson said it would be “absurd” to suggest the Times doesn’t get access in certain instances that others don’t.

But Stevenson said, “Like every other journalist in Washington I would say there’s a lot more they could do in terms of access for us and everyone else. While we appreciate the instances in which they cooperate and are accessible, there are plenty of cases where they’re not terribly accessible or responsive.”

While the Obama administration’s decision to stiff-arm Fox News caused a huge dust-up for a time last year, his back-benching of the Wall Street Journal has barely generated a peep. The Journal’s White House reporter, Jonathan Weisman, occasionally vents his frustration over the near freeze-out that has left the Journal with a single exclusive interview since Obama took office.

This was news to me. I read a lot of news. How is it that this was NOT out there? I mean, the Wall Street Journal is a pretty big news source, so why was this not discussed more? If anyone knows, I’d like to hear it.

Anyone who watched MSNBC during the Primaries/Campaign is familiar with Richard Wolffe, the Obama sycophant. Well, guess who is a WH fave? You got it:

[snip] Another event that riled many in the press corps took place on March 20. The Washington Examiner’s Julie Mason confronted former Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, author of a highly favorable book about the Obama campaign, when he attempted to join the White House pool on the Saturday before Congress’ big health care vote.

“You’re not in the pool,” Mason recalled telling Wolffe. “You shouldn’t be joining.” Mason said Wolffe claimed that he was there courtesy of “a special invitation from the Obama administration.” Wolffe is working on a second book on the Obama administration.

“Are you working for them officially now?” shot back Mason.

“The White House wants their friend to be in the pool and we don’t know what recourse we have,” Mason later told POLITICO. “It’s just completely unfair to the press corps and flies in the face of the concept of a free press.”

Oh, snap. And a “free press”? Yeah, I’d love to see what this country was like if we REALLY had a free press. You know, one that actually covered the differences in protests between, say, Tea Partiers and AZ Anti-Immigration people. I suppose a girl can dream, right?

As indicated above, this White House can be a tad vindictive:

[snip]Getting mad

And just what happens when you upset the White House?

Among White House reporters, tales abound of an offhand criticism or passing claim low in an unremarkable story setting off an avalanche of hostile e-mail and voice mail messages.

“It’s not unusual to have shouting matches, or the email equivalent of that. It’s very, very aggressive behavior, taking issue with a thing you’ve written, an individual word, all sorts of things,” said one White House reporter.

“It’s a natural outgrowth of campaigning where control of the message is everything and where a very tight circle controls the flow of information,” the New Yorker’s Packer said. “I just think it is a mistake to transfer that model to governing. Governing is so much more complicated and is all about implementation—not just message.”

One of the most irritating practices of the Obama White House is when aides ignore inquiries or explicitly refuse to cooperate with an unwelcome story—only to come out with both guns blazing when it takes a skeptical view of their motives or success.

“You will give them ample opportunity on a story. They will then say, ‘We don’t have anything for you on this.’ Then, when you write an analytical graf that could be interpreted as implying a political motive by the White House, or something that makes them look like anything but geniuses, you will get a flurry of off the record angry e-mails after you publish,” one national reporter said. “That does no good. If you want to complain, engage!”

Gibbs said the White House’s efforts to push back tend to focus on fixing factual mistakes before they take hold in the media.

“The way we live these days, something that’s wrong can whip around and become part of the conventional wisdom in only a matter of moments and it’s hard to take it, put a top on it and put in back into the box,” Gibbs said. “That’s the nature by which the business operates right now.…This isn’t unique in terms of us and it’s likely to be more true for the next administration.”

Asked about some of the more aggressive tactics, including complaints to editors, Gibbs said, “We have to do some of those things….I certainly believe anyone who goes to an editor does so because it’s something they feel is very egregious. I don’t think people do it very lightly.”

Some reporters say the pushback is so aggressive that it undermines the credibility of Obama’s aides. “The willingness to argue that credible information is untrue is at its core dishonest and unfortunately calls into question everything else the press office says,” one White House reporter said.

While some reporters note improvements since the Bush era, like more informed deputy press secretaries and assistants, others complain of rigid image control pervading the government. “The access is much poorer than the Bush administration,” one national newspaper who regularly covers the White House said. “This is wider than just the White House. I feel like the political appointees in a variety of agencies are more difficult to get to. There are people…you could reach in the Bush administration that now they say ‘That position does not speak to the press. We do not give background. We do not give anything.’ ’’

Compton said that if the Obama White House’s sense of being besieged by the press is authentic it bespeaks a kind of innocence born from a candidate and a president who have never confronted a full-on Washington feeding frenzy.

“They ain’t seen nothing yet,” the longtime ABC reporter said. “Wait ‘till they have to start really circling the wagons when someone in the administration under attack, wait ‘till there’s a scandal, wait ‘till someone screws up, then it’ll get hostile.”

Well, it seems like the press is going to have ample opportunity with the revelation of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s phone calls with Obama. We shouldn’t have long to wait to see if there is a “feeding frenzy” over THIS scandal.

And if the press actually does their job, I am sure the level of push-back will be noteworthy given what the press is receiving now:

Getting even

While complaining about stories is hardly unique to the Obama administration, White House reporters charge that sometimes, aides even retaliate against reporters who cross them.

One reporter said that after he wrote a story the White House viewed as critical, aides tried to cancel meetings he’d lined up with other administration officials. “I was told very clearly the press office tried to stop those appointments going ahead,” the journalist said.

Gibbs said he couldn’t recall any such instance. “I’m sure people may have thought that, though,” he said.

While the Times clearly enjoys more access than any other publication, its perceived transgressions often get a heated and sustained response from the White House. “There certainly is no lack of friction or the appropriate tension that goes into this relationship—to put it mildly,” Stevenson said.

And that is with a favored organization. I imagine we can extrapolate to those the WH does NOT like:

[snip]“They throw some brush-back pitches every now and then,” one White House reporter for a major newspaper said. “They’ve been pretty heavy handed and have cut some people off.”

Edward Luce of the Financial Times drew the ire of Obama aides for a couple of articles arguing that decision making in the Obama administration is extremely centralized. Neither piece was a devastating indictment of the White House, but they prompted a furious reaction.

“I was just in awe of the pummeling Ed took from top White House people,” said policy blogger and New America Foundation senior fellow Steve Clemons. He began talking to White House reporters and came away convinced that what he calls an “extremely unhealthy” relationship has developed in which the White House generally cooperates only with reporters who are willing to write source-greasers or other fawning articles.

Gibbs referred questions about the Luce stories to McDonough. “Who’s Ed Luce?” McDonough said. “I’m not familiar with that.”

Clemons’s post on his findings, “Communications Corruption at the White House,” was harsh, particularly coming from a policy wonk who tends to agree with most of Obama’s stances.

“Has the bar moved so far that a reasonable piece that gives and takes a little but provides both criticism and applause, that is something White House has to respond to in such a prickly, thin-skinned way?” asked Clemons.

Um, YES!! For the gazillionith time, we tried to tell you so. We tried to get you to really, really look at this candidate instead of regurgitating whatever talking points Obama wanted you to spew for him. Or to quit transferring definitions for one word to another, like “even keeled” for “prickly,” “angry,” or “dismissive.” But would you listen? No. So on many levels, the press is getting what it has coming to it.

And that would be peachy keen-o if the press hadn’t given such a massive pass to this man who now occupies the White House, shoving through policies that are disastrous for our country, using the legal system as his personal bully under the guise of the Constitution (several things come to mind, but I’ll mention two: the DOJ supporting DADT, and Obama going after Arizona for trying to do something the Federal Government has failed to do – strengthen their border). Who knows, maybe when these reporters’ own outlets decide it’s cheaper to NOT cover their health care now that Obama got this god-awful law signed, they’ll wish they had actually done their jobs a bit better.

You know, come to think of it, they deserve pretty much what they are getting from the White House now. I’m willing to bet good money that a Clinton White House, even a McCain White House, would not be treating the press – our eyes and ears in the public arena – with such callous disregard, and even contempt. But they wanted Obama in there, and as he noted, they (most likely) voted for him.

So how does it feel now? Those Kool Aide fumes dispersing any?? If so, welcome to our world, the one you, the media, helped bring upon us. And thanks shitloads for that. Ready to do your jobs now?

Recently, I reported that Senators Lieberman and Collins subpoenaed the White House to have access to all of the information available on the Fort Hood Shooting, and Major Hasan. Well, the White House, Pentagon, and Justice Department have all said, “No.” Ah, such transparency:

“We have repeatedly sought your departments’ cooperation,” they wrote. “Our efforts have been met with delay, the production of little that was not already public and shifting reasons for why the departments are withholding [information] that we have requested.”

Before he went on his terrorist rampage, Hasan was in regular e-mail contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born imam who ministered to at least three 9/11 hijackers as well as the would-be Christmas Day underwear bomber.

Indeed, FBI and Army investigators reportedly intercepted those e-mails, and also knew that he’d been heard making statements justifying suicide bombing.

“Given the warning signals about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist radicalism,” ask Lieberman and Collins, “why was he not stopped before he took 13 American lives?”

Why not, indeed?

That is the question – why WON’T Holder and Gates provide the information the Senate needs to fulfill its duty? I am sure this will be dragging out for a while.

Then I reported that Gov. Rendell claimed the Tea Party is not a legitimate movement, basically asserting that its “popularity” is simply the result of positive media coverage. After I picked my jaw up off the floor at such an incredibly ridiculous statement based on FACTS, I found numerous instances of the media covering the Tea Party, but it was far from positive.

I was not the only one to refute this ridiculous claim, though, A Tea Party member, who is also a DJ, had this to say about Gov. Rendell’s statement:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Uh, yeah. I might add, I was reminded by Karen For Hillary that Rendell had also tried to found an Anti-PUMA group during the election, one he termed, H.O.U.N.D. (thanks, Ani, for acronym). Get it? Ahem. Yeah, he needs some rehab from that Obama Kool Aide.

And while I am on the topic of the media, and the way it covers events, how about the coverage of the AZ protesters of the new Immigration law v. Tea Party coverage:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

So Anti-Immigration protesters are heaving full water bottles at police officers, some are being arrested, and this is a PEACEFUL protest? Wow.

Finally, there is this call to violence by Slate’s David Plotz:

Plotz acknowledged that he was indeed calling for violence (isn’t that a crime? “Inciting a riot” is what it sounds like to me, though I’m no lawyer). Moreover, when asked if he wanted to burn people in effigy, he made it clear that “in effigy” was NOT his plan.

Can you imagine, can you JUST imagine, if ANYONE in the middle or the right issued such a call?? Ohmygosh, they would have the FBI at their door tout de suite.

I might add, Plotz is clearly uninformed – there IS a populist uprising in progress in this country right now. It’s the TEA PARTY. Whether you agree with it or not, that is exactly what it is – a populist uprising against wasteful spending, taxation, and government expansion. You’d think someone who was in the news business would be aware of that. Ahem.

Stay tuned – I am sure there will be more to add in the coming days!

So claims Gov. Ed Rendell of PA. Yes, the governor thinks that it really is not a movement to be taken seriously, or that will have much of an impact, in the upcoming elections. I used to really like Ed Rendell, especially when he was such a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton. But since he tossed his hat in with Barack Obama, he does not seem able to put down that Hopium pipe, making connections and claims that, in my humble opinion, make him look downright foolish. It seems he will say ANYTHING to try and cast The One in a positive light, and anyone who dare question Obama is a nutjob. Sad, really.

But wait until you hear one of his more outlandish claims – I about snorted my double cappuccino through my nose when I heard this one:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Did you catch that? He claimed that it is because of the MEDIA that the Tea Party enjoys so much success. Oh, yes, because the MSM has discussed the Tea Party and its members in such GLOWING, positive terms, hasn’t it? Let’s look at a few of the headlines that really embody the support the media has given to the Tea Party.

First up, this headline from The Huffington Post: David Shuster: GOP “Going Nuts” For Teabagging, But “They Need A Dick Armey”

This is really a bonus one since it also includes a hommophobic term AND a sexual innuendo all at the same time! From the very people who try to tell us how GREAT the Democratic Party is for GLBT people. Yeah, right.

How about the Associated Press? Well, they did an “Analysis” of the Tea Party, to see if it was “brewing a revolution.” They decided that it really has “little muscle.” That’s one of the least snarky things the article includes. For example:

This we know: Tea parties know how to produce crowds. In the footsteps of the pamphleteers of the 1770s, organizers use e-mail, social networking and other electronic tools to draw enormous numbers of disaffected Americans together. Some wear revolutionary-era garb and carry signs bearing the language of 18th century patriots — “Don’t tread on me!” is a popular one.

But rally building is no big trick in the era of Twitter and Facebook, when people with cell phones can summon crowds from thin air for events as frivolous as snowball fights and bursts of song.

Wow, what a glowing recommendation for the Tea Party movement! No WONDER Gov. Rendell thinks the media has been helping them so much!! Right.

There are so, so many more – feel free to find your favorite headlines! I do have one last one to share, another point missed by Gov. Rendell: Foes Of Tea Party Movement To Infiltrate Rallies. Oh, yes. And this is what they hope to accomplish:

Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic and moronic.

Isn’t that special? Ironic, isn’t it? The opponents want to portray Tea Partiers as homophobic and moronic when they display those very qualities every single time they use the term “Tea Baggers.” Ahem.

Is there any evidence to support Gov. Rendell’s supposition that it is the glowing references by the media that have helped this non-movement? Not according to this article:

Study: Networks Snub, Malign ‘Tea Party’; Report finds news coverage of movement sparse, cynical

The big three television networks virtually ignored the massive, grass-roots “tea party” surge in 2009, and so far this year have maligned the movement as teeming with racists and violent fringe figures, according to a report by the Media Research Center.

“Rather than objectively document the rise and impact of this important grassroots movement, the ‘news’ networks instead chose to first ignore, and then deplore, the citizen army mobilizing against the unpopular policies of a liberal president and Congress,” wrote MRC Research Director Rich Noyes.

Huh. That sounds like it completely contradicts Rendell’s assertion. So does this:

As a nation-spanning “Tea Party Express” caravan plans to pull into Washington for a “tax day” rally on Thursday, a Rasmussen poll finds that the number of people who say they’re part of the tea party movement nationally has grown to 24 percent, up from 16 percent a month ago.

“The rise in tea party support is perhaps not surprising at a time when more voters than ever (58 percent) favor repeal of the national health care plan just passed by Democrats in Congress and signed into law by President Obama,” the pollster wrote.

The Media Research Center, a watchdog organization founded by conservative L. Brent Bozell III, compiled reams of statistics to support its findings about TV network coverage, among them:

• ABC, CBS and NBC aired 61 stories or segments on the anti-spending movement over a 12-month period, and most of that coverage is recent. “The networks virtually refused to recognize the tea party in 2009 (19 stories), with the level of coverage increasing only after Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts” in January, the report said, referring to the Republican’s win of the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy.

• Overall, 44 percent of the networks’ reports on the tea party suggested the movement reflected a fringe movement or a dangerous quality. “Signs and images at last weekend’s big tea party march in Washington and at other recent events have featured racial and other violent themes,” NBC anchorman Brian Williams said in a September report.

Oops – sorry, Governor. Your attempt at claiming up is down, and down is up, is not reflected in the actual facts. Nice try. Now, seriously – put down the Hopium, stop drinking the Kool Aide, and try to bring yourself back to the Reality based community. I promise, we’ll welcome you back.

Please stop with this ridiculous assertion of yours about the media’s warm embrace of the Tea Party movement. Really, it’s just embarrassing.

Well, this is a fine how-do-you-do for a press that was completely sycophantic for Obama, did his bidding, published whatever he, Plouffe, or Axelrod claimed about Obama without EVER bothering to look it up (except for a very, very few intrepid reporters, like John Kass and Lynn Sweet, both out of Chicago). The same press that made his attacks for him, groundless and baseless though they may have been, that the Clintons were racist, Hillary* knew nothing about foreign policy since she had only gone from the “airport to the embassy,” and watched kids dance whenever she traveled abroad as First Lady, as well as touting the meme that Obama grew up the poor child of a poor single mother.

*Bonus – Obama mentioned in his attack on Clinton’s foreign policy experience that he went to Pakistan in college. HOW??? Americans weren’t allowed to travel to Pakistan then. Maybe if the press did their jobs, they would have followed up on that little nugget. Newsflash! It’s not too late!!!! Sheesh.

The press ran with his lame-ass excuse that he was never all that close to Jeremiah Wright ANYWAY, since we were all learning what kind of pastor and church Obama attended. So, he referred to him as “uncle,” acting like he was some wacky relative you couldn’t get rid of, yet he CHOSE to sit in his church for over 20 years. And Bill Ayers? Oh, he was just some guy in his neighborhood. Never mind that Obama had known, and worked, with him for years. P-shaw, people – who are you gonna believe, the naysayers or The One?

As they say, the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. I am surprised it is happening this quickly, actually. Yep – Obama is blowing off the press, international as well as national, including breaking with protocol (oh THERE’S a surprise. The man cares nothing for decorum and protocol, which strutting in to “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One” should have told anyone. And if THAT wasn’t enough, maybe this photo should have:

Oh, yeah – Jay-Z in the Situation Room at the White House. I think we can assume that Obama is pretty fond of his misogynistic music, wouldn’t you?

So, the press may finally be getting that smack upside the head they have needed for the past few years regarding Obama in this Dana Millbank article(I know, right? Maybe he got himself some smelling salts to snap out of it already.):

Obama’s Disregard For Media Reaches New Heights At Nuclear Summit.

World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.

They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.

In the middle of it all was Obama — occupant of an office once informally known as “leader of the free world” — putting on a clinic for some of the world’s greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.

The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama’s eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: “I’m going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session.”

Reporters for foreign outlets, many operating in repressive countries, got the impression that the vaunted American freedoms are not all they’re cracked up to be.

Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency got this lesson in press freedom when trying to cover Obama’s opening remarks as part of a limited press “pool”: “The foreign reporters/cameramen were escorted out in under two minutes, just as the leaders were about to begin, and Obama was going to make remarks. . . . Sorry, it is what it is.”

Alamiri’s counterparts from around the world had similar experiences. Arabic-language MBC TV’s Nadia Bilbassy had this to say of Obama’s meeting with the Jordanian king: “We were there for around 30 seconds, not enough even to notice the color of tie of both presidents. I think blue for the king.”

Ah, yes – repairing the image of the United States around the world, that Obama, isn’t he? Sure, right:

Lalit K. Jha of the Press Trust of India, at Obama’s meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, “In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave.” The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was “ushered out about 30 seconds” after arriving for Obama’s meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. Emel Bayrak of Turkey’s TRT-Turk went to Obama’s meeting with the president of Armenia but “we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds.”

“When you only see the president for 15 or 20 seconds without him asking if you have any questions, it’s very frustrating,” said Laura Haim of France’s Canal+, which persuaded the White House to include foreign outlets in the press pool. “It’s very important for this president, who wants to restore the image of the United States, to have more access.”

Obama’s official schedule for Tuesday would have pleased China’s Central Committee. Excerpts: “The President will attend the Heads of Delegation working lunch. This lunch is closed press . . . The President will meet with Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey. This meeting is closed press. . . . The President will attend Plenary Session II of the Nuclear Security Summit. This session is closed press.”

Hey, maybe THAT’S why he bowed to the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, at the Nuclear Summit he just finished hosting in Washington, DC (no excuses about “cultural expectations” this time, folks). he was thanking him for giving him the rubric for how to run meetings and cut off the press! Yeah, that’s the ticket! (and I LOVE that Media Matters refers to Obama’s bowing to foreign leaders, who do NOT bow back, as “supposed.” Are you kidding me with that kind of dissembling? Please. You know, Media Matters actually used to be a site for which I had respect. I thought it really did work to highlight improper reporting, regardless who was doing it. Nice to get those rose-colored glasses off. Because if they can’t accept that Obama has been bowing to other leaders (he was practically scraping the floor meeting the Emperor of Japan), they have zero credibility on this issue. (Photo by Jim Watson, AFP/Getty Images)

Back to Millbank and the reporters being a bit taken aback by the “transparency” and “openness” of this “hopey, changey” president:

Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said it was the most restrictive set of meetings they had ever seen in Washington. They complained to both the administration and White House Correspondents’ Association, which will discuss the matter Thursday with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage.

Over the weekend, Obama broke with years of protocol and slipped off to a soccer game without the “protective” pool that is always in the vicinity of the president in case the unthinkable occurs. Obama joked about it later to Pakistan’s prime minister, saying reporters “were very upset.”

Ahahahaha. Those silly, pesky little reporters! Isn’t it amusing that Obama broke with years of protocol (think back to his treatment of Prime Minister Brown, “rudeness personified,” press people) by shaking them off and not treating them like professionals trying to do their jobs? Oh, that’s a good one. I’m sure they are ALL laughing about it – not.

Back to the Millbank article and the Summit:

In “bilateral” meetings with foreign leaders, presidents usually take questions, or at least trade statements. But at most of Obama’s, there were only written “readouts”:

Canada: “The president and the prime minister noted the enduring strength of our bilateral partnership.” India: “The two leaders vowed to continue to strengthen the robust relationship between the people of their countries.” Pakistan: “President Obama began by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan.”

Reporters, many in a “filing center” about a quarter-mile away from the leaders’ meetings, relied on dispatches from colleagues allowed in as the press pool. The dispatches, over three days, were uniform: “They were too far away to hear conversation. . . . Again, Obama had nothing to say of substance that pooler heard. . . . We were in for all of 30 seconds. No news; no quotes and again no statements. . . . Same deal folks.”

Finally, Obama walked over to a group of reporters Monday afternoon. Would he give them an account of his meetings? “I’ll let somebody else do it,” he said with a smile.

Oh, well, I am sure they all swooned and lapped up the fleeting attention. Right? Let’s hope not. Let’s hope they are FINALLY going to start looking at this man they helped get into the White House, OUR White House, on half truths, denials of relationships and reality, blessed little investigative reporting on, well, ANYTHING of substance when it came to Obama (remember, they couldn’t be bothered to send anyone to the distant lands of CHICAGO, but they could send a whole bunch to Wasilla, Alaska). Maybe now, just maybe, they will start to do their jobs in time to get this charlatan, this egotist, out of our White House in 2012. Actually LOOK at his record, FIND his records, stop buying rumors and innuendos from his people, QUESTION what you are told by this most nontransparent of presidents. Do your jobs. Hop to it already.

Who’s afraid of a little Tea Party? Everyone, fortunately. So says Kevin O’Brien of The Cleveland Plain Dealer, who correctly points out that while Tea Partiers may lean conservative, they are filled with more anti-incumbent fever (for both sides) than anyone would care to admit:

Democratic officeholders should be afraid.

Republican officeholders, too.

For many a year now, officeholders of both major parties have worked hard to earn the distrust of ordinary Americans. It appears that they finally have succeeded.

If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so inattentive. If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so trusting. If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so damnably nice, the country would be in a better position to manage its finances today. [snip]

Better late than never, a lot of ordinary Americans are waking up to the sobering reality that there really is no one they can trust. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not government. Not corporations. And certainly not corporations in league with government.

The people who are angry today are more in tune with this nation’s founders than ordinary Americans have been in decades.

While there are those who make fun of a few tea partiers dressing up in costumes reminiscent of our founding fathers, those costumes are designed to make a point:

The United States has an intricate system of checks and balances, and a government structure based on a separation of powers, and a Bill of Rights that safeguards the rights of states and the rights of the people precisely because the greatest collection of political talent and philosophical insight ever assembled on this continent — and maybe anywhere on this planet — looked at the concept of government and said, “We need to make a really small cage for this thing, then be careful not to overfeed it.”

We seem to have lost the care-and- feeding instructions about a century ago. We let government out of its little cage and it has been consuming everything it can lay its paws on ever since. In the last 45 years, it has been on a real binge, and in the last year and a half, it has taken bigger bites than a lot of people thought possible.

Ordinary Americans who care about freedom are finally getting a clue and — horrors! — they’re hollering at members of Congress. That’s right: Nice, trusting, formerly inattentive Americans are getting in the faces of the political class and calling them names.

…If members of the political class are too tender to endure a little well-earned rudeness from the people whose hard-earned money they like to “spread around,” then they ought to get out of politics. Maybe their successors will find the voice of the people less irritating.

While O’Brien is correct in stating that this righteous anger needs to be expressed without violence, he also states that this administration and our media as taking to shutting down criticism with tactics of demonization (just like the administration before it):

Don’t doubt for a second that the left is hoping desperately for someone to step all the way out of line. They thought they had their man — and early news reports said they did — when Joseph Stack crashed his Piper Dakota into an IRS building in Texas.
As it turned out, Stack proved to be a Marx-quoting lefty — the wrong flavor of nut.

So the left has to settle for a little name-calling of its own: “ignorant,” “racist,” “homophobes,” “hooligans,” “extremists.” The list, as you know, goes on and on.

It’s bunk, but it’s the script.

Tea Party folks are just patriots worried, with good reason, about the future of the country they love. They’re vocal and they’re inspiringly unaffiliated.

They scare the hell out of both political parties, because they’ve embraced distrust.

The Democrats fear them because they see through the left’s empty promise of utopia in exchange for freedom. The Republicans fear them because they’re pushy and because they’re loyal to their principles rather than to a party.

They make everyone uncomfortable. That’s healthy.

While I’ve never been to a tea party protest, I got good and angry when the bailouts started at the end of 2008 and the pork laden non useful Stimulus package passed in 2009 and the bailouts of car companies that couldn’t run themselves properly happened, too. The 2700 page health care monstrosity, whose ugly details are now just coming to light, was the last straw.

I was taught to play by the rules only to discover my taxpayer dollars were used to bail out those using our investments as a giant ponzi scheme. And too many politicans who exempt themselves from the rules and policies we are expected to follow take pork for their districts as an inducement to continue to sell taxpayers down the river.

So crooks and liars are rewarded for their folly while the rest of us are told to pay the bill – and keep playing by the rules. That is but one reason for the groundswell of anger sweeping the country.

What are yours?