Lame Stream Media..Redux

The Media bashing of Sarah Palin continues. Since my last post, Sarah Palin had a very successful weekend, with a national Tea Party convention speech, that was replete with Obama criticism and Reaganesque common sense solutions to the massive government programs and intrusion into the private sector. Plus, a Sunday interview with Chris Wallace that showed she has increased her fluency on many issues. But, what does the mainstream media concentrate on....Of course it was the fact that she had a few crib notes written on her hand, that she referenced during a question and answer segment after her speech...

Sean Hannity did a Google search on Monday and found that there were over 2,100 references to her crib notes...In contrast, Obama a week ago miss pronounced corpsman three times in a teleprompter read speech, {enunciating it with the P and S}. The Google search of that incident only found 17 references. The Media has once again shown it's complete bias and is becoming a joke to many Americans, as their obvious continued attacks on Palin attest. Andrea Mitchell who used to be considered a serious reporter seems to be sacrificing that assumption, with a mocking display of Sarah's crib note incident on MSNBC... Of course it probably won't hurt her like it should because the viewing audience of that Obama friendly network is almost non existence.  Chris Matthews also mocked Palin calling her a palm reader on his show, "Hard Ball."

Instead of really debating the substance of Sarah Palin's  speech, and appearance on Fox News Sunday, which a few networks did, the pro-Obama sycophants wanted to reduce the dialogue to a mocking diatribe that doesn't serve the public or their image well. Why are these networks, especially MSNBC, losing market share and viewership? It's quite obvious they have lost all objectivity and become this administration's lap dog, rather than democracy's watch dog. Palin Derangement syndrome has so affected their judgment, they seem to be willing to sacrifice their viewership and success to feed their addiction to this self inflicted disease. Soon a support group will be needed to address the dangers of a disease that could cost many reporters and networks their livelihood.

Sarah mocked back her mockers at a campaign appearance with Texas governor Rick Perry on Monday, revealing a palm with the words written "Hi Mom," on it. Her obvious amusement with the media's obsession with her destruction is going over well with most Americans. She seems to be able to laugh off most of this mockery which actually marginalizes their attempts at destroying her influence on the political debate. She is becoming a more serious player in the national debate, and the Media understands that. But, instead of a debate they know they will lose they continue their pot shots and mockery. With that kind of a strategy they will lose big time, and Sarah will be the eventual winner!

Update.....Robert Gibbs also picked up on the Palin mocking at the daily press briefing...They are as scared of Palin as the Lame Stream Media is..There was an obvious gasp at his mocking... This development came after the publishing of this post!
Read: Sarah Sensational...at my other blog...Con Men 4 Palin
Link

Sarah and Barack...Lessons in Media Bias

The free press in America over the last decade has obviously slid left, but the last several years the slide has become the extreme descent at your favorite water park ride. The coverage of two politicians over the last two years has revealed a bias that is making the main stream media obsolete and irrelevant in the minds of many Americans. Let's look at the coverage of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin over the 2008 campaign and beyond. If you remember Hillary Clinton was already compiling her transition team at the start of the democrat primaries. It was a  forgone conclusion that she was going to be the nominee and, with the toxic atmosphere for Republicans, the next president. Along comes Barack Obama.

It's not so much that Obama got glowing coverage when the primaries started, but the vetting was non-existent because every one assumed Hillary was going to be the nominee. Then came Iowa, and the dynamic changed, and suddenly the press jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Hillary came back swinging in Hew Hampshire, but the media by this time had found their man. The Clinton campaign desperately desired the media to vet Obama on his drug admissions, and his radical associations, both of which the press refused to do. His most liberal senate voting record for 2007 wasn't emphasized in either the primaries or the general election. The "Center for Media and Public Affairs," Analyzed every soundbite  from every reporter, and found 0bama received the most positive coverage of any presidential candidate ever. The general election was extremely slanted, with Obama getting 68% positive and 32% negative coverage, compared to 36% positive and 64% negative for McCain. Then along came Sarah Palin.

Other then the first few days after McCain announced her as running mate, and she made a triumphant speech at the convention, the coverage of her was brutal, deceptive, and downright libelous. Remember the swarm of reporters that descended on little Wisilla Alaska during the final stretch of the 2008 campaign. The mainstream media even reported some blogger's assertion that her baby Trig was actually her daughters. There was the endless reports of infighting in the McCain campaign, and of course the wardrobe controversy. The Gotcha interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric. No such vetting or scrutiny for the, "newly media crowned messiah." No talk of his campaign buying his $1,700.00 suites, or his wife's designer wardrobe, and the closest thing Obama got to a gotcha interview was Bill O'Reilly's very well balanced questioning. One interesting aside was the two photos of Obama and Palin on Newsweek covers, and their Titles, just before the election. Check them out here.

Of course after the campaign, the Palin Derangement Syndrome continued, a virus that mutated from the Bush Derangement syndrome, and which is epidemic among the mainstream media. Meanwhile the newly crowned president was receiving constant gushing coverage. Was that just, "to the victor belongs the spoils," or was it more. At the same time Sarah, who had become a flash point for all things political, was under a barrage of scurrilous ethics complaints that ultimately led her to resign as governor, because of $500,000.00 in legal defense fees, and countless hours of time to fight them. The mainstream media kept reporting the complaints, but never went into the unfounded nature of them. By the way, all but one have been dismissed. Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi has yet to have an ethics complaint filed against her, that I'm aware of,  for all the travel abuses and taxpayer money that has gone to her traveling band of merry democrats that includes private trips for her children and grand children. The media has been silent, and those stories only appear on Drudge, Fox news, and similar venues.

Now we see Sarah making a comeback with a successful book and book tour, and a media job with Fox News. AP actual put 11 reporters in charge of fact checking her book. Did Obama's books get that kind of scrutiny? Her poll numbers have risen, mainly because she has bi-past the mainstream media and taken her case directly to the people. At the same time the messiah's polls numbers have slid precipitously, even though the media is still is carrying his water. Could it be that policy matters, and no amount of propaganda can change the fact that America is still a center right country, and the majority of Americans have a value system closer to Sarah Palin's than Barack Obama's? A Dec 9, 2009 article talks about their two poll numbers, and the difference between them melting to one point.

Many mainstream media outlets find themselves in a desperate situation. The New York Times and other major print organizations are losing readership. The three broadcast networks have lost viewership, while one, Fox News,  has increased. Could it be that propaganda doesn't sell like it once did? What is happening with the ascension of the new media? The Mainstream media biases are being called out, and the American people don't like being manipulated and treated as dolts. A recent poll shows Fox News is now the most trusted media outlet. They were also the most critical of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign. Are those two facts a coincidence? I think not. The American people are waking up and realizing that the mainstream media did not truthfully report and vet the qualifications and policy positions of Barack Obama? Even now trying to get stories about broken campaign promises, and  questionable policies are slow in coming, although their survival may depend on a renewed responsibility to become, once again, democracy's watchdog. 

No politician has ever received more negative coverage than Sarah Palin, but her tenacity and character has eventually gotten through the media filter, and the people are seeing her for who she is. They are increasingly sympathetic to her conservative common sense solutions.  Barack Obama on the other hand has received the most positive media coverage of any candidate and president to this point. His true character, ie.. "broken campaign promises and true intentions," has come through, despite unprecedented favorable coverage. The mainstream media accomplished what they intended, and that was to put Barack Obama in the White House, but in so doing they have fatally damaged the progressive agenda, for years to come. All democrats in congress are now vulnerable, and a new conservative movement is amassing.  

Once again the people are making their own decision on what they like and dis-like about Obama and his agenda. You would think the media would understand that when you lift a flawed human to godlike and unrealistic expectations, the only direction  is down. And, when you unfairly scrutinize and malign another to a ridiculous point, rising  status will inevitably come their way, if they have character and integrity. The unprecedented fairness of the American people has made Fox News, Sarah Palin and all they represent winners, and the mainstream media, the Obama Administration and all they represent  losers in the battle for the hearts and minds of the electorate. What a ride the American people are in store for in the coming years, as ideologies, character and policy are debated and fleshed out with a less powerful mainstream media and a growing and more influential new media.
Read: Sarah Sensational.....at my other blog...Con Men 4 Palin

Link

Is Obama An Ideologue?

President Obama unveiled his budget for fiscal year 2011, and it came in at a whopping 3.8 trillion dollars. That's trillion with a T. The deficit will reach 1.56 trillion dollars for the same period, and both figures are historic records. The deficit projection is based on some optimistic assumptions from the administration, which historically don't pan out over time. The president started his remarks Monday, with  blaming the previous administration and previous congress for his inheritance of a huge budget deficit. This is becoming a tired refrain. . 

In no way will I defend the Bush era spending policies, but lets also remember that the democrats controlled both houses of congress after the 2006 elections. But, even if you agree with Obama's constant assumptions of his inherited deficits, does that necessarily justify his unprecedented spending and increased deficits. We could run all the numbers here, but we all know they are fluid, constantly changing with revenues dependent on employment and economic growth. So rather then quibble over exact numbers and how much deficit was caused, inherited, or projected by who, when and how, let's look at the philosophy that is taking us to greater deficits and the precipice of ruin.

Friday when the president met with the GOP house members he made a statement that defies reality. He stated, "I am not an ideologue." There was snickering in the crowd, and a noticeable gasp of unbelief, and when he noticed the stirring he snapped back, "I'm not." It was almost as silly as Richard Nixon's cry out, "I am not a crook." An ideologue according to Merriam-Webster is an, "impractical idealist, or a often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology." With this definition in mind his assertion is laughable on the surface. All of America assumed that since the Massachusetts special election of Scott Brown that Obama would be forced to moderate and at least make a small step toward the middle. Instead his SOTU speech was riddled with a defiant defense of his agenda even though he tried to emulate a populist tone. He is what he is, and most all Americans know that by now. 

He is first of all a big government advocate that believes  government action and largess is the mothers milk of growth as well as a fair and just society. Nothing he has done or advocated in this first year in office can repudiate that. The Keynesian theory of government spending to stimulate economic growth coupled with the bureaucratic interference into free market capitalism is what we have seen. Class warfare and the redistribution of wealth is the method of  achieving his goals. His policies punish success and stifle incentive, while at the same time rewarding passivity and failure. 

His 2011 budget repeals the Bush tax cuts that will certainly inhibit growth, so the vicious cycle can continue and more government spending will be required to meet the needs of the country. He is a pseudo egalitarian, which means he advocates the removal of economic inequalities among people. Our founding documents do not advocate for equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity, and consider redistribution immoral. The problem with the egalitarian is that while he works to achieve an equality among the masses, he becomes what  in theory, he despises, "a ruling elite." It takes a fair amount of political power and persuasion to confiscate from the producers and distribute that wealth to others. The elite lives the life of the self aware. His thoughts and ideas are superior simple because they're his thoughts and ideas. He stands above as arbiter and judge doling out government largess as he sees fit, favoring his political allies and trusted friends. We have seen  through the bailouts, bankruptcies and bills before congress, that his most ardent allies, the unions, have received favored treatment at every turn.

A true egalitarian would never favor one group above another and would live by the same rules he'd advocate for the masses. It's clear he believes corrupt backroom deals that inevitably bring about the desired results are preferred over transparent and honest negotiations, that may result in failure. Of course we have seen him blame congress for that backroom dealing, but he could have put a stop to it at any time, and the union carve out in the health care bill was negotiated at the White House. The old adage, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." is certainly true, but when you add in the resolve of an ideologue, that corruptive influence in magnified. An ideologue will always live by the motto, "The end justifies the means."

The end result of a far left progressive ideologue's policies, is a continual high unemployment rate, and drastic reduction in the standard of living for all Americans. A decrease in wealth creation, a weakened dollar, and loss of liberty and self reliance. The loss of tradition and community as societal norms dissipate. The devolution of America as a super power and standard bearer for the rest of the world is inevitable. All hope is not lost. Many members of the majority in congress are not progressive ideologues and may take the lessens learned from Virginia, New Jersey, and of course Massachusetts, and began to push back against the will of this White House for the good of the people. And, if that seems too optimistic, we have November 2010 as our next best chance for turning it all around.
Check out my other blog.....Read: Sarah Calls Out the Chicago Thug Machine.....at....Con-Men 4 Palin
Link

Obama's Oxymoron

President Obama in a recent interview with Dianne Sawyer said, "he'd rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two term president." Let's dissect that statement a bit and try and figure out what he's trying to say.  Before Obama was elected we had 43 presidents, and not all were elected. Some succeeded to the presidency after death, resignation or assassination, but only 7 who had been elected, attempted to, but  failed to win reelection...John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, William H.Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George HW. Bush. Grover Cleveland served two elected terms but not consecutively, and after his second term did not seek reelection.

Of those 7 presidents who were elected to a single term and lost their reelection bid, do any of those names stand out as a quote, " really good one term president?" You could make the case that George HW. Bush had success running Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but his broken promise of no new taxes, and the third party candidacy of Ross Perot caused his down fall. The rest are not really household names, and other than the answer to obscure trivia questions, nothing stands out about their presidencies. There are also many presidents elected to two terms that historians would describe as mediocre. Now if president Obama is saying he'd rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two termer, isn't that phrase "a really good one term president,"  an Oxymoron. There are many known oxymorons...  Jumbo shrimp, a fine mess, boneless ribs, forgotten memories, alone in a crowd, half empty, etc. "Really good one term president" seems to fit. The idea that a really good one term president wouldn't get reelected is ludicrous.

Maybe he's trying to tell us more. Wouldn't history have shown that those infamous seven were vindicated over time if they'd taken that bold initiative, that history proved right, but was rejected contemporaneously,  and cost them reelection. Is he saying he's willing to forgo a second term to do what's right for the American people? Or is there a hidden message in that phrase and an explanation behind it? I vote for the later. Those presidents that failed at reelection didn't really have a distinguished or historic first term, unless the historic nature of their presidency was not a good thing in the minds of the electorate. 

We all watched with anticipation the president's state of the union address Wednesday night, and many of us hoped that we would see a moderation and a definite pivot from policies that lost the democrat party two state house and one senate seat over the last three months. No one can deny that those elections were a rejection of the Obama agenda and the democrat leadership in congress. But instead we saw a defiant president, willing to double down on his signature agenda items of health care reform, cap and trade and a continual expansion of government and record deficits. It's clear he can't accept the conclusion that most Americans have already come to. And that conclusion is less Obama, and more freedom. So what is he trying to tell Diane Sawyer?

I don't pretend to be Dr. Phil, but what we see in this president is a continual hubris that defies description. If it's true he's willing to forgo a second term to become in his words , "a really good president," He has basically dismissed the entire, or a least a majority of the electorate as imbeciles. They are neanderthals, that lack the evolution and intelligence that only he and his Kool-aid drinking sycophants possess. They are unaware of his historic purpose here on earth, and as the first messiah was rejected by the chosen people, he finds himself in a similar dynamic. If only they understood who he was, and why he's here. He came to change America, and the world, and it was all going so well. The campaign saw women fainting at his appearances, and countless thousands waiting for hours to catch a glimpse of him. His Berlin speech announced his appearance to the rest of world. The Nobel committee understood his mission and gifted his arrival as a fulfilled promise like the maji of long ago.

Now he's left to sacrifice his power to one four year term, which is one year longer than the first messiah's ministry on earth. He came to change America for the good of the people, and un-clinch the fist of our enemies, kind of like, "peace on earth, good will toward men." He told Harry Reid after he complimented him on another masterful speech, "I have a gift," and now he's saying that gift may be to sacrifice long term power form what he considers long term gain, and to remake America. What are the American people left to conclude from what has transpired over the last twelve months? Is he the one, that gifted orator and intellectual giant, that came to save us from ourselves, and usher in a new age , an egalitarian utopia, a transformational historic figure? Or is he just another narcissistic elite, that suffers from a messiah complex and delusions of grandeur? Once again I vote for the latter, and recommend we grant his wish, "to sacrifice a second term for good of the people."
Check out my other blog....Con Men 4 Palin
Link

Obama's Idealistic Hypocrisy

Why has Obama's promise of redistribution and collectivism turned into a special interest hay day? We all remember how Obama told Joe the plumber that it's a good thing to spread the wealth around. There is no question that Obama is a firm believer in redistribution policies, and most all his policies have that stated goal . But, are they really doing what they were intended to do? Let's take a look at the stimulus bill, and it's structuring and timing. In fiscal year 2009  the stimulus money was distributed to twenty five congressional districts, and only eight of those are either represented by Republicans or Blue dog {Fiscally Conservative democrats}. Is that their idea of an egalitarian utopia? Only 24% of the stimulus funds appropriated was spent in fiscal year 2009, while in 2010, an election year, 48% of the funds will be spent, in an obvious attempt to help the democrat majority in the midterm elections. Now let me ask you this, is this a fair redistribution of taxpayer money? Of course there's always a political motive to appropriation bills, but this bill was rushed through to help the America people, and get the economy back on track. But, it's obvious structuring and timing is blatant politics, meant to help democrat Americans and their economy, as well as their representatives.

Let's take a look at the auto bailouts and the bankruptcy restructuring of Chrysler. First of all a bankruptcy of this magnitude should follow established norms, but the Obama administration stepped in and tinkered with the process. Richard A. Epstein in a fine Forbes article points this out. I quote him, "the nonstop political interference of the Obama administration, put it's muscle behind the beleaguered United Auto Workers. It's onerous collective bargaining agreements are off limits to the reorganization provisions, thereby preserving the current labor rigidities in a down market. Equally bad, the established priorities of creditor claims outside bankruptcy have been cast aside in this bankruptcy case as the unsecured claims of the union health pension plan have received a better deal than the secured claims of secured bond holders, some of which may represent pension plans of their own." Does that sound like policy that's good for all, or does it look like a blatant political favor for the unions, that gave their support, and millions of dollars to the president for his campaign, and an unfair cram down to the secured bond holders, and their obligation to the pension plans of many non union workers

How about the health care plan passed by the senate? Once again we have an attempt to redistribute health. Sounds like a noble goal. They will cram down medicare by 500 billion dollars, to pay for a government controlled health care system that will only add about twenty million  newly covered to the insurance rolls and guarantee the insurers whom they love to bash, unprecedented profits because of a mandate that all must buy in. Of course that still leaves about 16 million uninsured, but  these numbers vary depending on whom you ask. They will also tax so-called Cadillac plans, except, once again, for the unions who will be exempt for the next eight years. The trial lawyers, who are major democrat donors are rewarded by a refusal to even discuss tort reform in the bill. So both the elderly, by reduction in service, and non union wealthy Americans will bear the brunt of paying for this redistribution of health.  The process itself is also wrought with favoritism. The two most blatant examples are the Cornhuskers kickback which exempts Nebraska from ever paying for medicaid expansion again, and the Louisiana Purchase which gives that state a $300 million increase in medicaid. These two deals were necessary to secure the votes of Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. We have seen the conservative state of Nebraska push back at this favoritism as Nelson numbers have plummeted since the deal was made. It's rather Ironic that a conservative state doesn't want to receive special treatment, and seems to be more concerned with fairness than this administration. 

It's clear that  every major policy undertaken by this administration and rushed through congress doesn't resemble their ideal of redistribution. In their mind it's right to tax the rich and redistribute to the poor and needy. But, their policies are good only for those who support and fund democrat candidates, those living in liberal congressional district, and of course the unions. Remember the statement that Biden made during the campaign. "The wealth of the country needs to be returned to it's rightful owners." Well, we have seen who they feel the rightful owners should be. Their policies are directed at rewarding political allies and punishing political foes. Their code of governing is more partisan than any administration has ever been, and their polarization of the country is second to none, as a recent Gallop polls shows.

It's hypocritical to continue to preach class warfare and declare that the rich should pay their fair share, to help those trying to get a hand up. If they really believed that, they would have to admit that they are now the powerful in Washington. The rich, so to speak. If they believe in redistribution they would be giving up some of their political wealth. They talk about the winners in life giving their fair share to the not so fortunate. But, they declared after their electoral victories, We won, so we'll write the stimulus and health care bills. We will decide, as we intrude into bankruptcy court, who gets what,  and what goes where to whom and how. Sounds like those evil rich corporate CEOs  they so like to vilify, and now they want to punish for their avarice behavior. They are constantly talking about the growing gap between the haves and have nots, all the time separating themselves from the will of the people as a ruling elite that declares without reservation, "We know best." While they excoriate corporate America for profiteering at the expense of the poor, they themselves exclude nearly half the American people and their representatives in congress a voice in the process. Their hubris has offended the public to the point of a rebellious insurrection, that could result in this administration going down in history as the Enron of politics, whose fall from the heights of power could be more sudden and dramatic as to become an infamous historical benchmark of hypocrisy. The court of public opinion, {the American voter} will decide their fate..
Check out my other blog and new post: Sarah Celebrates Pro-Life Ad...at...Con-Men 4 Palin
Link

Can Obama Pivot To Populism?

We have a president that loves basketball and apparently is very good at it. But can he pivot in the court of public opinion as well as on the basketball court? The Massachusetts senate upset by Scott Brown, has thrown a monkey wrench into the Obama agenda. Not only was it a death blow to Obama care but all his big government solutions are going to be toxic for a congress who will have to face the voters in November. It seems that some have gotten the message as a few democrat congressmen have crafted a letter to the president to plead for an extension to the Bush Tax cuts for another two years. They know the president's approach of tax increases and smack down of Wall street is antithetical to growth and job creation. Many other members are making statements that health care should be given a time out, while others pronounce it dead.

Meanwhile the president himself is trying to look all populous rather than pompous, but that pivot may draw a traveling violation from the refs, "the American public." It's hard to describe the language he has used up until this point as populous, when just last week he was denigrating Scott Brown's pickup truck while campaigning for Martha Coakley. Not only was it condescending to all American's who drive pick up trucks, but snide little remarks  like, "Anybody can buy a truck,"  is untrue. He actually has no idea of the reality of the countries difficult economic struggles. Does he know how difficult it is to secure a private sector loan  for the purchase of a new Pickup truck? Banks still aren't lending like before the recession, and used pickups have spiked because of government manipulation with the Cash for Clunkers program this summer. A program designed to stimulate car sales, which it did temporarily. But, the clunkers were than mandated to be destroyed by disabling the engines, never to belch their toxic fumes again. This policy comes from the elitist mentality to effect a change for the environment, rather than the concerns of struggling Americans, and those looking for a used car or truck suddenly saw a spike in their retail value because hundreds of thousand were taken off the road. 

We all remember the criticism that George H. W. Bush got when he visited a grocery store and was excoriated  when he watched with amazement a scanner work.  The mainstream media castigated him for being out of touch. No such condemnation for the new White House Inhabitant.. Obama's new populous rants against the big banks, which according to him, he saved from extinction a year ago is the talk of the week. He's caused a 600 point drop in the Dow, just this week with  his proposal of taxing and regulating the behemoths he was so anxious to save. Does he not know the fallout to the average taxpayers 401 K's and retirement accounts when he wants to appeal to their populous anger? The assumption that these new regulations and taxes are going to be absorbed by the banks and not passed on to the consumers in the form of higher fees and interest rates is cynical. Even though the idea to stop the banks from excessive risk taking may be noble he knows all to well the consumer is going to be paying the increase in one form or another.

It's also hard to present a populous mentality while playing 29 rounds of golf your first year in office with an unemployment rate hovering around 10%. The pictures of him vacationing over the Christmas holidays in Hawaii, while the country was struggling to put gifts under the tree for their children,  was tone deaf at least. His few remarks about the Christmas day pantie bomber in between his shaved iced sessions and golf games were unseemly to many. Of course a president is due a vacation, and nobody is denying him that. But, his summer vacation at Blue Heron ranch in Martha's Vineyard, in the town of Chilmark which is described as the most expensive small town in all of America, was tone deaf as well. Not really a populist vacation spot. We all remember the media disgust at Bush's vacation times at his ranch in Crawford, which stemmed from their discontent at spending time in a dusty hot and undesirable climate. They loved their coverage of Obama at the Vineyard though, hobnobbing with the Eastern elites, and didn't seem to criticize his avarice when the rest of the population was canceling modest vacations because of job layoffs. And of course we can't forget those Obama White house parties, with $100.00 a lb Japanese imported steak, Vodka Martinis and Stevey Wonder concerts while excoriating bank executives for golf tournament parties and business trips to Vegas, which hurt the travel industry, and once again the little people.

This first year in office has this president pushing legislative policies like health care and cap and trade as transformative issues, that will secure his place in history, rather than addressing the needs of the public. His stimulus was cynically written, with the money dispersed mostly in 2010, rather than 2009 to coincide with an election cycle, rather than addressing the immediate needs of unemployment. Of course many of us believe it was written as a huge payoff to political allies that helped the democrats take control. 

When you've criticized the Pennsylvania voters as bitter and clinging to their guns and religion, during a fundraiser to San Francisco elites, the pivot to populism may be a stretch. Such a stretch that he's going to drag his pivot foot, and turn the ball over again to the American voters to decide the agenda in 2010. This is not a president who in any way shape or form, presents himself as a populist man of the people, with common sense solutions to difficult problems. He is what he is, an East coast educated intellectual elite, that governs in theory, with less than 7% of his cabinet having any private sector practical job creating experience. My advice is that he cut the phony populist transformation, and let the chips fall where they may, because the public is not as easily deceived as they once were.
Read: Sarah's Loyalty...at my other blog....Con-Men 4 Palin
Link

Scott Brown's Chritmas Gift

Scott Brown is leading as of the writing of this blog, 52% to Martha Coakleys 47% with 96% of precincts reporting. It looks like it's going to be a a very good night for Scott Brown, and in a larger context the American people. The simple question is. what happened? The White House is going to criticize Martha Coakley, and throw her under the bus as the spin machine starts the diesel engines, before the night is done. I went back and looked at the polls that were available on Real Clear Politics, after the primaries and it shows a surprising bit of information. Coakley was leading in the Suffolk poll by 30 points taken from 9/12 to 9/15. Her lead increased to 31% in that same poll taken from 11/4 to 11/8. So in almost a two month period her lead actually expanded. That was the last poll taken before the beginning of the year. I guess a lead of 31 points makes frequent polling unnecessary.

The White Houses spin will be that she was a bad campaigner and took the electorate for granted, while Brown was out campaigning nonstop. The only problem with this analysis is that Brown was campaigning nonstop during those early months of the campaign also, and Coakley still increased her lead, or at least didn't dissipate. You can't blame the holidays and the fact that everybody might have been focused on other things, because that 11/8 poll came almost three weeks before Thanksgiving. The next poll taken was from 1/2 to 1/6, right after the first of the year by the Boston Globe, and her lead had shrunk to 17 points and Rasmussen had a poll on 1/4 that showed a 9 point lead for Coakley. Within another week Brown had caught up and Coakley started to crater and it was never a race after that.

So what took place after the holidays, that led the fine people of Massachusetts to turn on the obvious one, and switch to a little known, and give him a huge victory? It's obvious Brown is a great campaigner, very appealing, and was wise to nationalize the campaign, which brought in over a million dollars a day in the final week. Coakley on the other hand made some verbal gaffes, like, "there's no more terrorists in Afghanistan" after the Christmas day bombing attempt, and seemed to show an elitist attitude. But, remember we are in Massachusetts, the same state that has reelected the haughty John Kerry time and again. Something significant happened during the holidays that was a death knell  to the Coakley campaign.

Christmas eve was the end of the Coakley campaign, and she didn't even know it. She was a dead woman walking from Christmas day to election night. Christmas is a time to celebrate the birth of a savior, but, it was also the birth of a new political hero thanks to Harry Reid and the democrats in the Senate. If you remember, Christmas eve of 2009 was made infamous for the democrats, because they arrogantly rammed through with exactly 60 votes, an ill advised health care bill. A bill already corrupted by the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, and the Florida medicare carve out. We all know why they did it. They figured everyone would be preoccupied with relatives arriving, and last minute gift buying. When the American people re-focused after the week of holiday festivities, Scott Brown began his surge and Coakley never recovered. Obama's Sunday appearance for her, re-enforced the arrogance of power that led to the Christmas Eve senate traverse to lay a gift at Obama's feet. Traditional Americans only give reverence to the true Messiah on that day.

They weren't going to take that kind of arrogance and bribery to have their health care put in the hands of a party that dismisses the people, and imposes their will on the electorate. That sentiment was also reflected in the bluer than blue state of Massachusetts. Then after the Christmas Eve vote there were all the rumors of reconciling the two bills in secret, and the C-SPAN non-transparency dust up. Instead of the appropriate conference committee for reconciling the two bills, the complicity continued. The final straw that put Brown over the top for good was the union carve out just last week, that sickened the public, and reveals a corruption, and cronyism in this administration that's second to none. Brown also promised he would be the 41st vote to stop Obama Care, While Coakley promised she would be the 60th to pass it.

I don't want to take anything away from Scott Brown, because he ran an almost flawless campaign and took advantage of every misstep the democrats in the senate, and Coakley had made. Coakley, instead of questioning an ill conceived game plan, embraced it, and lost her footing in the slippery slime of an Obama agenda. Brown's victory, and Coakley's defeat can be attributed to a Christmas eve debacle that fooled no one.
Now we have in the news today, the administrations defiance, that if Coakley in fact loses this race, which she did, Obama is going to take a combative stance, and essentially double down on every aspect of his agenda. All I can say, is Christmas may come, on the first Tuesday of November this year, for Conservatives, Republicans, and the American people. Will they never learn, the American people will not be made fools of?

Read ...Let Sarah Swing The Bat...at my other blog...Con-Men 4 Palin
Link