The National Review Institute has obliged Representative Waters, commissioning McLaughlin & Associates to take a detailed look at tea partiers: both the 6 percent of the 1,000 likely voters polled in mid-January who told McLaughlin that they had participated in tea-party rallies and the additional 47 percent who said they “have not participated in a tea party protest but . . . generally agree with the reasons for those protests.” The results dispel a number of myths.

The second myth is that the tea partiers are unpopular. Krugman wrote last April that the tea parties “have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so,” and Brooks speculated that “the tea-party tendency” might “be the ruin of the Republican party, pulling it in an angry direction that suburban voters will not tolerate.” Some Republican officials worry that media criticism and Democrats’ attacks on the activists have made it politically risky to associate themselves with the tea-party movement.

As the vulgarity, “tea-bagger”, has gone mainstream with Democrats and the media it’s easy to conclude that the Tea Party movement is only gaining in popularity. Even people not interested in our political process are likely to find the term extremely offensive and will sympathize with the victims of such a slur. But it is among this later group that Democarts and the MSM are seeking to influence.

So why are Democrats and their MSM mouthpieces continuing this line of conversation? Is it because they feel it will be effective? Or is it out of some sort of revulsion? Neither can be helpful. So, why then?

Perhaps at it’s core is the power that Democrats and the MSM see in ridicule – a Saul Alinsky principle. It may not be effective in the short term, but over the long haul it will drive pereception. Be prepared for more disgusting name calling and baseless acusations of racism. It might be all they have left since their losing badly over the battle of facts and ideas.

Also:

AJStrata

Tehran24 (banned by the Iranian government)

Flopping Aces

Follow this. These brave Iranians could be a key to peace in our time.

The Left around the world took after George W. Bush and after seven years succeeded in making its accusations stick with about half the American voters. So Obama got elected to the loud hosannas of the Left. No doubt Islamists were delighted to see the GOP defeated as well. Pelosi became speaker of the house on the strength of that campaign.

Pelosi, Democrats, the MSM and Obama are counting on this just going away, but it won’t. No one can tell that big of a lie – not even a Dem icon like Pelosi – and just get away with it.

Still, today’s post does address what should have been a story. American knew nothing of this man and little was asked by a MSM that’s been a PR wing for the Democrat Party for decades now. Any inquiry into the President’s past were trivialized, demonized or squashed outright.

While the hero worship by some in the MSM continues – he was actually asked by a NYT reporter during a presser what enthralled him now about the presidency – his action’s are now completely public, and he can no longer live behind spin. It’s likely to be catching up with him. Hence today’s WND column.

.

But beyond Obama’s political ideology, many Americans are troubled also by his strange personality attributes: He greatly exaggerates his achievements, expects constant praise and admiration, believes he’s special, doesn’t appear to concern himself with other people’s feelings, expresses disdain for those he feels are inferior, sets unrealistic goals, appears as tough-minded and unemotional, and other qualities – all of which are textbook symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

If there is a parallel, one only need to take a brief look back at the constant character assasinations of President Bush advanced by Democrarts and their media flacks. Narcissism cuts deep though and is applied differently than any other perceived failing of Bush. Listen to what these observers say:

Indeed, the word “narcissist” is increasingly being applied to America’s 44th president. Pulitzer prize-winning columnist and former psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer asks, “Does the narcissism of this man know no bounds?” Jack Kelly, journalist and former high-ranking Reagan administration Pentagon official, says: “The most dangerous thing about having a narcissist in a position of power is his unwillingness – perhaps his inability – to ever admit error. … Obama acknowledged the troop surge in Iraq has produced dramatic improvements, but said he still would oppose it.” Radio giant Rush Limbaugh said of Obama recently: “He’s supremely narcissistic … This is all about him. This has nothing to do with the country. It has nothing to do with our way of life. Every aspect of his presidency is about building him up, making him appear to be savior, messiah …”

While the quote is easily cast aside by democrats with Limbaugh’s inclusion, Kelly and Kraughthammer are seasoned respected journalists. With Obama’s term providing nothing that coincides with his hope and change mantra and his actions only providing fuel for partisanship, a crisis will test a narcissist. The conditions are perfect for an over reach one way or the other that potentially crush his presidency and harm the nation.

Americans of any persuassion do not want this to happen. Even though Democrats seemed to be rooting against the American armed services in Iraq, Republicans will not doing anything similar. So if Obama fails a test that comes from overseas by over reaching it will give support to the label.

And what blame will American put on the Democrat Party at that point as it was they whom anointed him, enabled him and kept his failings behind the curtain? Will the democrat’s MSM pay a price? Or will they throw him overboard?

We must wait and hope none of this comes to pass. Heaven help us if it does.

What went wrong is an item that puzzles many of us and DeMint offers this:

No Child Left Behind didn’t win us “soccer moms,” but it did cost us our credibility on locally controlled education. Medicare prescription drugs didn’t win us a “permanent majority,” but it cost us our credibility on entitlement reform. Every year, another Republican quality was tainted: managerial competence, fiscal discipline and personal ethics.

As a public school teacher, I concur with respect to NCLB. The intent was to improve student performance in areas such as reading comprehension. But it became and ends and not a means, and giving Washington more power over the actual implementation of education in classrooms. One wonders what would have happened if there had never been a US Department of Education in the first place. The bill for public education is payed for locally, and intrusion by the federal government ultimately serves only politicians be empowering them. No directive that comes from Washington empowers anyone at the local level.

DeMint expands upon my theme of the intrusive government by effectively defining what the GOP being a “big tent” party really means.

Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them.

Herein lies the essence of conservatism, and DeMint explains why it nor republicans should not allow themselves to be defined by democrats and the media.

A Republican recommitment to freedom and limited government will foster an agenda that will strengthen and invigorate our party. Freedom has worked for our party and our country before. It will again, if we let it.

There is no leader of the conservative movement as there is no real leader of republicans. When we allow democrats and the MSM to name one, they allow themselves the ability to demonize. DeMint’s piece is a very good one. But he and others like him who share his vision need to be heard not just only on the pages of the conservative leaning Wall Street Journal, but on television where they can directly confront the intentionally delivered false messages that both democrats and the media advance.

I fully expect Gingrich at some point soon to be the LOTCM of the week at some point in one of the propoganda techniques to demonize Republicans and their conservative principles. Sean Hannity seemed to be it during Tea Party week. At various times recently, its also been Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc.

You get the picture.

But something Republicans of conservative principles don’t realize – as all of these leaders – is that there really is no leader of the conservative movement (LOTCM). Its a movement, yes. And its a large one that a vast majority of Americans and their families live by. Americans have allowed Democrats to make such principles evil with the likeminded MSM.

Notice there doesn’t ever seem to be a leader of the liberal movement.

With a significant number of Americans being opposed to gay marraige, resistance and disagreement with it should be politely accepted. Simply, one can be opposed to gay marraige without being called obscene terms.

It is Perez Hilton and his supporters whom should be condemned. Miss California Carrie Prejean has demonstrated class and grace. The incivility and potential danger of the gay marraige advocacy movement has been unmasked.

We need to be able to say that there are good people on both sides of this issue. Right now we cannot.

Clearly, Limbaugh’s speech was the highlight of the 2009 CPAC. This conservative writer predicts the MSM will immediately begin dissecting it and attempting to “Palinize” it. I’m told Keith Olbermann is already salivating

They may try, but they won’t be as successful. Much of the anti-Palin movement was sustained by conservative elite commentators and members of the McCain campaign.

According to Sun-Times columnist and long-time Chicago journalist, Carol Marin, journalists at Barack Obama news conferences have come to realize that Obama has pre-picked those journalists whom he will allow to ask him questions at the conference and many of them now “don’t even bother raising” their hands to be called upon.

One wonders why journalists are allowing this corralling of the press? Would they have allowed George W. Bush to pre-pick journalists like that? Would they meekly sit by and allow themselves to be systematically ignored, their freedom to ask questions silenced by any Republican? Would journalists so eagerly vie with one another for the favor of Bush like they are Obama’s?

One thing’s consistent from the campaign in that Obama only takes questions from reporters who are in the tank. Its called propoganda boys and girls and it what subversive countries do.

Its still remarkable foreshadowing of things to come if a President cannot take questions from his hometown paper. Its not good any time you deliberately attempt to mislead the American people. good thing Obama and the DEMS have all those psycophants on board in the MSM.