Case in point: Washington Post “media critic” Howard Kurtz’s article today about FOX News Channel’s “reporters’” growing discomfort with the shenanigans of FNC darling Glenn Beck, he of the mighty chalkboard of insanity, his ludicrous fits of crying, his manic desire to be a political player, the fearmongering, paranoia and Stalin-Mao-Hitler-Marxist-Communist-Racist-Obama-hating cavalcade of madness. The meme that Beck is merely an entertainer and that FOX personalities are worried that the new star on the block could damage its relationship with the White House and the channel’s reputation are laughable at best. After all, Beck organized the infamous “9/12″ rallies, a non-news event enthusiastically covered by FOX, complete with inflated crowd estimates. Beck, in displays of false modesty, claims to be a mere rodeo clown. Nonsense. He’s a liar, an ignoramus and a dangerous Father Coughlinesque demagogue who has done enormous damage to political discourse and the profession of journalism. (Beck would probably decry Coughlin’s loyalties but the technique remains the same).

Beck apologized recently for wasting his audience’s time following a hilariously absurd and demented interview with disgraced tickling enthusiast and former Congressman Eric Massa. But not to worry, he’s back to whatever passes for normal now.

FOX’s “news” operation didn’t show restraint or a desire for fact-checking while helping pump damaging, and false stories about the Clintons into the media churn, with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory still holding a strong showing behind the JFK assassination.

And it’s not as if Beck makes money for the network. He’s a loss leader (here’s a partial list of companies that have pulled their ads, despite Beck’s strong ratings). There are rumblings that Rupert Murdoch’s children are fed up with the drama surrounding FOX News’s foolishness, but you can bet that as long as daddy Rupert is in charge and Roger Ailes continues to draw breath nothing will change.

The Kurtz article follows an absurd piece in the Washington Post by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. With wide-eyed wonder, he ponders the vexing question of why reputable media organizations don’t call FOX out as a propaganda mill. This from a man who if he had a sense of shame would have the decency to keep quiet about media ethics, considering that reporter Bush/Cheney stenographer Judy Miller’s wildly incorrect WMD/Chalabi articles started being published in the NYT on his watch. The New York Times, which sets the agenda for all other publications in the United States, was thereby complicit in pushing falsehoods that led to an unjust and unnecessary war, costing thousands of American lives and ruining the U.S.’s reputation around the world. Good work, Howell.

But to answer your question, Howell: Cowardice. The American media are sheep. You’re welcome.

American reporters love to express their wonder at the Pakistani media’s love of conspiracy theories and wrinkle their brows over what a terrible impact the dissemination of false and sensationalistic information could have on the U.S.-Pak relationship. Look in the mirror, people.

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

Apparently, I am not the only one, though I’m not the one who counts. It’s the people who are actually in Reid’s state who matter at this juncture. And they are none too happy with him, either. Even a visit from The One didn’t help him, as this article makes clear, POLL: Obama’s Visit Just Bounced Off Reid; Poll shows senator gained little ground in re-election battle. Oh, dear. That doesn’t bode well, does it? Short answer, no. But here’s the particulars of just how much Obama did not help the senator in his re-election bid:

During his whirlwind visit to Las Vegas two weeks ago, President Barack Obama mentioned U.S. Sen. Harry Reid by name four dozen times, gave him a big hug and talked him up as if he was a long-lost brother.

In remarks that could not have been more laudatory, Obama repeatedly characterized the veteran Democratic leader as a man “made of very strong stuff” who was making the right decisions for the state back in the nation’s capital.

But as Reid faces an uphill path to win re-election to a fifth Senate term, Obama’s enthusiastic endorsement does not appear to have improved the Senate majority leader’s standing among constituents, according to a new poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Reid got no bounce from Obama’s visit on Feb. 19, when the president spoke highly of him at Green Valley High School and to business leaders at CityCenter, polling indicates.

A larger percentage of voters surveyed (17 percent) said they would be less likely to vote for Reid following the president’s visit than said they would be more likely to vote for him (7 percent). Seventy-five percent said Obama’s visit would have no effect on how they vote.

“Reid was not helped, and Obama was not any more popular than he was before he came to the state,” said Brad Coker, managing director at Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

Obama’s day in Vegas “did not have much of an effect” on Reid’s re-election chances, notably among independent voters, Coker said.

Um, I’m no mathematician, but I do know basic arithmetic: 17 – 7 = 10, so I’m not real sure about Coker’s conclusion that Obama’s visit “did not have much of an effect” on Reid’s behalf. Seems like Obama’s visit had QUITE the effect, just not the kind Reid probably wanted. Coker continued:

“The independents hold the key to Reid, and for Reid there is no sign he is cracking them right now,” he said.

Mason-Dixon researchers spoke over the phone with 625 likely Nevada voters Monday through Wednesday. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

A political boost for Reid “wasn’t the intent of the visit,” Reid spokesman Jon Summers said.

“Senator Reid asked the president to come to Nevada to talk about jobs and the economy and in doing so they announced $100 million to help Nevadans who are underwater in their homes,” Summers said.

Oh, you have GOT to be kidding me. That’s how they are going to try and spin this? They really do think we are a bunch of A-Number 1 Morons, don’t they? Naturally, this had absolutely zip to do with Reid’s continued struggles for re-election, not the best impression when the Senate Majority Leader is having such a hard time in his own state. Surely he can count on a little, tiny bounce by a visit from the president – not:

Regarding Obama’s trip to Las Vegas, the president’s lack of a coattail for Reid to ride says as much about Nevadans’ ambivalence toward the president as it does about the senator, Coker said.

Reid’s renewed focus on passing jobs bills in the Senate continues to be overshadowed in voters’ minds by Obama’s association with the unpopular health care debate, including Thursday’s daylong health summit , Coker said.

“It would be to Obama and Reid’s advantage to get off health care and get onto issues that people want them to work on,” Coker said.

But Obama’s visit served several purposes for Reid that wouldn’t turn up in the numbers, at least not yet, said Mark Peplowski, a political science professor at the College of Southern Nevada.

One purpose is to excite the Democratic base, particularly younger voters and occasional voters who went with Obama in 2008 and need to be re-energized.

“Pollsters now are talking with inveterate voters, but Obama and Reid are looking long term at nine months from now because Harry doesn’t have a primary race,” Peplowski said.

David Damore, a UNLV professor, said Reid’s ability to put Obama together with business leaders, as he did at a fund­raiser and again at CityCenter, shows power brokers, including Republican ones, that he can continue to deliver.

That might cement Reid’s support later among people who otherwise might think about contributing to his Republican challenger, Damore said. (Contact Stephens Media Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@reviewjournal.com or 202-783-1760.)

Yeah, let’s just see how well that goes over with the regular people of Nevada. They seem to see both Obama and Reid pretty clearly, don’t they? Make sure to check out the comments of the people who live in that state following the article. Hooey, there are some folks who are hot under the collar.

Or maybe they just don’t cotton to Obama telling people NOT to come to Las Vegas – TWICE, and waste their money there.

Ahem. Well, we keep trying to tell them that JOBS are what we need, something that will pay the mortgage, pay our utility bills, enable us to buy gas to get to work, and cash to put food on the table. We do not need some half-baked plan full of pork that will constitute 1/6th of the economy and will cost us money we don’t have – personally, and as a country, just to massage the ego of “That One.”

Yep, those coattails of Obama’s ain’t what they used to be – oh, wait, they never were (just ask Cornine, Deeds, or Coakley). Maybe it’s time for our “representatives” in Washington to figure out they are there to do OUR work, not whatever the man in the White House demands. If not, more of them, hopefully like Reid, will be looking for jobs themselves.

Hey, here’s a thought – Obama, why don’t you go “help” Pelosi, too? Since she seems to have forgotten her job description, to represent the people and not you, Obama, she could do with retirement. Rather, WE could do with her retirement.

Who else should Obama go “help”?

It’s an excellent question, Eastan. Here is a look at the list of invitees to Obama’s “Bipartisan” Healthcare Summit:

Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, Majority Leader
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY, Republican Leader
Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL, Majority Whip
Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, Republican Whip
Senator Max Baucus, D-MT, Chairman of the Finance Committee
Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA, Ranking Member of the Finance Committee
Senator Tom Harkin, D-IA, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Mike Enzi, R-WY, Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Chris Dodd, D-CT, Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Chuck Schumer, D-NY
Senator Patty Murray, D-WA
Senator Kent Conrad, D-ND
Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV
Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR
Senator Lamar Alexander, R-TN
Senator John Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
Representative Steny Hoyer, D-MD, Majority Leader
Representative John Boehner, R-OH, Republican Leader
Representative James Clyburn, D-SC, Majority Whip
Representative Eric Cantor, R-VA, Republican Whip
Representative Charles Rangel, D-NY, Chairman of the Ways and Committee
Representative Dave Camp, R-MI, Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee
Representative Henry Waxman, D-CA, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Joe Barton, R-TX, Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative George Miller, D-CA, Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee
Representative John Kline, R-MN, Ranking Member of the Education and Labor Committee
Representative John Dingell, D-MI, Chair Emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Xavier Becerra, D-CA
Representative Louise Slaughter, D-NY
Representative Robert Andrews, D-NJ
Representative Jim Cooper, D-TN
Representative Paul Ryan, R-WI
Representative Marsha Blackburn, R-TN
Representative Charles Boustany, R-LA
Representative Peter Roskam, R-IL
** Note: Senator McConnell and Leader Boehner will designate one additional Republican member to attend.**

How many elected women do you count in there? I counted four, a rather paltry number, a slim representation for over HALF the population of the United States (and the world, for that matter).

Why does this matter? Because women have “Unique Health Needs,” that’s why:

* 80% of the population with osteoporosis are women.
* 75% of people with lupus are women.
* Twice as many women as men have arthritis.
* Hypothyroidism is ten times more prevalent in women than in men.
* Fibromyalgia (FM) is nine times more prevalent in women than in men.
* Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is three times more common in women than in men.
* Migraine headaches affect women three times more than men.
* Women experience more severe and more pain overall than men.
* Interstitial cystitis is almost exclusively found in women.
* Multiple sclerosis occurs more in women than in men.
* Endocrine imbalance affects women more than men.

Women with auto-immune conditions often have food and/or environmental sensitivities, heavy metal toxicity, dysbiosis and/or leaky gut syndrome. Depending on the genetics, lifestyle, and environmental affects, each person’s unique biochemistry will determine which tests are of highest priority.

For example, osteoporosis is of major concern for aging women. Bone mineral density testing is necessary to determine bone health. Solomon and colleagues reported that bone mineral density testing (BMD) is under-utilized by a majority of health care professionals. BMD is an important test for assessment of bone density. Urinary bone resorption assessment is a useful test to monitor whether treatment is preventing further bone loss.

Thyroid dysfunction was reported to be three times as high in women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than in women with non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia. Some RA patients have food and environmental sensitivities, and others have dysbiosis. RA has especially been linked with a genetic predisposition and Proteus bacteria as a trigger for the illness.

Bairey–Merz reports that about 50% of women but 17% of men who have diagnostic cardiac catheterization have normal coronary arteries. So, 50% of the time chest pain in women is due to some other cause(s). Assessment of mineral status, and of other cardio risk factors such as homocysteine, fibrinogen, and C–reactive protein can be used to detect other contributors to chest pain. These tests and others are included in a comprehensive cardiovascular assessment. Magnesium deficiency often mimics angina and arrhythmia. Serum minerals testing would be of benefit.

Higher levels of estradiol also are associated with increased risk of chest pain, so a hormone panel would be indicated as well.

Although CFS and FM are distinct, they have many common characteristics in symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Several studies have reported a high incidence of food sensitivities, leaky gut syndrome, and thyroid autoimmunity in fibromyalgia and CFS.

That’s why it matters that there were so few women present in these discussions. As if they really mattered anyway since Big Pharma already has its deal in place, along with some other sweetheart deals for a few states, etc. But still – Obama could have made more of an effort. You know, with him being such a big feminist and all, right, “Ms. Magazine”?? Yeah, right.

This bill is fraught with so many problems, major problems. We know that. We’ve discussed that for months. But having so few women at the table is a pretty big problem, too. With so many health issues particular to women, and affecting women more than men, it should have been an IMPERATIVE that more women were involved in this process, not fewer. That’s reason enough to go back to the drawing board, don’t you think? I do.

And something else I think – had there been a President Hillary Clinton, as there should have been, the voices of women would have been well represented, with a seat at the table. With Obama? Not so much…

The embattled liberal group ACORN is in the process of dissolving its national structure, with state and local-chapters splitting off from the underfunded, controversial national group, an official close to the group confirmed.

“ACORN has dissolved as a national structure of state organizations,” said a senior official close to the group, who declined to be identified by name because of the fierce conservative attacks on the group that began when a conservative filmmaker caught some staffers of its tax advisory arms on tape appearing to offer advice on incorporating a prostitution business.

Ah, yes – this is all the fault of that pesky James O’Keefe and those mean Republicans. It has absolutely ZIP to do with ACORN being under investigation in at least 14 states for voter registration fraud, and is under federal indictment in Nevada, or their participation in the mortgage lending crisis, or anything like that.

The article referenced above also has this Update:

A person familiar with the New York reorganization said the new group has a new board, including some relative outsiders, like an official at the union Workers United, Wilfredo Larancuent, as well as most of the old leadership.

But the impact appears to be minimal.

“It’s not like this is some kind of hostile thing,” said the New York source. “This is what Fox has produced. National Acorn and Bertha Lewis are continuing doing their thing, but the New York flagship has been forced into this new organization.”

“As far as the work in the communities and policy campaigns, no one will notice the difference,” the source said. “It’s people who still believe in their basic mission of fighting for poor people.”

ALSO: National ACORN says it continues to exist, despite the departure of state chapters, including also California’s, which departed under similar terms last month.

Yes, yes, it is clear – this has nothing to do with voter registration fraud, voter fraud, bad mortgages, or the fact that this is SUPPOSED to be a non-partisan organization that is working primarily to hep Democrats, including Obama, elected to office. Nope – it’s all because Fox News and James O’Keefe are mean to them. I got it.

Do they really think we are so stupid that we are not going to KNOW they are the same group as before? Hey, we’re not in Congress or anything – we aren’t THAT easily duped. I’m pretty sure we can keep up.

But guess who apparently cannot? Oh, yes indeedy – President Obama. Remember this little clip from his interview with George Stephanopoulos?

Wait until you get a load of THIS one:

Again, do these politicians really NOT know we have VIDEOTAPE??? Holy moley, Obama, you are way too young to be that forgetful. Oh, wait – that’s not forgetfulness, that’s flat out lying. No doubt, once ACORN has finished changing its name and banners, he’s going to claim he has NO idea who or what that organization is.

Hey, here’s a fun little contest we can have. “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” is a bit dated as an expression, and we so need a new one for Obama and the numerous whoppers he lets fly (not to mention most politicians). What pithy saying can you craft that about Obama and his numerous lies? This should be fun. Oh, and prize ideas, too, would be welcome. Have at it!

But now we are finding out that this threat may have been overstated, though I seriously doubt it is as a result of Obama’s claims. Actually, it is worse than that. As it turns out, Climate Scientists Withdraw Journal Claims of Rising Sea Levels.

Say what?

Again, I believe in being a good steward of this planet on which we make our home regardless of how much the claims of global warming may, or may not, be exaggerated. I have long been an environmentalist, and do not feel compelled to change that underlying belief because a bunch of scientists may, or may not, have fudged the data.

But here’s the thing. This is my front yard:

So, not only does this matter to me in a big picture way, it matters to me in a very personal, direct way. As it is, insurance companies like State Farm have stopped insuring people who live on the coast in these here parts like I do (our insurance is with Lloyds of London – I kid you not).

And we get articles like this in our daily newspaper, “Coalition Hoping For Sea Change As Ocean Levels Rise,” that contain information in them that scares the absolute bejesus out of Lowcountry residents, like me:

An international group of climate scientists predicted last fall that sea levels will rise by 23 inches this century as the oceans warm, which would be roughly double the rise documented during the last century.

That prediction from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not account for the record-setting pace of melting polar ice, however.

“The potential is so astounding, if it continues,” Duke University Professor Orrin Pilkey said at a panel discussion in Charleston addressing the issue. “I think that 3 to 5 feet is a conservative estimate for coastal management here.”

Holy crappydoo – that would make a HUGE change in terms of where I live right now, especially when we are already getting high tides that leave the water lapping the bottom of our docks. But add to that the fact that this is Hurricane Alley. If waters are truly rising, the impact of a hurricane hitting at the “right” time will surely increase the levels of devastation, will they not?

Well, yes, if THIS article is to be believed, “Study: Warming To Bring Stronger Hurricanes“:

Knutson said the new study, which looks at worldwide projections, doesn’t make clear whether global warming will lead to more or less hurricane damage on balance. But he pointed to a study he co-authored last month that looked at just the Atlantic hurricane basin and predicted that global warming would trigger a 28 percent increase in damage near the U.S. despite fewer storms.

That study suggests category 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes — those with winds more than 130 mph — would nearly double by the end of the century. On average, a category 4 or stronger hurricane hits the United States about once every seven years, mostly in Florida or Texas. Recent category 4 or 5 storms include 2004’s Charley and 1992’s Andrew, but not Katrina which made landfall as a strong category 3.

Outside experts praised the work.

The study does a good job of summarizing the current understanding of storms and warming, said Chunzai Wang, a researcher with NOAA who had no role in the study.

I am more confused than ever. These are not abstract issues to me. They are very, very real, impacting people I know, cities I love, and my very home. So, do we believe this research, or do we not?

Which raises the bigger question: When did “Scientific Method” become so incredibly subjective? Who, or what, is gaining from these questionable studies? If there truly is global warming, which I have long believed to be true because I trusted that these scientists were doing their work based not on politics, but DATA, and that is not being called into question, what are we to believe?

Again – these are not abstract questions to me, or to the community in which I live. We have to plan for these kinds of changes, if they are indeed true. We have to plan what to do in the event of such catastrophic changes, for our homes, and even our docks, not to mention our investments. Are they scaring the crap out of us because they know for a fact this is happening, or because there is some other incentive for doing so? The recent article claiming there has been no “global warming” in 15 years seems to contradict the NEW study claiming hurricanes are getting worse BECAUSE of global warming.

Good grief – can someone help me out here?

In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president’s own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O’Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board — and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

Krauthammer hits the nail on the head:

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

One needs experience, depth of knowledge on policy and the workings of government as well as specific understanding of the needs of Americans in order to move this country forward. Tone deaf policies that do little to solve those needs will not lead to a good result.

Krauthammer continues:

It’s 2010, and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama’s two signature initiatives — cap-and-trade and health-care reform — lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: “America the Ungovernable.” So declared Newsweek. “Is America Ungovernable?” coyly asked the New Republic. Guess the answer. [snip]

Yet, what’s new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic — and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

Krauthammer goes on to dissect the latest liberal complaints about Republican’s use of the filibuster pointing out Democrats did the same in blocking GW Bush’s judicial appointments. Their complaints that Congress’ structure impedes progress is likewise blather to provide cover for an administration that has lost control of its message.

…Indeed, the Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change.

Krauthammer took time to praise another Democrat along the way:

Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health-care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: “Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama’s (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. . . . But in this case there’s a simpler explanation: Barack Obama’s job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed.”

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise — expanded coverage at lower cost — led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections — Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

That’s not a structural defect. That’s a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself — despite the special interests — through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

I also read an interesting piece by Joe Scarborough yesterday, discussing his own conservative principles. He stated that while he may not agree with President Obama’s agenda, he prays for him daily to find a successful way to lead for the sake of our country. He said “if his grandmother could pray for Carter, he could pray for Obama.”

My prayer is that the President starts paying more attention to the message Americans are sending him and less attention to those like Nancy Pelosi who are arrogant in continuing to tell the rest of us to get lost. Perhaps he would then find the country is governable.

The packaging of a fantasy is an art in and of itself cleverly crafted by publicists, ambitious stage parents and cynical editors. The formula is fairly simple. The performer must always be portrayed as single and wholesome. Marriage, homosexuality, bizarre personality quirks, poor grooming, violent tendencies, psychological issues, consumption of alcohol and/or drugs and smoking must be concealed at all costs lest the fantasy, and possibly a career, go up in smoke. Chastity rings a la Jonas Brothers are a big plus. The star has to be accessible but always slightly out of reach, cute but never sexual, perfectly behaved….and rather bland. Attracting and keeping the attention of young female fans, who tend to be fickle when it comes to the cuties they admire, is easier said than done.

But it’s impossible to put off the inevitable. The girls realize they’re at a puppet show when they see the strings. The star turns out to be a regular guy. After shedding a few tears and pouting a bit, the heartbroken and disappointed girls move on to the next object of their undying love.

During Campaign 2008, the American press corps hit a double by acting as both the editors of fluffy teenage magazines AND their audience: Weepy, starstruck young girls. The campaign coverage was breathless in its uncritical hero worship of candidate Obama while treating Hillary Clinton like the evil woman who comes between the adoring fan and the object of his/her adoration. The Yoko Ono of politics, if you will. The McCain camp spoofed this silly dynamic by putting out an ad drawing attention to the American Idol-like press coverage of the Obama campaign (the ad was removed from YouTube for copyright violations). And imagine how the press corps would have reacted if Bill Clinton had given his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention standing in front of a set bearing a distinct likeness to a Grecian temple.

Over a year has passed since Obama was sworn into office. Only now are the media beginning to ask whether the man they lost their heads over is the same guy from 2008. The jury’s still out with many in the press corps who continue to keep hope alive. For those who refuse to face the reality that Barack Obama is not the political Donny Osmond, the latest craze is blaming advisors for the Obama administration’s lack of legislative accomplishments. Never mind that Rahm Emanuel was not elected President and that it really doesn’t matter whether Valerie Jarrett chooses to hold court at a restaurant in Georgetown instead of pressing the flesh at an event (and you know things are getting dire when anyone in Obama’s circle is compared unfavorably to Bill Clinton, a man still reviled by the Washington press establishment). These people were appointed by the President to carry out his wishes. If Obama thought they were doing him a disservice they would be fired. The new narrative casting aspersions on the aides is a cop out. It advances the idea that these advisors fell out of the sky, formed a cabal and are now freelancing instead of following the orders of the First Boss. Nonsense.

Obama spent his first year holding a series of town halls, public meetings, press conferences and television interviews. But the bottom line is that legislatively the party has ground to a halt. The foolish narratives advanced by the media aren’t helping much. So the Republicans won an addition seat in Massachusetts? Yes, it’s a significant and important political story, but in a world populated by grown-ups going from a 60-40 supermajority in the Senate to 59-41 does not give the Democrats an out to fold their tents and go home. The Republicans haven’t achieved a supermajority in living memory but were still able to advance a controversial agenda during the tenure of George W. Bush. The fear and defeatism emanating from the Democratic caucus demonstrates an inability, or unwillingness, to lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s performance has been particularly timid. What ever happened to the Harry Reid who served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission:

A man named Jack Gordon, who later married LaToya Jackson, tried to give Reid a $12,000 bribe. Reid let the FBI videotape Gordon offering him the bribe, and then, according to aLas Vegas Review-Journal account, he “put his hands around Gordon’s neck and said, ‘You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me.’” That’s right, Senate Democrats are being led by a man who once tried to strangle LaToya Jackson’s future husband-manager.

The media have reached a crossroads. They can either do a group hug and cry over a dream deferred, an illusion they helped create, or they can stop searching for scapegoats and covering Obama as they would any other politician.

Will this happen? It’s hard to tell. It appears that the press have moved on to swoon over their next fascination: American Idol, er, Campaign 2012.

–
Cross Post from: ThePakistanUpdate.com

“My advice to the President is, with a great deal of respect, take New York off your radar screen,” the state’s senior senator told reporters. “Find another location.”

The most logical place,” added Schumer, “is in some isolated military base that is completely far away from population centers and is self-contained.”

Schumer’s middle-of-nowhere, military-base criteria came a day after President Obama said he has “not ruled out” bringing the trial to Manhattan Federal Court – despite a taxpayer tab estimated at $1 billion over five years.

We had thought after the shocking election of Scott Brown to Teddy Kennedy’s old senate seat, the message would have been clear. For a strong Obama ally like Schumer to come out publically and say ‘do not have the trials here’ – since the President seems to be hemming and hawing on this – it is a pretty good sign that Schumer is feeling the heat in his own state.

Part of the backlash that swept Scott Brown into office involved his campaigning on stopping the terror trials from being held in NY. The exhorbitant costs and added security the trials would involve, and who would pick up the tab, were issues upsetting to many. Politico is reporting that other Democrats in Congress likewise are running away from civilian terror trials, which are polling as very unpopular with the American people.

I advocated for Martha Coakley in the MA election and believe she was irrevocably hurt by saying these trials should be held in New York, and by allying herself with the Obama Administration, allowing him to campaign for her. This seemed to indicate she would be the crucial 60th vote on Mr. Obama’s unfortunate health care bill, however reluctantly. This sealed her fate. But as we have seen, the herd mentality in both parties makes it near impossible to stand alone. Trapped between being ostracized by her own party or going along to get along, she became the casualty, and scapegoat, of the message voters wanted to send the President and Congress. Once again, a qualified woman was cast aside.

Sen. Schumer is reading the tea leaves, both from MA’s special election and his own poll numbers, which are on the decline. Understandably, he is looking to protect his own behind with voters. This is yet another situation where President Obama’s policies are becoming toxic to his fellow Democrats.

Insiders said Monday that while the White House has all but taken the city off the table, it doesn’t want to make it official until a new site is lined up. The search is believed to extend well into the hinterlands, such as Colorado and Kansas.

AG Holder proposed 4 different location in upstate NY to Schumer, all of which he nixed.

“I told him that I was familiar with all four and none of them would work,” Schumer told the Daily News.

Further,

Some believe the whole debate may be moot, given GOP legislation that would block the feds from spending any money to try Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts. It is picking up support from Democrats too, such as Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon.

“The political landscape has changed dramatically on this,” said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.).

Mayor Bloomberg tried to stay out of the fray yesterday but reiterated that if the trial comes to New York, “We expect the federal government to pay for it.”

It appeared the Administration was going to backtrack on the NY trial location, yet by Senator Schumer choosing to draw a line in the sand publically, he indicates the American people’s voices are being heard. It will be curious to see who else is listening and what, if any, effect this will have on future policy.

What say you?

The first lady made the issue of healthy eating personal last week at an event in Alexandria, Va., where she kicked off a campaign addressing the issue of childhood obesity.

“We went to our pediatrician all the time,” Obama said. “I thought my kids were perfect — they are and always will be — but he [the doctor] warned that he was concerned that something was getting off balance.”

“I didn’t see the changes. And that’s also part of the problem, or part of the challenge. It’s often hard to see changes in your own kids when you’re living with them day in and day out,” she added. “But we often simply don’t realize that those kids are our kids, and our kids could be in danger of becoming obese. We always think that only happens to someone else’s kid — and I was in that position.”

It is my sense that the first lady should not have mentioned her own children in this debate. I don’t think she was trying to shame her kids publically. But by using them as an example to show other families she is in the same position they are, she is being insensitive to the fact that Sasha and Malia live in the worst kind of goldfish bowl — growing up with attention paid to their every move. Young girls are sensitive enough about their appearance without their schoolmates reading on the net that their Mom is worried about the size of their behinds.

I have personal experience with this, being on a diet since age 11. I always felt criticized at home for my baby fat and sensed I was being closely monitored. The result was a bad relationship with food that lasted for years. I have at one time been borderline anorexic and at other times, subject to binge eating. While I have been relatively slim my entire life, it took me until I was nearly 40 to forget about dieting (p.s., diets don’t work).

Oddly, when I no longer obsessed over what I ate, I started exercising regularly and ate what I felt like. I threw my scale in the trash. Checking the fit of my pants is good enough to see if I need to lay off the bread for a few days. It took 30 years to figure this out. At 51, I’m probably in the best shape of my life. And for the record, a mother clothes shopping for her daughter, making comments to the saleslady while her child is within earshot such as “Give her the next size, she needs it is the hips” is a killer.

Worry and fear creates the obsession. Making a child hyper aware of his or her weight and appearance can make food a drug of choice and grow any potential eating disorder into a worse problem than it might have been. A better answer is modeling good behavior. By setting an example for her girls without preaching about it, I wonder if a better result is possible. Girls are always worried about being compared unfavorably to their mothers. To feel like Mommy does not approve of them in some way is a recipe for disaster. I’m no shrink, but common sense tells me that when children feel loved and approved of for who they are, it is possible they will not require “a drug of choice” to hide in.

Laura Collins Lyster-Mensh, an eating disorder activist and executive director of Families Empowered and Supporting Treatment of Disorder (F.E.A.S.T.) pointed out the First Lady should discuss “behavioral change, not weight loss”:

“We’ve confused health and weight in a way that’s very confusing for children and very confusing for parents,” Lyster-Mensh said. “When we speak publicly about putting our children on a diet, we start to get into weight stigma and confusing the message to families.”

The focus on obesity, Lyster-Mensh said, turns this into an issue of appearances, which does not bode well for children, especially girls.

“There is simply no reason to be pushing children into weight reduction diets and that’s the message parents out there get,” Lyster-Mensh said. “Dieting is a gateway drug to eating disorders for those with a biological predisposition to eating disorders.”

I do not pretend there is an easy solution. Obesity is a huge problem in our country brought on partially by obsession with too many electronic toys that keep one sitting on one’s backside, too much junk food, and no P.E. Not to mention kids internalizing the family stress around them.

What do you think the First Lady should have done? What is a better solution here.

Remembering my own time as a “tweener” I never appreciated being discussed in front of other people by my parents as though I were an inanimate object or their possession. I think it would have been prudent for the First Lady to remember that in her quest to help a national problem, her children do not need to be a casualty of that discussion.

President Barack Obama told Floridians that they were due to get $1.25 billion to construct a high-speed train line between Tampa and Orlando – money to create jobs. In the commercial world people start projects not just to keep people busy but also to realize a long-term gain – a profit. But this is not the real world. Not by any AMTRAK-On-Speed stretch of the imagination.

Florida has been thinking about high-speed rail for quite a while, connecting Tampa to Miami. When talk of free-flowing federal money started in 2008 they asked for $2.5 billion for the 84-mile Tampa-Orlando project and another $30 million for an environmental impact study for the Orlando-to-Miami run. So last Thursday they were promised half the cost of the track for half of the run – none of the Miami leg funding was approved by Washington.

A senior Florida Department of Transportation official in charge of the high-speed project, is unable to say how much of the Tampa-Orlando route could be constructed with the new federal money, or when work would begin.

When Florida asked for the $2.5 billion for the Tampa-Orlando leg, it told federal officials that the cost to connect Miami to Orlando is estimated at an additional $8 billion. Then, if they find that much more money in your pocket, they will still need to buy some trains.

The U.S. entered the rail era earlier than most of the world. Many of our tracks were laid before we had the ability to easily blast away entire mountains, so the tracks have more than a few curves and inclines. We have relied lately on heavy loads, such as coal and freight, to keep the rail operators profitable and therefore our existing tracks are not exactly in pristine shape. Furthermore, we have an interstate road system that already connects most major metropolitan areas in the country.

The argument that twenty years from now – the projected completion time for the system – we will need a new high-speed passenger rail system to ferry all the waiting travelers has not yet been convincingly laid down to the taxpayers.

Then there is the issue of acquiring the land for the rails and surrounding infrastructure – a process that inevitably will involve eminent domain. That is not going to be a smooth ride all the way up and down the line, and voter suspicions about government taking of property could only add to the growing distrust citizens already have for government bureaucrats pushing pet public projects.

Surely everyone is just holding their breath anticipating the ribbon cutting ceremony at the earmark-funded Mel Torme Depot.   Seriously.

The initial question, that should have been asked before this high-minded proposal was sped to the public, remains. Why dangle billions of taxpayer dollars out in front of mostly foreign rail development firms without putting on paper the total cost of COMPLETING the project and telling the taxpayers how and when they will have to pay the bill?

Jobs? The argument that it would cost too much to ship steel from Japan did not hold water when their ships sailed in with the great steel dump. Will governors push for immigration reform because Americans won’t take the labor jobs involved in the construction of the lines? There are too many questions that have not yet been asked to believe that this proposal has been thoroughly thought out with clarity and purpose.

The core of the Interstate Road System was planned from A to Z before the first dollars were put in the ground. This high-speed rail plan seems to be missing the requisite safely designed exit ramp for hard-working taxpayers.

“..rail requires heavy subsidies. At the end of the day, the great danger is that true high-speed rail could cost taxpayers even more than the tens of billions in subsidies that have been paid to Amtrak since the 1970s.” – Wendell Cox, Amtrak Reform Council 1999-2002. Opinion in the WSJ

Providing part of the money for part of a travel trail does not make sense.   Isn’t that like saying you are going to make a glove consisting only of a wristband?   Someday somebody is going to have to pay for the rest of the glove.

As a matter of fact, planning for future spending on HSR (High-Speed_rail) is already in the works.

“To maintain this forward motion, Congress should consider a dedicated funding program for HSR … that thoroughly examines and considers all opportunities, including an entitlement or perhaps a trust fund. In terms of magnitude, it must have a significant impact. Rep. Oberstar’s $50 billion draft bill is a good start.”
Peter Gertler works for ..

So, this is what a spending freeze looks like in Washington.

Congressman – Senator – Vice President – 37th President of the United States Lyndon Baines Johnson was a crude, tactless man. Bobby Kennedy loathed him. The photograph of Johnson taking the oath of office on Air Force One standing next to a shocked, blood-spattered Jacqueline Kennedy is one of the most tragic and iconic images of the 1960s. Conspiracy theorists driven by hatred of Johnson’s Vietnam policies – including filmmaker Oliver Stone – believe Johnson had a hand in Kennedy’s death, a theory that despite lack of proof is stubbornly resilient.

Mystery shrouds Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948, which many believe Johnson stole with a little help from his friends. In one infamous precinct, 202 ballots were cast alphabetically – all by “voters” who were dead at the time the election was held.

Johnson was a flagrant womanizer. He was ill-mannered, foulmouthed, crooked, stubborn and dead wrong on Vietnam. His tactic for getting his way, known as “the Johnson Treatment,” consisted of a little carrot and, when necessary, abundant stick. When charm didn’t work blackmail and brute force did the trick.

He didn’t like to lose and threw more than a few elbows to win. The “Daisy Girl” ad, which ran only once during his campaign for President against Barry Goldwater in 1964, is still considered one of the most effective attack ads ever made. Accusing your opponent of being a lunatic may not adhere to the Marquess of Queensbery rules but it wins elections.

So why remember this bully and lout?

Because when it came to doing the right thing for the little guy, Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat with a capital “D,” a politician who defied all expectations by being far ahead of his time. As President, he was responsible for designing the “Great Society” legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and helping the disadvantaged in his “War on Poverty.” All while fighting dyed-in-the-wool racist Congressmen, Senators and Governors and a public that had not yet reached a higher state of enlightenment on race relations. And all this without a White House Chief of Staff.

Does Lyndon Johnson sound like the sort of President who would have allowed members of his party to defy him and not feel the sharp end of the stick? Would Senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have been able grind the legislative process to a halt with no repercussions? Punishment would have been swift and severe. Committee assignments – gone. Funding for re-election – gone. You want to be a maverick? Political Siberia awaits.

Consider the new President’s conversation with Martin Luther King three days into Johnson’s term following the Kennedy assassination (and consider that he regarded civil rights an important enough issue that he spoke to MLK while the country was still in mourning). Consider his record on civil rights. Going after the Ku Klux Klan. Appointing the first black Supreme Court justice.

LBJ was no fool. He knew the risks of pushing a progressive agenda. “We have lost the South for a generation” Johnson said about the fate of the Democratic party after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But sign it he did.

His presidency has largely been defined by the debacle of Vietnam, by anti-war protesters chanting “hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” He was not a well-loved man when he left office.

But his amazing legacy of social reform brought about by sheer grit and determination remains.

When can the U.S. expect Obama to learn from his predecessor? When will he understand that allowing Congress to squabble like spoiled children and set the President’s agenda is allowing the tail to wag to the dog and makes the party – particularly the President – appear weak and indecisive? Or that the seating of one more Republican Senator doesn’t nullify the results of the 2008 election? That voters want a president who backs up his oratorical skills with action? That “change” wasn’t a focus group-approved slogan for voters, but an actual promise? That just because you inherit a mess of a war from your predecessor doesn’t mean you continue along the same path into quagmire – a dilemma that dogged Johnson’s presidency?

Obama is not Lyndon Johnson. He does not possess Johnson’s remarkable political skills or experience or his cutthroat approach to getting his way. Obama is an outstanding orator. But is he capable of gutsy leadership? Can he get his party in line?

The jury’s still out. During an ABC News interview following Scott Brown’s victory in Massacusetts, Obama warned Democrats in Congress not to “jam” a health care reform bill through now that they’ve lost their commanding majority in the Senate, and said they must wait for newly elected Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to be sworn into office.

Lyndon Johnson is rolling in his grave.

–
This piece was first published at: ThePakistanUpdate.com

What they wrote were potential accomplishments Obama might mention in his first State of the Union Address. I suggest you not consume any liquids (or food, for that matter), lest it end up all over your computer. Forewarned is forearmed.

First up is Mary Ellen (aka, Nunly, from Bad Habit), who is a resident of Illinois (you’ll see why I mentioned that below):

Obama Accomplishments in his first year as President:

He bought a dog.
**

He practiced his golf swing.
**
He spent plenty of family time on vacations.
**
He just learned that MA isn’t “The Kennedy Center”.
**
He found his list of campaign promises and he will dust them off and try to sell them again.
**
He found Joe Biden and will dust him off and try to sell him again. (to the highest bidder)
**
Last, but not least…he found his soul. Wait…no, false alarm, that was just a steaming pile of crap that Bo left in the Oval Office.
**
All in all…a typical year of politics for Obama. Just ask Illinois.

Yes, I would say so.

Then, regular reader, SFIndie, added:

~ He saved Chicago from the embarrassment of hosting the Olympics

~ He made it possible for more people to be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize, not for what they’ve accomplished but what they SAY they’ll accomplish

~ He got a B+ on his report card!

Ah yes, the grade he gave himself. That sounds about right for him.

As we prepare for Obama’s first SOTU, I ask what other “accomplishments” you think Obama has achieved this year? Let’s have them!

Like her or hate her, Sarah Palin has a habit of getting to the heart of the matter, deflating the b.s. balloon, or going for the jugular, depending on your perspective. This is her latest message to President Obama, posted on her Facebook page tonight. It upsets the apple cart of the denial-type spin that Obama’s surrogates have been spouting on the Sunday morning talk shows. What do you think?

Mr. President: Please Try, “I’m Listening, People,” Instead of “Listen Up, People!”

We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.

Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!” This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies. We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.

Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results. The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope. Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.

Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more? Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs. Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.

Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies. Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.

More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate. Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand? The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?

Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered. We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.

- Sarah Palin

What issues would you like to see President Obama address in his SOTU speech. How would you like to see him change course and do you think that is possible?

What would the assassinated President make of this week’s special election in Massachusetts, where a little-known Republican won the seat held by John and Bobby Kennedy’s younger brother Teddy for 47 years? What would they make of the GOP sending one of their own to sit in the US Senate for the first time since 1978?

A Republican winning the “Kennedy seat” would have been a joke a few weeks ago, a fantasy so preposterous that not even FOX’s Glenn Beck would have spoken of it on his program. That one of the most liberal states in the country, a state Barack Obama carried by 30 points in the 2008 election, would vote a conservative into office is devastating for the Democratic party, certainly, but particularly for Barack Obama, the candidate enthusiastically endorsed by the Kennedys – the closest a Democratic contender can get to being touched by the Almighty himself.

Given the huge embarrassment of this debacle and the potentially devastating effect this election could have on crucial pieces of legislation like national health care, the Democrats have done what they excel at in times of crisis: Form a circular firing squad. Exhibit A: The Kennedy family’s frantic CYA behavior. Not a pretty sight for sure.

So why did the Democratic contender for the seat blew a 30-point lead? Many silly theories abound. She wasn’t “exciting” enough (I’m scanning my brain trying to come up with a Massachusetts politician who can be characterized as “exciting.” None come to mind. John Kerry? Uh, no). She misspoke when she said Boston Red Sox legend Curt Schilling is a New York Yankee fan – a heresy comparable to a Pakistani politician telling a journalist that Imran Khan roots for India. But the actual reason Coakley’s loss was her her baffling indifference to campaigning. When asked why she was taking such a passive approach following a hard-hitting debate, she testily responded “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ Coakley has learned the hard way the answer to her arrogant “let them eat cake” quote is a definitive yes. Too late now.

There are other more bizarre theories being bandied about to explain the upset. Winner Scott Brown is good-looking. He posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine (although if a journalist dug out a photo of a Democrat posing in the buff that campaign would be over).

Absurd.

The reality is that the Massachusetts result is a canary in the coalmine for Democrats. The GOP is in the minority. The chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, is frequently ridiculed for his unpredictable and embarrassing behavior and flagrant expenditures that have left the party with less than $10 million in the bank. The party still suffers from a terrible image problem thanks to 8 years of Bush-Cheney.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are sitting on a hefty war chest. They control the executive and legislative branches of government.

And now they’ve lost a Senate seat in a traditionally liberal state.

The results of this election are a harsh rebuke to Democratic leadership, including Barack Obama. Particularly Barack Obama. He is the public face of the party. The man who promised hope and change, the president who was elected with the slogan “yes we can,” is now learning maybe we can’t. Not unless we do what we promised to do.

Handing out taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and standing by while that money is distributed in bonuses rewarding spectacular failure and lapses of judgment is not change. Guantanamo remains open for business. American homeowners continue to foreclose on their homes at a rapid clip. Banks aren’t loaning money to potential homebuyers. Refinancing is nearly impossible to obtain. Unemployment is hovering at around 10%. So what are the Democrats doing about this?

Clearly the voters of Massachusetts would answer “not enough.” And if the Democratic party doesn’t start taking care of business, the midterm elections of 2010 could make the upset in Massachusetts look like child’s play.

–
First Published at: The Pakistan Update

Now they have really started the Astroturfing for your support.

So I propose that everyone write a letter to the editor. Heck. Send it to every newspaper in the country and pretend you are from a town served by their paper. Here it goes.

Get congress aroused. Send this letter to your local newspaper and sign it
–Ellie Light.

Some of you may have already seen a letter similar (NOT) to the one above in your local paper. That letter, supposedly sent by someone in a town near you, was actually a FAKE. Sheeze. I may have a bridge for your editors. (h/t Sara)

Ellie Light: Obama Astroturfer? A woman has written the same letter defending Obama to dozens of publications across the country, getting them published in at least 42 newspapers in 18 states, as well as Politico.com, the Washington Times, and USA Today. And the woman, Ellie Light, has claimed residence in many of these states.
Link to the research here and here.

Here is the original letter, from which I crafted the above:

You can Google: Ellie Light   Even Ben Smith at Politico got duped and ran it.

Don’t believe anything you read. But you can HOPE the problems being created will wash off in the morning. Watch this.

UPDATED:: From Patterico’s Pontifications:

Who is Mark Spivey? Another Obama Astroturfer; UPDATED With Still More Astroturfing

I joined a Facebook group called “Who is Ellie Light?” This morning I was invited to join a new group: “Who is Mark Spivey?”

Who is Mark Spivey? I know only this: that he is the author of this pro-Obama letter that has appeared in numerous publications:

A recent Associated Press article stated that President Barack Obama’s hesitancy on the Afghan war buildup implies weakness.

I wish world leaders had more of that kind of weakness. Clearly, Obama does not want to send soldiers into harm’s way without a clear goal, a solid plan and an exit strategy, three aspects sorely missing from former President George W. Bush’s military ventures.

I know that we Americans are used to presidents who play cowboy, who say things like “bring ’em on” and “mission accomplished” without a second thought; presidents who send Americans into battle on falsified weapons reports.

But it seems our current president understands that you don’t send soldiers into battle without first nailing down what they’re supposed to be doing, and why.

So hats off to Obama’s “hesitation.” Soldiers are human beings, not chess pieces. It’s about time we get a president who understands that.

— Mark Spivey

The letter has appeared — at a minimum! — at The Minnesota Daily, at the Baltimore Chronicle (on the same page as Ellie Light’s letter!), at the San Diego Union-Tribune (where he claims to be from San Diego), at the Naples News (where he claims to be from Naples, Florida), and at Buzzflash.com.

And there are more. You know what to do.

Patterico’s Ponitifcations adds some updates, too:

In more Ellie Light (emphasis mine) news, Dan Riehl and LeftCoastRebel are on the trail of Ellie Light.

Also: Ed Morrissey forwarded me an e-mail he received from Ellie Light several days ago. The mail appears to have been routed through the IP address 212.24.236.50, which comes back to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia??

I assume this is some sort of masking or spoofing device and not the actual location of “Ellie Light.” Which makes you wonder: why does a grandma writing letters on behalf of Obama use an IP spoofer?

Finally, the latest count for Ellie Light’s letter. It has appeared in at least 62 publications in 29 states and the District of Columbia; national publications and a Yahoo link; and 2 foreign publications.

Not bad for a single individual. Just think of how many rejects she got.

UPDATE x2: Another example: this time identical pro-Obama letters allegedly written by two completely different people. Details here.