Once said, never forgotten

In The American Prospect, Paul Starr writes about the Tea Party and why the Democrats should have no part of them. It seems that Mr. Starr did not bother to do any independent research for his piece, however. Here is his description of the tea partiers. "Overwhelmingly white, well off, and aging, the Tea Partiers are a classic reactionary group. While denouncing the Democrats' supposed government takeover of health care, they want Medicare left untouched." He is correct only in that the tea party is mostly white and denounces the takeover of health care. The only data on the teapartiers, however, comes from the New York Times CBS poll. That poll showed that as a group the tea party members were slightly older than the group of all voters. Not aging, but slightly older. The poll also showed that the percentage of tea party members who were well off was about 5% higher than the population as a whole. Of course, that is another way of saying that there were fewer people under 30 (the group most likely to lack those who are well off). Finally, the poll expressly asked the tea party members if they would favor cuts to Medicare in order to achieve a smaller deficit in the budget. 73% said yes! So, Starr's statement that the tea party wants Medicare left untouched is just BS. Indeed, the charge comes right out of a piece written by Tim Rutten of the LA Times last month. Ruttin got it wrong. Now Starr is just repeating it. It is still wrong!

the truth is that the tea party is not a "classic reactionary group." That would be a group in power that was fighting to hold on to its power and avoid change. To me, that sounds like the definition of the Obama administration and the Obamacrats. So far, they have used their power to pay off their allies like unions and trial lawyers. The stimulus gave more to government employees at state and local levels than any other group. The GM and Chrysler bailouts were gifts to the UAW (which got big stakes in both companies.). Obama and the obamacrats have used their power to help their supporters in big business. For example, despite the language of their various statements, Obama and the Obamacrats locked in profits for years to come for the big pharmaceutical companies with the healthcare bill. Now, they are trying to give the big Wall street firms an advantage over smaller rivals with the financial "reform" bill. After all, only the biggest firms will be able to navigate the new regulations successfully in a cost effective manner. These big firms will get a competative advantage. It is amazing that the Obamacrats cast Republicans as the defenders of Wall Street when it is the Obamacrats who are actually the champions of big business. If you do not believe this, ask yourself why goldman Sachs gave five times as much money to Obama as it did to McCain. Indeed, after trial lawyers and unions, Wall Street is the biggest supporter the Democrats have.

It would be nice if there were an active press that would review the hypocracy of the Obamacrats. Unfortunately, there is almost no one left who actually practices classic journalism. Instead we are left (far left) with propaganda masquerading as news, and opinion pieces like that of Mr. Starr that are based upon falsehoods.