Alinsky tactics proving as tough to quit as the nicotine habit:
Clearly the tea-baggers aren't controlling the agenda for Democrats or the Democrats might not be looking at 99 vulnerable seats in the House this year. Just to be clear though, it wasn't the unanimous opposition to the stimulus bills that fostered the tea party protests, it was that Democrats passed enormous spending bills that have been since proven to have done little or nothing to improve the economy. Had those stimulus measures proven successful the Republicans would be walking away from a small government platform. Instead, they embrace it.
Three days after he decried the lack of civility in American politics, President Obama is quoted in a new book about his presidency referring to the Tea Party movement using a derogatory term with sexual connotations.In Jonathan Alter’s “The Promise: President Obama, Year One,”President Obama is quoted in an November 30, 2009, interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills “set the tenor for the whole year ... That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.”
Obama isn't interested in the truth of the growing opposition to his disastrous policies. He is merely interested in demonizing it, despite his protestations to the contrary. He sets the tone with his hypocrisy. While he may try, Obama can't feign ignorance on the negative connotations of the term, as Allahpundit points out. He knows and I think it is a safe bet he uses it privately all the time. The Blogprof has a history of prominent Democrats who likely use the term so frequently they slipped when using it in public.
I would venture a guess whatever Jonathan Alter included in this behind-the-scenes book on the "promise" of year one of the Obama presidency is likely less harmful than what wasn't included. There were a few more tidbits noted in the ABC report linked above including a report Rahm Emmanuel opposed the pursuit of health care in the first year. This is not a stunning revelation. It's been clear for some time Rahmbo had hoped to keep the Democratic majority he carefully cobbled together. Obama, in contrast, hasn't lifted a finger to elect the majority whose support he enjoys. Is it any wonder he so casually asked them to sacrifice their office in service of his?