Thursday, October 22, 2009

Philadelphia’s Field of Dreams: 2009 Phillies Like 1929 Athletics

The 1989 movie “Field of Dreams” was about an Iowa farmer, Ray Kinsella, who was supernaturally commanded to build a baseball field on his farm. Once built, the 1919 Chicago White Sox were reincarnated to play on it.

There is a Field of Dreams in Philadelphia – like the movie, this field also has reincarnated a past team - because the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies seem to be a reincarnation of the 1929 Philadelphia Athletics.

They have several things in common.

The 2009 Philadelphia Phillies are the first professional baseball team in Philadelphia to win consecutive league championships since the Athletics accomplished this feat in 1929, 1930 and 1931. The Athletics took the American League pennant during those years – and two consecutive World Series championships in 1929 and 1930.

The similarities between the two do not end there though. They are eerily similar.

Like the ’09 Phillies, the ’29 Athletics featured a slugging first baseman, Jimmie Foxx, who later became a Hall of Famer. In fact, the team had five Hall of Famers – Foxx, catcher Mickey Cochrane, outfielder Al Simmons and pitcher Lefty Grove, as well as the owner/manager, Connie Mack.Both teams featured excellent pitching and defense as well as hitting. Both featured clutch hitting.

The perfect example of this was Game 4 of the 1929 World Series, as told by Sports Illustrated writer and baseball historian, William Nack, in his August 1996 Sports Illustrated story about the ’29 Athletics.Mr. Nack wrote, “By the middle of the seventh inning of Game 4, the Cubs were winning 8-0… Simmons …struck a thunderous home run that bounced on the roof of the pavilion in left, making the score 8-1.”

According to Nack, four successive Athletics got hits, including Philadelphian Jimmie Dykes, and the score was 8-3. Second baseman, Max Bishop, got a single and Dykes scored making it 8-4.Then outfielder “Mule” Haas hit an inside-the-park three run homer making it 8-7. The score was tied after Cochrane walked and scored after singles by Simmons and Foxx.

The next batter was hit by a pitch. This loaded the bases with Dykes coming to bat. He hit a ball off the wall in left field making the score 10-8. The Athletics staff pitched two scoreless innings in the eighth and the ninth and won the game.

The current Phillies roster has played many come from behind games – especially in championship games - including Jimmy Rollins’ double with two outs in Game 4, Monday night.

The current Phillies also resemble another Athletics team in one regard. This team was the first Philadelphia professional baseball club to win back-to-back pennants. The 1910 and 1911 Athletics featured one of the greatest infields of all time.

They were called the “$100,000 infield.” While not much by today’s standards, this was an era when there were no television revenues and a season’s attendance was less than a million.The infielders were Stuffy McInnis, Eddie Collins, Jack Barry, and Frank “Home Run” Baker.

McInnis played first base; Collins played second, Barry shortstop and Baker third. Collins, a Hall of Famer, had a lifetime batting average of.333 and is considered the greatest second baseman of all time. Baker’s nickname tells it all.

The 2009 Phillies infield of Ryan “Home Run” Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, and Pedro Feliz is approaching that status, if they have not already achieved it.However, the 2009 Phillies have one distinction that is uniquely their own.

This the first Phillies team ever - in the club’s 126 year history – to win consecutive pennants.Indeed, the Phillies’ history is dismal. They hold the record as having lost the most games of any American professional sports franchise.

The club only appeared twice in the World Series prior to 1980. It was that season – nearly 100 years after being formed – that they won their first World Series championship.

They only appeared twice more in the World Series from 1981 to 2007. They won the National League pennant in their 1983 centennial year – losing to the Baltimore Orioles in the World Series. They won the National League title again in 1993 - losing to the Toronto Blue Jays in the World Series.

Finally, last year they won the 2008 World Series for only the second time in the team’s history. They did so behind two phenomenal pitchers, clutch hits and the greatest infield in the majors.

There is a sequence in “Field of Dreams” where Shoeless Joe Jackson, played by Ray Liotta, turns to Ray Kinsella, played by Kevin Costner and asks: “Is this heaven?”Kinsella/Costner replies, “No, it’s Iowa.”Wednesday night the fans of the 2009 Phillies wondered if this were heaven – to which one can reply:

“No, it’s Philadelphia.”

Friday, October 16, 2009

Job Available, Football Running Back; Whites Need Not Apply

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Since writing about the possibility of reverse discrimination in football last week (Tremoglie’s Tea Time Blog Oct. 8, 2009, I have received some examples of this and there has been a very public controversy involving the National Football League.

My article was prompted by a quote from Stanford University Cardinals running back Toby Gerhart I read in Sports Illustrated magazine. Gerhart, who is white, said that white running backs are stereotyped.

First, the public controversy:

Rush Limbaugh was prohibited from being a member of a group that was trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise, largely, it seems, because of totally bogus quotes attributed to him that slavery was a good thing and an assassin of a civil rights figure should receive a medal.

These quotes were repeated by a mainstream media that did not bother to do the slightest due diligence in checking the source of them and realize these were hoaxes.

Limbaugh was labeled a racist. This is not true of course. The racism label is used to quiet any political dissent. It has no bearing to someone’s racial attitudes.

Never mind that Limbaugh counts among his friends such as Marcus Allen, a former great running back with the LA Raiders and Clarence Thomas. Or that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams guest host for him occasionally. The aforementioned are all African-Americans.

Black Americans are calling black person defending Limbaugh Uncle Tom’s.

For example, Warren Ballantine, an African-American talk radio show host, who calls himself the, “People’s Attorney” used a derogatory term to describe Juan Williams, an African-American journalist defending Limbaugh’s parody of a column written by an African-American columnist called “Barack the Magic Negro.”

Here is a transcript of what occurred on the Bill O’Reilly Show.
BILL O'REILLY: The reason that Limbaugh is not going to be able to buy into the NFL is because a bunch of made-up stuff became legend, and he got hammered.WARREN BALLANTINE: OK, we won't look at the made-up stuff. Let's look at him playing "Barack the Magic Negro", and we're going to say that's just funny, that's just a joke, that's not racial either. It is racial to real black people.JUAN WILLIAMS: Hey Warren, you were saying my argument was a red herring. Maybe you should do some research, go back and find out that it was an article written by a black person, headlined "Barack the Magic Negro."BALLANTINE: He made it a song and played it on his show.WILLIAMS: So what? He was making fun of it.BALLANTINE: You can go back to the porch, Juan. You can go back. It's OK.

Such is civility in the America of Barack Obama the great unifier.

I have also received anecdotal information about white running backs that have not played despite objective evidence that they are very talented.

Two players cited were Peyton Hillis and Jacob Hester – both of whom were white. Hillis plays for the Denver Broncos and Hester for the San Diego Chargers.

According to the information I received, although I did not verify it first hand, is that they are both superior players to those who are starting, who are black.

Here is one comment: “Peyton Hillis is bigger, stronger, faster and has a better yard per carry average than “KnowShow” Moreno. Not to mention he is a much better blocker. Yet, he is sitting on the bench and Knowshow is starting. Jacob Hester led LSU to a national title at LSU (you know, the SEC...”best conference in the nation”) with over 1000 yards rushing and a 5.5 yard per carry”

I cannot verify who is faster Moreno or Hillis. The standard used to judge how fast a runner and how capable a running back a player will be is the 40 yard dash time.

Some sources say that Moreno has a slightly faster 40 yard dash time than Hillis. This is inconclusive.

However, Brian Leonard, who was drafted out Rutgers by the St. Louis Rams (the team Limbaugh wanted to buy), had a 4.49 40 yard time, was relegated to the fullback position which Toby Gerhart said is reserved for supposedly slower white players.

Yet, Leonard’s 4.49 is much faster than Knowshon Moreno’s 4.62 run in the 2009 combine.[1] Tony Fiammetta’s was also faster. Neither one start at running back.

Another example was furnished to me in a newspaper article about a New Jersey high school player. Dillon Romain, was passed by for scholarships by every Division I A program.

“He had qualified academically for college with a 3.0 grade-point average and 1,410 on the SAT, Joe Romain said. He ran the 40-yard dash in a swift 4.46 seconds. He stood out for a nationally renowned program. He had been to countless camps and clinics, getting noticed by the right people,” according to article by Matthew Stanmyre, which appeared in the October 14, 2009 New Jersey Star-Ledger.

The Star-Ledger quoted Chris Melvin, a New Jersey-based high school talent evaluator from Elite Recruits as saying, “In this case he didn’t do anything wrong. He just got overlooked for whatever reason.

Don Bosco coach Greg Toal also praised Romain. “It’s rare that any player cracks the starting lineup so quickly at the school, but didn’t hesitate. “He had all the qualities you want. He can block. He can run. He can catch. There’s nothing he can’t do well,” he said to the Star-Ledger.

Both gentlemen told the Star-Ledger what they think is an issue not said. “Melvin and Toal think a contributing factor could be that Romain is white and plays running back. ‘”Being a white running back is not the easiest thing,” Toal said. “There’s stereotypes out there in this day and age.”’

Could Gerhart, Toal and Melvin – three different people, one in California and two in New Jersey – all be imagining this?

Or could it be that in football the rule is “White Running Backs Need Not Apply” just as it was a generation ago when the same rule applied to black quarterbacks?

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Limbaugh, Magic Negroes, Race-Baiting and the NFL

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Ever since it was learned that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was attempting to buy a share of the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise there has been a steady drumbeat to prevent this. The approach of those who oppose this is fairly predictable. They use race-baiting.

There is a certain element in the United States – and you can add Western Europe – that labels as racism any criticism or parody of any issue or person who is African-American or Hispanic-American. Occasionally, this accusation is justified. Most of the time it is not, it is simply a smear tactic to silence a critic.

With Limbaugh there is plenty of criticism and parodies of liberals - both white and black - to use.

For example, much has been made about the “Magic Negro” parody of Obama by Limbaugh. They say it proves he is a racist.

Yet, the term “Magic Negro” was applied to Obama March 19, 2007, by Los Angeles Times columnist David Ehrenstein, who is African-American. Limbaugh was actually mocking this.

Ehrenstein, wrote, “Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the ‘"Magic Negro."’The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education.”

Note that the term was coined by sociologists – not by Limbaugh. The term is used to describe a black man who assuages white guilt. This is what Limbaugh was parodying.

The people who spread the smear of Limbaugh being a racist know this. They are just relying on the ignorance, or betraying the trust, of the people they tell this to so that these people will influence the decisions of others.

Because it is not just about Limbaugh, it is about his audience as well.

Make people believe that anyone who listens to Limbaugh is a racist and people will not admit they listen to him. They will not think their attitudes and beliefs are truen. They will not talk about the issues and concerns he mentions.

Pretty soon ratings will dwindle and Limbaugh is out of business. If Limbaugh is out of business, then his exposure of the hypocrisy and corruption of liberal organizations, the liberal mainstream media and the leftwing of the Democratic Party will be unknown largely, as it was in the era when the news was dominated by the New York Times, Washington Post and the three major networks.

This is why they have resorted to lying about what Limbaugh said.

Many of the racist quotes attributed to Limbaugh are false. Even the leftwing Media Matters of America could not state that Limbaugh said slavery was a good thing - as has been reported. They did mention the quote about Philadelphia Eagles’ quarterback Donovan McNabb. Limbaugh said that the media was giving McNabb credit because they wanted to see a black quarterback succeed; meanwhile they ignored the contributions of the team’s defense – which also had black players.

I emailed a gentleman named Dave Zirin, a sportswriter with the leftwing magazine, The Nation (Who knew The Nation has a sportswriter? Does the Weekly Standard have one for the rightwing?). I asked him to give me the original source - meaning something that Limbaugh said slavery was a good thing. Something he actually wrote or he actually said - not someone saying he said or wrote it.

I’ll let you know the results. Don't count on getting the information I asked.

Because this is all designed to ruin Limbaugh’s career. America’s leftists, liberals and Democrats all believe he has prevented their complete domination of the national politics of America they way they have dominated the politics of America’s large cities – especially in the Northeast United States ( For example, here in Pennsylvania the American capitalist democracy is sandwiched between the People’s Republics of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh).

How stupid do these liberals think Americans are after all? Limbaugh’s audience knows that African-American economists such as Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams guest-host his show occasionally. The audience knows of Limbaugh’s friendship with the African-American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Once he even had Chris Matthews as a guest host.

The average American has caught on to the Democrats and liberals race-baiting. When did they come to realize it for what it was.

It may have begun years ago when a liberal talk show host, Phil Donahue, who at the time dominated the media, was interviewing a black Chicago congressman. Donahue used the “n” word. The congressman demanded he apologize and Donahue refused.

There were no headlines or calls for Donahue to resign. No one called Donahue a racist.

The double standard is easy to explain. Liberals do not like to acknowledge their own racism.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Reverse Discrimination in Football?

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

“As a white running back you get stereotyped,” Stanford University running back Toby Gerhart said during an interview in the October 12, 2009 edition of Sports Illustrated.

“When I tell people I play football they say, ‘Oh, you’re a fullback,’” he said. For those unfamiliar with the sport, fullbacks are running backs who rely more on strength then speed. However, they rarely carry the ball. Their role is usually reserved to block for the running back.

Gerhardt then mentioned during one football game that he overheard a coach from the University of Washington refer to him by yelling, “He’s not fast enough to turn the corner!”

Is there reverse discrimination in football? It would seem so – in fact, there seems to be racial discrimination in general.

White Men Can’t Run?

It is a fact that in football at all levels - in the college ranks and especially in the NFL ranks of professional football - there is a paucity of white running backs.

The same applies to white wide receivers, another position for which speed is a necessity. There are a few. The Philadelphia Eagles have a white wide receiver Kevin Curtis. Eagles’ quarterback Donovan McNabb, an African-American, has dubbed Curtis “white lightning.”

The conventional wisdom is that white players are too slow. Sportswriters and broadcasters, who are primarily white, seem to have propagated this.

The great Denver Broncos player, Shannon Sharpe, who played tight end, alluded to this concept when he commented about his teammate white teammate wide receiver Ed McCaffrey, was criticized that he was too slow.

Sharpe, who is African-American, addressed the issue. He said, “If Ed McCaffrey was black, I don’t think you would hear it mentioned that he is slow. It’s a misconception. How many players have (Denver Broncos wide weceiver) Anthony Miller-type speed? There aren’t many black, white, red, yellow, green or Chinese.”[1]

Sharpe also said that McCaffrey’s race impeded his earnings. He claimed that if McCaffrey were black he would be making more money than he did.

Are the Media To Blame?

Broadcasters are primarily white – as are the owners of the television and radio networks that broadcast the games. While progress has been made incorporating more African-American commentators, broadcasters and journalists, for a sport in which the majority of players are black the field is still clearly dominated by white males.

They bring with them their own prejudices. If one is around a group of sportswriters long enough eventually they will mention something about “slow white guys.”

This might be the source of the problem Toby Gerhart mentioned.

Perhaps they are trying to compensate for years of past racial discrimination. They are trying to erase the era when few, if any, black men competed with whites in college and professional sports – including football.

Although the NFL did have a black coach, Fritz Pollard, during the 1920’s, he was the only one until 1989 when Art Schell became the head coach of the Los Angeles Raiders.

Blacks were so rare as head coaches, despite comprising the majority of players, that in 2003 the NFL established the Rooney Rule named after the Pittsburgh Steelers owner. It mandated that NFL franchises must interview minority candidates for head coaching positions.

As laudable as this rule is it may not have been necessary if an NFL franchise had been owned by an African-American. It was not until 2005 that an NFL team, the Minnesota Vikings, was owned by an African-American.

Yet, these are not the only places in football were blacks are without representation.

Black Men Can’t Kick?

As rare as it is to see a white running back in football, it is even more unusual to see a black kicker or punter. Not one of the 32 NFL teams has a punter or a kicker who is black.

Is there not one African-American in the ranks of college football or the minor leagues who is not qualified to punt, make a field goal or kick off?

Or is that sportswriters, broadcasters, coaches, scouts, general managers, and other front office officials have the same bias against African-American kicking specialists as they do against white running backs?

It took those involved in the sport of football a long time to evolve from the absurd thinking that blacks were not sufficiently intelligent to play quarterback. How long will it take for them to progress to the point where they will realize that white men can play running back.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Demagogues (Democrats) Gone Wild

Fact versus Fiction about Nonprofits
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

One of the most pernicious deceptions liberal Democrats have propagated during the health insurance reform debate is about the role of nonprofits. Experts at fear mongering, hate mongering and demagoguery, the Democrats have succeeded in perpetrating the myth that if an entity is government run it is not-for-profit. If it is not-for-profit, it is purely altruistic - existing solely for the greater good.

The biggest demagogues are Senators Schumer and Rockefeller. Their methods are classic. They demonize the “profit making” of private insurance companies while praising the “altruism” of the nonprofit.

They engage in the usual fallacies of the demagogue. They use the argument ad verecundiam (appealing to an authority) and establishing false dichotomies.

So far only Sen. John Ensign and Dr. Donald Palmisano, a former American Medical Association president, have exposed the speciousness of the nonprofit/government entity altruism claim. Predictably it has not received much repetition in the mainstream media. Indeed, Thomas Frank, a particularly vacuous liberal columnist for the Wall Street Journal continued this spurious theme in a column he wrote.

It is vital for an informed public to review the refutations of the claims by the reformers of the moral superiority of a government run system. Here are some claims followed by the facts:

· Claim: Private insurers are only interested in making a profit for their stockholders. Nonprofits have only the good of the community as their interest.

Fact: “Nonprofits” are also concerned about making profits. Their profits are returned to the operation of the business.

· Claim: Private insurers deny claims because they put patients before profits.

Fact: A study by the American Medical Association determined that during 2008 the largest denier of claims was Medicare. Medicare denied 6.85% of the claims received. By contrast Humana only denied 2.9% of the claims they received; Cigna only denied 2.56% of their claims.

· Claim: Private insurers are only profit making.

Fact: 44% of private insurance companies are nonprofit. Among these are the dominant companies in some markets. The paradigm of the wealthy nonprofit company is the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans of many states which are very profitable nonprofits or which were so profitable as nonprofits that they converted recently to profit making.

Finally, there is one aspect of nonprofits that no one as mentioned that is worth reviewing.

Nonprofits do not pay taxes and those who donate to them deduct their donation from taxation. This deprives the community of funds.

The Democrats are confusing the public about the nature of nonprofits.
Whatever a nonprofit is, it is not the same as a charity. The two are not synonymous.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Sen. Ensign Revealed Truth of Rockefeller’s Public Option Plan

Exposed Demagoguery
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

During the October 1 debate, by the Senate Finance Committee, of the Sen. Rockefeller’s public option amendment to the health insurance reform bill, Republican Sen. John Ensign revealed that the proposed plan would have remained government run - despite Democrat Sen. Rockefeller’s contention it would not. Ensign also exposed Rockefeller’s demagoguery.

The demonization of insurance companies “profit motive” by Mr. Rockefeller was the key to his thesis for socialized medicine. He said that private insurance companies are more concerned about profits rather than providing for their customers. This is in line with the “patients not profits” mantra used by those who favor socialized medicine.

Yet, Ensign pointed out that nearly half of the health insurance companies in the United States are not-for-profit. Watching the hearing on C-SPAN, Rockefeller looked like a kid who got caught stealing from the cookie jar as Ensign spoke.

Another claim made last week by Mr. Rockefeller, when he introduced the amendment providing for a public option, or what he called the “Consumer Choice Health Plan” was the lack of permanent government control. He claimed that the public option would only be government run for two years and would not lead to a single payer system.

However, Ensign illustrated the speciousness of this claim.

Sen. Ensign provided an eloquent analysis of the fallacious claims by Sen. Rockefeller and debunked the myths.

Public Option Not As Popular As Some Democrats Claim

He began by observing that although the Democrats claimed - and cited polls – the public option was popular, he asked, rhetorically, “Why is it that so many Democrats have a problem with it?”

The answer he said was simple, “It’s not popular.”

Patients Not Profits Debunked

He asked Yvette Fontenot, a Senate Finance Committee staffer, a witness before the committee how many people who will enroll in the public option. He then noted that 44% of private health insurance is offered by not-for-profit companies in the United States - some of which are the dominant companies in certain markets (Pennsylvania being one of them).

This essentially negated Rockefeller’s demonizing of the profit motive, which he made a central part of his opening statement.

Despite Rockefeller’s Claim Government Would Continue to Run It

Ensign then took aim at Rockefeller’s claim that the government would not be running the public option after two years. He asked Ms. Fontenot, “Who’s going to be running the public option after two years?”

Ms. Fontenot replied that an administrator would be. (Sen. Schumer can be heard whispering that this is the same as Medicaid. As if Medicaid is not government run.)

He asked Fontenot for whom the administrator would work. She replied that it would be the federal government.

“So the person running the plan would work for the government, yet it’s not a government run plan,” stated Ensign. He remarked that this was not quite logical.

He then noted how Medicaid and Medicare caused a cost shifting to private insurance because the government fixes the prices instead of allowing the market to do so. This would be the same with the public option.

Governmental intrusion into the market would cause private insurance rates to increase rates, sending more people to the public option. Eventually this would eliminate the private companies. (N.B. This has occurred in Europe.)

Ensign proffered that the law establishing the public option would be impossible to repeal. Such government entities, he said, establish government bureaucracies. This will prevent the repeal of this plan at a later date, Ensign hypothesized, because government bureaucrats will have political power.

Ultimately, there would be a single payer system, which he noted, does not work well. He cited the case of a Canadian politician who campaigned against private health insurance in Canada, only to come to the US for medical treatment because of the long waits in Canada. He also said that the Canadians cap expenses, which is why they have the waiting lists. He also cited the fact the British health system is the world’s third largest employer.

The Senate committee rejected the Rockefeller amendment, however, Ensign’s articulate refutation of the spurious assertions made by Rockefeller and his allies, revealed the demagoguery and mendacity of those who favor socialized medicine.

Those of us who have been studying the issue of single-payer, socialized medicine for years (my research began in 1993), already knew what Ensign said was true. This is the first time though one can recall such a cogent rebuking of it by a member of the Senate.

MSM Tries Ridiculing Ensign

It is also interesting to note that many in the media –Marie Cocco and Lisa Mascaro in particulare – have attempted to ridicule Sen. Ensign’s presentation. This is a sure indication of how effective it was.

All those opposed to this attempted power play by liberal Democrats should contact Sen. Ensign’s office and express their gratitude (Not being from Nevada I do not know the number to call.)

Friday, October 2, 2009

Obama's Fame Fails to Qualify in Olympic Bid

A Guide to Liberal Media Damage Control Spin & Lies

By Michael P. Tremoglie

Tea Time Blog

The liberal media - mainstream and fringe - will spend the next few days rationalizing, alibiing, justifying and making excuses to explain or minimize the effect on Barack Obama's image that Chicago's failure to be selected as the site for the 2016 Olympic games.

Some of the lies from the liberal mainstream media will include:

  • Bush did it too. This will be in response to the criticism that Obama had more important things to do, including saving lives of American military personnel, than worrying about Chicago's games.

This is a lie. The fact is Bush did not do it too. The 2012 selection process was the most hotly contested one in history. Tony Blair and Jacque Chirac got involved. Bush did not. He was concerned about more important issues.

  • Republicans rooted for America to lose. This will be bandied about by liberals who resent the idea that some Americans wanted Obama to fail.

Of course, these liberals won't explain how they wanted the Olympics so they could say how successful Obama is. This is despite the fact that many advocacy groups for the poor and for African-Americans did not want funds spent on the Olympics. They wanted them spent on social programs.

  • This means nothing about Obama's image. This will be the mother of all media lies.

The mainstream media, liberals and Democrats have been telling us how loved Mr. Obama is by the rest of the world. They tell us he is a rockstar in the international community. They say he has enormous influence with foreign countries. They say America's image abroad has improved dramatically because of Obama.

President Obama assigned great importance to this. He threw the weight of his office, of his alleged stardom behind the effort to influence the selection committee. His wife did as well.

Indeed, some of the Obama's media flock said that this was Mrs. Obama's "biggest assignment in the nine months since coming to the White House. " They noted that Mrs. Obama said she will "take no prisoners" in her campaign to make Chicago the chosen city.

The Manhattan Media Myrmidons said that Mrs. Obama "stole the show" in Copenhagen. They said she got the "gold" while her husband got the "silver" from the adoring Danes. They said that the Obama's were "global brands" and "international superstars."

Live by the spin, die by the spin. If Chicago received the bid there would have been saccharine stories ad nauseum of how the Obama's wowed and dazzled the selection committee. They would proclaim that it was the presence of their personalities alone that was responsible for securing the selection. They would announce how the international community, which scorned Bush, was ready to welcome America again.

So implying it does not matter to Obama is pure liberal mendacity.

What the liberal mainstream media did not say - what they will not say - was why was President Barack Hussein Obama there in the first place. They will not talk about the environmental and financial hypocrisy that was involved in this lobbying campaign by Obama.

A - The United States is in the midst of the rising unemployment and economic chaos at home - yet he feels comfortable spending all this money to fly to Copenhagen to make a speech he could have made by telecommunications.

B- Obama's cap-and-trade environmental policies will add costs to Americans. If he is the environmental president, why create this huge carbon footprint to lobby for an event that will create an even greater carbon footprint.

C- The war in Afghanistan is spinning out of control. President Obama has not had time to meet with his own general, the person he put in charge of the effort there, to talk about issues involving the lives of American military personnel. Yet, he can talk about some games being played in Chicago?

No, the media will not ask these questions or make these statements. Such invective is reserved for Republican presidents only.

No, instead, the liberal media will do everything in their power to rehabilitate Obama's image - especially in matters of international relations. Remember, not only has Obama screwed up in Afghanistan, he was derided by the leaders of France and the United Kingdom for his United Nations speech about Iran and nuclear weapons.

I just wonder if the liberal media will call the International Olympic Committee selection panel racist?