Update: James DeLong at The Enterprise Blog captures my reaction without my snark or underlying dislike of the media. H/T: NRO.

The Journolist quotes today released by The Daily Caller are nothing short of astounding. First of all, they confirm the worst paranoia of conservatives: the media has an outright agenda and has conspired to use their soap boxes to manipulate public opinion. Secondly, respected writers and opinion leaders are more than willing to throw their causes and values under the proverbial bus to advance the interests of the Democratic Party and specific liberal leaders.

And liberals call conservatives mindless lemmings…

I disagree with Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. He writes:

There is something to keep in mind in this particular story, which is that the people involved in the specific conversations regarding the smear are all opinion journalists, and not people filling roles in objective reporting.  The Prospect, the (Washington) Independent, and the Nation are all publications with an explicit point of view, although the Independent offers a little more of a pretense of traditional reporting.  That doesn’t relieve them of responsibility for proposing and/or considering an odious smear campaign, but it does make it difficult to tie this to other journalists filling a different role.

Sure, the individuals quoted in Daily Caller fall under “opinion writers,” but their opinions are hugely influential. Cable news channels, looking to fill hours and hours of airtime with commentary, often quote these specific writers or invite them to be interviewed. Their quotes and TV appearances are copied over and over in the blogosphere, effectively proving the words of Joseph Goebbels. Their words may originate as opinion, but they quickly enter the stream of “hard news.”

There’s no way of knowing how their Journolist comments influenced younger writers on the list or those working in nonprofits and think tanks. For example, if a young AP writer looks up to a well-known columnist spouting off opinions on Journolist, how do we know that coverage wasn’t tweaked? Those stories get filtered to smaller media markets and are often the only story presented on national or international news. Is it possible to fully grasp the amount of manipulation caused by influential writers with a political agenda?

This may be an extreme view, but Journolist shows collusion and conspiracy to promote one particular political agenda. Shouldn’t news outlets with any trace of integrity search their archives for similar phrasing to what was written in Journolist?

Journalism has never been an honorable field, but this really is a black mark on the industry. A group of people actively worked together to kill a story that possibly would have altered the 2008 election. What else have they conspired against? What other news have they manipulated and changed so that the American people only hear it from their perspective?

This also calls the entire racism debate into question. What is the exact state of race relations in America? If this was a convenient sleight-of-hand that liberals attempted to shift the focus of Jeremiah Wright and Obama, they had to know it would work. What other times have they tried it? What other stories have been manipulated, and individuals smeared to protect a particular leftist interest?

It’s pretty bad when journalism looks dirtier than public relations. At least folks in my industry are open about their biases.

Today is the much-hyped political circus. I can’t help but think this going to be like a big Hollywood movie. Some special effects, dramatic pauses and feel-good platitudes but at the end of the day the same old scene that gets played over and over again.

Susan B. Anthony List announced that Congressman Marsha Blackburn will be one of the Republicans at the summit. Blackburn is a tough, fiscal and social conservative. It also helps to have a woman articulating pro-life views. Plus she’s from Tennessee. Not that important of a factor, but she’s part of the delegation from my state.

Independent Women’s Forum raises some good points. Let’s scrap this bureaucratic monstrosity and find real answers that actually lower costs, such as tort reform and portability. The only problem is that those two issues directly hurt special interests that are long-time Democratic supporters. Thus, President Obama is at a crossroads. He can pass actual health care reform that will save money and make the market more affordable for all Americans. Or he can grow an increasingly bloated government with money that we don’t have and lower the quality of healthcare for all Americans. Option A actually helps people, while Option B protects his special interests. Sadly, I’m fairly certain that Obama will go with Option B, particularly since unions have been given special consideration.

But can he actually pass something? Can the anointed one, who entered his presidency with approval ratings in the high 70s and majorities in both houses, actually pass some type of major legislation before the mid-term elections? It’s not looking so good for the Dems. I hope that my Democratic friends on the Hill are job hunting.

Hot Air and Daily Caller question if Pelosi has the votes. House numbers have changed since the December vote while outrage over healthcare has only increased. February to November is a much shorter time period to remember a vote than December to November. House Democrats need this vote over and forgotten, and the American people are clearly tired of this debate. A CBS survey reports that 53% of Americans don’t believe we can afford to pass this legislation, which is more expensive than the Senate bill and provides funding for abortions.

Then there’s the problem of the vice president. Perhaps, we should make a new euphemism: out of the mouth of Biden.

Feminists are up in arms that CPAC attracts…WOMEN!

Via Feministing and Broadsheet, I watched this video that the Daily Caller put together. Not only did it feature several of my former co-workers, but it was also silly. The premise was dumb, yet the women interviewed tried to explain why they were there.

No where in the video did the women say that their reason for attending was “boys, boys, boys” as Tracy Clarke-Flory alludes. Actually, if you listen to the video, the majority of the women are attending for work. The college students articulate that they are attending to learn about the issues and support candidates.

Even in the twisted world of feminism, I thought learning about issues and supporting candidates was supported. Oh, silly me. I forgot that different rules apply to conservatives. We’re supposed to shut up and pretend we don’t exist.

Oh crazy feminists, get over yourselves and do the math. CPAC proactively reaches out to college students with steep discounts on ticket prices. Traditionally 50% or more of the attendees  are college students. Since more women are now matriculating than men…connect the dots. Also, attendance was up 20% overall this year with at least 10,000 people registering.

I realize that this this is difficult to swallow since it proves:

1. CPAC, the representation of all that is evil to the universe of liberals, is growing. 10,000 is a lot for any conference on any subject or political ideology.

2. Women are actually conservative, including college-aged women.

3. Conservative women aren’t ashamed of being attractive.

4. With more and more conservative organizations targeting women and inviting them to attend events like CPAC, it’s hardly surprising that they would show up.

It really is amusing to read through liberal blogs and newspapers and see what the left pulls out of CPAC. It’s like they attended a completely different conference than the one that I saw.

I think I make it pretty clear that I have zero respect for both Jessica Valenti and Meghan McCain here, but Jessica really out did herself with saying “just when you think CPAC can’t get any creepier.” Really? Just Really? This video freaked you out that much? With all the actual evil in the world done to women, those women at CPAC are the worst?