Excellent comments, ladykrystyna -- about which, I agree completely.

The Palin site mentioned and those associated with it are not in any way pure nor admirable in their online behaviors toward others. That key point -- that they harass others and otherwise "agitate" a personality cult, in my view (otherwise, what is it) -- is so often suppressed by others as to make the Palin site and those related to it appear guiltless, like angelic victims of some big, bad "get Sarah" effort, an effort that does not exist but which is shown to exist by framing any comments about Palin in any way, extreme or aimless, to be representation of that "get Sarah" effort. In other words, they play the victim card well and it eventually boils over for those they target (and that, apparently, is what Master Trolling wants, to get those they target to just go ugly like this hapless writer has on twitter).

I don't respect any involved there. Palin is well known to take a simple, direct question and make it immensely and in a cascade of speech monopoly, about herself eventually. It's simply irritating to many. But to the Palin folks, you aren't allowed to differ. I call that a cult just like the Obama folk are engaged in and the rest of us don't care for it from anyone in politics. I also don't find Palin conservative but that's another story and certainly Gingrich isn't.

AND SO, Beck makes another easy target. Unfortunately.

I just love the photos of all the children of military personnel...uhh, wait, what? There AREN'T any photos of "them"? Just photos of The Mad Hatter and his companions?

Well, second time my modest comment won't post, so I don't know how at this point to respond...the response does seem obvious to me, though, as to the why's of this story being covered-up.

I think it might be due to the inevitable public assumption that there was The Mad Hatter in the White House with his Wookie by his side.

Now, if media has any credibility, any at all, they'll air the stories and possible photos from those many Wednesday night cocktail parties the Obamas have had in the President's residence. I bet they won't.

The obvious, however: the Bush family would NOT have done something like this. I think the extent of their dubious partying was their Cinco de Mayo event completed in the South of the Border theme with everyone minding their p's-and-q's amidst the costumery.

An afterthought: the obvious conclusion by the public, though, in recognizing The Mad Hatter as being White House residential would have been the eventual perspective. Maybe that had something to do with wanting to keep this Mad-Hatter-In-Chief with his giant Wookie Lobsterhound 'quiet'.

[Begin Quote]
According to news reports and Google, Disney did next to nothing to play this event up.

Why?

Occam’s Razor. I think Disney’s a studio run by left-wing partisans who memory-holed the party for the same reasons I suspect the MSM did — to protect Obama from a public relations hit, especially one during the crucial days leading up to a crucial ObamaCare vote.
[End Quote]

That'd be my conclusiion, too, stated there, that Quote above, your post.

Disney IS run by "left-wing partisans" and whatever their somewhat-conservative public profile WAS at some PAST time, it was merely for show: to lend credibility and appeal to it's animation and other features. But as anyone who works there knows, the place is as left-wing as they come, and, the place will quickly penalize and punish anyone who they so much as suspect is not on board with the left-wingism.

In other words, Disney has a left-wing partisan culture. Who "runs" it has created if not demanded such and let no one assume that they don't.

Use of a "blind trust" -- especially by politicians while in public office -- is a smokescreen BECAUSE it can be "managed" by whomever they establish to manage it, such as (even) a spouse, a silent partner, whomever. It merely grants the appearance of benefiting "blindly" from investments and other financial property, it does not guarantee that anyone is actually not involved with what's taking place via the "blind trust."

And, in John Kerry's case, he'd have to be someone other than he actually is to even appear to be honorable with his connections and other hoodwinks from the Senate or otherwise.

@ nm690 - However, doesn't it make you a tad uncomfortable that it's being represented to the contrary (as the opposite of what you know firsthand as you state there).