See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On October 14th, 2009 at 5:48 am, radio relay said:

   Thank God for Fox News!!!

   Thanks again, Michelle for shining the light on the Obama fools!

2. #2
   On October 14th, 2009 at 6:25 am, Anita said:

   Michelle deserve a prime time show on Fox. I don’t understand why some people still soft on O after all this on Fox.

3. #3
   On October 14th, 2009 at 6:32 am, Ralph Gizzip said:

   Of course they’re screaming about Fox News. It’s all different when it’s your ox being gored.

4. #4
   On October 14th, 2009 at 6:36 am, et said:

   The FNC slogan of personal empowerment We Report, You Decide is the polar opposite of the beliefs of the left. The mantra of the community organizers and unions is You Report, We Decide.

   One only has to look at the lockstep in which their followers act to know that they are following a script written by a community organizer thinking for the sheep.

5. #5
   On October 14th, 2009 at 6:52 am, Brian72 said:

   Mark Loyd is on the record as being an “admirer” of the Chavez regime’s “media policy” in Venezuela, namely targeting the opposition voices for intimidation and eventually government force.

   No questioning will be tolerated. It would be “counter-revolutionary”.

   These people have more in common with the Kremlin’s communications shop from the old USSR than any White House I remember (I was an infant in the Nixon days).

   Another great column from Michelle.

6. #6
   On October 14th, 2009 at 6:55 am, Rob said:

   A pig squeals when it is stuck…

7. #7
   On October 14th, 2009 at 7:15 am, Rob Roy said:

   I have said it since his first week in office. Obama suffers from the same character flaws that befell Richard Millhouse Nixon.

   Thin-skinned like Nixon.

   Flashback. Singing for Dear Leader.

   Because Of Obama, I’m Inspired To Become A Subterranean Nuclear Mutant Weapon Of Peace.

8. #8
   On October 14th, 2009 at 7:19 am, MrOlympia said:

   Zero is a girly man.

9. #9
   On October 14th, 2009 at 7:28 am, jangar said:

   Who’s behind the White House war on Fox News?

   A democrate gene

   We Report, You Decide

   Democrat version: We Demand, You Fall In Line

10. #10
    On October 14th, 2009 at 7:42 am, Rob Roy said:

    I am sick and tired of people who say if you debate and disagree with this administration somehow you are not patriotic.

    We should stand up and say…

    WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!!!!

11. #11
    On October 14th, 2009 at 8:01 am, iamsaved said:

    It was Bauer who attempted to sic the DOJ on GOP donor Harold Simmons and sought his prosecution for funding the ad. It was Bauer who tried to bully television stations across the country to compel them to pull the spot. All on Barack Obama’s behalf.

    It was during the election when Obama’s achilles heel came to light showing that he could not stand dissention.

    One can only imagine what would have been had the so-called journalists scrutinized Obama like they do every Republican.

12. #12
    On October 14th, 2009 at 8:17 am, rambler said:

    So far this administration has been nothing but a thug brigade. No one wants the tough, probing questions to be asked. The administration can’t tell the public the truth, so they have to lie and FOX keeps discovering the lies. It sucks when Alinkey’s rules don’t say what to do when the rules fail to work. They fail to see how ridiculous they are by attacking FOX. It’s so childish and so Chicago. What has worked in Chicago won’t work to keep the rest of the country in line. Way to go White House or should it be called the Wimp House.

13. #13
    On October 14th, 2009 at 8:54 am, jangar said:

    rambler said:
    So far this administration has been nothing but a thug brigade

    …from the hood, I might add…

    Any average Joe on the street would be in prison for doing half the crap they (Dems) have done in their careers.

    Alinsky is dead, and someone forgot to bury his book as well.

14. #14
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:04 am, desertdweller said:

    Yet another exposition of Obama’s character, which is about as soft as pudding. Gee, doesn’t that make a great POTUS?

15. #15
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:04 am, Truesoldier said:

    This is just is more proof on how weak Obama is. Say what you will about Bush’s policies, but at least he had a thick enough skin to take all the crap that was heaped on him by nearly all the networks.

    Obama needs to realizze that our enemies, and friends, are seeing this, and the other signs of weakness he has displayed, and are using it to their full advantage. Just look at Russia. First they get Obama to pull missile defense from Poland and Czech with nothing (at least that is public) in return. Now Obama has negotiated to allow the Russians to count our Nukes (an unprecedented amount of access) and still nothing in return (at least publicly). They could not even secure a guarantee from Russia that they would vote for sanctions against Iran.

16. #16
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:13 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    Great column Michelle.

    Sure wish you could take over Bill O’s spot.

17. #17
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:13 am, collinb said:

    The left-leaning Nation magazine

    You could not have been more generous to those old Stalinists!

    Collin

18. #18
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:13 am, ex-expat said:

    As the old saying goes, those in glass houses should not throw rocks.

19. #19
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am, flmom said:

    Beck made them look stupid last night. He’s installed a red phone so they can call him directly to ‘fact check’ if anything he says is wrong. I laughed until I realized that it’s very disconcerting that it was so easy to make this administration look stupid. I’m sure Iran and Russia are taking notes.

20. #20
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:19 am, sbw999 said:

    Dems are over grown children at heart. Spoiled by decades of media hegemony, they just cannot stand the thought of a news organization that doesn’t distort all news in their favor. This is just a collective tantrum, led by the foot-stomper in chief Obama. These people will pay dearly the next two election cycles. But in the meantime, I am quite enjoying watching this corrupt smarmy administration self-destruct.

21. #21
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:23 am, vickisoup said:

    So I think they’re mad because the GOP actually HAS a “research arm”, say as compared to the Dems who obviously has none (ala Van Jones, ACORN, etc.)

22. #22
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:25 am, desertdweller said:

    What. A. Horrible. Photo.

23. #23
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am, purealchemy said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:25 am, desertdweller said:
    What. A. Horrible. Photo

    My sentiments exactly!
    Seeing that group in the Oval Office makes me ill.
    Chicago contamination.

24. #24
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:34 am, purealchemy said:

    We all need Chicago cooties shots.

25. #25
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:36 am, JohnnyD said:

    There was a little spat between a former gov and a local paper a ways back. The phrase “You shouldn’t pick a fight with someone with a barrel of ink” (I think I got that right) was widely used. Seems no one in the White House learned that lesson.

    My other hand says,

    Maybe all the ink is red and it’s Obama’s favorite color.

26. #26
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:36 am, stillontheroad said:

    I noticed last night – none of the vermin infesting the White House called the Red Phone on Becks show.We know they watch his show, why no phone call — lolol

27. #27
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am, Savage24 said:

    It is apperant to the most causal observer that no one in that picture above has ever read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I’ll bet they are well versed in the Communist Manifesto thou.

28. #28
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:41 am, moonsbreath said:

    Obama’s slip is showing.

29. #29
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:43 am, stillontheroad said:

    Rahm Emanuel looks like he is singing
    ” I’m a little Tea Pot” in his head.

30. #30
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:51 am, RedDog said:

    A little man in a big suit. Trying so hard to imitate his fat brother in Venezuela. But it will take more than a few Chicago hoods to Chavez-ize America.

    And Napoleon please, fix those jug ears, or at least grow your hair out. Dang.

31. #31
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:52 am, b-cat said:

    The truth is Fox News is less partisan than its competitors. Fox will air dirt on Repubs. You have to do your own research into Dems if your main news source is one of the other networks.

    Which is of course, why they hate Fox.

32. #32
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:56 am, RedDog said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:15 am, flmom said:
    Beck made them look stupid last night.

    HAHAHAHA…. Well said. When Obama’s propaganda is 100% lies and his opponents are truthful and accurate, he is in a world of hurt. I’m loving this slow motion trainwreck.

    Even the Leftist world sees this coming. Kharma bites doesn’t it little guy?

33. #33
    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:58 am, RedDog said:

    Gibbs looks constipated. He should try a small Vidalia onion and a warm glass of whole milk. Works wonders.

34. #34
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:03 am, frontierguy said:

    FAGS!!!

35. #35
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:04 am, thetoysurgeon said:

    Because of FOX NEWs, the first part of the communist take over of the media has been thwarted. You know that its a priority of the communists to squelch any opposing views by taking over the media. One day the Main Stream Media will get theirs. Hopefully very soon like in 2012. They will have no credibility and I hope they all fold.

36. #36
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:07 am, Flyoverman said:

    My attitude on the White House attacking Fox News is the same as General Sherman’s when on his March to the Sea, he learned that Confederate General Joe Johnston was heading north into the Shenendoah Valley trying to lure Sherman north.

    Sherman commented, “If Joe wants to go there, I’ll give him rations. My business is down here in Georgia.”

    Attacking Fox News is a loss leader for this White House. If the White House Staff wants their boss to start being compared to Richard Nixon and defending charges of having an Enemies List, keep up the “good work.”

37. #37
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:09 am, Flyoverman said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:58 am, RedDog said:

    Gibbs looks constipated. He should try a small Vidalia onion and a warm glass of whole milk. Works wonders

    Gibbs is a small Vidalia onion.

38. #38
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:11 am, moonsbreath said:

    Apparently Obama and his little staff never heard of “what goes around, comes around.”

    They stirred this pot of discontent in this country and now they don’t like that Fox has been reporting that the people don’t like the result. Tough.

39. #39
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:13 am, no2pcbs1 said:

    liberals always whine and prove how weak they are on a daily basis. taking on Fox News for not covering for the incompetent zero and his farce administration, is truly assinine. zero and his lackeys have no courage and will always lose in any fight that requires it. zero has emotionally weak drama queens working for him, who excel at presenting the poser as what he will always be, weak, indecisive,and pathetically lacking courage.

40. #40
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:17 am, Tuesday said:

    Waaahhh! Finally, Whiners Anonymous found a home at the WH!

41. #41
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:19 am, wckelly60 said:

    Put a fork in Anita, she’s Dunn!

    I’ll be so glad when amateur hour is over.

42. #42
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:21 am, TigerLady said:

    The more I see of The Won, the more I am reminded of a spoiled little boy in school who can’t get along with the other kids and is constantly whining to the teacher (who just thinks he’s so cute) to get his way. He can’t take criticism and he can’t be a team player. It’s all about him.

    This man is not a leader and is not someone to be admired. He’s not brilliant and he is a divider.

    Can our country stand the assault of his administration for 3 more years?
    And are we going to be able to overcome the cheating and dishonesty that got him into office? Are there enough people who are fed up and can/will vote him out?
    I really fear that he is setting up a dictatorship like his heros, Castro and Chavez and he will be El Presidente for life. God help us.

43. #43
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:32 am, rocketman said:

    ***
    The photo of the new American Politboro in action really makes me want to barf.
    ***
    The Left Wing Media (aka AMERICAN PRAVDA) continues to fly their excellent “air cover” for Comrade Obama (PBUH) as he and his minions take over the U.S.A. and change it into the new United Socialist States of America. Stand by for more “leg tingle” events.
    ***
    I think I know how the Russian People felt when the Czar was replaced by Lenin and Stalin. Or how the people of Venezuela feel as they watch commie Hugo Chavez trash their liberty and constitution as he takes over their property and country.
    ***
    Deja Vu all over again.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

44. #44
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:40 am, sonofdy said:

    They really do fear fox news don’t they?

45. #45
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:46 am, thetoysurgeon said:

    Dear Flyoverman,

    I believe Obama already has an enemies list. Nixon would be a vast improvement over what we have now. One day even the Democrats will see that they supported a marxist and come to their senses.

46. #46
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am, zyzzyg said:

    Fox news should man-up, too. And, stop their whinning, as well.

    A very easy example of what the White House is talking about is from the above piece and the assertion, “Yes, the “real” news fact-checked the fake news to cover for Obama’s deficiencies.”

    It is subtle, but assigning motives to CNN, as to why they did what they did, is questionable. Was CNN directly asked why they fact checked a comedy skit? Yes, fact checking a comedy skit is also questionable. But, to assert that the reason for their fact check was to cover for Pres Obama is no more substantiated by asserting that CNN did it because they thought it would be funny, had nothing else to talk about, or they are complete morons.

    It is also about the rhetorical questions. No, it was not directly said, but the assertion was given cover in the form of a question, (paraphrasing) ‘. . . is the fist bump a secret terrorist handshake . . . ?’ A minor example, but this is symptomatic of how Fox news approaches discussions of Pres Obama.

    There is no law requiring the President or any other politician to speak to any single media outlet.

    Both the White House and Fox should stop their whinning.

47. #47
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am, Flyoverman said:

    thetoysurgeon,

    I agree. You can count on the fact he has one; a big one.

    I also agree with you that it will ultimately be his undoing. Some day, someone in his inner circle will be lied to, dumped on, betrayed or just grow tired of the slime. That will be the “Deep Throat.” Despite ideology it will be a an opportunity too big for some motivated journalist to pass up.

    Then the boil will get lanced and the stench will cover D.C.

48. #48
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am, Flyoverman said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am, zyzzyg said:

    Fox news should man-up, too. And, stop their whinning, as well.

    The Right of Self-Defense is never denied. Deal with it.

49. #49
    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am, Speakup said:

    For Democrats, who use our kids lives at war as political footballs, politicizing everything isn’t just everything, for Politicrats its the only thing.

50. #50
    On October 14th, 2009 at 11:19 am, Speakup said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:40 am, sonofdy said:

    They really do fear fox news don’t they?

    liberalism really does fear a world in which honesty reigns supreme.

51. #51
    On October 14th, 2009 at 11:20 am, jbirish said:

    ALL of the above, plus anywhere else where the roaches and bugs scurry.

    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am, zyzzyg said:
    “Fox news should man-up, too. And, stop their whinning, as well.”

    **”WE report, YOU decide”. They’re not in the habit of burying news, as are the MSM.
    Whining? Just who started the whining? Hum?

52. #52
    On October 14th, 2009 at 11:20 am, JHSII said:

    LOL at zyzzyg!! Is anyone sure he’s not a sock-puppet for someone in the picture?

53. #53
    On October 14th, 2009 at 11:24 am, pueblo1032 said:

    To lean on Shakespeare a bit… Me thinks he doth protest too much… Just one more area that B. HUSSEIN has lowered the PRESTIGE of the OFFICE of POTUS… GWB, who the MSM loathed to new heights, would never stoop so low as to go one on one with any MEDIA outlet… CLASS versus NO CLASS… Thank you B. HUSSEIN…

54. #54
    On October 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    White House interim communications director Anita (Masengill) Dunn assumed the..)

    position!

55. #55
    On October 14th, 2009 at 11:37 am, granite said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:46 am, thetoysurgeon said:

    Dear Flyoverman,

    I believe Obama already has an enemies list. Nixon would be a vast improvement over what we have now. One day even the Democrats will see that they supported a marxist and come to their senses.

    The democrats are nothing more than socialists…whether they believe themselves to be or not; whether they are such intentionally or unintentionally,…they are nothing more than socialists.

    They wish to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior.
    They wish to guarantee equal misery for all…except for the few ruling elite.
    They wish to parasitize and tear down traditional, stable society built up over centuries of struggle and experience; and to parasitize decent, hard-working, productive, law-abiding people; without contributing anything to fill the emptiness and chaos that they (socialists) create.

    If they unknowingly and unintentionally are socialists, then they are dangerous fools. Perhaps well meaning and otherwise decent folks; but fools nonetheless.

    If they knowingly and intentionally are socialists, then they are evil, dangerous fools.

    One day even the Democratssocialists will see that they supported a marxist and come to their senses.

    If they had senses to come to, they likely would not be socialists in the first place.

56. #56
    On October 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am, cheapseat said:

    zyzz; when snl and jon stewart are making fun of you, you are toast. stewart 1st made fun of the msm about the acorn debacle and why no investigative reporters knew about this? then last night he again made fun of cnn for fact checking a snl skit. being partisan is one thing, being someones “b***h is a whole different thing. i would think the dems would be happy having all but one of the news medias in both the video and the print world being bohica belles for them. but no, this big eared pansy can’t stand to have anyone criticize him, can he mo dowd?

57. #57
    On October 14th, 2009 at 11:52 am, zyzzyg said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am, Flyoverman said: #823485

    The Right of Self-Defense is never denied. Deal with it.

    Absolutely. And, one person’s freedom fighter, is another person’s revolutionary. It is a function of one’s perspective, otherwise known as spin.

    Does the White House merit the same? Are they allowed to defend themselves, too? Are you equating Fox’s whinning with self defense? And, if yes. Will you, also, equate the White House whinning with self defense?

58. #58
    On October 14th, 2009 at 11:52 am, T-Bone said:

    I had always wished George Bush would attack the main stream media for their partisanship, propaganda, and outright lies about him, and our country.

    He didn’t think it was Presidential to do so and more importantly, felt that in a free country, they are allowed to report as they choose without undue pressure from the White House.

    I always thought he let them get away with painting him in a demeaning way that hurt his Presidency and didn’t fight back enough.

    Obama knows that and is choosing the opposite strategy.

    Lets see which strategy works out better.

59. #59
    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:00 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 11:20 am, jbirish said: #823517

    ALL of the above, plus anywhere else where the roaches and bugs scurry.

    **”WE report, YOU decide”. They’re not in the habit of burying news, as are the MSM.

    Whining? Just who started the whining? Hum?

    Chris Wallace of Fox News did. He was upset that the White House chose not to appear on their air when Pres Obama went wall-to-wall that Sunday morning on all the other networks, except Fox.

    I made a statement earlier and will now put it in the form of a question –

    Is there a law requiring the President, or any other politician, to speak to any single media outlet?

60. #60
    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:15 pm, frontierguy said:

    Does the White House merit the same? Are they allowed to defend themselves, too?

    Yes, and I certainly hope they continue to do so. I hope they use Beck’s emergency red phone. I will keep popping the corn to watch this buffoonery in the WH. What nincompoops…. Hilarious, I’m in it for the entertainment now.

61. #61
    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:23 pm, John Deaux said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 10:09 am, Flyoverman said:

    Gibbs is a small Vidalia onion.

    People actually like Vidalia onions, though.

62. #62
    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:24 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    I love Beck’s red-phone hotline for Dunn.

    It’s just more proof that the White House doesn’t really want a true dialogue with people who oppose their foolishness.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

63. #63
    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    Is there a law requiring the President, or any other politician, to speak to any single media outlet?

    No.

    However, to ignore the most watched among them is a blunder of colossal proportions at best, especially if he is serious about addressing people’s concerns and about truly selling people on the idea that turning over control of the world’s best health system to the federal government in violation of the law is the right thing to do.

    Here’s a question for you:

    Which article and section of the United States Constitution authorizes anyone in the federal government to provide bailouts for banks, take over businesses, or require/provide health insurance for American citizens?

    Love to see your answer, especially if you support all this stupid crap he’s trying to do.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

64. #64
    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    Fox news should man-up, too. And, stop their whining, as well. [error corrected]

    So Glenn Beck offering the White House the opportunity to call in to the show and discuss whatever is wrong with what he says instead of just putting up a website dedicated exclusively to attacking him is “whining”?

    Looks more to me like he’s trying to get answers and clarification. We would all love for Glenn to be wrong, including Glenn, but there’s hard evidence that he’s right, and no one in the White House wants to say anything in their defense except to demonize Glenn.

    That’s not how you win an argument, especially when Glenn goes out of his way to answer everything on that site directly.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

65. #65
    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:37 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    But I must say I have a great respect for the semi-colon; it’s a useful little chap. – Lincoln

    Please excuse my run-on above … haha

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

66. #66
    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:50 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:23 pm, John Deaux said:

    People actually like Vidalia onions, though.

    True, and Gibbs has a mother so….

67. #67
    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:50 pm, Speakup said:

    The WH wouldn’t have anything to be defensive offensive about, if the President and his henchmen were just honest.

68. #68
    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:06 pm, right_on said:

    Where are the seasoned press gurus to help Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama appear more presidential and less petty and thuggish?

    I think this question has a pretty simple answer. Think back to the “Roaring Twenties.” Maybe it’s just me, but it reminds me of the old mob wars…the Chicago Mob, vs. the New York Mob.

    The NY Mob had their chance to make all the “families” money, and has failed taking over all the necessary “enterprises” that generate cash.

    The Chicago Mob has now taken over the job of “capital assimilation,” and has been somewhat successful. Success makes some in politics feel sensitive to criticism, especially when they know that their success was achieved through lies, disception, and outright thievery. One does not dare question the God(father!)

69. #69
    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pm, prendad said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 7:42 am, Rob Roy said:
    I am sick and tired of people who say if you debate and disagree with this administration somehow you are not patriotic.

    We should stand up and say…

    WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!!!!

    I agree. And why is it that liberals can scream and yell at Bush, Reagan, and other Conservatives but to chastise Hillary, Bill and other flaming liberals is forbidden????

70. #70
    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm, cicerokid said:

    There is no law requiring the President or any other politician to speak to any single media outlet.

    He should not speak to any news outlets, zyzzyg. He is the POTUS and should be speaking to us. I think we are talking about the way the “news” organizations slant what TOTUS says.

71. #71
    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm, prendad said:

    The very idea of a president of the United States paying so much attention to a particular news media is testimony to his ignorance and vanity. Mr. Obama, you need to get on with the rest of your life and forget about Fox News. But, you can’t, can you?. That is what I love about you liberal dimwits. Party on Barack Hussein.

72. #72
    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pm, Dimsdale said:

    After the simpering bootlicking CBS’s Harry Smith gave Olympia “Yellow” Snowe this morning, Dunn has little to say.

73. #73
    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm, jeanie said:

    Well, perhaps it is the people around him who protect him from reality and reinforce his ego–but I find it hard to believe that Obama himself is not the driving force behind this foolishness. He has proven himself a touchy guy when it comes to criticism.

74. #74
    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:45 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    more of Obama’s friends hope he’ll wipe his nose and man up.

    Fat chance. He’s used to the women in his life wiping his nose for him. Well except when he was doing coke.

75. #75
    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Chris Wallace of Fox News did. He was upset that the White House chose not to appear on their air when Pres Obama went wall-to-wall that Sunday morning on all the other networks, except Fox.

    How is calling out the President whinning?

76. #76
    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pm, Laree said:

    I think Paul Begala will be on Fox Business News with Imus this Friday…how will he be able to simultaneously carry Dunn’s water, and appear on an affiliate network?

77. #77
    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:00 pm, Dave Turson said:

    Searching for more about Anita Dunn, I found a 2007 interview where she railed against the incivility of using the Internet to attack reporters. Yet she is now sitting atop the nation’s highest perch using a White House blog for same.

    Sara Fritz: It would be an understatement to say the media is changing?
    Anita Dunn:Yes.
    Sara Fritz: What effect is this having on presidential campaigns?
    Anita Dunn: I think the best example of how the media and communication is changing is John Edwards’s decision last week to keep the two bloggers on his payroll. I think four years ago, or eight years ago, they would have been gone in a moment — as they probably should have been — because the Edwards campaign would have been very concerned about what this did in what we now call the mainstream media, but what we used to call the press. And the fact that they are now more concerned about what the reaction would have been from the blogging community, the progressive blogging community, shows you how much of a change there has been. While I think the so-called mainstream media is still incredibly important to a campaign, it is not as important as it was. The ability to go around it and outside it and actually make them the target for fundraising is extraordinary. I don’t know if you’ve had this experience, but I’ve yet to talk to a reporter, including some very progressive reporters, who haven’t had the experience of saying something that the “netroots’ decided they don’t like, and just getting bombarded with the hate e-mails.
    Sara Fritz: [Some journalists have] had entire blogs set up attacking [them].
    Anita Dunn: Right. And it’s a very intimidating kind of thing. The Dean campaign pioneered this; they used to actually go tell their people, “OK, go after this reporter,” as far as I can tell. I think that the relationship continues to grow more cynical and, I think, less respectful. When I started being a press assistant way back then, everyone respected each other. We respected the press, the press respected the people, and they respected the candidates, and I think that there is a lack of respect on both sides that is so corrosive, it really is.
    Sara Fritz: And why is that? Just because of the general cynicism about politics?
    Anita Dunn: I think that’s part of it. I think that there is a generation of journalists coming out of a relatively cynical, skeptical generation to begin with, the post-baby-boomer folks, who also learned their journalism school in the post-Watergate [era]. There is a whole ethic around just assuming these people are corrupt. I have to tell you, everytime I see someone go introduce a piece of legislation that they’ve struggled with and worked to get just right and worked on for like two years, the first line of the story is “because they had to” or “because they were worried about this” or something as opposed to, “Hey, they cared about the issue and they’ve worked on it for two years and busted their butt.” As opposed to always having to find the motivation and there’s a dark motivation. And, on the flip side, because of the way reporting has changed that . . .
    Sara Fritz: It’s hard to have respect.
    Anita Dunn: It’s that they increasingly are seen as the enemy. I don’t think that’s fair, either. Reporters work very, very hard.
    Sara Fritz: I always come away from a conversation with you having learned a great deal.
    Anita Dunn: I’ve been thinking a lot about these things because I really do feel bad things are happening in politics. You know, Diane Dewhirst [a media advisor to Speaker Nancy Pelosi] and I were both interns together. She was an intern at the DNC; I was an intern at the Carter White House. We have known each other longer than anyone else. We’ve been friends all that time and we’ve both dealt with the press. And she and I are spending a lot of time talking about this because we just remember it was very different, and much better.
    Sara Fritz: I think that, on the press side, you don’t deal with “Oh, so-and-so is assigned to cover you for The New York Times.” Every stop, they’re a different array of faces. I think that also is part of it; there’s no consistency.
    Anita Dunn: That’s right. The fact is, reporters who covered a campaign for a while got a very good sense of a candidate, got a good sense of the people around a candidate, and who to trust, who not to trust. At the end of the day, I never lied to a reporter and I think they knew that. I would be honest and say, “I can’t talk about this,” but I never lied to anyone, and I think that kind of relationship is important. Also, I knew which reporters never lied to me.

78. #78
    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm, prendad said:

    The very idea of a president of the United States paying so much attention to a particular news media is testimony to his ignorance and vanity.

    If he is pre-occupied wth things like Fox the question needs to be asked, “What important things are not being addressed, becasue of his decision to be volunatrily distracted by Fox.

79. #79
    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, GladzKravtz said:

    Observation:
    Whenever I see a picture or video with Rahm Emanuel in it, his pose or facial gesture always looks controlling – judgemental – ominous.
    He spooks me, suppose that’s his universal modus operandi.

80. #80
    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm, battleaxe said:

    When any kid and his girlfriend can scoop every major “news” outlet for an investigation into the so obviously corrupt Acorn, the final nail can be driven into the coffin holding journalism’s remains.

81. #81
    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, prendad said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm, Flyoverman said:
    If he is pre-occupied wth things like Fox the question needs to be asked, “What important things are not being addressed, because of his decision to be voluntarily distracted by Fox”.

    Exactly, I have been wondering about this for months, if this guy is so sensitive to the media, especially Fox News, what are we being robbed of, as a nation, while our president worries about his image??

82. #82
    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:42 pm, prendad said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, GladzKravtz said:
    Observation:
    Whenever I see a picture or video with Rahm Emanuel in it, his pose or facial gesture always looks controlling – judgemental – ominous.
    He spooks me, suppose that’s his universal modus operandi.

    It is arrogance. You can see it in his face, in Obama’s face, in Michelle’s face, in . . . . . . . .

83. #83
    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:44 pm, GladzKravtz said:

    When any kid and his girlfriend can scoop every major “news” outlet for an investigation into the so obviously corrupt Acorn, the final nail can be driven into the coffin holding journalism’s remains.

    battleaxe, I like your positive outlook. Bring on more of those kind of kids!

84. #84
    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:45 pm, GladzKravtz said:

    It is arrogance.

    Yes! I see it! And shudder …

85. #85
    On October 14th, 2009 at 3:10 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    When you openly create an enemies list, particular one that points at freedom of the press, you would hope that all journalists would begin to feel the chill cold fingers of a dictatorship closing around their throats. You would also think that they just might fear the repercussions should a conservative administration take back the Presidency and Congress because the shoe could easily be put on the other foot.

    This is very dangerous to a free press, and it is very dangerous for the First Amendment freedoms given to us all in the Bill of Rights.

86. #86
    On October 14th, 2009 at 3:14 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    I always reserve judgment on these partisan foofooraws until the ever civil and fair-minded conservative David Brooks can weigh in and tell us what is really going on in one of his in-depth analyses. It could be that someone at Fox criticized the crease in Obama’s pants, an unforgivable crime. I think the legal term is o commit haberdashery.

87. #87
    On October 14th, 2009 at 3:38 pm, stillontheroad said:

    I can almost see what is going through Gibbs mind ” MMMMMM Potato Chips MMMMM”
    Anita Dunns mind, ” I really want a Fruit Basket for Christmas”.David Axelrod ” I can beat tetrus, I know I can”

88. #88
    On October 14th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, sbw999 said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, GladzKravtz said:
    Observation:
    Whenever I see a picture or video with Rahm Emanuel in it, his pose or facial gesture always looks controlling – judgemental – ominous.
    He spooks me, suppose that’s his universal modus operandi.

    Rahm is a snake, as dishonest as the day is long. Always has been. If you gave this pile of sh**t truth serum, he would tell you that he thinks being a conservative should be a crime punishable by life imprisonment without parole, and that all conservative speech should be banned. He is that deranged an ideologue.

89. #89
    On October 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm, rightwingrocker said: #823593

    No.

    Thank you for answering the question, though I had hoped the person who I asked would have answer it.

    However, to ignore the most watched among them is a blunder of colossal proportions at best, especially if he is serious about addressing people’s concerns and about truly selling people on the idea that turning over control of the world’s best health system to the federal government in violation of the law is the right thing to do.

    I would agree that ignoring a media outlet that many people watch might be a bad move. The reality is that Fox news does report on Pres Obama, and those people do get to see and hear what the President does and say. That is not the issue. The issue is, why he chooses not to appear on Fox for direct on on ones.

    Which article and section of the United States Constitution authorizes anyone in the federal government to provide bailouts for banks, take over businesses, or require/provide health insurance for American citizens?

    There is no specific clause to address the issues you raise. Though someone could twist the words ” . . . promote the general welfare . . .” as being the foundation for taking such positions.

    I would add that there is no specific language in the Constitution for Social Security, farm subsidies, flood insurance, foreign aid, Medicaid, Medicaid, FAA, FDIC, EPA, Education, Highway Administration, NEA, PGC, NASA, regional airports, and on and on.

    Though again, I could imagine using the earlier referenced phrase from the Constitution to justify these and any other number of things the Government does. And, it is true that this does not make what the Government does correct. Heck, the concerns about what the Constitution allows, or does not allow, was an issue when Chrysler was bailed out some years ago.

    In answering your question there is another that flows logicaly in the conversation. Why is it now that there is a question of constitutionality for what the Government is doing when they have been doing such things for a very long while? Yes, question the constitutionality of what is being done now, but shouldn’t the constitutionality of all things be brought into question, too? If the reason for not doing something is that it is not constitutional, shouldn’t all things non-constitutional be addressed, too?

    Love to see your answer, especially if you support all this stupid crap he’s trying to do.

    With regard to bailouts, precedents have been set. Chrysler was one and the Savings and Loan debacle was another. My concern is about the ‘how’ and not the ‘why’. I support bailouts in general, but not the specifics of how it was done in this case.

    My position on the stimulus package (the ‘what’) is the same. My issue is not with the ‘why’ but with the ‘how’. I would have preferred directed stimulus that would have gone to building nuclear power plants, rather than street theaters.

    My position on healthcare reform is also the same. I am more concerned about the ‘how’. The healthcare discussion should include many more elements than it does. Like tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, increasing the number of healthcare professionals, etc.

    We have established precedents and I accept that. I do not subscibe to changing the rules in the middle of the game, nor do I accept moving the goal posts. Should that be the case then we should be consistent and remove everything that the goverment does that is not constitutional. Or, we should make sure that whatever the government does, is done well.

90. #90
    On October 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, rightwingrocker said: #823593

    So Glenn Beck offering the White House the opportunity to call in to the show and discuss whatever is wrong with what he says instead of just putting up a website dedicated exclusively to attacking him is “whining”?

    No. That specific statement is not all whinning. It is a curious, and a somewhat ridiculous, expectation.

    Though I am curious as to Glenn Beck’s expectations that the White House sould call him. The White addressed, and is adressing his comments, concerns and questions on line. Why he expects a phone call, and why anyone would support this notion is beyond me.

    Every pundit, talking head, columnist, blogger, editorialist, etc can say the same thing. I have sent the White House my number to call me to discuss this thing and they have yet to call.

    On its’ face it seems reasonable to call, but thought about with regard to all the people that give the White House thier number to call and discuss an issue, it is not practicle.

    Looks more to me like he’s trying to get answers and clarification. We would all love for Glenn to be wrong, including Glenn, but there’s hard evidence that he’s right, and no one in the White House wants to say anything in their defense except to demonize Glenn.

    Ummm, if the White House is posting things on line about Glenn Beck, aren’t they responding to what he has to say? He’s not getting a phone call, but he is getting on line posts. He’s getting his answers, but I suppose he is not reading them.

    Not going to get into whether Glenn Beck is right, or wrong.

    Not going to get into whether the White House is demonizing Glenn Beck.

    That’s not how you win an argument, especially when Glenn goes out of his way to answer everything on that site directly.

    I am unfamiliar with what Glenn Beck has done, or hasn’t done.

    And, yes part of winning an arguement is addressing direct questions with direct answers. And, it includes, using facts; and, not using conjecture, rhetorical questions, assigning motive, speculation, mis-characterizations or mis-representations. Do you agree?

91. #91
    On October 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm, Flyoverman said:

    With regard to bailouts, precedents have been set.

    True Z, but as Einstein pointed out, one of the traits of insanity is when you attempt to do the same thing over and over and over again in the hope that the outcome will be different.

    Precedent does not even apply to law.

    The Dred Scott Decision is Exhibit 1.

92. #92
    On October 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, infidel4life said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am, purealchemy said:

    Seeing that group in the Oval Office makes me ill.

    Me too. Like seeing cockroaches crawling on a Prime Rib Roast. *shudder*

93. #93
    On October 14th, 2009 at 4:42 pm, rambler said:

    I think the Glen Beck having the phone for the White House to call is his way of making fun of them.

94. #94
    On October 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm, Salt said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, zyzzyg said:

    Thank you for answering the question, though I had hoped the person who I asked would have answer it.

    Which might cue up the same advice you gave Fox News: Man up and quit whining.

    Fox News noted that Obama deliberately snubbed them in his media blitz. Even the Obama fans at SNL made fun of this. Now the White House is confirming it. How is that whining? They were correct. If anything, given the ratings boost, it’s winning not whining. Pres. Obama effectively looks like a coward. (How we’re supposed to believe he’ll stand up to tyrants in the world when he cannot even face a dissenting cable channel is a mystery.)

    That is not the issue. The issue is, why he chooses not to appear on Fox for direct on on ones.

    I’m not sure I understand your original point. This is what I thought most of us, Michelle included, were discussing. You asked the question about whether or not a president is legally required to speak to certain outlets.

    (Side note: If the Fairness Doctrine were passed, this might actually be a legitimate question.)

    I must have missed the commenter that suggested or implied that this had anything at all to do with the law.

    If anything, many of us are laughing at this. The administration went after Rush and all that managed to do was increase his ratings. Now the same is happening at Fox. If anything, Rahm is showing just how much of a rank amateur he is at the national level. In Chicago, he didn’t have to worry about any right-leaning media pundits.

95. #95
    On October 14th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm, cicerokid said: #823635

    He should not speak to any news outlets, zyzzyg. He is the POTUS and should be speaking to us. I think we are talking about the way the “news” organizations slant what TOTUS says.

    The President is speaking to us, just not via Fox news. If you want to hear what Pres Obama has to say, change the channel. You could even go on line to the White House website if you truly wanted to know what Pres Obama has to say.

    Then again, the reality is, Fox news does put the President on its’ air. His comments about the Nobel Peace Prize were shown on Fox. You can hear what the President has to say on Fox.

    What you aren’t seeing is him being interveiwed on Fox.

    As for slant, or what is also called bias, it exists everywhere. Not saying it is right, or wrong, just saying that we should all use our individual filters and common sense.

96. #96
    On October 14th, 2009 at 5:00 pm, Dave Turson said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm, zyzzyg said:
    Though I am curious as to Glenn Beck’s expectations that the White House sould call him. …Every pundit, talking head, columnist, blogger, editorialist, etc can say the same thing. I have sent the White House my number to call me to discuss this thing and they have yet to call.

    I missed the memo. When did Zyzzyg become a member of the Fourth Estate?

97. #97
    On October 14th, 2009 at 5:00 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm, AlohaGuy said: #823665

    How is calling out the President whinning?

    When the call out is more style than substance. Yes, report that the President chose not to appear on Fox. When you begin to speculate, assign motive and characterize the reason for him not appearing, then you are whinning.

    And, how is calling out Fox whinning?

    The same answer. When you stick to the facts, it is not whinning. When you begin speculating and editorializing, it then becomes whinning.

    Again, both (Fox and the White House)should stop whinning, and stick to the facts. Do you agree?

98. #98
    On October 14th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, Salt said:

    On October 14th, 2009 at 5:00 pm, zyzzyg said:

    When the call out is more style than substance. Yes, report that the President chose not to appear on Fox. When you begin to speculate, assign motive and characterize the reason for him not appearing, then you are whinning.

    By this definition, aren’t you whining about Fox?

99. #99
    On October 14th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, frontierguy said:

    Wrong. The issue is not that the president does not go on Fox, but that his administration attacks when Fox questions what the POTUS is doing. I could care less if BHO goes on Fox, could care less, but it shows how little substance he has because the networks he does go on treats him ever so kindly. And this is just because of the opinion shows? The POTUS has no spine, some of you in here can spin it, but the majority of us here are immune to the dizziness now. I will not hail the boy king.

100. #100
     On October 14th, 2009 at 5:14 pm, zyzzyg said:

     On October 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm, Flyoverman said: #823810

     True Z, but as Einstein pointed out, one of the traits of insanity is when you attempt to do the same thing over and over and over again in the hope that the outcome will be different.

     Precedent does not even apply to law.

     The Dred Scott Decision is Exhibit 1.

     Ummmm, OK.

     What were the results of the Chrysler bailout, and dealing with the Savings and Loan debacle?

     The results were pretty good. Chrysler paid back the Treasury and the assets of the S and L were disposed of for minimal loses without dragging down the rest of the economy. Decent results and it makes the outcome of our current situation somewhat more helpful.

     With regard to precedent, and in particular the Dredd Scott decision, I have no problem with overturning past laws (precedents), as long as, it is consistent.

     If a challenge is made because something is not constitutional, then anything that is not constitutional should also be challenged.

     When a mistake is about to be made, we should stop. And, when a mistake has existed, it should also be corrected. The reason for stopping the mistake is also reason enough to correct the old mistake. Do you agree?