Now is not the time for the faint of heart to abandon Obama! Yes, he is having trouble standing up to the Iranians, but I think it is important for all of us to support our President, unthinkingly if need be, against the real enemy - Glen Beck and the rest of Fox "News".
And I am here to help. Rather than belabor Fox News, let me suggest a way for loyal American journalists to indicate their commitment to stamping out dissent as the lowest form of treason. Let's rally the media loyalists that have carreid Obama this far with a promotional button and slogan that the real heroes of the news business can wear and recite with pride.
Here we go! I picture this iconic image on buttons, posters, billboards - anywhere loyal journalists want to show their commitment to continuing the Good Fight for Hope and Change:
Obama is happy to see yet another friendly face in the media! And when Obama is happy and the media is happy, America is happy!
When we see Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper proudly wearing these buttons we will know that America's opinion leaders are going to Stay The Course To Victory!
I feel safer already.
STRANGELY UNCONVINCING! The always-interesting Mickey Kaus has a first draft of some thoughts about fair and balanced media; this bit on Fox News ended in a ditch:
I think Fox is also not neutral (which, again, doesn't bother me) but it's also not independent (which does). This isn't because it's owned by Rupert Murdoch--moguls are, typically among the more independent sorts. It's because it's run by Roger Ailes. I have zero faith that Ailes is independent of the Republican party or, specifically, those Republicans who have occupied the White House recently--the Bushes. As I said, I think if Karl Rove called Ailes in 2003 and said "We don't want so much coverage of X" it's extremely likely that X would not be covered on Fox. A ... suggestive example of Fox's loyalty is the debate on immigration, in which Ailes' network initially seemed to try valiantly--against the beliefs of most of its audience--to push the Bush White House line in favor of "comprehensive" legalization (while brushing aside its viewers' views).
Immigration reform? The McCain-Bush de facto open borders approach was favored by Big Business Conservatives before Bush was a gleam in Karl Rove's eye; Fox wasn't exactly breaking out of a distinct segment of the right-wing mainstream by supporting it.
I don't know the answer but I can suggest a better place to look for signs of Fox's fealty to Bush - how did they handle the conservative rebellion in early 2006 over both Harriet Miers and the Dubai port deal? If Fox was truly in the tank for Bush, as opposed to holding a conservative point of view, they would have tilted in favor of Harriet and Dubai. Did they? I have no idea! But maybe Mickey's second draft can tell us.
THE DRAFT IS IN, AND I AM OUT: Mickey's has an UPDATE pegging Fox as a bastion of Miers dead-enders. Hmm, I may have to retreat to Dubai.
I don't know if that convinces me that Fox News is more of a party organ than the NY Times, but it certainly cuts against any case for Fox independence.
lowest form of treason
The other day I saw a Prius (complete with typically scowling liberal occupant) that has two bumper stickers:
Obama '08
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism
No doubt both were applied prior to the election. I wondered to myself whether in The Obama Age she still considers dissent against the administration in the same light.
I smiled to myself when I noticed that her vehicle showed clear evidence of body rust bubbling up under the paint. Was that wrong?
Posted by: PD | October 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM
The ones I find particularly humorous are SUV's with Obama/Biden stickers. Seriously
'category error',
Posted by: narciso, | October 21, 2009 at 10:29 AM
I'd like to know what Mickey thinks the NYT would run without Obama's blessing (he claims nobody can tell Bill Keller what to do; then again, he also says the paper is committed to accuracy).
He has at least taught me that Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, and Charles Krauthammer speak as one. I thought that was interesting.
Posted by: bgates | October 21, 2009 at 10:34 AM
It's a sign of The Once's Peter Principle that he'll send his minions out to fight this war, while the real war is beyond him.
I'd add to TM's nomination of Dubai/Harriet Myers, the steel tariffs of Geo. W's first term.
Posted by: Gregory Koster | October 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Mickey cannot escape his logical fallacies. Was Curt Shilling a Democrat because the owners of the Red Sox were liberals?
The fact is that Murdoch has hired lots of liberals and continues to own and operate the single most liberal newspaper in America: The Wall Street Journal. If he's a mogul at Fox, he has to be a mogul at the Journal too, doesn't he?
Posted by: Fresh Air | October 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM
So we've got Fox News, run by Roger Ailes, which is almost annoyingly self-conscious about bringing in left-winger commentators and running things in "debate" format. We oppose that to the legacy media, where Tim Russert — former counsel to Pat Moynihan and Cuomo — and Christ Matthews — staffer to several Democrats, Democratic Congressional candidate, six years opposing the Reagan Administration as an aide to Tip O'Neil, and potential Democratic Senate candidate — are major figures.
And Kaus is worried about Fox News' independence?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 21, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Fox news was pro immigration reform? That certainly is news to me. I'm pretty sure it was Fox pointing out the Mexican flags flying at the pro immigration rallies.
Posted by: Roux | October 21, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Fox news was pro immigration reform? That certainly is news to me. I'm pretty sure it was Fox pointing out the Mexican flags flying at the pro immigration rallies.
How does covering the news make the news organization for or against a given position?
Posted by: PD | October 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Charlie, you can add George Stephanopoulos to your list.
Perhaps Kaus should watch Brit's analysis of this debacle by the one. LUN.
Posted by: J.R. | October 21, 2009 at 10:56 AM
The Obama Administration doesn't like Fox News' "We Report You Decide" ethic. The Obama Administration's communication ethic is "We Decide What You Report," and the Administration will attack any news outlet that doesn't submit to this ethic.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | October 21, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Tim Russert is arguably still smarter than most people in his old organization, and he's certainly still better company than the guy who replaced him, but to call him a "major figure" is a bit of a stretch.
You could throw in Stephanopolous as an example of the independence of the old networks. We don't know for sure that he's getting orders during his daily phone call with Rahm.
Posted by: bgates | October 21, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Christ Matthews
If that's who you think we've been talking about, your atheism may be due to a simple misunderstanding.
Posted by: bgates | October 21, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Saw a new-ish looking bumper sticker this morning with the Fox News logo and "We Decide, Then Distort" as the caption.
This is all part of the long march toward the Fairness Doctrine. Also a nice little distraction while the Dems work to pass ObamaCare.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 21, 2009 at 11:02 AM
What makes the NYT independent is that it suppressed the Van Jones story without having to be told.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | October 21, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Heh, Paul.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 21, 2009 at 11:06 AM
What makes the NYT independent is that it suppressed the Van Jones story without having to be told.
That's why I disagree with complaints about "media whores". You have to pay whores.
Posted by: bgates | October 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM
For those of you that can somehow stand to listen to NPR, does Daniel Schorr still punctuate his paragraphs with redundant reminders that he was on Nixon's "enemies list"? If so has he acknowledged that Obama has deflated that currency beyond whatever value it once held?
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Kaus is either blinking furiously that he's under duress by his batshit editor, Weisberg, or he's letting his immigration-hawk crazed hatred for Murdoch lead him into some serious cognitive dissonance. How is Ailes any more a creature of the Republican Party than Keller and Klein creatures of the Democratic?
Possibly, it's just he wants his idiotic universal health "reform", damn the facts or the consequences. He's been a good little neoliberal for decades, fighting losing battles against unionism, multicultural open immigration, and welfare-state policies. Maybe he's just tired of thinking? Time for some old-fashioned *feeling*, and two-minute hating on a safe target?
Posted by: Mitch H. | October 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Mitch H.,
I like Kaus but I don't understand him. During the campaign he voiced beef after beef very specifically with policies proposed by Obama, yet never seemed for one second to consider not voting for him. Where does the thoughtfulness end and the kneejerkism begin? At any rate he is usually much better than this.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Big Governmentt blog on a roll:
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 21, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Big Governmentt blog on a roll:
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 21, 2009 at 11:18 AM
[OT, Captain Hate, sorry I was late to reply to your comment on the Anglican service on the Give Force A Chance thread, but it's there now.]
Posted by: Porchlight | October 21, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Sorry for the double post.
Kaus didn't think his Fox post through.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 21, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Another terror plot by those dangerous Anglicans has been thwarted.
The plotters were no doubt chanting verses from the Book of Common Prayer as they stoked themselves up for jihad.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | October 21, 2009 at 11:20 AM
I saw it earlier this morning Porch!
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 21, 2009 at 11:20 AM
I don't know how new the bumpersticker I saw (it was new to me) but I'll pass on just in case:
"If ignorance is bliss, how come there so many unhappy liberals?"
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 21, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I concur with the Journal's news pages, Jose de Cordoba covered the Cuban community
with the usual aplumb, Sydney Freedberg really spread some of the Jeb Bush BDS at the time there, before moving to the St. Petersburg Times ( a nice person, but their
politics are what they are)and Yochi Dreazin
I've acquainted you with, first on Iraq, now putting words in MacCrystal's mouth on Afghanistan.
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Thanks, CH!
Posted by: Porchlight | October 21, 2009 at 11:23 AM
I think Mickey is just falling into the trap of thinking those who hold a different opinion do so because someone is telling them to have it. They aren't doing thinking of their own, surely, because if they were independent thinkers they would think more like Democrats.
Obama said something similar last night, but not about Fox news. Democrats are independent, he said. Republicans do what they are told. Which is hilarious, because Obama went on to tell his audience to accept whatever health care bill they get, because it will be better.
Posted by: MayBee | October 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM
LOL @ LUN
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 21, 2009 at 11:30 AM
So, posing a more specific question for those divining from entrails, is it that Kaus isn't looking or that Kaus can't see?
Posted by: sbw | October 21, 2009 at 11:31 AM
She said 'Mao Tse-Tongue. Everyone's got it wrong.
==============================
Posted by: It's parseltongue. | October 21, 2009 at 11:32 AM
So. Lowry thinks Sen. Kerry is a better diplomat than Holbrooke, that's just not words, syllables fail at that thought,
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 11:33 AM
I think he isn't looking, sbw. He's demonstrated pretty amply in the past that he can see when he wants to.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Mickey makes a lot of comments that are headscratchers. He wrote repeatedly about how incompetent Kerry was and voted for him. I don't read him as often anymore, but he never wrote much about why the GOP policies were considered bad. I guess he just thinks that it is self-evident that incompetent, corrupt Dems taking orders from union thugs or passing a health care bill that he acknowledges is a disaster are still clearly preferable to a Republican being in office.
Posted by: stan | October 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Oh yeah, n? So who was more effective, Kissinger or Kerry?
==================================
Posted by: Just asking. I've no idea the answer. | October 21, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Well he hasn't Mullah Bahadur's signature yet, so give it time (sarc)
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 11:42 AM
That was one of Mickeys least connected to reality posts. Really, the NYT is independent??? How about that hit piece on the mcCain non-affair? did ythey make that up on their own? or how about dozens of dummied up polls? WTF Mickey?
Posted by: lonetown | October 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM
OT Kissinger once admitted that I had asked him a very good question. He didn't answer it, of course. /OT
Posted by: sbw | October 21, 2009 at 11:47 AM
How about that hit piece on the mcCain non-affair? did ythey make that up on their own? or how about dozens of dummied up polls? WTF Mickey?
Well, but what Mickey is saying is Keller ran those stories because he wanted to, not because someone from the Obama campaign or the Democratic party told him to.
Which may be true, but I don't think there is evidence that Fox or MSNBC/NYTs, etc are different.
All the left held the Edwards stories based on the begging of the Edwards people.
Posted by: MayBee | October 21, 2009 at 11:48 AM
My favorite NYTs hit piece was the one about the Bush administration putting nuclear instructions on the internet. Front page. Big letters. Right before an election. Nary another word about it.
Posted by: Sue | October 21, 2009 at 11:49 AM
I still read Kaus from time to time. After reading his half hearted analysis that Fox isn't "independent" part of me thinks he will recant as he sometimes does. He is a liberal after all, but not a knee-jerk reflexive one.
Posted by: gk1 | October 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Did he mention the WH sending Joe Scarborough an email telling them to quit being assholes during his broadcast? They were laughing at Obama.
Posted by: Sue | October 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Kaus is probably right that the NYT would have run those stories anyway. It just proves the WH doesn't have to worry about the NYT and several other lefty outfits since they're guaranteed to "do the right thing" regardless.
Kaus should challenge the NYT to prove their independence by printing something negative about Obama.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 21, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Well that's impossible for Joe, the closest
comparison is that each network is a stronger version of the party organ, in MSNBC's case, Scarborough and Buchanan are the outlier, but functionally they are just
static. But that doesn't even really apply to Fox, because other than Beck and Hannity,
and Cavuto, Van Susteren, O'Reilly, Smith and Geraldo in that order, detract from the party message. Kaus went to Berkeley right
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM
My favorite NYT hit piece was the NYT magazine Ron Suskind article "Without a doubt" that suggests George Bush lived in a faith-based bubble.
Suskind's whole article hangs on accusing President George Bush of "easy certainty" that comes from faith, which, for Suskind, must be irrational.
Suskind was irrational because, jumping to that unsupported conclusion, Suskind didn't have to look at the rational underpinnings that support Bush's positions on issues.
Anyone who believes that the NYT practices journalism has a different definition of journalism than I do, and a faith-based bubble of their own.
Posted by: sbw | October 21, 2009 at 12:00 PM
In other war news, FOX reports this on the administration's relationship with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
Posted by: PD | October 21, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Sue-
My favorite NYTs hit piece was the one about the Bush administration putting nuclear instructions on the internet. ... from Iraq's non-existent nuclear weapons program
The article did do a good job in shutting down Harmony though.
Posted by: RichatUF | October 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Someone who is independent would need to be told what to do, because otherwise he would be off doing something all independenty and whatnot.
And his independence is only in question when he does something he thinks ill-considered or against his own interests or beliefs after being told to do it. If, after being asked to do something that is well within his own beliefs and self-interest, he does it, that does not call into question his independence.
The truly slavish person, trained like a seal, wouldn't need to be told what to do, because he understands his role and always acts within the boundaries of what he's been taught.
And his independence is only even possible when he does something that contradicts that indoctrination.
Posted by: hit and run | October 21, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Yes, that was the point, to shut down any source of information that would detract from 'Iraq had nothing to do with AQ' and 'quagmire' allegations
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Oh, I forgot, Susskind got his start at the Journal, he has flubbed on every book he has put out, misrepresenting the oil concession maps in Paul O'Neil's book, than mixing up the mubtakkar story, as well as the Zubeydah interrogation, but this isn't accidental, it's deliberate
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Rich,
Yeah, I left that part out. Thanks for pointing it out.
Posted by: Sue | October 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Another Giles and O'Keefe tape, has dropped this time on Philadelphia
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 12:37 PM
"...pundits have declared Obama's 'war of choice' against Fox News to be a 'quagmire'..."
What pundits have declared this?
All I see are pundits saying (without convenient links) that OTHER pundits are declaring that Obama's War on Fox News is a failure/quagmire. But no ACTUAL pundits are saying that, are they?
Posted by: Kenneth Ashford | October 21, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I hope Mr. Ashford is being facetious.
Posted by: Sue | October 21, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Neighbor on neighbor:
Man arrested for being naked in his own home
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | October 21, 2009 at 12:52 PM
No, sadly he's serious as a heartache, from the most recent post on his blog, trumeting that Washington Post, push poll.he leaves out Zurawik, of the Baltimore Sun, ( no righty) Helen Thomas, just a few names off the top of my head.
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 12:55 PM
"Kaus is probably right that the NYT would have run those stories anyway."
I disagree. The unintended consequences are too severe to risk on ones own. NYT definately coordinates its message. I think its indesputable.
Posted by: lonetown | October 21, 2009 at 01:00 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | October 21, 2009 at 01:07 PM
Obama's Fox News Diversion- LUN
Legal Insurrection has a great new post up that we're playing into the administration's plan by talking about the outrageous behavior towards FOX instead of the health care heist.
Let's focus on the area they can in fact destroy quickly and forever by federal fiat.
Posted by: rse | October 21, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Obama declares war on Fox News but is AWOL on Afghanistan. LUN
Posted by: matt | October 21, 2009 at 01:20 PM
I always though Linda Douglas was very objective.
Posted by: bunky | October 21, 2009 at 01:24 PM
Well the DHS memo, indicates we are the real enemy, by their lights
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 01:29 PM
Rse--
Who says we can't do two things at once?
Posted by: Fresh Air | October 21, 2009 at 01:30 PM
Heh. Rush is talking about "Obama-approved journalists."
Sound familiar?
Posted by: PD | October 21, 2009 at 01:36 PM
Zero's baseline of support quantified:
Sixty-one percent of respondents said Obama did not deserve to win the prize announced on Oct. 9, according to the poll; 34% said he did deserve the honor.
These people obviously believe he can do no wrong and is due every possible honor. In short, they are insane liberals blinded by His Doufusness.
I'm going to subtract 1% for David Brooks types and re-weight the poll for Republicans by subtracting another 4%. This means Zero's baseline of supporters is 29%. WIthin one point of my estimate from the other day. He has already lost 17 points since inauguration and has about 14 points to go before bottoming.
Over halfway there...and the first year isn't even over yet.
Posted by: Fresh Air | October 21, 2009 at 01:38 PM
It's just not fair. Why should the Republicans have Fox news on their side when all the Democrats have is ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, WP, BG and LAT? The next thing you know the Republicans will be getting an actor or an academic on their side and then the whole system will just break down.
Posted by: Terry Gain | October 21, 2009 at 01:39 PM
It's just not fair. Why should the Republicans have Fox news on their side when all the Democrats have is ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, WP, BG and LAT? The next thing you know the Republicans will be getting an actor or an academic on their side and then the whole system will just break down.
Posted by: Terry Gain | October 21, 2009 at 01:39 PM
Fresh Air-
We will all need to multitask with the evil nonsense coming from every direction.
It's an especially good post by Jacobson.
If someone wants some fun, call Congress via 1-800-603-seiu to talk about health care. The prompt will ask your zip code and then whether you want to speak to your rep, your state's jr senator, or its senior senator.
Make your selection and then tell the office staff what you think of SEIU. The phone line confirms that this is largely a power grab by unions.
Posted by: rse | October 21, 2009 at 01:39 PM
Dave - do they make an Arabic version of that bumper sticker, or is it just the English-speaking world* that has trouble with coexistence?
Posted by: bgates | October 21, 2009 at 01:43 PM
That is awesome, Terry Gain.
Posted by: Porchlight | October 21, 2009 at 01:46 PM
Obama declares war on Fox News but is AWOL on Afghanistan.
That's because Afghanistan is a distraction from real war. The war on Fox News is part of the war on health care, which is the real war. LUN
Posted by: Tom Bowler | October 21, 2009 at 01:49 PM
all the Democrats have is ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, WP, BG
Low blow, TG.
Posted by: bgates | October 21, 2009 at 01:49 PM
It’s Not Just China… Leftists Are Pushing ObaMao Gear In DC, Too
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | October 21, 2009 at 01:53 PM
bgates, I don't know, but there must be something about them that tremendously impacts the vehicle's drag coefficient, because they're always poking along.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | October 21, 2009 at 01:56 PM
Shepard Smith must have forgotten that memo about conformance to the Republican Way when he was assailing a guest who was against the public option.
I'd also love for Kaus to pontificate on whether or not the stories that FOX News broke first before all the other media sources means as far as independence.
What was the reason that the ACORN story didn't get much traction until FOX chose to run with it? Kaus, please choose:
1. It wasn't a story worth covering
2. It was a partisan Republican attack
3. Every other "news organization" than FOX was protecting a certain constituency that may or not start with a D and end in "rats"
And... go!
Posted by: George | October 21, 2009 at 01:56 PM
So Carville was running Abdullah's campaign,
who I used to think was an honorableperson, who was running Karzai's. The whole stinks from Benazir's college roomate Peter
Galbraith who is still denying the consequences of the surge, doing the big
Capt. Renault 'Im shocked that there is corruption' in Afghanistan, to the UN panel dismissing a third of the ballots, See had Karzai done the right thing and disqualify
all the candidates 'that's the Chicago way'
it would have won him some support.
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 01:58 PM
What's a "minor figure"?
News Executive at NBC, then Washington Bureau Chief, then host of MTP?Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | October 21, 2009 at 02:00 PM
What's a "minor figure"?
Somebody with a pulse.
Posted by: bgates | October 21, 2009 at 02:03 PM
Speaking of bumper stickers
It's missing the hammer and sickle.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 21, 2009 at 02:05 PM
Anyone read Stephanie Strom's exclusive report on ACORN yet in the pages of the NY Times?
I'll accept web pages.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | October 21, 2009 at 02:06 PM
Just to repost the link to the Chamber of Commerce hit job...LUN
Posted by: Janet | October 21, 2009 at 02:07 PM
Kaus is just doing another of the left's favorite activities: Shifting the goal posts. He has enough intelligence and pride not to try to pretend that the other media outlets are unbiased. So now the new mantra is . . . "independence"! Yeah, that's the ticket (channeling Jon Lovitz). Sure the NYTimes is de facto an Obama mouthpiece, but at least they are "independent"!
Posted by: jimmyk | October 21, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | October 21, 2009 at 02:17 PM
Hmmm... I wonder if the Nobel group is going to ask for their prize back:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/21/us-reversing-itself-on-missile-defense-again/>US reversing itself on missile defense … again?
In what has become a dizzying display of the diplomatic Hokey Pokey, the US has reached an agreement with Poland to install land-based missile interceptors. Vice President Joe Biden went to Poland to smooth ruffled feathers and apparently to execute a second reversal in the last six months from the Obama administration:
I guess nixing it was like promising to close GITMO, "a tale told by a mad man, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."
Posted by: Ranger | October 21, 2009 at 02:26 PM
Ranger, they were always going to be deployed, it just took a while to get the direction settled, and then to dig up some old Warsaw Pact stenciling for them.
Posted by: bgates | October 21, 2009 at 02:32 PM
Let me be perfectly clear: There is no need for a land-based missile defense system to deal with a tiny little country like Iran.
Posted by: Barack Obama | October 21, 2009 at 02:33 PM
As I have always said, it is critical that we along with our European allies deploy a missile defense system on European soil to deal with the urgent crisis of a potentially nuclear-armed Iran.
Posted by: Barack Obama | October 21, 2009 at 02:34 PM
What he just said.
Posted by: william ayers | October 21, 2009 at 02:35 PM
At some point SOMEONE has got to stand up to this White House and say enough is enough. This nation was built on freedom and this White House is doing everything it can to subvert this.
The idiots in the media are allowing this because they've got such large h@rdons for this president the blood has pooled away from their brains. Perhaps when THEY are targeted they'll take a breath and maybe let their brains get some oxygen again. Who knows.
Of course, by then it may be too late... By that time we may not have free press anymore. But then they'll only have themselves to thank.
Posted by: Mad Monica | October 21, 2009 at 02:36 PM
The real enemy is not Iran. The real enemy is a cynicism that seeks to split our great country by scapegoating and fearmongering. Typically this is done by Republicans who want old people to die instead of getting health care.
Posted by: Barack Obama | October 21, 2009 at 02:38 PM
Yes, that's why he's cutting billions from Medicare now, and waiting three years to implement the program. In the LUN, excerpts from the Joe and John variety hour
Posted by: narciso | October 21, 2009 at 02:43 PM
BTW, I bring up the Nobel people, because I seem to recall that killing the ground based ABM system in Eastern Europe was about the only thing that Obama had actually done towards "making the world more peaceful." I wonder how they feel now that he's reversed himself on that before he even got there to pick up the prize.
Posted by: Ranger | October 21, 2009 at 02:46 PM
Michelle's back talking about fitness and healthy eating today.
Posted by: MayBee | October 21, 2009 at 02:50 PM
She looks like she's a very "healthy" eater.
Posted by: bad | October 21, 2009 at 02:56 PM
I realize that in the raified air of DC, there are only Democrats and Republicans, but once you get off federal property you find that there is a large uncharted area in between the two .. they are are called independents, and they happen to outnumber Democrats and Republicans (but not the two combined).
Thast said, when FoxNews doesn't toe the Democratic Party line, it doesn't mean that it is a Republican organization.
Obama, Rahm-adong-a-ding-dong, and Axel Foley outght to start to realize that it won't be the Republicans who come with those "pitchforks" as much as it will be the independents coming for their skins.. some ready to send them to Gitmo .. come the next election.
Posted by: Neo | October 21, 2009 at 02:57 PM
At some point ...
I love you, Mad Monica.
But don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 21, 2009 at 03:01 PM
Michelle's back talking about fitness and healthy eating today.
That's not the side of her with the most credibility.
Posted by: bgates | October 21, 2009 at 03:24 PM
but to call him a "major figure" is a bit of a stretch.
Wasn't he Managing Editor in DC?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 21, 2009 at 03:25 PM
your atheism
That word definitely doesn't mean what you think it means.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | October 21, 2009 at 03:27 PM