Friday, October 23, 2009

Oh, For God's Sake...

Charles Krauthammer:

The White House has declared war on Fox News.

Oh, bullshit.

Can we stop with the drama queenery for five seconds? Please? No one has "declared war" on anyone, and no one is trying to "shut Fox News down." A couple of administration officials have pointed out, rightly in my opinion, that Fox News toes the Republican Party line and repeats their talking points verbatim, while making up new and ever more bizarre pro-GOP talking points of their own. Remember when the Fox news-bimbo called the Obama's congratulatory fist-bump the "Terrorist fist jab?" Remember the "Obama attended a Muslim terrorist school" story that Fox "broke" and which was almost immediately debunked by every news organization that wasn't asking "how high" when Karl Rove said "jump"?

But pointing that out is not "going to war," and it's not "trying to shut anyone down." It's criticism. That's all it is. You know, free speech?

Presidents have been bitching about the media for years. The Bushistas bitched about MSNBC, not to mention freezing Helen Thomas out for eight years despite the fact she was the most senior member of the White House Press Corps. Nixon bitched about Dan Rather, and so on and so on. Get over it.

As for this whine about "Obama won't come on Fox News shows": The President of the United States is not obligated to go on any one network. His obligation is to talk to the American people. If he wants to do that via NBC, MSNBC, the Mutual Radio Network, the Daily Planet, or by releasing 250 million goddamn carrier pigeons, it's his call.

So spare me your fucking sense of entitlement, Fox News. President Obama doesn't owe you an appearance, any more than he owes one to CBS, ESPN or the Food Network. Grow the hell up and accept that your relentlessly anti-Obama stance means the administration may not always pat you on your head and tell you how wonderful you are. You're not above criticism any more than the President is. Dry your eyes, put on a new pair of Pull-Ups and try not being such a bunch of whiny pricks all the time.


Charlieopera said...

The President of the United States is not obligated to go on any one network.

But apparently this one is obligated to go on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN exclusively.

This was the dumbest (not most dangerous or worse) thing the very politically astute white house has done so far. Even the other networks (which are clearly in the bag for Obama by comparison to FOX), were ready to boycott the white house press room because of it.

John McFetridge said...

"Drama Queenery." Now that's funny.

JD Rhoades said...

But apparently this one is obligated to go on ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN exclusively.

Why do you call this "obligation" rather than "these are the networks he chose"? Why does any President owe any network anything? With so many networks form which to choose, why does he have to go on any one?

And if you say "because Barack Obama needs to be fair to Fox," I will laugh really really hard. I'm already giggling at the idea that the supine White House Press Corps would ever develop the balls to boycott anything. They love their access too much to give it up for a competitor. They're a bunch of fucking sheep, which any good WH press secretary knows.

Charlieopera said...

I meant it sarcastically. Obviously he's cherry picking who he talks to (who invites over for tea time at the white house), etc.

I doubt they would've boycotted if the White House had gone to them individually but they didn't. The White House gambled on the pool ignoring FOX and lost (the other networks, in fact, did say they wouldn't do the interview). Good for them for doing so (the network pool, not the white house).

It's obvious what they're doing, JD and there's no way to spin it otherwise. They excluded a network (whether it's a Republican rag or not) and it only makes them (and him) look bad ... and it gives independents something to wonder about (i.e., where's that inclusiveness Mr. Peace Prize promised)?

JD Rhoades said...

Charlie, looks like the "Network pool coming to Fox's rescue" story was fabricated by, of all people, Fox:

Charlieopera said...

This is getting more interesting by the minute.

I found this on Huffington:

But when I went to CBS to see the report, it had been edited out of Katie Couric's newscast.

It was a CBS correspondent who said, "the White House has gone over the line."

I don't know which to believe, but there's no denying what Axelrod and Rahm said (or Obama himself) regarding FOX. It's not just a perception, JD. Some might say they've drawn a line in the sand. Others think it's going a bit too far.

I think it's just plain dumb and if anything FOX's ratings have jumped (according to the CBS report), they're laughing all the way to the bank.

A President excluding the press (any press) just plain looks bad.

It'd be nice if he concentrated on something else this week ... like the 100 banks that failed or 10% unemployment or health care or those dopey fucking wars we're still fighting (for God knows what reason anymore).

No matter how you slice it, he's losing his footing real fast, the charismatic one.

Loyd said...

I find it interesting that you think trying to exclude a network news-wise is not declaring war on it. You have a different word for it?

David said...

Oh, good ghod(s). What's been happening is that some folks in the Obama Administration have said that they see Fox News for what it is, and said that they might treat it as what it is, rather than what it claims to be. If that's "declaring war", then Dorothy declared war on the Wizard of Oz by pointing out the man behind the curtain.

Charlieopera said...

Well, David, it seems you and JD are a few of the very few who think it's anything other than what Nixon (and a few others) tried to do.

The interesting thing (after watching the morning shows today) ... it looks a lot worse for Obama than it does for FOX.

David said...

Charlie, I think the Village is making more of this than there (probably) is. I'd say it's them looking after their own, but I'm not sure they'd react as they have if the President had an R after his name.

If Fox News really were a news organization, as it claims to be, it'd be different. But it's not what it claims to be, and the Administration is not obligated to pretend that it is, or that it is anything other than what it has repeatedly shown itself to be. That is not "declaring war" on it, and is not, by itself, a resort to Nixonian methods.

The Village may be in a dither about this, but there are folks out here saying that it's about damn time Fox got called out for being what it is.

Charlieopera said...

I agree it's a republican rag, but so is MSNBC a democratic rag. That's not the point. It looks bad to isolate any network (for whatever reason) and especially when things aren't going very well for the new administration. If anything, it lends credibility to FOX. There were a couple of issues other networks ignored (i.e., Van Jones) and the white house ignoring them now just makes it stink all the more.

Personally I wish they get their act together (60 Dems) and pass a public option, but that isn't looking like it'll happen and blaming FOX or the Republicans just isn't gonna fly when Obama hasn't been able to get his own party to support him.

Tom said...

See, this is how it works; bullies can say whatever they want, at any time because their parents are rich (or they're untouchable for some other reason) and no one will call them the plain ol' sociopaths they are.

When we stand up and thump them, they go squalling back to Sow Momma.

Suddenly people who never knew our names before have it on good authority we've been mean to young Hogfat.

Honestly, Charlie, learn another song. Your endless 'One-Note Samba' makes me doubt your Jeremiad, and makes you sound like an astroturfer.

You want to blame someone? Blame Nader for helping Bush in 2000. Many of your problems, if we believe in them, stem from that bad day.

Charlieopera said...

Tom, what fresh denial is this? Blame Nader all you want. You have a veto proof Democratic Congress that once again can’t get out of its own way. It’s no lament, pal. If anything its incredulousness at so-called liberal Democrats so willing to back down on every single issue. The wimp factor, it’s called.

If we believe them Funny, I question some of your beliefs, too. How do you support a party that supports the same platform as the party you claim to hate on so many issues (gay rights being the foremost … but feel free to throw in corporate welfare, the wrong war, the necessary war, healthcare … you name it).

Believe what you want, buddy. The fact remains the savior hasn’t done very much differently than the guy this blog and others like it spent 8 years torching (for essentially the same policies). I can’t help but enjoy pointing out how hypocritical it is, especially when there are candidates who offer a genuine alternative to the same old bullshit.

Why blame Nader? Even Kerry said he couldn’t believe he lost to a moron like George Bush (even though his party basically gave Bush everything he wanted for 8 years, including the last two when they were in the majority).

I know it’s no fun reading a contrary opinion, especially when it rains on the usual “make fun of the wingnuts parade” … but honestly, when do you guys start to hold your own accountable?

Oh, right, there’s always Ralph Nader to blame …

Tom said...

Could you try for a little fairness, Charlie? The other guys had 32 years out of the PostWar years of the 20th century, and the first 8 of this century. It's going to take a while to pry the teeth of Big Bidness out of the arse of the Body Politic.

The man hasn't been in office for a full year, and all we hear from you is complaint. Are you running for office? Perhaps you should.

Charlieopera said...

Could you try for a little fairness, Charlie?

The depends on what your definition of “fairness” is, Tom. Is this the old Democratic Party “incremental” excuse (used for everything). I mean, it is 2010 (gay rights, national health care, etc.). There just isn’t enough difference between the “other guys” and your guys and I find it interesting how you allude to the Dems (at least Obama) not permitting Big Bidness a parking spot firmly up his arse. Or was that funding the failed banks, companies, etc., something he did with his constituency in mind? Don’t get me started on what he rushed through without protecting American workers (yep, the original “same old” lament).

The man hasn't been in office for a full year, and all we hear from you is complaint.

Gee, sorry I’m not defending Obama at every turn by attacking conservative republicans (obviously what you feel is the necessary war). The man campaigned on change and so far has delivered everything but change. If anything, he’s taken Bush’s policies and expanded them for the benefit of Big Bidness.

Are you too complaining about criticism? Are you that in line with the white house? Ban Fox/Ban Charlie/ban anyone who doesn’t kiss our ass?

Are you running for office? Perhaps you should.

If they let me line up most members of both parties and shoot them, I’d consider it.