The Fox and Cheney sideshows -

The Fox and Cheney sideshows


The Obama White House recently decided that Fox News is biased and that it should be called out for its distortions and mistruths. White House strategists have apparently concluded that the Beck-Hannity-O’Reilly crowd is getting traction. Even though recent polls put Obama’s approval ratings over the 50% mark—the latest CNN poll put his popularity at 55%—the White House is growing increasingly concerned about the impact his opponents will have on major upcoming legislative proposals like health care, cap-and-trade, and the consumer protection agency. As a result, Obama will still do interviews on Fox, but his staff has clearly labeled the network media non grata.

Meanwhile, former vice-president Dick Cheney is continuing his crusade against Obama’s foreign policy, going so far as to label the president a “ditherer.” Cheney’s statements get wide media coverage, if only because they stand in such contrast with the reserve shown by former President George W. Bush. Again, the White House has reacted and taken to reminding voters about Cheney’s role in the last administration. Given Cheney left with a popularity index of less than 25%, the Obama people have taken to portraying him as the face of the Republican party. Since the inauguration, Obama strategists have been blessed to have Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and, once again, Dick Cheney as embodiments of the Republican party. Going after them seems to be working, too, as voter identification with the party is at 20%, its lowest point in 26 years. So far, their attacks have paid off. But is it the best approach in the long run?

Targeting a specific media outlet is always a risky venture—journalists have a solidarity that goes beyond the employer. Besides, the argument can be made that MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right. As for Cheney, the former vice-president lost his credibility in the rush to war in Iraq, the manipulation of intelligence behind the scenes, and the torture memos. Most see him as the sinister force behind the Bush White House. Still, he does have one card to play and it is the ever-present danger that a terrorist attack could take place on American soil under Obama’s watch.

The Obama campaign was successful because they stayed focused on the ultimate goal—to get Barack Obama elected. The goal of the Obama White House, on the other hand, is to be a successful administration. That means implementing healthcare reforms, including universal coverage, a public option, and an end to the excesses of the health insurance industry; making progress in the fight against climate change; instituting better protections for consumers in the financial sector; restoring America’s reputation in the world; ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; reducing the nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea; bringing the economy back to stable growth; and, finally, putting in place a plan to bring down the deficit and the debt. That is the transformational change people voted for. All this will not necessarily get done necessarily in a first term, but enough progress can be made to building a strong case for re-election. Add in the personal popularity of the president and you have to wonder why the White House feels the need to bother with Republican sideshows.


The Fox and Cheney sideshows

  1. Wow . . . someone still living in the Obama Dazzle Zone.

    He got elected because he lied like cheap rug to the American people, sold them on the whole Hopey-Changey Thingy and since he has arrived in Washington has broken every promise he has made in the election.

    Interestingly today, the White House Press Pool pushed backed and refused to interview one of Obamasiah's "Czars" that the Administration put up for quotes because Fox News is part of the pool.

  2. I actually agree with everything Parisella says in this article.

    If Obama doesn't deliver substantial policy change, and make significant strides in economic recovery, he won't get re-elected. Plus, if he gets into a gutter fight with a largely unpopular and discredited party, he gives them credibility as his opposition. If he fights with a media group, no matter how biased against him it might be, he makes it look like he has something to hide or that he will only do business with press that will serve as his mouthpiece.

    Frankly, the next election is Barak Obama's to lose. If he makes moves that the conservatives will approve of, such as balancing the colossal deficit, he'll gain/keep his moderate conservative supporters. If he tosses highly symbolic red meat to his base that is easily forgotten, such as repealling "don't ask, don't tell" (which costs him nothing since the military votes Republican and those few soldiers who vote Democrat don't care).

    The deficit of the US is largely due to overspending on government pork projects and not bringing in enough revenue. For those absolutely against tax increases, they are probably a lost cause anyway. For those that would hate having their pork cut off, after 12 years of Republican dominance it probably won't hurt your supporters. As long as he takes the steps to balance the US deficit, the people will forgive him no matter how much it hurts in the short term.

  3. journalists have a solidarity that goes beyond the employer

    Thank God there aren't any journalists at FoxNews.

    Besides, the argument can be made that MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right.

    Why don't you make that argument, Mr. Parisella?

  4. the so called sideshows are necessary to keep Obama accountable . Fox News is a victim here . And Cheney has the right to challenge . And I agree with him .

  5. Those are indeed sideshows as Mr. Parisella says.

    Obama's poll numbers are coming down because people are also getting impatient with a lack of improvement on the economy or even a realistic plan to deal with it.

    Mr. Obama keeps repeating to all and sundry that he inherited this mess. That's true. But it's his mess now, and blaming Republicans is looking a little lame as we approach November 4th. It's put up or shut time.

    I've been an Obama-skeptic pretty well since the beginning. Nothing I"ve seen so far has made me change my mind. Nothing at all.

  6. Joe Klein of Time Magazine:

    "Fox News peddles a fair amount of hateful crap. Some of it borders on sedition."

    A mainstream media type claiming that a fellow media organ is "seditious". It's worrisome when the government tries to intimidate a media organization. It's depressing when other media outlets pile on.

    What's happening to the good old U.S. of A., bastion of liberty on the planet.

  7. A Pew Research study of the general election found that it is those in the MSM that aren't real news networks. They found that MSNBC's coverage of Obama was 14% negative & 43% positive. MSNBC's coverage of McCain was a whopping 73% negative & ONLY 10% positive. Fox News coverage of Obama was 40% negative & 25% positive. Their coverage of McCain was 40% negative & 22% positive. MSNBC's coverage of McCain was 5X more negative for McCain than it was for Obama & 4X more positive for Obama than it was for McCain. Fox News was equally negative for both & actually had more positive coverage for Obama (25%). The MSM's coverage of the general election was 29% negative & 36% positive for Obama. Their coverage was a whopping 57% negative & 14% positive for McCain.

    The MSM is a mouthpiece for Obama & he likes it that way. He attacks Fox to keep the MSM from reporting news that Fox reports on & to send a warning that they will get the same treatment as Fox if they do. Mindless liberals lie through their teeth about Fox News & make excuses for the MSM – but those excuses are bogus.

  8. Am I a bad person if I find listening to both Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh to be nauseating?

  9. I hope not cause then I am a very bad person.

  10. Sanchez of CNN recently peddled a completely fabricated quote of Rush Limbaugh, which he later had to "half heartedly" back down from.

    Anderson Cooper, smirked about the anti tax protesters being "teabaggers", a reference to the act of a male mouthing the "you know whats" of another male – he went onto giddly use that term dozens of times in that telecast.

    Those are "news" anchors btw. Not pundits.

    Care to name a single instance of Brett Baird, Shep Smith or the esteemed Chris Wallace,

    coming slightly close to any of that?

    Carry on with the base sliming.

  11. restoring America's reputation in the world

    This is the strangest goal – there is nothing wrong with America's reputation. And not only that, what the heck is the point? Is Obama the president of Lithuania? There is no underlying need to curry favour with the citizens of Bolivia. Other countries have no interest in pleasing Americans, so the American government should have no need to please other countries, beyond mutually beneficial goals.

    ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

    Iraq is over. Afghanistan, Obama seems to be confused about, he hasn't a clue what to do.

    reducing the nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea

    Obama has been a total failure on the nuclear file. Total.

    bringing the economy back to stable growth

    Obama has been a train wreck on the economy. He doesn't have a clue. America is in trouble the way things are going. He is creating massive debt and massive unemployment, he is devaluing the American dollar and he is trashing free enterprise in the country with his takeovers of autos, finance and health care. Train wreck.

    putting in place a plan to bring down the deficit and the debt

    Ha ha. Obama triples the deficit and here we have Parisella living in la la land.

  12. scf is living in a balloon flying over denver. Get real . restoring america`s reputation is necessary if you believe that other countries have a responsibilty to step up to face their responsibilities. Too many nations hated bush`s America and did nothing to really help.scf is wrong to assume other nations are not interested in pleasing America . Quite the opp¸osite . it is in thei interest.__Iraq is over ?go tell that to victims of car bombs and the over 140000 troops still there.__Failure on nuclear threat. Bush had 8 years and Obama has had 10 months. At least , be intellectually honest !__Train wreck?He has followed bush policies brought in last fall . All experts know the meltdown is over and positive GDP has arrivedFree enterprise without regulation has brought America where it is. Deregulation brought the meltdown . Saving GM was essential or 1 million jobs would be lost . Healtcare ? scf does not care if 47 million are unisured. They can just die -typical cold hearted right winger , who venerates greed.__What about Bush `s record deficit and dishonest accounting . __Under reagan and Bush = record deficits that taken together are greater than Obama who inherited the mess because of tax cuts for the rich .

  13. Yes its Bush's fault, that Obama decided to deal with a downturn in the economy by:

    – Buying car companies and placing unions over bond holders, in violation of basic priorities law that stood for a century and a half

    – Tripling the deficit…I'll say that again…tripling the deficit in a single fiscal period

    – demonizing political opponents like no other (than perhaps Nixon) by literally declaring war on non-conformist media, eeevil insurance co's, the chamber of commerce [being the latest], and in a manner that doesn't just disaggree but attempts to deligitimize/demonize.
    – forcing through radical spending bills without the opportunity to have them even be read, let alone digested

    Yes, tell us more of Bush's powers at mind control in causing Obama to act in these ways.

  14. Tripling tthe deficit ?Easy to explain . Continued bailouts or the economy would collapse. Continued Bush`s policy . Included cost of war in accounting , brought in stimulus. Where is the NEW gov`t program ,biff?
    Enemies `list?Ever heard of Scooter Libby, a convicted felon and Cheney`s role and Bush refusing to pardon Libby.
    Hard to beat Karl Rove when it comes to demonizing .
    all the appointees of Bush including Bernancke agreed the economy was about to collapse . Remember last fall . McCain had no clue .

  15. No administration can fix eight years of mis-management in under a year.

    The biggest knock against Obama that I have noticed is how much he is continuing many of the policies of the previous administration…. but he can't fix everything right away.

  16. Your sarcasm is drole.

    I hope it is sarcasm, and not just a logical dissidence chasm…

  17. How has the government tried to intimidate Fox News?

  18. You just keep believing all that. I'm sure it'll get even easier to believe by November 2012, when he'll need another four years to really get started on cleaning up the mess. And heck, maybe in 2016, there'll still be so much to fix, who knows…

    At what point does he own his mistakes, exactly? Blaming Bush at this point is as unconvincing as blaming Clinton for 9/11: it may feel good from a partisan perspective, but it's progressively harder to logically justify as time goes by.


    Is this part of the same conspiracy that put a Kenyan Marxist in the White House to kill all the seniors?

  20. Good call. Can I get a terrorist fist pump?

  21. At what point does Bush own any of his mistakes? Never?

    They are large mistakes and the systemic problems Obama's administration inherited cannot be fixed with a magic wand in a matter of months. GM won't fix itself in 10 months and neither will America.

  22. Fail diversion is fail.

  23. When did Maclean's hire Baghdad Bob?

    Gallup just released poll and results were dire. Obama admin experienced biggest drop in support from 2nd to 3rd quarter recorded in over fifty years. I am curious to know why Dems are 'blessed' with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Dick Cheney as opposition because they are sinking like rock. Unless you think Obama would be doing even worse without Palin, Limbaugh, Beck … and his numbers would be even lower. Dems are being pummeled from left, right and centre but Parisella suggests Dems keep fiddlin' while Rome burns.

    I do not think blessed means what you think it means.

  24. He is more truthful on the deficit by including the cost of the 2 wars he inherited. He added the stimulus and had to continue bailouts to prevent the collapse of the economy .As for demonizing , it is hard to beat Cheney , Rove and Scooter libby.

  25. Reoblicans have their lowest id in 26 years . So stop exaggerating , jolyon.

  26. Yes, the targeting of FoxNews by the White House is certainly a distraction as Parisella labels it.
    It also seems to be a deliberate decision.

    Now why, do you suppose, would the Obama Administration want to distract people from the important health care, economic, and climate change issues of the day?


  27. Don't know if you saw it or not but there was interesting article in NY Times the other day.

    "Late last month, the senior White House adviser David Axelrod and Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive of Fox News, met in an empty Palm steakhouse before it opened for the day, neutral ground secured for a secret tête-à-tête."

  28. No, you're not a bad person for engaging in the standard intellectual capitulation in order to conclude that they're all just as bad. That's what passes for critical thinking these days.

    • Oh good. I'm glad I'm still moral, but stupid.

      • Or maybe you're just tired?

  29. The 'inherited mess' is a red herring – every time a government administration changes, that is the cry from from the new administration. But at some point you have to own it. Eight months into the Bush administration he inherited a mess when 9/11 hit (from years of the Clinton administration ignoring terrorist attacks on US interests from the first World Trade Centre bombing to the USS Cole to the embassy attacks in Africa) – but he owned it and went forward – you can argue about what he did in the subsequent years, but he took full ownership of his actions. Yes Obama inherited problems, but he has also added to them big time – from the second bailout that he oversaw, the health care reform, the apology tour, the tarring of opponents as domestic terrorists and/or racists etc. etc. etc. And many in the MSM except for Fox has supported him rather than assume a real role for journalistic to look at thing objectively.

  30. When did Maclean's hire Baghdad Bob?

    So true. And that is such a funny line.

    • Why are Conservatives so arrogant?

      • "Why are Conservatives so arrogant?"

        I don't know. Why?

        • Jolyon –because they are self righteous and lack curiosity . Sounds like Bush , Cheney , Limbaugh and Beck . Sorry about Beck . He`s just dumb!!

      • ""Why are Conservatives so arrogant?"

        To distract from how stupid they are.

        • I've noticed that you have a high opinion of your own intelligence.

      • Obama is not a Conservative.

  31. As for "mistruths", like the Joe Kline article jarrid linked to, defenders of Fox ask for examples in the comments, and none are forthcoming.

    So I will ask for an example here.

    Just one.

    It surely must be easy, given that there are so many of them.

    One single news story about the Obama admin that wasn't true.


      • He'll never click through to a link that might challenge his world view.

        Lemme dig up a couple for ol' Biff here:

        1) Fox News falsley claims that Obama, as a child, attended a radical Muslim madrassa:

        2) Fox promotes the false "Obama refuses to place his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance" story:… then makes it worse:

        Hey Biff – you're welcome.

        • Thank you.

          Obviously two pressing and important issues that affects all the world.

          Any word on the all important issue of whether Obama uses floss or tape??? I'm sure that dastardly Fox news has cast aspersions on this important issue as well!!!!!

          You be sure to get back to us on that.

        • As for acutual news stories, I guess you don't have anything yet.

          Van Jones?


          The amount of Obama's debt?

          Afghan Issues?

          Back to the tooth floss scandal I guess.

          • Look, you're free to argue what it is you don't like about Obama, but don't be so sleazy as to dismiss the evidence you yourself asked for.

  32. I'm getting worried about two things that Obama seems to be oblivious about.

    One issue is that the skyrocketing debt Obama has created may result in reactions from the international community and other adverse reactions.

    Other countries may drop the dollar as the default currency and they may in fact stop buying US treasury bills. But even worse, I suspect severe inflation down the road.

    So much debt from Obama and so many dollars being printed by the fed has artificially propped up ecnomic activity at the expense of future generations and investors (but investors know this, so the value of the US dollar has been dropping). In the long run, this may cause peoples' savings to be evaporated away by run-away inflation.

    The other issue is that he has reinflated the mortgage and financial bubble with his massive bailouts. House prices have been reinflated by the Fed buying mortgage securities. Banks have resumed their policy of creating massive leverage and flimsy securities that have the sole purpose of lining their own pockets while putting their institutions at risk. Nothing has changed.

    Obama is lost in space on the economic file.

    • One issue is that the skyrocketing debt Obama has created

      With all due respect, the debt pre-exists Obama by decades, and was actually nearly doubled by the previous administration. Perhaps you'd rather take issue with the deficit, which is also something he inherited by and large.

      • Obama quadrupled the deficit. Period. Above I said triple, but it's actually quadruple. Obama has already created as much debt in 10 months as Bush did in the last four years.

        Here is your educational link for the day, I'm glad to be of service:

      • I know, it's hard to believe that picture is really true? It looks so crazy that Obama has done this. But it's true, the figures come form the Congressional Budget Office of the United States government and the White House.

        • For the love of god, do you even read your own sources? The last two links openly include the author's speculation about unstated spending that Obama might be planning for 2009. They each added $500-$700 billion dollars to the official figures!

          There's barely two months left in 2009. That's logistically impossible and absolutely silly.

          A point of reference: here's the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projecting a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit for 2009, as of TWO WEEKS BEFORE Obama took office:

          "The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. That total, however, does not include the effects of any future legislation. Enactment of an economic stimulus package, for example, would add to the 2009 deficit. In any event, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will most likely shatter the previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent posted in 1983."

          THAT is your baseline for Obama's effect on the deficit. (Source: <a href=" target=”_blank”><a hre…” target=”_blank”>…

          • For the love of God, you again? LOL.

            I find it hard to believe that you can actually defend, not only Obama's inability to improve the situation, but in fact Obama's severe worsening of the problem. On the other hand, coming from you, it's not hard to believe. The CBO revised that estimate by 650 billion thanks to Obama. What's a few hundred billion dollars? Nobody forced Obama to spend $700 billion on TARP. Yes, $700 billion. Nobody is forcing him to spend a trillion on health care. Yes, a trillion. The graphs don't lie. The figures are accurate. And they are shocking.

          • You, above: "Obama quadrupled the deficit. Period."

            For Obama to have quadrupled the deficit he inherited, it would have to top $4.8B in 2009. Not even your most wildly inflated figures claim that.

            The trillion dollars in health care he's discussing is over ten years, not per year.

            And for your reference, here's Wikipedia on TARP: "The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector. It is the largest component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."

            2008. Obama wasn't inaugurated until January 2009.

          • Your various points are completely irrelevant.

          • Straw men? I'm addressing specific points you brought up – TARP, the cost of the proposed health care plan and Obama's "quadrupling" of the deficit.

            I notice you have nothing to say in return.

            You should look up the term "straw man", it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

          • Still irrelevant – keep on with the straw men.

  33. "Obama is lost in space on the economic file."

    He is indeed. He doesn't have what it takes to lead America in these dangerous and uncertain times.

    America's allies are puzzled by the U.S.'s withdrawal from world leadership.

    Domestically, on the key file of our times, he's missing in action or to the extent he's taking action, he's making matters worse.

    Americans apparently felt good about themselves for electing an "African-American", I mean he's half-white, his mother being whiter than snow, and his dad was not born in America, but let's not quibble here. I wonder if they feel so good now, knowing that the African-American they elected is a left-wing ideologue whose ideology prevents him from acting wisely in the challenging times in which we live.

    He's a political disaster waiting to happen. It's all a matter of time.

  34. The key file of our times being of course the dire economic straits that the U.S. finds itself in. Printing money will only make matters worse in the long run Barry.

    • Jarrid thinks he's actually talking directly to Barrack Obama.

      Get some help, wingnut.

      • Learn how to spell.

        • Oops! Barack

          Pardon me, I'm sure.

  35. "Besides, the argument can be made that MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right."

    Because that argument could only be made in an atmosphere as devoid of integrity as, say, Fox News. I think Parisella is trying too hard to sound "reasonable" here to the fans of Fox News. It's simply not true.

    • So the halloween music and and the "worst person in the world" skit which exists to call out political opponents isn't Fox-news-ish? I have to say that it looks like the same newsertainment to me.

      <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

  36. An example of "intimidation" of a news outlet would be Nixon sending in the IRS to audit reporters who didn't toe the line.

    What's happening here, despite Fox News' persecution complex, is the White House refusing to provide material for Fox News to distort. There have been no threats made.

    • The intimidation occurs when other msm outlets start to wonder what will happen if they report a story. Will they ban x news org like they did Fox for reporting something that Obama doesn't like. Americans now have a president who decides what is legitimate news and what isn't – which is against the first amendment but who cares about that.

      Obama and his minions have just issued an offer the msm can't refuse.

      • Bullsh*t.

        The American cable news scene is a circus sideshow of entertainment posing as journalism, but even there Fox News stands out as absurdly slanted. They are still free to report on whatever they want, but the White House isn't obliged to keep participating any more than Charlie Brown is obliged to keep trying to kick Lucy's football.

        Incidentally, the latest manifestation of Fox' persecution complex ("Waaah! Mean old Obama is excluding us!") is turning out to have been a complete fabrication on the part of – wait for it – Fox News.

        Fox's claim:

        The story unravels:

      • BTW: This would represent actual, more recent, intimidation of the press:

        (Hint: it wasn't Obama declining interviews. And the MSM just laid back and took it)

        • It is not about Fox V White House, the issue is that WH has obligation to citizens to keep them informed. White House can't just willy nilly decide who it will and won't talk to (msm only, President has no such obligation to UFO Weekly)

          And how did tpm become authority on incident? Why, they "dug into it". That convinces me alright, I am sure I'm not being spun at all.

          If Bush did something similar he was wrong as well.

          • And how has the Obama White House failed in its obligation to keep citizens informed?

            Of course the press needs to maintain an adversarial relationship with everyone it covers – look at its gross failure to do so in the buildup to the Iraq war. You'll never hear me argue against that. But Fox News' programming goes way beyond adversarial – while they claim impartiality ("We report, you decide"), they transparently push their agenda year after year.

            I didn't present TMP as an authority on this incident (though they have a stellar reputation and a Polk award to back it up) but their piece did include a direct quote from a named White Housespokesman and an anonymous quote from another network who claimed their role in the matter was being distorted by Fox. Sheesh. Did you watch the Fox News clip that TPM linked to? Fox is clearly claiming that the White House deliberately left them out and that they only gained access through the manly efforts of their spokesman.

            Given Fox's recent wall-to-wall victimization coverage, and their history of slanted reporting, it wouldn't surprise me at all if TPM's report were accurate.

            As for Bush – did you read what I linked to? THAT is intimidation. It's not what Obama did, it's worse. It falls short of Nixon's sins, to be sure, but still represents a whole new degree of abuse of the press.

          • "t is not about Fox v White House, the issue is that WH has obligation to citizens to keep them informed. White House can't just willy nilly decide who it will and won't talk to (msm only, President has no such obligation to UFO Weekly)"

            Since when do you make up the rules?

          • "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
            The first amendment makes up the rules.

            -The First Amendment says that people have the right to speak freely without government interference.

            -The First Amendment gives the press the right to publish news, information and opinions without government interference.

            In the past month or two Glen Beck has dropped a tonne of bricks on ACORNS head, got two Obama appointees fired and is now focusing on senior white house official telling teenagers Mao is good role model. And then Obama Admin comes out says Fox is not real news station and they aren't talking any more.

            Are I am supposed to believe these two events are not related? Obama is the boy who takes his ball home before the game's over.

          • Total red herring. The White House has done nothing to prohibit Fox News from saying anything at all.


            For your amusement, here's a quote from Eric Boehlert, helping poor Jake Tapper understand why the White House might single out Fox News:

            "For instance, here's an example of how the Fox News family isn't quite like ABC. Here's another another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another."

            Go here for all 23 links. Follow a few of 'em, maybe pick a couple and discuss in the context of objective journalism:

          • ABC's Jake Tapper is doing pretty much what Parisella is doing here. More or less pretending to be incredulous at the charges levied at FoxNews in order send a message to the Democrats: "We're in charge here…not you and certainly not the people."

          • "The first amendment makes up the rules. "

            Instead of wasting your time typing up that comment, you should have spent it trying to understand the First Amendment.

            No law has been passed here abridging FoxNews's press freedom.

          • I am not a first amendment expert but I like to play one on the internets!

            I know my comment was total bs but I had had a few drinks and thought I would throw it out there.

            In practice, I know president is not duty bound to talk to press but in theory I think he does have obligation to talk often without playing favourites – and that's all presidents, not just Obama – because there is no formal mechanism to make president explain himself.

          • That's a thumbs-up click from me…

            I wondered what you were getting at :)

  37. @Jarrid and all dyed-in-the-wool defenders of the madness, there is this from GAWKER:

    'The more viewers Fox attracts, the more voters the GOP repels. And the more voters the GOP repels, the more viewers Fox attracts. The most important part of the dynamic is that Fox News has no interest in doing anything other than attracting viewers. It will continue to ride this wave of anger and resentment irrespective of what impact it has on the Republican Party until it stops making them money. And yes, Barack Obama's popularity is dropping, and the bloom is beginning to come off the rose. But the GOP hasn't seen a concomitant rise in popularity: Just yesterday it hit the lowest approval rating it has seen in a quarter century, according to the New York Times.'

    So keep on keeping on, folks… it's working!

    • Not sure what your point is, there seems to be none. People here that disapprove of Obama are not necessarily Republicans.

      I don't know what you mean by "lowest approval rating" when the GOP does not have control of neither the house, the senate, nor the presidency.

      Anyway, if you look at the generic congressional vote, the GOP has been rising all year long.

      • Sorry s_c_f

        Your link failed, for me at least. I had hoped my meaning was clear.

        I am passionate in my defense of people. Not rich people, or poor people. Not business people or labour people, Not rural people or urban people, not Alberta People or Ontario People. People like me. People like you. People who wish no harm on their neighbours. Where does your anger abide? Why do you hate your neighbours?

        You do hate your neighbours, don't you?

        • Here's the corrected link –

          Hate my neighbours? What are you talking about? Defense of people? You've completely lost me. I'm commenting on a blog site, and you seem to be somewhere completely different. You seem like a really negative person – try to get some sunshine.

    • John – Shortly after Obama became President, I predicted he'd only last one term. I based my prediction on Obama's left-leaning antecedents. The guy's radical left, fluked into the White House, and will be run out of there next election.

      One year into his presidency, his poll numbers are tanking, turns out he's a divider, not a uniter. No surprise there at all for me or anyone who bothered to look at his background.

      My prediction of a one-term presidency is on track.

  38. "Wow . . . someone still living in the Obama Dazzle Zone."

    Wow–you're still living in the Bush-Cheney Dazzle Zone. That's much more noteworthy.

  39. Mr. Obama will be gone in 3 year's time.

    Like the inept Jimmy Carter, he'll be a one-termer.

    After next year's mid-terms be a lame duck.

    And thus will end America's brief fling with a socialist dreamer.

    What will his accomplishments have been? Well, he'll have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

    They'll be talking about that one for years: how Mr. Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for accomplishing squat.

    • Jarrid :
      In your dreams . You are really off the wall and believe the crap about socialism , nazism , birthers , Fox Noise , Tea Bag loonism ,Rush , Beck, Palin –yuk ! not too creative or too bright , Jarrid.
      Two terms !

    • Seek help, Jarrid.

  40. As a 30 year retired vet of the US military I think you are off the mark as to how we vote. After 8 years of being stuck on stupid under Bush a lot of military I know do not vote Republican. The new GI Bill for example was the result of Sen Jim Webb VA (D) a highly decorated Vietnam Marine vet who pushed it thru inspite of Bush and McCain. Many of us see the Republicans as a bunch of Chicken Hawk draft dodgers – think Cheney.

  41. Perhaps you should stick with the AOL Teen Chat rooms.

  42. Where's the media matters link?

    • Here.

      • I agree. It is hard not to confuse Tiger Beat with mediamatters.

        • I know. But at least you're trying.

  43. Commenting on a comment noting an utter fail in another comment is a fail. Look it up.

    If a comment is a self-contained fail, diversion is rather irrelevant and just more of a poke in the eye anwyays. If I stayed relevant in my response, it could have some people confused into thinking I gave any credence to what the offending fail comment was failing on about.

    You of all people should know this. Wasn't the Kenyan Marxist in the White House trying to kill all the seniors a fail of yours?

  44. Once again , Obama has proven how insecure he is .

    • he is beyond help .

  45. Barry, your comments are so partisan! not even examples or nothing; just cheap Obama bashing.

    Not in 4 years, but ONLY IN 9 MONTHS, AND EXACTLY LIKE PROMISED BEFORE THE ELECTION: he closes Guantanamo, stops torture in interrogations, fights hard to pass healthcare reform before end of 2009, starts pulling soldiers out of Iraq, increases number of soldiers in Afghanistan, pulls out huge money to try and save banks and GM, lowers income tax exactly like promised, stops the anti-missile shield project in Poland, changes the mindset and dialog approach with Russia, Cuba, Iran, Syria and Muslims in general, re-opens funds for research on stem cells and abortion which Bush had vetoed.

    You may not agree with these policies, but it was all on the table when people voted for him, no surprise here. I don't know if he'll succeed at everything at the end of the term, but so far he's certainly trying, can't say he's lying. In fact, I'm surprised he did that much of his agenda in such short time.

  46. From the beginning of time, poetry has been a means for people to express