+1 except some polls due allow us to draw conclusions.

I'm in the same boat. Heard both sides and am sick of the debate. The Dems have the 60 Senate seats and an overwhelming majority in the House. Can't blame not passing this on anyone anymore.

Tired of talk. Just fucking get something done.

I still think most of the polls are irrelevent because none of the people being polled really know what's in the bill. We still have people believing in death camps and forced abortions. I think a lot of the responses are based off of fear of the unknown. That's partly the Democrats fault for letting special interests and Republicans control the debate and throw out some lies to scare people.

Kind of like the Iraq War polls before the war started. Most people supported it but didn't know that the WMD thing was a farce and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If people were more educated on it, the polls would have been much different.

Basically what I'm saying is that polls mean shit if the people being asked don't know what the fuck is going on.

None of those bills have more than a few dozen Republican supporters. The GOP House leadership said well over one hundred days ago that they were putting the finishing touches on their alternative proposal, but so far they have delivered nothing. There isn't any piece of legislation or proposed legislation that would garner support from a majority of GOP members.

Which, as the posters above have shown, is irrelevant because the Democrats don't need the GOP's support anyway.

again showing my naivete, I do wish that there could be a bill that is bipartisan on input, support, and results.

Irrelevant in passing a bill, but certainly not irrelevant when the argument is that the GOP has presented alternatives.

Wow.

Some of these politicians are modern-day drama queens. It's got to be over the top or else.

Pelosi's not too bright and is a poor leader, but she's certainly not an enemy of the constitution.

How quickly some people forget how fast-and-loose with the Constitution folks like Tom Delay and Dick Cheney were not so long ago.

Save it for the 'Dancing With The Stars' thread.

Given the rednecks Broun represents, he's just trying to rally his voting base a little. I doubt most in his district (except the obvious college students) can even spell "Constitution" let alone tell you what's in it.

In fact, his most recent accomplishment...

H.CON.RES.121 : Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as "The National Year of the Bible".

H.R.227 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

H.R.1621 : To withhold Federal funds from schools that permit or require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem in a language other than English.

Ahem.

At least he's spending his time on important stuff.

That still exceeds the accomplishments of the current administration and congress as a whole.

How about we make 2010 "The Year of Doing Something and Not Complaining About Everyone Else".

I can see why that's important to someone voting on the bill (so they're not solely blamed if it bombs), but why is that important for a regular citizen? Why is it so important for you to Republicans to agree?

I mean, you don't agree with the Republican platform in general, right? You believe that the Democratic platform is generally more correct. So why don't you want to see that actual platform in action, not some watered down version of it that Republicans agree with? What's with all the waffling now that the Dems have power?

Watch out, molson. You may be getting fact-checked by CNN if you keep making comments like this.

Eh, I'd give him 1-1-1 on that list.

The Con. R. took some staffer a few minutes to write, if that, I'm down with the idea but it's fluff.

Me & Broun part ways on when life begins, so that's a loss.

1621 I'm very proud he's attached to, even if it sadly doesn't have any real hope of being passed. As important a use of his time as any of a hundred other things it could have been spent on afaic.

really? wow. what a douche. so if they PERMIT it to be recited in another language (say Native American reservation schools?) he wants Federal funds withheld? What a fuckwad.

you've got the answer there in your statement. GENERALLY MORE CORRECT, not 100% ALL CORRECT

I guess that really doesn't surprise me.

As far as REQUIRE I guess I'd agree with (although what about say optional Chinese Language Immersion programs within public schools?). As far as PERMIT I'd strongly disagree with.

And this coming from someone (me) who thinks that bilingual education is largely a crock and we should require all immigrants to learn English. So I'm not exactly liberal on this issue.

OK - so does that mean you'd have doubts with a plan that Democrats universally supported, and Republicans universally opposed? I can understand that. That's what sucks about the partisianship of all this.

i wouldn't say my doubts were tied to who supported it or opposed it, but more just in general.

i don't necessarily think it'll be a better plan because it'll be 100% democrat. there's a real danger in that in that you don't have any outside input into it looking out for other ways to get things done and it can all just sort of snowball.

that being said i'm much more in favor of the general idea of the plans put forth by the democrats than the republican proposals. but the devil is in the details, and i think the Republicans are really failing to do their job as far as engaging in the political process and raising legitimate questions and offering legitimate alternatives.

i hate coming off like i'm partisan, because my views are really a lot more nuanced than that.

shit...i'm for universal healthcare, but i'm also for making english the national language and requiring immigrants to learn it.

but the whole environment has become so polarized that everyone is pushed onto one side or another, largely based on where they stand on social issues (gay rights, abortion, that type of thing).

cuz generally I think veering more than X from the middle is bad for America.

It's a bit sad that the Dems actually made some effort to meet Reps in the middle on legislation since the last election, and the Rep response has basically been to attack whatever the Dems put forth. It would have been nice if the extreme partisanship from the Bush / Clinton days could have been scaled back some, and both sides could have tried to work towards something mutually acceptable. But obviously, that's not going to happen.

What I don't understand (and frustrates the hell out of me) is why the stupid Democrats are unwillingly to say, "okay, you don't want to play ball, so we'll just do things our way, and you can go screw yourself" and take advantage of their holding both chambers and the Presidency. You KNOW the Republicans would be passing all sorts of stuff if the tables were turned. I wish these guys could get on the same page and get some stuff done. Quit trying to reach out and getting your hands cut off, you idiots. You may never get another chance like this for decades. STEP ON THEIR NECK WHEN THEY ARE DOWN. THEY WOULD DO IT TO YOU.

Somehow I don't think Obama would have been as successful in the election, especially the primaries, if the message was, "Change We Can Believe In As Long As The Republicans Agree".

I'm sure they are, but for the Democrats to blame the minority Republicans for their failures - that's just sad and pathetic.

They think they've set it up well though. SOMETHING will pass eventually. It will be a big compromise. If it doesn't work out, the Dems will still have their scapegoats. Even though this particular scapegoat is completely ridiculous. It's all about setting up who to blame ahead of time.

The Democrats' failures are on their own shoulders. The Republicans couldn't really do much about things if the Democrats had their act together.

Why would you expect that the party that seems largely antagonistic to the idea of personal responsibility would want to, you know, be responsible for anything? For eight years they've been able to demonize Republicans for the direction of this country, and now with a near supermajority in the Senate and a clear majority in the House, they're still demonizing Republicans for the direction of this country. After eight years of not having to take responsibility for the country, I'm convinced that many Congressional Democrats either don't want, or don't know how, to be an effective majority party.

The GOP is suffering from a lack of leadership now, which isn't that surprising. What is surprising to me is that the Democrats also seem to be suffering from a lack of leadership. Obama seems uninterested in details or specifics in legislation, and seemingly would prefer to just sign the bill that gets to his desk. But since he's both the president and head of the Democratic party, I don't think he can be a "hands-off" president. Most people, his critics included, thought that Obama was going to be a bold and strong president. Instead, almost one year in he looks like the weakest we've had since Carter.

Yeah. Honestly, Obama is really disappointing me. The stars are aligned like never before in my lifetime, he is well-regarded by the people who elected him and around the world, but he seems better at sweeping speeches than in getting in there, getting his hands dirty, and getting the job done. He's too worried about bipartisanship and playing nice. I won't vote for him next time out if he doesn't dramatically improve. I still have hope that he will rise up to the challenge, but that hope is a lot weaker than it was a year ago.

In baseball terms, swing for the fences. It's better to strike out than to not even swing.

I see two problems with minority support in legislation (esp when the White House and congress is held by the same party):

1. Politics is now a team sport. So, "helping" Obama pass legislation (even legislation that you may feel is good for the country) hurts your team. The republicans are much better off as a party if nothing passes on a major issue.

2. A lot of times the minority doesn't agree with the premise. Take "Cap and trade" - most republicans don't want any bill that would add stress to industry related to "carbon credits" or any similar measure. If that's your premise, how do you compromise? It's like telling a Red Sox fan: "You don't have to root for the Yankees the entire ALCS, just root for them for the first game or two". You are still asking someone to endorse an action they are diametrically opposed to.

As time passes, partisanship will continue to ratchet up and there will be less and less willingness by the party out of power to do anything. This is just a result of the "team sport" nature of politics combined with the 24-hour cable news cycle. Even if Mitch McConnell wanted to endorse a policy created by Harry Reid and helped it pass, he'd be tarred and feathered by the right for even helping them out. It's a lose-lose for the party out of power combined with the party in power getting put down by their supporters for trying to get a consensus (esp when one isn't needed).

I'd go more into it, but all that can said now is that "it is what is" and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

I'd strongly question whether he's considered the latter within the party. They haven't been able to figure out whether it's supposed to be Reid, Pelosi, or whomever but I've always gotten a pretty strong vibe that they all agree it's not Obama.

Back on the health care, yes, "work" is a great word and I am fortunate. My coverage is excellent but it is expensive, never said it wasn't. What's the old adage? Quality-Service-Cost: pick 2. My empathy is in the quality of health care and living/maintaining a healthy lifestyle (which is also the priority of my company which recently won a national(?) award for healthy living initiatives - against good competition since Colorado is the healthiest state). Anyway, there are a lot of people working for companies so I reacted against that 94% are one illness away from bankruptcy (if I read that right).

And yes, it is tied to the deficit. What if Congress over the decades had not done a lot of stupid things - or were encouraged not do such things? These range from temporary expenditures that ended up being permanent, to wasteful "war" on X, to ridiculous parochial weapons programs, to ill-thoughtout nationbuilding, to corporate welfare, to cheating tax codes and to alledged stimuluses that are only targeted to help the fewest people possible (and not the ones that really needed help). Perhaps they cried wolf too many times that they would be hard pressed to do something that could actually matter. But instead, we shouldn't trust them as they have not proven they can be trusted with many big things. I wish health costs were lower and I wish more can get basic coverage (without having to resort to CORBA, which is ridiculous) but I do not trust or believe they can do that.

Well, I was leaving Athens out of my redneck comment (for the most part), however your approval of 1621 reinforces your other occasional racist comments. I recited the pledge in French during my AP French class in high school (as she wanted everything done in french, no english), but we all know what Broun means to write is that he wants funds pulled if it's recited in Spanish. Plays perfectly in to the xenophobia in rural Georgia, however I guess it's better that he wastes his time pushing drivel into committees (like Saxby) rather than gain any traction for any of his issues.

Dola, I also think bilingual requirements are stupid, but we know the true undercurrent of the bill and who he's trying to appeal to.

Speak English or die motherfucker pretty well covers it within the borders of the 50 states as far as I'm concerned & most especially when it's on the taxpayers dime. I don't bitch cause Quebec likes French, why anyone has a problem with English here beats the hell out of me (or it would if I particularly gave a damn why).


Yep, which makes sense since we aren't seeing many Hungarians in northeast Georgia lately. If we were, he'd want 'em pulled for doing the Pledge sounding like Zsa Zsa Gabor.

On the bright side, the economic downturn has at least reduced the crowd outside the Home Depot enough that you can get into the parking lot most mornings without having to dodge the loitering throng as it no longer spills over beyond the tent into the entrance, so we've got that going for us.

On the whole I'm pretty happy with Broun, and the instances where we do part company are more than made up for by how wound up he gets our local assortment of nouveau hippies & garden variety liberals. Heck, he could never introduce another piece of legislation as long as he's in office and still be worth keeping around just for his votes and the service he provides by discomfiting the enemy so consistently.

Unfortunately, I agree with this statement. He has been a disappointment over the past couple months.

I like him but winning the Nobel Peace Prize is premature and, imo, a joke.

He's doing a lot of payback for what he did to get elected and most of that is...well...looking like he's in charge, but ultimately realizing he's way in over his head. I mean, most of his team seems that way too. Like in theory thought they could do this, brought in a ton of ex-DC paperweights to "help" him look more experienced and really, everyone is just "getting theirs" and the Boy Emperor is really just doing what he does.

Getting on planes and riling up people.

You left out winning stuff he has zero business winning in a remotely sane world.

Schools should be English, but being bilingual is extremely important in today's global market. Raising kids to speak 2 or 3 languages is a huge benefit to their future.

Yeah, if they are languages like Japanese or Chinese.

Damn it, you better speak English in your own home too!

If you're a CEO or something. But a large percent of the population speaks it in this country and throughout the world. If you're bilingual, it opens a ton of jobs for you. I remember when I worked at a large furniture company, they'd hire managers who were bilingual because they could communicate eaiser with a lot of the workers on the lines.

Lot of professions like doctor, dentist, social worker, teacher, etc have a major advantage in the job marketplace if they speak Spanish.

It won't be once we get all them Mexicans out of this country.

For domestic work, sure. For international work, other languages are better. French and Chinese would sure be handy for me right now, but I took Spanish in high school and German in college. Sigh.

I agree. But for the most part, the average person has a higher chance of needing another language for domestic instead of foreign. In any event, knowing multiple languages can only enhance your job prospects no matter what it is.

Yes, like trying to order food. My wife and I still laugh at the time we ordered an Egg McMuffin with folded egg and they tried to put lettuce on it...

For the future, I would vote for Mandarin and Spanish. Mandarin obviously because of China's growth and importance to US businesses and Spanish because of Mexico/Caribbean/Latin/South America.

Unfortunately, the French I learnt in school, is ... old Europe.

I work for a French company and have dealings with the Montreal studio on a semi-regular basis, that's the only reason French would be important to me.

I don't get why the President is being praised for his speech on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" the other night. It's a nice speech and all, but he has the power right this minute to repeal it with a stop-loss order. It's 8 months into his Presidency on an issue he said he'd handle and it's gone nowhere. Enough with the fucking speeches and promises on this, sign a stop loss order Monday morning and get this abomination over with. Then let Congress put together a bill so that we don't have future Presidents reversing it (although I think that would be highly unlikely).

What I really need is a droid that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators.

I LOLed

"No one who speaks German could be an evil man."

You mean, a bill that makes sure the Dem's stay in power after Obama is gone? Chavez repealed the laws that allowed the people to even elect somebody new...maybe we should go there next?

The Massachusetts' Democrats DID just repeal their own law forcing a special election to replace a Senator that has to leave office now that they have a Democrat governor in office when Ted Kennedy died.

He actually isn't by a lot of gay rights activists (including Andrew Sullivan). They agree with you - it's just talk and no action. And I'm getting sick of the "other priorities" thing. Gay Americans are being treated as second class citizens and that isn't a even a mid level priority? Really?

OT, but I'll put it here 'cause its not so important to make a new thread.

Met Howard Dean yesterday at our park. Didn't even recognize him at first because he was very subdued in person and he has lost a decent amount of weight. He showed a lot of interest in what we do though, which was cool of him because that kind of interest isn't really a necessary part of his life anymore.

A stop-loss can be reversed as soon as another President comes into power. Making a law on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would make it much harder to overturn as it would have to go through Congress.

Not sure where you are going with the Glenn Beck-esque rant.

I know some are upset, but it still seems like a small minority who are being vocal about this. It should have been done the day after he was put in office. Everyday it's not should be an uproar. He should be treated the same as Bush on gay rights until he actually does something.

Well, gay voters are treated by the Dems as pro-life voters are treated by the Reps. A few bones tossed to them, but overall, they are just used as a locked in voter base.

But a President can't ban abortions overnight. It's a Supreme Court issue and I think Republicans have done their best lately to put in people who would overturn Roe v Wade.

Bush also signed Presidential orders that was beneficial to the Pro-Life movement.

Well, I think he saw what happened when Clinton started with that right off the bat. And he probably wants it done as an amendment to the Uniform Code, since it would be alot harder to be reversed.

I sure hope he gets it done soon, though. I'll be disappointed if he chickens out on it like Clinton did.

World has changed a lot since Clinton on this issue. This coming generation doesn't think homosexuality is a big deal.

It isn't just Obama, congressional leadership is just as responsible for not touching DADT. It's shameful.

It is shameful of Congress, but Obama doesn't need them to fix it.

It colors my view of everyone who can fix it, but chooses not to.

I still don't understand why we let felons into the military but not openly gay people.

I've never heard of felons engaging in gay activities :mad: ;)

A pretty baffling more by the Obama Administration here. I can't even imagine the backlash had the previous administration made a similar statement towards MSNBC. It doesn't make sense to make a statement that will likely only increase the audience of the network you are attempting to minimize with that statement.

White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News - Political News - FOXNews.com

FOXNews has to be loving this.

I don't know exactly what the White House hopes to accomplish here, but what a moronic strategy. I mean, do they think Republicans who watch FoxNews are going to shut it off based on what the White House says? Do they think its going to make Glenn Beck fans turn against him? It's like these people got an FOFC account and are blowing off steam in a political thread.

And, I'm sure this will be defended by people who would have had a problem with Bush attacking free speech in a similar matter. It's not up to the White House to characterize American media. If a network wants to report news with a conservative bias, and supplement that with commentators with conservative opinions, that's their right. And while the administration isn't literally suppressing that right yet, its just odd to see them attacking non-complacent media.

Funny how when it's the NYT that's being hit neither of you complained.

First off, this quote sums up 'News' on most of the Channels right now and I HATE IT and I think it is WRONG. On Fox, on CNN, on MSNBC, I hate it all when the Cafferty of said channel comes on with his witty comment or opinion. Jesus, just give me news. And Fuckin' stop with the twitter quotes! I love some Wolf Blitzer because he leaves his opinion behind.


That being said, I think the White House shouldnt be engaging the journalistic pool, regardless of their opinion, at all. It is a bad precedent and they ought to stop it NOW. You could obviously present News and Opinion and then hide 'false' news behind the opinion label, use them interchangeably and cause all kinds of shenanigans.

Did the Bush administration attack the NYT because they printed an unfavorable article? If so, I missed it, that's TOTAL crap, and yes, I'm complaining about it. I could care less what party does it, it's crap. I think its funny how you're so desperately partisan about this though.

'couldnt' :)

These seem like very silly comments by the administration, but does the fact that the comments are pretty much true change anything?

Yes, the Bush admin attacked the NYT as part of the larger attack on liberal media. How is this any different than the standard liberal media bias attack that's not only not criticized, but generally regarded as truthful among many around here? Why is media criticism suddenly crap when Obama levels the same criticism that's been going since at least Nixon, only in reverse?

I'm sure that makes it defensible from the perspective of many Obama supporters.

It's not really a big deal, just kind of humorously inept. Not sure what they're trying to accomplish.

It is funny and similar to the crying Liberal Media Bias all of the time....

That being said it ALL ought to stop!

And for Christ's Sake News Channels ought to be NEWS channels and stop all this other garbage!

Whatever. I just think the Obama administration shouldn't get into a pissing match with FoxNews. It accomplishes nothing. It makes them look bad. I'm not saying its different than anything else in the past. I'm not saying that Republicans haven't done this.

I could say all the same stuff to you. Why do you have a problem with the "liberal bias" accusations, but have zero problem with Obama taking on a specific network that's not kind to him? Your agenda looks a lot clearer than mine. I can say that Bush was a shitty president. You can't criticize Obama. It always goes back to complaining about/blaming someone else.

hmmm, how much time in the term did you allot before coming to that conclusion on Bush?

Anyways, agreed, the GOP ought to stop crying about Media bias as should this admin. Ill bet the liberal Media Bias' is stated much more than this most recent sillyness.

It was hard to tell for a while after 9/11. The country and politics kind of took a different direction. By the end of the first term at least, it was pretty clear that this wasn't a good president. Too bad the Dems blew it '04 by nominating a stiff.

Funny how just yesterday I called his actions shameful, but I guess criticism only counts of it matches your own.

I don't really care about Obama's thoughts on Fox. I know what I think of them and neither he nor anyone else is going to change that. I think te whole press shop should be ignored, but media organizations are too cheap and lazy to do that, so whatever press releases come out get treated as news.

The bigger issue, though, is that much of the specific criticism of Obama was ignored when Bush was president. This was less than a year ago. I'm perfectly willing to take criticism like Buc's on face value because he was making the same criticisms last year, but too many of you weren't. Now the latest outrage is admin attacks on the media when this wasn't just tolerated, but celebrated when Bush was out to get the NYT or when Palin was freezing out the networks.

They'd go broke.

Exactly my point. The "bigger issue" of this OBAMA story is apparently Bush. Someday, maybe this administration (and the Democratic party) will be about something else.

And how, in what universe, were the liberal media attacks "ignored" when Bush was president? You must be joking. I'm pretty sure I recall some healthy criticism of that administration, on everything, in the media, popular culture, and message boards during that time. Including criticisms of the Republicans' obsession with characterizing the media as "liberal".

I mean, is your contention that because Republicans are obsessed with demonizing the "liberal media", that Obama should return the favor and call out Fox News? He's definitely not worse than Republicans in that kind of comparison, but there's yet another check against change, I guess.

Obama kind of has the burden of proof to be better. Being just as bad as Republicans isn't particularly inspiring.

But I'm talking about you. Where were your criticism of the GOP complaining about the media? Or where were your criticisms of Palin complaining about the media? Do I really need to go back to the campaign thread and pull your quotes complaining about how the media was being unfair to Palin and McCain? Why is that okay, but criticizing Fox unacceptable?

A couple of posts up I complained about Bush calling out the NYT for printing unfavorable articles, if that happened.

I don't have a problem with Republicans generally calling the media "liberal". Or Democrats generally calling FoxNews "bias". I might disagree with the opinions expressed there, but I don't have a problem with the expression of that speech. I do have a problem with a presidential administration, any administration, calling out and attacking specific news/media/entertainment organizations that disagree with them. I just don't think that's their role.

I do think there is a difference between the president going after FoxNews and me personally expressing displeasure about the media being unfair to someone. There's a lot of things I say, and do, that a presidential administration probably shouldn't. My opinion is worth jack shit. The president has a somewhat more complicated role.

But aside from all that, again, my main observation is the stupidity. What is this going to accomplish? I don't think its remotely a big deal otherwise.

There I can agree with you, but this isn't some new thing. Media criticism from the White House is at least as old as Nixon and probably goes back much further.

So you agree with me that the GOP leadership and it's mouthpieces had a responsibility not to lie and create outrage over lies in regards to the UHC debate, like Palin's Death Panel comment. Ill have to go back and see if you backed me up on my opinion that leaders should be held to a higher standard than us common folk, including you and I. It was a couple of full pages in here about the lies that were being regurgitated at the Tea Party events like the Death Panels and such.

So this is what it comes down to all of this time? The amount of criticism can only be measured against the level of previous criticism?? How pathetic and so predictable. Nothing has changed in 33 years when it's about revenge and political/argumental points against your opponents. I do not expect any of us to be better than that but don't act like you are.

Palin is a complete idiot. I think its funny that Dems monitor her so closely, and then have an orgasm when she says something dumb. Her being an idiot doesn't make you more right about health care, or anything else. All it shows is that Palin is an idiot. It has nothing to do with health care opinions generally. That's the typical strategy, and its a disingenuous one. You're not going to convince me that Democrats are right about everything just because Palin's a moron, and the tea parties are dopey.

No idea what any of this has to do with anything. Because I don't think the White House should single out specific media outlets they don't like for attack, I must be pro-Palin or something?

It has nothing to do with holding leaders to higher regard. Obama is the PRESIDENT. The PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION (any one) shouldn't get in pissing matches with media outlets that disagree with them. It's not that they should be held to a higher standard, it's that it's kind of creepy and un-American for the presidential administration to be bullying specific media outlets they don't like. The only purpose of such attacks, is a ridiculous attempt to suppress free speech (which won't be successful here), and I don't think presidents should try to suppress free speech. Just my opinion. It has nothing to do with party politics. I don't think Bush should have done it, I don't think Nixon or Ford or Reagan should have done it either.

The other thing the White House might be doing here is to actually make FoxNews more relevant and important, which will be great for FoxNews, but ultimately bad for republicans.

You can't imagine the backlash if a previous administration made statements like this about a media source? Have you been following politics the last decade? The New York Times and every other media source out there not named Fox News has been labeled with a liberal media bias. They've been labeled liberal, unpatriotic and even treasonous by some. I understand not liking this stuff, but you can't honestly tell me that this is somehow new territory we've hit here.

I think it can be viewed two ways. The first is that it's the administration becoming more aggressive against attacks. They have let the other side control the debate on a lot of issues lately and perhaps this is their way of calling out lies. I did think they did a poor job addressing issues like death camps and forced abortions when those got passed around. So maybe this is their way of saying that if you are going to make up stuff, you'll be called out on it.

The other is of course that bickering with a cable news network is below the Presidency. That most people know what Fox News is and that it doesn't need to be addressed by the administration. That this kind of stuff should be handled through back channels and not through the office of the President.

I personally think it was a political move done by the administration in the same vein of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and "liberal media bias". It's a way to discredit anything the network says. It's a way of trying to label the opposition as those who watch Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Not unlike thier portrayal of Republicans as the party of Limbaugh earlier. It may help build up the viewership on Fox News, but they will bank on the high negatives the network receives from the public to counteract it.

I also don't think that it was that far out of line. I mean Fox News is more or less the news of the Republican Party and tends to follow the talking points on a daily basis. They have had multiple reporters and journalists with close ties to the party. Heck, Tony Snow ended up going from being a reporter on Fox News to being the Press Secretary. There have also been the instances of fabricating stories and making news that is unfavorable to Obama (having a producer tell the crowd what to do at the tea party rallies). I don't blame Fox News for it as they should strive to get the best ratings they can, but saying they aren't really an honest news source doesn't seem to be a real stretch.

Welp, I agree with you about the President but I also think people in leadership positions ALSO have to be held to a higher standard, ie. the CEO of a company. I dont give a pass to the VP because he's not the Pres, and down the hill as well. People in leadership positions, regardless of whether or not you agree with them or think theyre a loonbat, still may hold a leadership position and therefore have that same responsibility to know that they are in that position, have attention paid to them and their words, and need to be even more accurate. Both sides, as you say, no matter the topic at hand should be held to the same standard including the latest debate du jour be it UHC a few pages ago. On today's point we agree, Obama and the administration ought to leave the Media alone, be it the 'opinion block' or the 'news block' or the blended 'block'.

and yes Bucc, if you level one rate of rancor at one side of debate based on a facet or pillar you ought to hold the same amount of rancor for the other side in a debate that also rests on the same pillar.

Even more funny is how you totally missed the point in an attempt to make this somehow a partisan discussion.

It doesn't matter who's targeted or who's doing the targeting. Any administration who uses this tactic to target any media outlet that they consider bias against their party or their goals is looking for trouble. They're instantly increasing the viewership (or readership) of the media outlet they're trying to attack.

Also, FoxNews is a relatively dangerous target to go after. While they do lean conservative in their shows, they have a very diverse and industry-leading viewership base that is spread out between the two parties and the independent supporters. The administration basically told those viewers that they weren't smart enough to distinguish between what was partisan and what is not on FoxNews. Not a smart move.

so many things I disagree with in MBBF's last paragraph in the post above in his word choices...boy do I ever parse words. Reminds me of how he posted in the Iran thread. {head into brick wall}

So your standard to judge Obama's presidency is if Republicans (even non-president Republicans) generally do something, its OK for him?

Change we can believe in!

No, I understand the point, whatever Obama does is wrong. I just expect a little consistency in dealing with the past administration.

I'm surprised that you're still willing to make quantifiable predictions, but good luck. I doubt it will increase Fox's viewership measurably, but even if it does, the raw number of people watching cable news just isn't that great. Fox is much more important as a vehicle to get ideas out to other outlets and make their stories national in scope.

Fox doesn't have a diverse viewership, at least when it comes time to vote. Very few demographics are a more reliable GOP vote than Fox news viewer. In 2004 Fox viewer was a more reliable Bush vote than conservative, evangelical, gun owner, or military service. In 2008 it was a more reliable demographic than conservative, evangelical, gun owner, Bush 2004 voter, or military service. Maybe you can make an argument that independents that don't watch Fox will be turned off by these attacks, but I'm skeptical until I see some evidence.

I don't think Obama needed to make this so public, but there isn't a lot to lose at this point. Fox proudly sees itself as the Alamo against Obama and has set out to bring down his presidency. I'd prefer Obama just quietly froze them out, but this latest outrage will die down in a couple of weeks when there's a new czar to foam about.

And I understand your point that the president should never be criticized, if Republicans have also ever done anything wrong.

No, I'd just like some honesty that the same critiques could have been made during the last admin but weren't.