Obama Needs To Go!

OK folks, tell me again why you elected this Communist SOB as a President.  I’m tired of mincing words.  I tried to be respectful, but no more.  This wannabe Stalin is no good for this country and the change we need is to throw his Socialist ass out of office come 2012.

He doesn’t like Fox News…I get it.  Fine.  But to use the power and prestige of the presidency to marginalize Fox News is anti-American.  It borders on Stalinesque.  He’s gone so far as to ask the other networks to ignore Fox News and their correspondents.

Yesterday, he doubled down and lost.  He tried to exclude Fox News from an interview of the so-called Pay Czar (you know, that guy who is in charge of capping salaries).  All administrations often provide top off officials to be interviewed by the press pool of which Fox is a member.  The hacks in this administration tried to exclude Fox news.  Fox is a member of that pool.

Fortunately, the other networks refused to participate unless Fox was included.  They understood the implications that the next President could find them in disfavor – and if it was a Republican, I’d be just as pissed!  Maybe more so

Here’s the video:

Welcome to change, America.  Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro style.

One has to wonder that if he is afraid of Fox News, maybe he's not exactly who we need as Commander-in-Chief.

VW

Comments

[Scott]

No argument: political leanings aside, Pres. Obama shouldn't have tried to exclude a legit news source from a legit press conference. That's poor sportsmanship, to a T. Marginalize Fox on your own time, in your own mind…hell, I don't watch it! (Of course, I don't watch ANY news, so that's hardly sayin' anything.) But play fair, and keep things intellectually honest.

NO HYPOCRISY!

[Matt]

Well, I agree that he shouldn't have tried to exclude Fox news. But it isn't the type of censorship you're making it out to be. There would have still been members of the free press out there reporting on the events. I find it hard to feel sorry for Fox.

Is this really worse than a President who created the Patriot Act, which compromises the rights and freedoms of all of us? Or a President who lied about WMD to go to war in Iraq? I personally think that Bush is no better than bin Laden. He was a terrorist who just happened to have the might of the American military behind him.

[Rusty]

Ok, first, let me say that I agree that Fox, as unfair and unbalanced at they are, should not have been excluded. That was wrong.

But, you should have pointed out that it was the Treasury Dept. that set up that interview, not the white house. The white house continues to work with Fox's reporters just as they do all the other networks.

Secondly, this makes him a communist? I can only imagine what you called Bush when it was revealed that his white house was releasing pre-packaged stories meant to look like real news stories without attributing them to the administration. I mean that's right out of Goebbles' play book. Something that the comptroller general said was illegal. You must have been outraged! Ready to impeach! Right? You were, weren't you? Huh?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36694-2005Mar15.html

[Violence Worker]

First, Chairman Obamao himself has been at the forefront on this. It's not Treasury policy (If you believe that then you are not paying attention), it is administration policy. Do you think they went off and tried to do that on their own initiative?

It was just revealed that Obama has been doing prepackaged stories. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLR5jHlytRg

They all do that. So shut up about Bush.

The fact is is that they are trying to shut down Fox. Fox is conservative oriented, so then do we shut down MSNBC?

VW

[Violence Worker]

Matt, your comment is out of line. There was WMD intel from 5 different countries. Some of which that did not join us. (Russia and France) Clinton had similar intel as did the key Congress players. The Congress voted to fund the war which is defacto approval.

You can disagree with the war, you can disagree with Bush, but when you start calling him a terrorist, you lose.

VW

[Rusty]

VW,

Either you gave me the wrong link to support your accusation or you just don't get it. I'm guessing the latter.

What that women is talking about is creating videos with the candidate's message. They are clearly coming from the candidate's camp.

What Bush did was to create fake news. They hired someone to pretend to be a reporter and pretend to report on a story from a journalistic point of view and then they sent it out to TV stations like it was real news. It's unethical and illegal.

Let's face it, you hold Obama to a different standard than you would a republican president. Bush's method of getting his point of view out was much more in line with the communist approach to propaganda.

If Obama truly excludes Fox from the flow of information than he's wrong, but hardly "Stalinist". If he starts trying to create "fake" news and pass it off as the real thing from a legit news source, then you're critique will be more in line with the truth.

And by the way, I agree with about Matt. Matt comparing Bush to people who are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people is just wrong and shows how intellectually weak his argument is. Unlike you, comparing Obama to someone who was repsonsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people. That clearly shows you're smarter than all of us.

[Bloviating Zeppelin]

VW: I really, REALLY like the look, BTW, of your blog now!

BZ

[Scott]

Agree w/BZ: should have mentioned it before. Love the new banner.

[writewingnut]

Whether Obama is right or wrong about Fox news is beside the point. I think the administration attacking Fox looks petty and beneath the dignity of his office He has a whole lot on his plate right now instead of picking fights with broadcasting he disagrees with. One issue I would like him to get off his plate is deciding on sending troops to Afghanistan or not. Come on our troops are getting beat up over there. Either pull them out or give them the help they requested. Don't leave them out to dry.

[John Hampton]

Isn't it amazing how some people consistently yelp and howl about Bush whenever you bring up Obama's many shortcomings and his incredible lack of integrity. (Yeah, I'm talking about you again, Rusty.) I guess it's their way to avoid confronting a very unpleasant subject. I guess if I had been so incredibly lacking in common sense and so gullible and naive enough to cast my vote in support of such an obvious fraud and megolamaniac, I would also try to change the subject in an effort to divert attention away from the truth.

Those who supported Pretendent Obama, and who continue to do so now after he's shown himself to be what he is, are just as responsible as he and his socialist mobster cronies and hatchetmen in posing a serious threat to the liberties and freedoms the majority of Americans cherish and would prefer to keep safe. By allowing themselves to be seduced by this charlatan, they have shown themselves to be even more thoughtlessly ignorant and irresponsible than the people of Germany who allowed themselves to fall under the seductive spell of Adolf Hitler whose methods were so strikingly similar to those of Der Führer-in-misChief, Obama.

[Rusty]

John,

I think you're being unfair to VW. I know he wrote a whole long post (the one just before this one) that compared Bush to Obama, but I don't think that makes him "lacking in common sense and so gullible and naive" in your words. You should apologize to him.

Just in case you had forgotten about VW's post and were talking about me, you should know that I only bring it up to show how incredibly hypocritical you and your fellow conservatives are. You ignored or worse, cheered, Bush's behavior that was the same or often much worse than

This is a perfect example. Obama says he won't work with Fox and he's Stalin according to conservatives. Bush did exactly the same thing with MSNBC and others and you were all fine with it. Not a peep? That's simply hypocritical.

[John Hampton]

Hmmm...well, not too long ago during Bush's tenure as President, according to Hillary Clinton, a Democrat and our current Secretary of State, Fox News seemed to be providing the most fair and balanced news coverage. That was't just her own personal opinion. She based it on a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. I believe her opinion of MSNBC fell well below that mark. I'm not sure if the CMPA opined on how fair and balanced MSNBC's news coverage was. But hell, if Hillary Clinto said it, then why shouldn't the Bush adinistration have taken that into consideration as well.:D

If Bush actually snubbed MSNBC in just the same manner as Obama did, I wasn't aware of it. That's probably because - that is, if it actually occurred - I never watch MSNBC.

If Secretary of State Clinton holds Fox News in such high regard, I would think that Obama would have also taken that into consideration. But then again, I don't believe Obama has much trust in her.

Besides, Obama and his supporters are actually the ones who held Obama up as the new and different kind of politician, one cut from a diferent cloth, one of higher moral caliber who could be held to a higher standard. One for whom the clouds would part and choirs of angels would sing when he spoke. Based on that, he should be held to higher standard. If Bush stooped to such a low standard as you claim, is it really justified and ethical for Obama to do the same thing? Absolutely not.

Now, who's being hypocritical and disingenuous?