Obama's Declared War with Fox News Channel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't recall an administration having a public enemies list since Nixon. Amazing but not surprising.

Obama is shaping up as the worst president in history.

Foreign policy - F. Sells out our European allies for what? Russia laughs in our face on Iran now.

Domestic policy - record breaking deficits as far as the eye can see.

Most partisan president in history per the polling numbers.

Just sad. I sort of equate it to taking a child to a nice store -hopefully you leave without the kid breaking anything.

Oh, this poster is going to be a lot of fun.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even aside Obama's performance thus far, it is bad politics to go to war with the media.

Obama is not going to war with the media. The administration has simply changed its posture toward one network. This, after all, is a network that was a major organizer of the Tea Bagger rallies and the Sept. 12 demonstrations. A Fox producer was actually filmed rallying the crowd and encouraging them to shout for the cameras. A legitimate news network does not participate in partisan demonstrations in that manner.

Again, Fox news is not being cut off from the White House Nobody is losing his credentials. Administration officials will still appear on Fox. However, Fox will not be treated the way a legitimate straight news organization is treated. It will be treated just like Bush treated MSNBC.

Please - tea parties. It is beneath you to be so crude.

Perhaps this is why more people watch FNC than all the other "cable news" venues combined - civility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't recall an administration having a public enemies list since Nixon. Amazing but not surprising.'''

Nixon's list was not public until John Dean mentioned it in the Watergate hearings. A private list fo those whom the President wanted to "screw", which was the explicit aim of that list, is different from public criticism of a specific network by a President. In fact, the secrecy of Nixon's list, and the fact that it was aimed at individuals (Paul newman, for example) were what made it so pernicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even aside Obama's performance thus far, it is bad politics to go to war with the media.

Obama is not going to war with the media. The administration has simply changed its posture toward one network. This, after all, is a network that was a major organizer of the Tea Bagger rallies and the Sept. 12 demonstrations. A Fox producer was actually filmed rallying the crowd and encouraging them to shout for the cameras. A legitimate news network does not participate in partisan demonstrations in that manner.

Again, Fox news is not being cut off from the White House Nobody is losing his credentials. Administration officials will still appear on Fox. However, Fox will not be treated the way a legitimate straight news organization is treated. It will be treated just like Bush treated MSNBC.

Please - tea parties. It is beneath you to be so crude.

Perhaps this is why more people watch FNC than all the other "cable news" venues combined - civility.

Civility? Oh, please.

[Anonymous]

Oh, yes, Fox News is the epitome of civility.....NOT!

[Anonymous]

Some people called the South a place of civility during the Jim Crow days. What they meant was that it was civil toward their own kind. Maybe that's what the poster meant.

[Anonymous]

The term "Tea Bagger" is a vile and derogatory term meant only to demean those who protested and their message. The use of this term negates any sort of fair and honest debate and I was actually quite shocked and disappointed to see Mr. Steele use it. I would have expected a higher caliber of argument from him.

[Anonymous]

I can't take the Tea Parties seriously enough to care whether someone fairly and honestly debates them. They're a joke.

[Anonymous]

OH, wow, winning point. (not)

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The term "Tea Bagger" is a vile and derogatory term meant only to demean those who protested and their message. The use of this term negates any sort of fair and honest debate and I was actually quite shocked and disappointed to see Mr. Steele use it. I would have expected a higher caliber of argument from him.

I hate to break it to you folks but the term "tea bagger" is quite widely used to describe those whose chosen method of demonstrating is to wave tea bags. I suspect a certain amount of homophobia is behind your description of a consensual act between adults as "vile". Given that Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper -- both of whom "play for the other team" so to speak -- use the term regularly suggests that they don't find it all that vile. I'll give you derogatory, but I'm all for being derogatory to the tea bag wavers.

Given how upset your are about the term tea bagger, would you like to disclose your feelings about Fox calling Michelle Obama "baby moma" or the many names Barack has been called?

Here are the people whose sensibilities you are worried about me offending:

[Anonymous]

haha, Maddow and Cooper are great examples of non-biased commentators. don't you see that protest is ok as long as you agree with the protesters?

the tea parties were a bit much, but they have as much right to protest abuses by the govt as anyone else. normally the media and the left love a good protest movement. this one, not so much. can't figure out why ....

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:normally the media and the left love a good protest movement. this one, not so much. can't figure out why ....

Look at the photo above and maybe it will come to you.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:normally the media and the left love a good protest movement. this one, not so much. can't figure out why ....

Look at the photo above and maybe it will come to you.

wow! you found a photo of a moron at a mass protest movement! I'm so shocked. No chance there were any morons at the Million Man March or the World Bank protests in recent years on the Mall. Good detective work!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:haha, Maddow and Cooper are great examples of non-biased commentators. don't you see that protest is ok as long as you agree with the protesters?

the tea parties were a bit much, but they have as much right to protest abuses by the govt as anyone else. normally the media and the left love a good protest movement. this one, not so much. can't figure out why ....

Not to mention there was not a single arrest when 60 - 90K Tea Party protesters were in DC. How does that compare to two weeks later when liberals were protesting (and destroying property and getting arrested) in Pittsburgh for the G-20? Yet that NY Times characterized the Washington protests as "The atmosphere was rowdy at times, with signs and images casting Mr. Obama in a demeaning light." and the Pittsburgh protests as "Thousands Hold Peaceful March at G-20 Summit". And this is a "news" organization?

I agree that the use of the term "tea baggers" is meant to degrade the protesters, yet in reality it only serves to diminish the name callers.

[Anonymous]

No reasonable person can argue on behalf of the Tea Parties... not substantively. You can argue that we're lucky to live in a country where anyone, even those people, can assemble (and that is true!), but you can't argue substantively that they are a reasonable group of people with a reasonable point who should be taken seriously.