If only George W. had a fall guy when he was in office.Where was Tim Geithner when Bush had to answer for the economic downward spiral? If we're being honest, Bush had Congress to blame for some of his political woes, but the media never pointed the blame in any other direction than directly at George Bush.
Obama's presidency is shaping up to be the media love fest we all anticipated. He can do absolutely no wrong. AIG gives out bonuses with the tax dollars of struggling Americans? Blame Geithner. He didn't tell Obama until after he found out on March 3....or was it March 10?
Ironically, Obama continues to support Geithner. He told Jay Leno that Geithner is doing an "outstanding job". Huh?
Obama knew about the AIG bonuses and if he didn't, he should have. If he wasn't trying to change the face of America in six months or less and hitting the campaign trail again (i.e. Leno, 60 Minutes and town hall meetings), perhaps he would've caught this.
It's time for Obama to get back to the White House, stop trying to charm the American people and start working for them.
Obama knew about the AIG bonuses and if he didn't, he should have. If he wasn't trying to change the face of America in six months or less and hitting the campaign trail again (i.e. Leno, 60 Minutes and town hall meetings), perhaps he would've caught this.
It's time for Obama to get back to the White House, stop trying to charm the American people and start working for them.
44 comments:
You have it all wrong. Bush was Chaney's fall guy since tricky Dick II was really the puppet master of the Bush administration. Or call him the great and powerful Oz, hiding behind the curtain. Use whichever analogy allows you to sleep at night. How else could someone like Bush - a bumbling jester at best - get elected in the first place? He was part of King Dick's court!
I'm just so afraid to sleep at night myself because, according to the puppetmaster, we are no longer safe. I'm off to the store to purchase some plastic wrap and duct tape!
Thank you for making my point. The great and powerful Oz hides behind a curtain. The media didn't blame Cheney. By your logic, they blamed Bush for Cheney's actions. Like I said...they never pointed the blame anywhere but directly at Bush.
The puppet master hard at work! George didn't have a fall guy because he WAS the fall guy. Back then Chaney made Bush his fall guy so no one noticed what he was up to, other than shooting people.
That's politics, not the media so no, I didn't prove your point.
Again, you proved my point. Bush was blamed for everything, regardless of actual fault. That's what I was trying to say and that's what you keep responding with...therefore, we are in agreement. So...what's there to fight about??
It's like I'm saying, "The sky is blue," and you're saying "No, no, no dumb@$$, the sky is blue"
I just wanted to make sure you were clear on your position before proceeding. You see, you have just proven the point regarding the most recent evolution of the republican party.
When Chaney leveraged all of his Oz-like power and influemce to snatch the election he put Bush out there as the face of the party. His puppet. And why not? His father was previously president and his brother a gov of the very state he eventually used to influence the recount. No one else (at least no one with any fortitude) would have accepted the job of president under those conditions.
Chaney continued to run things in the background, deflecting much from himself by placing it on the bumbling dubya'. Pretty smart move on his part.
It's a sad state when the republican party has evolved to not evening having a leader they can show to the world when they are actually elected to office. Even sadder is the fact that there is still no leadership even today. We have to rely on radio and TV personalities to garner the respect of the membership. And who would want one of the newer wanna be's who are willing to sell out their constituents for the office. If you will sell out your state for political gain, what's next?
Now, you mention Geithner. He is certainly no "Brownie." So please outline for me the specifics on what he has done wrong. And remember: it took the republican party and the republican capitalists at a minimum 8 years and realistically much longer to destroy the financial system through greed and abuse.
Oh, cut me a break...it took a lot longer than 8 years and a hell of a lot more than the Republican Party to get us to where we are today.
First of all, the executive branch is the only thing that was republican when this thing fell apart. You had an entire legislative branch of majority democrats who didn't do crap to stop this, so don't go blaming everything on republicans.
Second of all, I know my position. Don't worry about me. I understand what you're saying about "Oz", though it is a conspiracy theory. It's not a proven fact.
And lastly, Geithner was responsible for catching and avoiding problems like the one that occurred with AIG.
With you, all dems get a free pass and all reps are burned in effigy whether it's their fault or not.
First of all, don't insinuate that I am a democrat, or that “…I had an entire legislative branch of majority democrats.” I am not a party line person, which you continally choose to ignore. You are too focused on placing me in a “with you or against you” camp. Let me remind you that I have voted for a republican president my entire life until I voted for Gore. I very well might have voted for McCain if his group of idiots hadn't pulled their Palin stunt to capture all the religious right zealots. So let’s just end this crap about me being a liberal just because I don’t agree with you on abortion, gays, terrorism or Iraq.
Here's my take on being a conservative...True conservatism is “formless” like water: it takes the shape of its conditions, but always remains the same. It is precisely the formlessness of conservatism which gives it its vitality. Left alone, the spirit of conservatism is essentially what T.S. Eliot calls the “stillness between two waves of the sea.” Conservatism is both like water and the stillness between the waves—the waves are not the water acting, but being acted upon; stillness is the default state of conservatism.
Like the Greek concept of kairos—acting in the right way, for the right reasons, at the right moment—this sort of waiting is simply careful conservatism. Conservatism is responsive, reactionary, reserved. Conservatism waits. Perhaps this is why conservatism is most needed in the modern age of mobility. Being careful and above all patient is crucial to doing something right. Realizing that one does not know the best way of doing anything guarantees not that one will find the best way, but that one might not find the worst way. The same principle applies to knowledge: conservatism (hopefully) does not pretend to know the definitive way, but rather professes the virtue of ignorance with the quiet hope of finding knowledge.
Conservatism in America today is something very different. Conservatism has become a militant, EIB/Fox News, christian dogma-driven controlling mass that constantly has a controlling agenda to push on the rest of us. To this group there is no such thing as less government other wise someone like Rush wouldn't be complaining about smoking laws i the same breath as promoting his stand on abortion.
Regarding who is responsible, the executive branch of government is the very branch that has responsibility to oversee the banking system. They failed. Just refer back to my post on Bush’s failure of leadership post. Look at his job description. You cannot blame that on the democrats. Well, you would try but you would be wrong in doing so. No, the banking system is controlled by the same people that control Chaney and they have the wool safely pulled over your eyes by using all the fear techniques that work on fearful people. Ooh, the gays will get married and ruin the sanctity of marriage for us; ooh, the terrorists will come here and kill us; ooh, global warming is BS; ooh, the liberals cause all our problems; ooh, Obama associated with a terrorist and a rabid preacher so he is a terrorist and a racist and he’s not even a citizen so he’ll show us his real face sooner or later. You are so afraid you’d rather have someone like Palin as your leader.
I asked you for specifics on Geithner and all you offer is one highly publicized event. Moreover, it was your capitalist friends that did this – why aren’t you going after them? Instead you go after the wrong people. Shame on them and shame on you. You say Geithner sucks when he’s barely had a month to get anything going. If you expect Obama and his crew to solve your friend's mess in a few months you are more naïve than I thought. Give me specifics or are you just going to continue to debate from emotion?
Right back atcha.
Conservative is not synonymous with religion. My political views have NOTHING to do with my religion. I'm against abortion because, as a human being, I don't support murder.
As for Geithner, he also cheated on his taxes and staffed an illegal immigrant. You're damn right, he's no boy scout. He's a criminal. Those are criminal offenses. I wouldn't think I'd need to defend myself against Geithner.
Sounds to me like your issue is with religion, not conservatives.
Why is that? Do you have internal struggle with religion and it comes out in the form of anger?
If you're not a liberal or a democrat...what are you? Do you side with any republican/ conservative issues? What are they? If you don't...what's left? Why not admit what you are? You're not half democrat/half republican. We've not been able to agree on much at all...so I scarcely see how you could be considered an independent. Your views align with democratic views. Period. Tell my I'm wrong and bring examples.
You continue to attempt to pigion hole me. One day when you gain more wisdom you'll understand there is that gray area in between when most of the world lives. Until then, sorry, but the bait won't catch this fish.
By the way, the religious right runs the republican party. If you can't see that, well...you're on your own. Organized religion may help some people but we both know more people have been killed over the centuries as a direct result of organized religion than any other reason. If it was so right there wouldn't be the need for so many form just in the christian sect. Guess that's why I like Bill Mahr so much!
You pigeonhole yourself; i just point it out. You won't take the bait because you don't have any examples of views that aren't democrat/liberal. I've never met an "independent" who wasn't a democrat/liberal.
Age doesn't equal wisdom, my friend. Bill Maher? That doesn't exactly make you sound like a wise old intellect. He's just a pissed off, small man with mother issues.
By the way, Geithner is a Wall Street guy. The recipients of the AIG bonuses were no doubt his friends.
Mister wise old owl...stop blindly trusting Obama. He made a poor decision on his pick for Secretary of Treasury.
Steer clear of Geithner. You'll lose that battle.
See, you can't come up with specifics. This is pointless. I guess you think I have mother issues as well.
I see you ran out of steam on the Palin issue...
Palin's your problem, though she really isn't. She has no effect on you at all, but you want her buried. I don't.
I just came up with specifics; he let the AIG bonuses occur, he cheated on his taxes, he hired an illegal immigrant and our president hired him to be the Secretary of Treasury. Rather strange, don't you think? No, you wouldn't because Obama gets a free pass (and apparently everyone he hires).
Geithner is one of those capitalist, Wall Street people you hate, you know. If a republican hired him, you'd be shreading him.
P.S. I think you're the one who ran out of steam on this one...
And Palin cheated on her expense reports. What's the difference?
All your examples are from the past other than AIG and he didn't do that. In fact, that was set up by Bush and Oz. Who do you suggest is the person to fix banking? You always poke your finger at people but never have a solution. What's your great plan? Oh, I forgot - it's to trust people like Oz...
Yeppers - you're still out of steam on the other one. Guess that last post was difficult to refute!!
Palin's not Secretary of Treasury. If the people of Alaska want to challenge her...they can. It would be like Hawaii protesting against Granholm. What do they care? They don't even know her name I'll bet.
You are such a product of the
60s!!! You won't believe what's right in front of you, but you come up with crazy conspiracy theories...
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Treasury pledged Monday to commit $75 billion to $100 billion of its financial bailout fund to soak up distressed assets now choking bank balance sheets.
Financial stocks jumped on the news, helping send U.S. stock futures sharply higher. Citigroup stock rose 20% to $3.15 a share and Bank of America rose 17% to $7.25.
Geithner wrote in Monday's Wall Street Journal that the new bank program aims to "resolve the crisis as quickly and effectively as possible at the least cost to the taxpayer. ... Simply hoping for banks to work these assets off over time risks prolonging the crisis."
So far, market reaction to this proposal is more favorable than Geithner's initial broad outline for the overhaul on Feb. 10, when investors, upset with a lack of detail, sent the Dow Jones industrial average tumbling.
Ha! No basis? I'm not the one drawing from conspiracy theories.
Oh, and none of your entries are difficult to refute.
Sometimes they're out of left-field and I wonder, "How the hell did Palin get into the conversation?"
Other than that, I maintain my stance on this and I think you're grasping at straws. Whenever you feel you're out of valid points, you dredge up Palin!!!
I only do that when the OP is pointlessly attacking what anyone is doing when the "other" side has offered no solutions or when she does something stupid.
Cult...hmmm, Moonies comes to mind. I think you need an intervention...
By the way, I haven't seen you refute my entries. You do dredge up emotional BS in a feeble attempt to do so but rarely does any factual basis actually come to light. You usually just try to stick me in the liberal bucket since you can't figure out where to put me, even though I have voted republican the majority of my life. Something you easily dismiss.
Since you can never answer a direct question and call anyone that disagrees with your point a view a liberal I suspect you are practicing to be a politician. Go duke it out with Palin for leadership of the party now!
Looks like the "G" man is getting things right these days. Dow is up; S&P is up. These are the facts and they are indisputable.
Geithner's initial whack at the problem went awry last month when he appeared before TV cameras and announced, in effect, that he planned to have a plan. Geithner's hesitancy and lack of details soured investors; the Dow fell 382 points that day.
His second swing, on Monday, connected: The plan for a public-private partnership is detailed and appears well thought out. Big investors signaled that they like it enough to jump in to buy toxic assets (they should — it's a sweet deal). The gallery on Wall Street applauded: The stock market was up nearly 500 points.
Any serious sign that the government has finally figured out how to get banks healthy again is indeed worth cheering. It will take more than healthy banks to get the economy moving again, but recovery won't come if they remain in their crippled state.
Just how hard it is to deal with the troubled real-estate loans and securities clogging the financial system is clear from the zigzagging of the past six months. The Bush administration first proposed buying the assets directly and then, stymied over how to price them, shifted gears and injected capital into the banks. That stabilized the financial system but didn't resolve the toxic asset problem. It took the Obama administration's brightest financial lights two months to develop the complex plan unveiled Monday.
So will this one succeed? The honest answer is no one knows for sure, and anyone who pretends to is guessing. One expert, former FDIC chairman Bill Seidman, who helped resolve the savings-and-loan crisis two decades ago, told CNBC that with added flexibility, he thinks the plan will work well enough to boost the economy.
One virtue of Geithner's plan is that it lets the market set a price for the bad assets through an auction process. Another advantage is that it tries to stretch what's left in the Troubled Asset Relief Program by using government money and guarantees to leverage private investment. Buyers can put down about 7% and effectively get government financing for the rest. Bill Gross, the celebrated founder of the big bond fund PIMCO, said he'll participate and expects double-digit returns.
For all our sakes, I hope he's successful. But, one day of rally isn't going to change my thoughts about Geithner. It shouldn't be enough to get the guy out of public criticism either.
I can't stress enough that he is a Wall Street guy. You shouldn't like him, let alone be defending him. He's everything you don't like about Washington and just because he's not a republican, you give him a free pass.
What happened to your unbiased reason? When are you going to finally admit what you are???!!!!
I don't give him a free pass and this is where you always over think things, make assumptions and try to place me in a clearly marked catagory.
Who, pray tell, do you think can fix this mess but a Wall Street guy? Well...? Palin? Rush? Who?
Until someone else comes up with a better solution he is what we have. Apparently the market likes the position. The S&P has already been up consistently for two weeks.
You point fingers but I've repeatedly encouraged you to offer solutions. You are sorely lacking in that regard as is the republican party. Many even hope Obama fails so they can say I told you so. The republican party can even decide who should run the party, much less fix the mess they created.
Get over yourself and take a look at reality.
Me get over myself? Ha! You're the one with the oh-so-complex mind.
You know just as well as I do that I can't name Geithner's possible replacement. Neither I, nor you for that matter, have the information or knowledge to throw possible replacement names out.
It's Obama's job to pick his cabinet. If Obama and I could sit down for a chit chat about his other possible choices, I could tell you what I think he should have done. Until that time, you'll have to settle with the knowledge that I don't approve of the Sec. of Tres. he did choose.
I do not know why you care about the republican party leader so much. They have next to no power right now and 2012 is looking like a cake-walk for Obama. Just leave it to the media.
Yes, my mind is quite complex and it obviously continues to baffle you.
First off, no one has to leave it to the media - the republican party will take care of itself. Has been and nothing says there will be a change on the horizon.
As far as a replacement for treasuray secretary or someone else to lead the country out of the financial mess, again you prove my point. You have no solution for the crisis and when you complain about the current leadership you have no solutions for that, either. I guess your solution is like you said previously: you expect the current leaders to take care of you and protect you from harm. Sounds strikingly like big government to me.
I'm sure Obama would love to hear all your opinions on his cabinet picks. Perhaps the next republican president - if there ever is one - will invite you in to share your opinions.
You missunderstand my comments about party leadership. I don't really care. I do, however, think it is pretty funny since you think they are soooo great but can't even find a leader. So, essentially, I'm once again poking a stick at your and your sheep mentality.
Either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. You've proven that you can't lead because you want to be taken care of (and the republicans can't find a leader), you obviously can't follow unless it includes endless complaining so that leaves only one choice.
You didn't have any fixes when W. was in and I don't have all the answers for Obama. I expect him to have them. We both count on our government to make those decisions. You have a full-time job and I have a part-time job and am a full-time student. We have neither the time, nor the tools to collect enough information to start writing legislation. You and your big, complex brain are no better then me, my friend.
I was being facetious when I talked about Obama sitting down with me. That's the point. No president is going to sit down with the average person.
You know what's funny? You continually pick a side, but you refuse to call it what it is. It will be a watershed moment when you finally admit to where your loyalties lie.
There you go again. I beg to differ and I don't even need to use all my brain to do so.
I shared plenty of fixes when Bush was in and in the end voted for the final fix. Moreover, I was virtually exclusively critical of Bush when it came to Iraq and the Patriot Act. And I presented solutions for those issues. You continue to be critical with zero, zilch, nada solutions.
Put up or shut up.
What was your solution? Get rid of the Patriot Act and get out of Iraq? Those aren't solutions; those are reactions. I've had plenty of those too. You can do no better than I at fixing what's broke. If we could, we'd have been Obama's cabinet picks.
Those suggestions of mine were course corrections to remedy bad decisions. Going into Iraq and continually adding to the Patriot Act were both reactionary solutions, one toWMDs and the other to terrorism.
We were led into Iraq under the false pretense of WMD which were not there. You say Obama should have known about the AIG bonuses; Bush should have - and probably did know - there were no WMDs. Now all the republicans do is brag about how we brought democracy to a screwed up country. Well, if you follow that logic why aren't we doing that in more places?
The Patriot Act turned into something that was completely against our constitution and I won't have that debate with you again until you do your due dilligence to understand that document.
Those were two great examples of bad solutions, one (Iraq) not even being a solution to anything with the possible exception of oil.
My point was that you didn't come up with solutions for Iraq or the Patriot Act. If you knew how to fix the Iraq situation properly they'd have plucked you out of Michigan.
You have opinions and reactions for Iraq and the Patriot Act, not solutions that could get to the root of both problems and the reasoning for them.
Don't feel bad, I don't have the answers for the economy. We count on them to make decisions and as they explain what they're doing to us, we form opinions. That's all we can do with what we have.
Pay attention: Iraq was never a problem to be solved in the first place. We never should have been there. If we had kept our eye on the ball and focused on Afganistan we might have Bin Laden in our hands right now. I don't need a solition for the Patriot Act because it, too was a reactionary knee jerk that was not needed and in fact was against our constitution. These were both mistakes.
Neither should have ever been an issue because neither should have been implemented. If A never existed then A+B can only equal B. Where's your brain??
Now you are becoming annoying because you can't or won't listen to and understand what I say.
So you think I’m a democrat; let’s look at the facts. And bear in mind that you stated religion is not politics.
I agree with a mother’s right to choose and would prefer they not choose abortion but still support their right to choose. That is not a political question, but could be - especially if you don’t want big government in our lives which would make it a republican position based on your logic. Ill just stick with the logic that it’s a religious position since, from my limited experience, it usually centers on the Christian faith when the position is pro-life.
I think we should keep our nose out of the business of gay people just as we do with everyone else. Why not let them get married; they can’t do much worse than the divorce rate in our country. Again, trying to control this facet of some people’s lives is based in religion from my experience. If you looked at it from a political perspective – once gain you have more big government sticking their nose in people’s live regarding supposed moral positions.
I voted for a republican president since I could first vote. That’s 26 years of voting republican and 8 voting democrat with actually half of the 8 voting as a write in. So, by my math I’m 77% republican based on my track record and only 12% democrat by the same measure. In fact, I first supported a republican presidential candidate when Barry Goldwater was running and I was only in the 2nd grade. That should be worth a 10% bonus.
I was against big government invading a sovereign country when there was no reason to do so and I was also against our government taking away the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. I’m not sure where that falls but I think that just makes me a patriot since I believe in what our founding fathers wrote in that document that is supposed to be what we stand for. I believe that position is apolitical.
I think we should fix what is wrong with our economy. I don’t care who does this as long as someone does. The republican party had the keys to the city when things fell apart. A republican president whose position description clearly states that he was responsible for governmental oversight of the financial system failed. The republican party had no solution for this situation and someone else stepped in. Since the republican party was on duty and significantly to blame for our current situation I am fine with allowing someone else with ideas and a plan to attempt to get this ship back on an even keel. I’ll give this guy as long to accomplish this mission as his predecessor had to screw things up.
I think our natural resources and wildlife should be respected. We should be able to live on this planet in harmony with the other residents. That is simply a moral position with no political intent or leanings, just as a humanistic approach.
I loath stupid people who are only out for personal gain when entering the political arena. I’m not sure what that makes me politically but I am sure it makes me less tolerant of certain kinds of behavior regardless of a party affiliation. Politicians should have a heart to serve their constituents. They should be in the office to serve, not to reap rewards and to live every day with their primary purpose to become reelected. That’s a gray area as well so I suppose that would make me an idealist because I sadly describe a silly notion that will never happen.
I don’t like big government messing around in my life. I think our taxes are too high and I think we give to much away to people that are undeserving. I suppose that would make me a republican, right?
There – you now have something to work with. Tell me I’m a democrat. Prove it to me based on my actions. Prove your notion that I must fit in one bucket if I don’t clearly fit in the other bucket.
Here's a nice, balanced take on things:
When fuller details emerge, it would be useful if the economics profession and the financial community could have a mature conversation about whether the plan could be improved before it goes into operation. For example, it may be necessary to make any bank that participates agree to the sale of all their toxic assets, to prevent the kind of cherry picking that has contributed to the shutdown of these markets so far. And there is good reason to be very careful to minimize the possibility of “heads-I-win, tails-the-government-loses” kinds of bets.
But broad-brush denunciations are unhelpful, whether they derive from preconceived prejudices of the left (which needs to recognise the important distinction between the greedy people who got us here and the wise captains of finance who can help us get out), or the right (which espouses a destructive ideology according to which all government action of any kind is a mistake).
I'm trying to be respectful of your thoughts, but you continue to put down my intelligence and suggest that I'm unable to understand issues due to my age.
I have a brain and I'm using it. It just doesn't agree with yours. That doesn't mean I'm stupid.
My thoughts and words have been warranted and clear. They just differ from yours and that's...OK.
I understand your opinions on Iraq and the Patriot Act, but I'm asking that you don't suggest that I should be able to write legislation and assemble a team for the administration. You could not fix terrorism or get rid of the Patriot Act, while keeping America safe, all by yourself. This is why we count on our govt.
Even though we can't fix everything, it doesn't mean we can't have opinions.
You aren't stupid, but neither am I.
Your last post made absolutely no sense to me. I never said you are stupid. And where in the world did age come into the equation?
I did say that you don't comprehend what I say based entirely on the feedback i get from your words and the way you repeat them even though you clearly haven't either a) listen to my words or b) comprehended my words. Any feeling so finadequacy on your part are purely of your own manufacture.
I feel perfectly safe and would feel that way without the patriot act. In fact, I would feel even safer since I would be comfortable that our country is being true to its foundations. Giving the government the ability to open my doors, listen in on my phone call or abduct me for rendition makes me feel quite unsafe. And the slippery slope begis right there. Like the old patriots said: "Give me liberty or give me death."
I don't suggest you should be able to write legislation but do suggest you temper your critisism with some humility for those trying to get us out of this mess their predessesors got us into.
Finally, I am quite dissapointed that I take the time to outline my political leanings just to have thet item ignored.
Perhaps it's time for a break because I'm obviously stepping on toes here.
I pulled quotes from your comments. This is where I got the idea that you were suggesting I was stupid.
I just didn't have time to read your comment because I ran home to let my dog out, check my email and get to night class. I planned to read your thoughts. I don't need a break unless you do. I'm not angry, just kindly asking that you stop putting me down when you disagree with me!
I have a thicker skin than that.
Bring it on, baby.
PS About the age...you've gone on and on about how I don't understand the 60s (Nam) and you've patrionized me about my lack of wisdom.
I can take it, but don't think I'm not gonna call you out on it. I don't feel inferior. You words were clearly condescending and patronizing. If you're gonna dish it...get ready to take it, old friend!
Just because you weren't around for something doesn't mean you can't due your due dilligence to study and understand what happened, the general feeling and nese of things. If I recall you have high empathy but you selectively use the natural talent.
I go on and on about our founding fathers because I have studied this period of time and have also tried to put myself in their place.
If you can take it prove me wrong with facts and leave out the emotion or sometmes don't don't say anything. And don't provide me with opportunities.
There is no way I'm going to shut up. I bring something to the conversation whether you like to admit it or not.
You, my friend, are someone who must get the last word in. But, I can handle your insults and I'm not going anywhere.
We literally talked this thing to death by the 20th comment. And, I'm not holding my ground out of pride. I believe what I'm saying...
Geithner was a questionable choice on Obama's part. He picked a man to handle $ who actually cheats on his taxes. And the media kisses Obama's ass. This needs no explanation.
Disagree with either comment? Good. Let's move on.
"If you can take it prove me wrong with facts and leave out the emotion or sometmes don't don't say anything."
All you need to do is make a choice. If you don't want to remain quiet on occasion then just do the first part of my comment above. It's as simple as that. While it may be difficult to believe, I actually keep my mouth shut quite often. Look around and you'll see living proof of that fact.
Enjoy the following commercial message...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifLXAjNjmaI
Since Rupert Murdoch (the founder of Fox News) purchased the Wall Street Journal in 2007, we can see just how the mainstream news works.
Last month, the WSJ claimed that Obama was using a list of reporters to call on during his press conferences, and argued that President Bush would not have been able to get away with using such a list. Media Matters promptly pointed out that Bush did indeed use such a list. As did the American Journalism Review, who further called Bush’s press conferences “scripted”.
You would think that once such a lie is revealed the media would stop repeating it, but of course Fox News doesn’t play by those rules. As Crooks and Liars points out, yesterday Liz Trotta regurgitated the claim that by using a list of reporters to call on, Obama was doing something “historic” “like no other president I’ve ever seen”.
Trotta wasn’t content to just repeat a lie, but felt the need to embellish it. She claimed that Obama was using “preselected questions in a tightly controlled news conference” that would “tailor questions and answers to the way he wants them.”
But what’s really funny is that when her claim that the questions were preselected was corrected, she admitted her mistake, but again claimed that the questioners were preselected, and “that is brand new in the history of press conferences”.
I guess they are following the propaganda rule that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true. Is the media trying to make up for the fact that they were notoriously soft on Bush by attacking Obama using anything they can dream up?
UPDATE: See also this recent example where Fox News ran video of Joe Biden saying the “fundamentals of the economy are strong” in a story about how the Obama administration is “now singing a different tune” about the economy. Fox claimed the clip was from last weekend, but it was actually six-months old, and — even worse — Biden was quoting McCain’s famous economic gaffe. Fox later apologized, calling it an “honest mistake”.
Post a Comment