There are good reasons that we keep the operations of the permanent civil service out of the legislative arena. Though it is part of the executive branch, the civil service is not supposed to work to advance the President's agenda; it is there to carry out the laws that have already been passed. (And no, it's not okay when Republican presidents do it either--though I'm not sure whether he actually did anything wrong*, or just thought about it.)
It's thus entirely inappropriate for the HHS website to contain a link to this letter:
We strongly support your commitment to comprehensive health reform.
This is not a luxury. The continuing, sharp escalation of health care costs for families, businesses, and government is unsustainable. Reform is imperative.
We believe that health reform must be enacted this year.
Reform is needed to help America's families struggling with rising costs and those who are losing their insurance. At the same time, real health reform is crucial to keeping American businesses competitive in the world economy and for the country's long-term economic viability. As our country faces economic challenges, the time for reform is now.
We support health reform that follows these principles:
- Protect families' financial health
- Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
- Provide portability of coverage
- Guarantee choice of doctors
- Invest in prevention and wellness
- Improve patient safety and quality of care
- End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
- Reduce long-term growth of health costs for businesses and government
During these extraordinarily challenging times, we need to put aside past differences and address the health and economic crisis. Our shared interest must come before narrow interests so we can achieve a health system that is affordable and provides high quality for all Americans. We will support your budget with its reserve fund dedicated to achieving health care reform in a fiscally responsible manner. Each of us must be prepared to contribute to achieving this fundamental goal.
By signing this statement we affirm our commitment to work with you and our Congressional leaders to enact legislation this year which provides affordable, high quality coverage for all Americans.
Obviously, there is no corresponding link where you can say "Thanks, but no thanks."
The White House's rather wan defense is that since it doesn't refer to an actual bill, it's okay. This is ludicrous. It's not somehow better because you get people to sign a letter saying that they'll support any bill with these characteristics. They're using government resources to collect political support for the president. I thought that went out with the spoils system. Though I'm sure I'll have any number of liberal commenters jumping in to say that this is entirely different, of course agencies are allowed to recruit support for legislative efforts, and anyway Republicans did it and it is just my overwhelming bias to think that there should be quite a few hard restraints on the president's exercise of his soft power.
Increasingly, I feel like Obama and his team are trying to run his office like a community organizing outfit. But this is the presidency, not a political campaign. You don't put your message out through every available channel, you don't go to war on news operations, and you don't threaten groups that say things you don't like. You are now running the whole country, not trying to win a race.
I don't mean this to sound like what I'm sure a lot of my conservative commentators will make it into--some screed to the effect that Obama is a tinpot dictator and a secret communist. I think Obama's longest life experience is as a campaigner, and so it's natural that this infects his actions as he learns to govern. And I think that, again like most presidents, he is testing the boundaries of his power. But I think it behooves the American citizenry to set firm limits, and slap his hand when he overreaches them.
* I mean, this particular thing. I'm very sure about lots of other things he did wrong.
The White House's rather wan defense is that since it doesn't refer to an actual bill, it's okay.
Hmmmm.
Obama's the boss. If Congress wants to impeach him they can, but until and unless that happens he directs the executive branch as he sees fit. This particular issue seems too trivial to worry about.
No, no he doesn't get to "direct the executive branch as he sees fit." He gets to direct the executive branch in accordance with applicable laws. Using civil servants and taxpayer money to fund political operations is clearly illegal.
It is also a dangerous politicization of the civil service, which saps morale and distracts personnel away from tasks they should be focusing on (running HHS) to tasks they shouldn't be focusuing on (runnin a political campaign).
Did you care about that when Bush was in office? No!! Do you know who Lurita Doan is? If not, you should since you whine about this. Does the website advocate an actual position(say single payer)? Or just the general "health care reform"?
This is the "knifing people is ok because there was once this guy who shot folk" argument.
For the record, I think one of the Bush administration's greatest failings was the politicization of the civil service. What happened with the U. S. attorney's was truly disgraceful and I'm sure had longstanding negative effects at many of those offices. Unfortunately, Bush's actions seem to have enabled Obama to take things to the next level. Bush at least tried to pretend that the firings weren't political in nature; Obama's folk over at HHS aren't even struggling for that pretense.
So if there had been a link on the DOD site in 2002 asking people to support a petition advocating the invasion of Iraq, you would have been okay with it?
In both cases people have a choice. They can say they support by clicking the button or not support by not clicking the button. Writing a letter to people pushing a point of view under the guise of the SAS is very different. I would have loved for that link to have been present in 2002. Maybe the DOD would have listened to the results or at least took time to pause and review comments, if these would have been allowed, hypothetically. I doubt it (the poll would have probably been overwhelmingly in support of invasion) but I see this as no different than polling.
You would be happy to have your tax dollars funding a website, and the associated support personnel, whose explicit job was to rally support for the war in Iraq? Really?
Everyone is unhappy with how "their" tax dollars are spent in some way. Peter they were already using our tax dollars to rally this support. A simple button on a website does not require "associated support personnel" in any significant quantity. This is a ridiculous complaint by Megan, per usual. Again, a button on a website is not a gross abuse of presidential power. Get serious.
Peter, much as I agree with the point you're trying to make, tax dollars funded a lot fancier efforts to push Iraq than one website. Congressional debates, Presidential speeches, Colin Powell trucking off to the UN every other day, the works. The relevant point here isn't the tax dollars, because those always fund elected officials and their plans. The relevant point is that, while the bosses are partisan, the bureaucrats aren't supposed to be.
Two things:
1) You're the only one.
2) The reason you're the only one is that it's a fundamentally stupid position.
Of all the bad things the government can do, posting a hokey web petition is probably the least harmful. Therefore I don't really mind it.
So everyone should just shut up and not criticize? Just one year ago the expansion and abuse of executive power was intolerable. Now I guess "I won" is the end of the argument.
Criticize all you want, but this particular issue just seems like the modern equivalent of the bully pulpit.
No, Obama going on talk shows, addressing Congress, giving speeches and the like are the "modern equivalent of"(i.e., the exact same thing as) the bully pulpit. Those are, of course, partisan actions. The bureaucracy is supposed to be non-partisan. Obama shouldn't get to use them to raise his agenda any more than Bush should.
Welcome to Chicago-style politics. What did you expect when he brought so many of his Chicago political machine friends with him to DC?
Obama's formative years, politically, were in an environment where people like Bill Ayers were widely respected, and where listening to sermons by Rev. Wright helped his career. That's why appointing people like Van Jones, who claimed to have converted to communism while in prison, seems normal to him. He's from a very different background from most Presidents, or most of the population.
"He's from a very different background from most Presidents, or most of the population."
Yes this does seem to present a problem for some.
He's from a very different background from most Presidents, or most of the population.
So was Bush. It's funny though, how "some" different backgrounds are lot more, um, problematic, than others.
Big-name schools, a stint in the military, run a business, governor of a state, President? That sounds like exactly the same background as half the Presidents the US has ever had.
For what it's worth, I think that ragging on Chicago is being done to a fairly absurd extent by the right these days. But the point is not entirely wrong.
Chicago is very much a 'boss' run system. The machine constantly grinds to win out the next election to the point that it is a perpetual motion machine.
It probably isn't much more corrupt than most big cities, but we have put 3 of the last 5 governors in jail so we are.
Yes, such as a background in which Bill "kill your parents" Ayers and Bernardine "Lay, Elrod, Lay" Dohrn are widely respected, while Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright is chosen as a spiritual advisor.
Barry and I went to college together at Columbia. We were two years apart and I don't recall actually meeting him, but we have similar backgrounds in terms of eduction. We probably took many of the same classes (although not the same year), since I was a political science minor and was interested in international relations. By his 'background', I'm referring to Chicago politics. I live in Chicago, and our city and State government is seriously messed up. Obama's formative years politically were spent in an unusually dysfunctional political system.
This is your response to everything--chicago politics, bill ayers, reverend wright, communism. You forgot to mention the tele-prompter.
"He's from a very different background from most Presidents, or most of the population"
What background is it exactly that you share with most of America? Lucky you.
What makes him so different that he is no longer one of us? What makes him so much scarier than Bush?
But then I guess I'm not one of us either. I'm an American and I'd rather have a beer with Obama.
O
The President
This is American politics since Nixon. Elevated by Atwater, perfected by Ailes and Rove et al. Now the other side has finally learned to play the game; some of them even got skills. Not surprisingly, "conservatives" are now shocked to find that there's gambling in the casino. If we're stuck with a two-party system, I'm glad that they're both at least playing by the same rules now. No more unilateral disarmament on the left. This is the new normal-get over it.
Your nihilism makes me want to puke...
I'd rather the public just bash people, of either party, when they do it.
And all the names you mentioned have been either hooted or booted out of office.
I suspect the same will happen with Obama. Racist.
Derek
Not sure who you are calling "racist," but it is clear that calling everyone else racist is now the hallmark of conservative punditry. Obviously it has trickled down.
I think the Obama team doesn't understand they probably ought to avoid alienating groups that they may be inclined to partner with them on other issues in the future.
The Chamber of Commerce partnered with them before, but you have to wonder if they ever will again. Similarly, all else being equal I and other libertarians are happy to give Obama kudos for being the most sensible administration in our lifetimes on some issues even if we disagree on others, but when they try to delegitimize outfits like CATO and Fox News it's increasingly less likely independents will want to give them credit for the things they are doing right.
Obviously, there is no corresponding link where you can say "Thanks, but no thanks."
That's because dissent is the highest form of racism.
Anyone want to take a guess how many posts "libertarian" Megan made titled "The Limits of Presidential Power" under the last president? Somewhere around 0?
Exactly. Unitary Executive, anyone? Warrantless surveillance? Signing statements? Suspension of habeas corpus? All that pales in the shadow of a button on a website.
None of which BO has actually reversed, or disavowed.
Several things:
1) I've said repeatedly that I didn't like the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, etc. I called for Rumsfeld to resign over the torture revelations.
2) Is this really your best defense? Bush did something worse? Nixon, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, etc did much worse things, and that made what Bush did okay?
Eventually, you have to stop campaigning against George Bush and address what the current president is doing right now. Are you really okay with using the executive branch to push a legislative agenda, and are you willing to commit right now to approving any such efforts by a Republican administration?
"Unitary Executive, anyone? Warrantless surveillance? Signing statements? Suspension of habeas corpus? All that pales in the shadow of a button on a website."
Barack Obama has issued signing statements with every bill he has signed. How about that unitary executive?
Barack Obama has continued Don't Ask, Don't Tell - bashing gays and denying them their rights. How about that?
Barack Obama routinely authorizes the launching of Hellfire missiles at innocent women and children in Pakistan - a country that the Congress has never declared war against. How about that collateral damage?
Barack Obama has suspended in-progress trials at Gitmo. I thought he was closing Gitmo? What happened?
Barack Obama renewed the Patriot Act allowing AT&T to continue spying on Americans' telephone calls. He's also resumed renditions. How about that suspension of habeas corpus.
You liberals seem to think Barack Obama has done away with all of these things. Have you no eyes? How can you be so ill informed?
He's added to all of these sins by forcing the civil service employees to assist his campaign in violation of the Hatch Act. It's illegal and worse it's immoral. Almost as immoral yes, as Barack Obama's war crimes.
"Eventually, you have to stop campaigning against George Bush and address what the current president is doing right now."
Eventually you have to own how unbelievably fucked up the Bush years were.
I already have, but again, fucked up. This changes the current situation how?
Please note in the laundry list above I do not endorse these measures under any administration. The point of this sub-thread was that the sudden hand-wringing about executive power and the constitution seems a little late and, er, convenient coming from certain quarters. It would have been nice to hear from these folks back when Cheneyism was going full throttle. Some of us liberaltarians felt a little hung out to dry.
Anyone want to take a guess how many posts "libertarian" Megan made titled "The Limits of Presidential Power" under the last president? Somewhere around 0?
Anyone want to take a guess how long he's been reading Megan's writing?
You liberals seem to think Barack Obama has done away with all of these things. Have you no eyes? How can you be so ill informed
Hey, that was different. Bush was a Republican.
@6:57 Rob plays the race card.
Also, I think you meant "commenters," unless Tucker Carlson and Bill Kristol are on your payroll now.
put this in the ever growing file of: "somebody needs to remind Obama that the campaign is over..... and he actually won"
it just seems like this administration is filled with inexperienced, hyper-idealists who don't understand the difference between campaigning and governing.
Before the election, BO's lack of any management or executive experience was pointed out. The "experiences" that he touted as preparing him for the presidency where being a community organizer and running several successful political campaigns. No one should be surprised by his behaviour in office.
I think Obama's longest life experience is as a campaigner, and so it's natural that this infects his actions as he learns to govern.
Gosh, you mean that when we pointed out before the election that Barack Obama has never accomplished anything other than running for office, and that this lack made him unqualified to be President, we were right, and you were wrong for ignoring that?
So good of you to notice that, now.
I just heard about the White House's latest move against Fox News - they notified the members of the White House press pool (apparently where many networks share coverage) that Feinberg, the pay Czar, was available for interviews to everyone except Fox News, although Fox has been a member of the pool for years. Luckily the other members of the pool objected and said that none of them would do the interviews unless Fox was included.
It's one thing for Obama to do his Sunday tour of all the Sunday morning shows except Fox - that was petty but well within his rights. This seems ham-handed, to try so obviously to force the other networks to exclude Fox. Finally the other networks are stopping to ask themselves where it will lead, if they cooperate on this.
This seems ham-handed
Try "hilarious"! Every time Fox runs a story, they should include the line, "Administration officials refused to comment, because the White House has an official policy crying like little girls whenever they hear us mentioned."
As a former little girl, I object to this libel! The White House cries way harder and in a whinier tone.
Were you in a coma during the Bush Administration?
Bush made a policy of snubbing Fox News? That's news to me.
Yes. Please provide me with news articles about the Bush administration's attempts to deny CNN or NPR access to their officials, or encouraging other networks to ignore their stories.
Wow, you mean Bush refused to have anything to do with ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN? I must admit, I missed that. Hell, I missed the part where they announced that no one in the Executive Branch would talk with the New York Times, because of the treasonous stories it published telling the terrorists what we were doing to fight them.
I remember when Dan Rather published forged memos about Bush's Guard service, and he tried to kick them out of the WH press pool.
Oh wait, no, that was how Obama responded today to Fox reporting... the news.
As the comments on even the simplest subjects get partisan it is easy to see how brown shirts get worn.
We are no different then the folks 70 years ago.
I would like to nominate this for: "biggest overreaction masquerading as deep insight"
That's because you don't work inside government. If you did, you'd realize how distracting it is to constantly have your time drawn away from whatever it is the taxpayers are paying to do, to whatever your boss thinks will make the current chief executive happy.
Of course we aren't. Those of us who take the trouble, though, have the advantage of learning from those 70 years of history.
I think Fox should start an ad campaign, running on CNN, MSNBC etc. Showing close ups of "journalists" of those networks with "government approved" in large type across their foreheads. Followed by Fox personalities with "not approved by the government". Those other networks couldn't object can they?
Erm, the other networks stood up for Fox on that fight. That sort of ad campaign is not how you repay their backing you up. If the other networks had gone along with it, maybe, but not when they supported you.
Community organizing is inherently non-democratic. Just like politics. Notice I don't say undemocratic. The essence of Saul Alinsky's (the papa of community organizing) teaching was that the community that wanted to get something done needed to acquire power. It doesn't say how big that community is. Sometimes it is 20 people acting as if they were 2000 people. But organizing is essentially pragmatic and is a tool. Alinsky clearly stated that the end justifies the means. Community organizers ARE politicians - they do not BECOME politicians. So the attainment and use of power, once acquired, is purely a means to an end. The user of the power believes it good, the rest of us merely hope.
The point is that the Obama Administration's background in organizing is not sinister. It is merely local politics, which is notoriously petty and obsessed with feuds. It is not unusual that people who have had little or no power for decades (eg, the very liberal wing of the Democratic Party) would become pushy and ostentatious in their use of the power acheived and would overstep bounds. Kind of like lottery winners in too many sad cases.
So you call them on the overstepping and they either adapt and learn or they burn out. Fortunately I trust democracy - most of the time.
Dear little Megan, and her sad little band of GOP wingnuts, still pretending to be libertarians. I do love watching the weeping and wailing of this isolated little cohort of whiny-ass titty-babies. As Andrew would say: meep, meep, mother-fuckers.
Well, I'd agree that Megan's libertarianism is mostly a pose, since she supported Obama (note I do not say she voted for hims, since by her own admission she found the voting process too complex), a man who's clearly demonstrated statism exceeds even John McCain's, but these days most of the whining and tit-sucking appears to be coming from the White House.
"I don't mean this to sound like what I'm sure a lot of my conservative commentators will make it into--some screed to the effect that Obama is a tinpot dictator and a secret communist."
I read this blog every day, and this is pretty insulting to your conservative commentators. I find most of them to be pretty reasonable.
You don't have to qualify your posts that might appeal to conservative readers to mollify your liberal readers, or make yourself seem more unbiased or whatever.
Every time I write a post about Obama abusing power, I tend to get one or two commenters proclaiming that the Dark Night of Fascism is Upon Us, that "this is the kind of things liberals do", etc. I don't think his crimes are specifically liberal; they're the crimes of power. And assuming that 1 commenter = several hundred readers, I extrapolated. But I was not trying to imply that the majority of my readers respond this way, and I'm sorry if I gave offence.
As a right-leaning libertarian, I'm with Megan on this. She's not making these people up, I see them on AOS, HotAir, etc all the time.
Dave, you're right that these people exist, but Megan is wrong to gratuitously insult all her "conservative commentators".
(I'm more libertarian than I am conservative, but we're all "right-wing crazies" to the left.)
Megan is also wrong to keep spelling it "offence". This ain't the Economist! (which, btw, is not a newspaper; it's a magazine!)
Colin,
Well, again, to be fair to Megan she said "a lot," not all or even most.
I can see where you would be offended reading it the way you did, but in truth Megan's pretty fair-minded.
I'm with you on the anti-British spelling though. By God, we didn't fight the Revolutionary War just to use a "c" where an "s" belongs!
I would just be curious to see a reasoned explanation of how fascism differs in any significant way, in terms of economic policies, than what Obama has so far proposed. Just so's I can use these arguments as a weapon against the next guy who claims Obama is a closet fascist.
What would a fascist do about GM that is different than what Obama has done?
Would a fascist continue to use his own symbol, rather than traditional national symbols of the office he had won after winning an election differently than what Obama has done
How would a fascist deal with a mega corporation like General Electric which owns a media empire like NBC that is different than what Obama has done? Would that fascist steer billions of dollars in govt projects and regulations to the company that owned a network that was very helpful in his winning office?
I agree with all of you guys that Obama is not a socialist. I just don't think that most people realize that you can be a fascist without setting up death camps or parading around in military uniforms.
There is a spectrum of decreasing govt control of the economy Socialism -> Fascism -> Capitalism. Even Obama's supporters have called their style of govt "Progressive Corporatism". Mussolini has said that fascism should be more properly known as "corporatism". Talk about Orwellian, we have banned a word with a commonly understood definition from political discourse, and have not replaced it.
It would be an interesting discussion. Fascism has such emotional baggage attached to it, its almost impossible to have such a discussion.
While I don't believe that Obama is a fascist (or a socialist) -- his actions thus far have some disquieting similarities to fascist governance practices -- namely, a propensity to put large corporate interests that support political aims in preferred positions, while using the power of the state to threaten or punish those corporate interest that don't support their political aims.
I also think Gnarledhands observation above is a good one -- the practice is simply an outgrowth of Obama's personal experience in both community organizing and Chicago power politics.
It turns out that 'fascism' is an unword. Double plus ungood that we used it just then. Sorry
The reason I have a problem with this is that your liberal commenters are much more abusive, insulting, and abrasive in their knee-jerk reactions to things they don't like in your posts than conservatives, but you seldom, if ever, push back against the liberals.
Now you've slammed conservative commenters twice just today
Oh noes, McArdle has a liberal bias, just like the bible and pretty much anything in the world.
Jesus, what a bunch of crybabies.
@Simmons,
Where did I say McArdle has a liberal bias?
My point is that she seems to be feeling pressured by the abusive nature of liberal commenters to distance herself from conservative commenters, from whom she faces little threat of abuse.
It seems to be remarkably analogous to how institutions feel confident criticizing Christianity but give Islam a pass, presumptively because Christians don't behead and/or use explosives to kill those who criticize Christianity.
The tone of your comment provide support to my assertion.
A sentence straight out of talk-radio. I thought you were a little better than this, Megan.
A sentence straight out of talk-radio
Oh noes!
This is a typical Alinsky comment (and thus, can safely be ignored). It doesn't address the facts, attempts to link to something else deemed horrible, then tries to create shame.
It's vapid and empty concern-trolling that the left only uses when they have lost the argument.
It's patently transparent.
Trenchant riposte Simmons. Hear hear! One could construct a first rate university course just dissecting the many facets of such a cogent analysis.
Yes, comparisons with the Bush administration are very much in order. That's because Obama's "abuses" are so lame. And they are written in the strongest possible terms:
- "threatening groups you don't like", which means, not firing people for political reasons, not outing CIA agents for revenge, but... threatening to present legislation to Congress. Well, at least the suggestion of a 1st Amendment violation was dropped.
- "put your message in every available channel" - But this is not news. A lot of .gov sites were always pretty biased. The most relevant difference is that Obama is putting a lot more information online than past administrations. healthreform.gov makes the Administration case for reform pretty clear, with lots of reports, stats, etc. Yes, it is advocacy. Everybody knows it, and it's not a problem.
- finally, the "war" with Fox News - I won't even try to guess what's the "abuse" with this one. Fox News is pretty clearly a propaganda channel, much like MSNBC has become, but more successful. As Seinfeld would say, not that there's anything wrong with it. But please, let's not pretend this isn't true. People tend to abuse the term "orwellian" nowadays, but the "Fair and Balanced" slogan entirely deserves the epithet. Any remaining illusions were dispelled when they heavily promoted the Tea Parties, with "journalists" actively directing and riling up the demonstrators. Criticizing Obama for this "war" is like criticizing him for attacking the Republican party.
1) I stand by the assertion that this is an open attempt to chill political speech, and I don't like it. I get that you don't think any group associated with business has any interesting speech rights, and I'm sure you've already asked yourself whether this has anything to do with the fact that the only group without speech rights tends to make a lot of speech that you disagree with.
2) The question is not whether .gov sites were "always pretty biased", though as it happens, I spend a lot of time on most of the .gov sites, and I haven't seen all that much interesting bias either then or now, this thing excepted. The point is that whatever fluff they were publishing previously was about stuff they had already been directed to do, not stuff they thought congress should tell them to do. Agencies are not advocacy groups. for very good reasons.
3) You can shout all that you want that they're not a "real" news outlet, but they are members of the White House press pool, and it behooves them not to play petty games with press privileges, much less start a section of their blog dedicated to attacking Fox. If for no other reason than it's beneath the dignity of the president to do this sort of thing. He's not a political boss, he's the president of the united states.
As for all the Bush stuff: once and for all, Bush was awful. I'm sorry I voted for him once. Having dispensed with that, I do not think that Bush's awfulness means I should turn a blind eye to Obama's stunts.
Today the Obama admin actually tried to kick Fox out of the press pool. Fortunately, the rest of the press took a dim view of this and told them if Fox News wasn't allowed, they wouldn't show up either, and the WH was forced to let them in.
It's just unbelievable. If you'd told me this could happen I'd have said you were a crazy right-winger.
Well ok, you have a point about keep bringing Bush. But we're obviously not going to agree on the rest.
1) The thing about political speech is, it goes both ways. You can always construe a threat of action as an attempt to silence dissent. But the way you go about doing it matters. I'm sorry if I insist on this, but if the attempt takes the form of a threat by the executive to introduce a piece of legislation, a situation in which power resides solely in Congress, it's kind of hard for me to see it as an abuse of executive power.
As an aside, note that one big schism between liberals and libertarians is that the former tend to see not only government, but private institutions like corporations (and representatives of corporate interests) as major centers of power concentration. The government, after all, supposedly acts to represent the people and advance the public interest, and can sometimes act as a counterbalance to this power. Yes, I know that in the real world the government and corporate interests act many times in collusion. But I believe Obama did the right thing on this.
2) We're not talking about the site of the Department of Commerce or of the National Marine Fisheries. The site in question, healthreform.gov, doesn't represent any government agency. Rather, its purpose is to present information on health reform (a regular monsieur de la Palice here). And maybe I'm being too cynical, but I fully expect that a government site exclusively dedicated to health reform will be biased towards the current government efforts. Now, you may say that the site should never have been created in the first place. I disagree with that. I think the additional information does more good than the bias does harm, and people have plenty of other sources of information anyway. Regarding .gov sites, I maintain that plenty of them are traditionally biased, starting with whitehouse.gov.
3) Not just Bush, but pretty much all past administrations have always picked favorites and launched verbal attacks on news outlets. In addition to verbal attacks, if an administration feels a particular news agency is too hostile, they deny interviews, don't pick their journalists to ask questions in press conferences, etc. I think this second form of retaliation, access denial, is actually much worse than the first (or that any blog entry), because it functions as a constant pressure on journalists not to take an adversarial stance.
But members of the Obama administration keep showing up in Fox News programs. Not out of the kindness of their hearts, but because Fox News has high ratings. So Obama's opinion that Fox News is not a news outlet is, in my own opinion, overall fairly harmless.
And by the way, what Obama said is true! Fox News and MSNBC are mostly not de facto news outlets. They have something like 2 hours of hard news throughout the day, and, not just prime time, but the rest of the time is filled with commentary and opinion - which is indeed "a talk-radio format".
Look at the link to the post prior to yours. The administration tried to shut Fox out of the press pool.
If access is being denied by Obama officials, that's much more serious. However, Gibbs said the decision to exclude Fox from the pool was made by the White House Correspondents Association. Fox News says it was the administration (and the Weekly Standard kind of unquestionably repeated the Fox version of the story)
We'll see where this goes.
Here's Dana Perino a year and a half ago, regarding NBC News.
http://vodpod.com/watch/2373384-bush-spokesman-says-obama-spokesmen-shouldnt-criticize-media-after-bush-spokesman-criticized-media
The thing is not "Bush did it too". The thing is administration members making comments about network bias is nothing new. Nor, quite frankly, that worrisome.
I'm trying to remember when Dana Perino claimed NBC wasn't a real news organization, or kicked them out of the press pool...
At about the same time NBC News started promoting protests and directing protesters at rallies. Oh, wait...
At about the same time NBC News started promoting protests and directing protesters at rallies. Oh, wait...
Seriously? The whole MSM did that for just about every single antiwar protest of the Bush years.
You don't remember Cindy Sheehan?
About the so-called exclusion of Fox News from the pool:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/wh-were-happy-to-exclude-fox-but-didnt-yesterday-with-feinberg-interview.php?ref=fpb
Apparently, Fox News was not on the original interviewer pool because it didn't ask for the interview, and Anita Dunn said yes when Fox finally made the request.
The link includes Fox News correspondent Major Garret explaining how the whole thing was blown out of proportion.
"You can shout all that you want that they're not a "real" news outlet, but they are members of the White House press pool ..."
Megan you don't seriously believe that Fox News is going to continue being members of the White House press pool do you?
Attendance of news events at and inside the White House is by Presidential invitation only.
And Barack Obama is setting the stage to revoke the invitation of everyone at Fox News. Fox won't be allowed inside the basement of the White House to cover news conferences. They won't be allowed at the daily briefings. As long as he can get other members of the press to acquiesce, it will happen fairly soon.
It's would be easy for the Administration to simply remove the access Fox News enjoys at the invitation of Barack Obama, since he controls the venues in which their newsgathering takes place.
And that's exactly what they plan to do.
They're prepping the battlefield for this action, and testing the waters to see what the reaction would be by the other journalists in the room. And they're confident that the other journalists will come around; seeing as how Fox is constantly scooping them and making them look biased by comparison.
Mark my words. Fox News soon won't be allowed to attend any reindeer games.
People tend to abuse the term "orwellian" nowadays, but the "Fair and Balanced" slogan entirely deserves the epithet
Heh. I'm not sure you've quite understood the theme of Orwell's books. Fox is a media organization, not a government. Obama's treatment of Fox is what's Orwellian in this situation.
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with a very common use of the term to characterize use of language such as expressions, slogans or institutional denominations to either deliberately engage in obfuscation or affirm the exact opposite of the real purpose of an organization.
Examples: Ministry of Love, Ministry of Peace, war is peace, fox news is fair and balanced.
Stay in school, kids!
Here is a picture of Axelrod addressing the Party, err, I mean the MSM to tell them that Fux has been pronounced an "un news network"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Telescreen.png
Go ahead and click on it liberals. Its from Wikipedia. You might try watching the movie too, if the book is too hard for you, it starts with a scene from the Olberman show, the "worst person in the world" segment, err, I mean the "Two Minute Hate".
CNN, The Most Trusted Name in News
MSNBC, America's Fastest Growing News Channel
CBS, CBS News is Very Good News.
ABC, More Americans get their news from ABC News than from any other source
Ny Times, All the News That's Fit to Print
Maybe Nimed has a point about these slogans.
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with a very common use of the term to characterize use of language
Apparently you aren't aware you just complained the term was being comonly misused... and then misused it.
It's fine to use the common usage, but it's hilariously dumb to complain the common usage is wrong and then use it.
Stay in school indeed.
Oh, I get it. "balanced" does not include the views of the troglodytes in flyover country. That is how Fox can be considered not fair and balanced because they have many genuine liberals on, and CNN can be considered balanced when genuine conservatives are rarely given a platform there. It makes so much sense now!
Not only are the views of those redneck reactionaries in flyover country beneath contempt, but they should just shut up and realize that we have their best interests at heart. Because we are liberals!
Fraggle Rock, congrats, you got the gist of it.
STD (Stupid TallDave), once again you enhance your considerable natural stupidity with willful misinterpretation. If you never heard of the role of language in Orwell's work and want to offer embarrassing opinions based on online dictionaries, don't let anybody stop you. I might even get some popcorn!
Perhaps some new slogans:
New York Times: We hire liars who make up articles out of whole cloth
CBS: Forgeries are OK, as long as they are used to smear Republicans
NBC: We'll make up quotes and it's up to you to prove them false
FOX: Having the temerity to question a black president
LOL keep digging that hole.
First off, Orwell didn't care what language the free press used; newspeak and doublespeak are are terms for language used by totalitarian government to control what people think.
Secondly, you didn't say doublespeak, you said "Orwellian."
Third, you complained people were abusing the term, indicating you believed you were about to use the technically correct term, which is available via a quick Google.
Maybe you should actually familiarize yourself with Orwell's work before embarassing yourself by tossing out gems that start with "People tend to abuse the term "orwellian" nowadays..."
Reading is fundamental, kids.
Seriously, this isn't hard. The term even has a wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian
Meanings
The adjective Orwellian refers to these behaviours of State and The Party, especially when the Party is the State:
So it's extremely stupid to describe anything Fox News does as Orwellian while claiming to use the technically correct version of "Orwellian."
The funniest part of all this is that Orwell himself was a stickler for correct language. Thus I must bitch-slap the ignorant in his memory.
Perhaps some new slogans:
New York Times: We hire liars who make up articles out of whole cloth
You mean Judy Miller? Who did Darth Cheney's dirty work? Or the paper that hired Bill "William the Bloody" Kristol? Or hired the moronic Ross Douthat? Just because the NYT hosts Frank Rich, Bob Herbert and Paul "The Shrill One" Krugman doesn't make them liberal.
CBS: Forgeries are OK, as long as they are used to smear Republicans
The gist of the story still stands.
NBC: We'll make up quotes and it's up to you to prove them false
You mean by the nightly news anchor that's an admitted Rushbo lover? By the station that employs mainly Republicans(like JoeScar and Pat Buchanan)?
FOX: Having the temerity to question a black president
That's so funny!! Question him on what? His birth certificate?
Ok, there are some pretty crass errors here:
This is a clear abuse of the concept "Orwellian". There are no attempts to suppress the press in Orwell's novels. There is no independent press in "1984", and, if there is any allusion to a press in "Animal Farm" (the topic is controversial), Orwell meant self-censorship, as stated in Orwell's preface to the book.
That is to say, when applied to government actions, Orwellian isn't just a synonym of "repressive". It's much more specific. Of course, reading Orwell's novels helps.
Another day, another display of embarrassing ignorance by STD. Nimed didn't allude to doublespeak, probably because the concept does not exist in 1984. If TallDave meant newspeak (or doublethink) - well, those are undoubtedly Orwellian central concepts. So this is as ridiculous as stating "You didn't say Room 101, you said Orwellian".
Pervasive in "1984" and "Animal Farm" is the use of names or expressions that contradict the real nature of an institution. Like Ministry of Truth, or "Fair and Balanced". Here's a quite good article on the subject:
http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-iforw.htm
"Fair and Balanced" fits quite nicely as "crude", because even a quite substantial number of Fox News viewers candidly admit that the channel is politically biased. But they regard Fox News bias as justified because it acts as a counterbalance to the bias of other news outlets.
Hmm... STD never heard of doublethink and newspeak. Truly as stupid and ignorant as they come.
It's pretty much exactly the opposite of Orwellian to mock your rivals' pretensions to objectivity by claiming, even more loudly, to be even more objective than they claim to be. And then to chuckle to yourself every time it sets somebody sputtering like it did you. Orwellian newspeak and ironic baiting of your opponents' pomposity are pretty much 180 degrees apart.
All of this belligerence and hypersensitivity makes sense if you just think that it's Rahm Emanuel, pottymouthed 5-foot ex-ballet dancer and Chicago fixer, and not Obama who's running most of this day to day stuff.
We tried to elect David Palmer, and wound up with Ari Gold.
Ahem. You deserve the truth - you may be convinced you're witty. You aren't. You should devote your time to an enterprise that is better fitted to your natural talents.
And evidently you're convinced that you're the social arbiter on the playground, which I'm sure would come as news to Megan McArdle and The Atlantic. Feel free to imagine the playground-level advice you would normally receive at this point, as you go away.
Still convinced? Your sauce is getting weaker by the minute.
'Creepy' isn't strong enough.
What would be the reaction if the Defense Department website put up a button in 2007 asking viewers to send a letter to the White House expressing one's support for the surge in Iraq?
Obama and his cabinet really have need of someone from Peoria to whisper into their ears every day 'this is not good' or 'this is good', i.e. a common sense conscience.
This is definitely a violation of the Hatch Act of 1939. I'm not certain if that act allows private citizens to bring suit under it or not. If not, the only remedy is, as an earlier commenter wrote, impeachment, which is a non-starter in a Democratic Congress.
Another example of how divided government is better for liberty.
Somehow I did pretty well in the "fucked up Bush years". So did everyone else I know. Became millionaires and sitting pretty now while everyone else is in free-fall. Thanks Dubya!
Kudos to Obama for saying the glaringly obvious - that Fox News is not a news organization.
Unless, of course, fabricating news counts. People seem to forget that Fox News "journalists" have been caught rallying the teabaggers.
http://vodpod.com/watch/2213591-fox-news-producer-caught-rallying-912-protest-crowd
Fair and Balanced
It's telling that the first thing the Left does to those who dare to disagree with them is deliberately mislabel them as a sexual act, since they are too juvenile to simply debate them.
There are idiots on both sides. Still, the sort of idiot who uses phrases like "teabaggers" is getting way too common on the left these days.
Fraggle Rock, it's a bit ironic that you talk about "the left" avoiding debate while not addressing the main point of the comment.
I mean, for God's sake, there's a Fox News producer waving an arm to direct the crowd's cheers while another extends a microphone.
Right, because it's not like CNN was out there taking sides against the protesters.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/15/unreal-cnn-reporter-openly-contemptuous-of-tea-parties/
Eh eh. Newsflash, sore loser wingnuts - health reform is on the verge of passing. Cap-and-trade will follow. And all the whining about "the left" and wishful thinking in the world is not going to make a difference.
I think someone said the exact same thing a month ago. Still has not passed.
Heck, just last week Sen. Reid thought he had enough votes, and he was something like 13 short, right?
Keep calling us "wingnuts"
People who have never voted for a Republican but who don't want to see the debt go from 100% of GDP to 150% can't be insulted enough, it will only help your goals.
Yes, there is a surprising number of people in the last few months who discovered they cared about the debt. But they tend to be Republican. And even if they aren't, the record of the last 50 years shows they are better of with a Democratic president.
That turned out to not be true. Fox News did ask to be included:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/fox-news-exec-on-attempte_n_332707.html
eh?
Many apologies, I apparently posted the previous in the wrong place.
Thanks for the link.
It's like a soap opera.
It should have read "CONGRATULATIONS!!! You are the 1,000,000th visitor! Click here for your free healthcare!" with a big flashy banner.
And then require them to pay a bunch in taxes and fill out a bunch of forms to get it....