Anita Dunn...

[Ame®icano]

Here is what Rush is saying about Dunn and some others.

Notice what Ron Bloom is saying at the 4 minute mark... and whom he cited.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvUi_shN6EM]YouTube - Rush Limbaugh - This Administration Praises Fascist and Dictators[/ame]

 

[Ame®icano]

Here is the video, Ron Bloom kinda agree with Mao too.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27cXXirAIw4]YouTube - SHOCKER: Obama Czar Agrees With Mao, Too, and Thinks Free Market is Nonsense[/ame]

 

[Oldandtired]

Ok, fair enough - I'll give on that. But there are other examples of lies and unprofessionalism surrounding Fox's journalism - not the least that they blur the line between opinion and news. Calling Van Jones a "convicted felon" for example, or photoshopping those pictures of the NYT reporters to look more sinister. Are these things the sorts of journalistic techniques and ethics that we should be condoning much less admiring?



If you watched the entire speech, why did you then claim she only mentioned Mother Theresa that one time then went on to extol Mao and not mention her again? Is there an entire transcript if what I provided was not it?

I watched the entire speech as it pertained to Teresa and Mao.....and then some more after but I found her dull at best...so I lost interest.

Can you link to it? I would like to see if it compares to what I heard and the transcript.



But that is the issue I have. It used to be news was reported straight or mostly straight as news. On cable at least, it is increasingly intermixed with opinion - so much so that what is news and what is opinion is frequently difficult to distinquish. The networks want to call it news for legitimacy...but they when criticized - fall back on the "it's opinion" excuse, an excuse that grants them a very liberal license to deceive. Is calling someone who isn't, a convicted felon in the process of presenting and commenting on the news - just "commentary"? The media's "believability" ratings overall are in a sinkhole and this is why.



How honest is Fox News and is there a clear demarcation between their comment shows and their straight news?

Look at their current headline: White House Continues Fox News Attacks

But the Whitehouse isn't attacking Fox News but Hannity and Beck -- opinion.

Fox seems to want the line between opinion and news blurred and sharp both, when it suits them. Most professional news organizations don't do that or they didn't used to - news is presented clear of opinion other than light banter. If an organization is going to promote a mix, then there is going to be fall out in credibility and that applies not just to Fox, but MSNBC and any other news organization.

Look for example at the full page ad that, Fox News took out in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal claiming that the ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN did not cover the Tea Party protests. A claim since proved a lie.

Or Fox News reporting Obama was a Muslim or attended a Madrassa? I think that was on the straight news and it was later retracted, after the damage was done.



Yet Fox neglects to mention Van Jone's capitalism, and his more recent writings....don't they? Things which directly contradict what they are saying. Is that really news then?



Why should they? What is "news" about that? A speech to students about achievement. Is that more important than the economy? Afghanistan? Spending? In fact, it's not news really - it's opinion, opinion about what Dunn is saying, not what she is actually saying and this is clear when you search and find only partial quotes.



I don't dismiss everything they report - where I've questioned validity and truth, I've provided specific examples.




If that were true, I'd so I would not like it - however, it is taken completely out of context and that is little more than a smear job.



Again, "once" is the key term here but you all seem to miss that in your venomous zeal to attack any and all aspects of the Obama administration.

that once was a memebr of the weather underground, that spews racial hate, and so on?

...and how many years ago was that?

Remember, the last president we elected was an alcaholic and used drugs and had, amongst his administration convicted criminals like John Poindexter? Are you suggesting people don't/can't change? Or that only liberals should be tarred that way?

I mean...really?

Ya...really

I will respond to you with a PM....bvut cant now...got hit hard with rush business....but do not get me wrong.....I am enjying this debate.

And BTW.....they DID attack Fox News....and an ABC reporter pointed out to Gibbs that it is only Beck and Hannity...and Gibbs refused to back off and included all of their news shows as the issue.....

But I will get back to you....need to make money so I can support my neighbor...He is defaulting on his mortgage and since he is away on his boat for the next 3 weeks someone needs to make the payment for him......So Obama decided I will be the chosen one....

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I still don't understand why so many are still confused. Hopey Changey does control the Media. I have been saying this all along. His Henchmen and Women are just being honest about this. I have to give this woman some credit for at least being honest. This really should be offensive to all Americans and especially Journalists. This administration really is becoming increasingly arrogant.

Heres the deal.

During the Bush Administration there was a significant slant towards bashing Bush in the media. They constantly made fun of him, dogged his policies and treated his family like a bunch of punching bags. NOT ONE SINGLE TIME did Bush or his Administration officials launch such a public attack against the media.

Now we have Obama and his minions trying to shift this country fundamentally towards a big government socialist society and Fox calls them on it.

What does all of this mean...during the Bush years the MSM wasn't viewed as a threat by Bush because his policies were in keeping with what the majority of Americans supported at the time. Even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were supported by America in spite of organizations like ThinkProgress, MoveOn, Democratic Underground, Huffington, liberal talk shows and Hollywood which began undermining the war effort with false accusations and lies. Bush dealt with it standing up like a man. Obama and his pals on the other hand view Fox as a major threat to their socialist agenda. Already we have seen the influence of Fox on Obama's Administration with the resignation of several officials. Now we are seeing skewed polls on healthcare, the economy and a host of other issues important to America. This administration is attempting to force America to conform to their will by passing legislation America clearly doesn't want.

Fox News ... indeed...is all powerful and will continue to be so in the future and there isn't a goddam thing Dunn or any other of the Maoists can do about it.

 

[susancreem]

She is an oddball with extreme views. I hope she is shown the door.

She should most definately be following Van Jones out the door and also Kevin Jennings should be going. In all honesty how can this administration have an Education czar who supports homosexuality between old men and young boys. Isn't that just a little "icky". This whole administration is so off the wall that I actually fear for my life with the a-holes surrounding the Chosen One.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[susancreem]

She is an oddball with extreme views. I hope she is shown the door.

She should most definately be following Van Jones out the door and also Kevin Jennings should be going. In all honesty how can this administration have an Education czar who supports homosexuality between old men and young boys. Isn't that just a little "icky". This whole administration is so off the wall that I actually fear for my life with the a-holes surrounding the Chosen One. Also, I would like to say that as a newbie, I am disappointed in this website since I have yet to find a thread with any worthwhile back and forth. Seems to be pretty much everyone posting their pictures (of whom they wished they looked like, but don't) and that's boring.

 

[Ame®icano]

Something interesting...

Attacking Fox News and defending President Obama is a family affair for Anita Dunn, the White House communications director who has blasted Fox as an arm of the Republican Party and talked about "controlling" the news media.

She's married to Robert Bauer, the chief of the political law group at Perkins Coie, the Seattle law firm hired by the White House to defend Obama in court cases challenging his "natural born" citizenship status and thus, his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution to be president.

Dunn is targeting Fox News with criticisms emanating from the administration that it isn't even a news network, while Bauer has done his best to prevent the American public from seeing a wide range of Obama's records that could prove, or disprove, his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

Look who's married to Obama's media 'controller'

 

[susancreem]

Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, et al. These are the reprobates surrounding the Messiah and have his ear. God help our country.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Something interesting...

Attacking Fox News and defending President Obama is a family affair for Anita Dunn, the White House communications director who has blasted Fox as an arm of the Republican Party and talked about "controlling" the news media.

She's married to Robert Bauer, the chief of the political law group at Perkins Coie, the Seattle law firm hired by the White House to defend Obama in court cases challenging his "natural born" citizenship status and thus, his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution to be president.

Dunn is targeting Fox News with criticisms emanating from the administration that it isn't even a news network, while Bauer has done his best to prevent the American public from seeing a wide range of Obama's records that could prove, or disprove, his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

Look who's married to Obama's media 'controller'

The NewsWeek article!!!??? The author Weisberg is from Chicago and his family members are quite AVID OBAMA supporters.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

 

[Oldandtired]

I still don't understand why so many are still confused. Hopey Changey does control the Media. I have been saying this all along. His Henchmen and Women are just being honest about this. I have to give this woman some credit for at least being honest. This really should be offensive to all Americans and especially Journalists. This administration really is becoming increasingly arrogant.

Heres the deal.

During the Bush Administration there was a significant slant towards bashing Bush in the media. They constantly made fun of him, dogged his policies and treated his family like a bunch of punching bags. NOT ONE SINGLE TIME did Bush or his Administration officials launch such a public attack against the media.

Now we have Obama and his minions trying to shift this country fundamentally towards a big government socialist society and Fox calls them on it.

What does all of this mean...during the Bush years the MSM wasn't viewed as a threat by Bush because his policies were in keeping with what the majority of Americans supported at the time. Even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were supported by America in spite of organizations like ThinkProgress, MoveOn, Democratic Underground, Huffington, liberal talk shows and Hollywood which began undermining the war effort with false accusations and lies. Bush dealt with it standing up like a man. Obama and his pals on the other hand view Fox as a major threat to their socialist agenda. Already we have seen the influence of Fox on Obama's Administration with the resignation of several officials. Now we are seeing skewed polls on healthcare, the economy and a host of other issues important to America. This administration is attempting to force America to conform to their will by passing legislation America clearly doesn't want.

Fox News ... indeed...is all powerful and will continue to be so in the future and there isn't a goddam thing Dunn or any other of the Maoists can do about it.

I think those with a liberal view should question themselves the following...

'Why do they support a media that found it quite important to report on how Bush pronounced "nuclear" but does not find it important to report on a white house appointee who, ten years ago called himself a communist? Perhpas he is no longer a communist...but they did not feel it important that a man appointed to the White House declared himself as a communist as an adult?'

'Why do they support a media that felt it important to report on how Bush had trouble finding the real door at a banquet, but did not find it important to question the president and report on a WH appointee that tols high school students that Mao is one of her two facorite political philosophers?'

'Why do they support a media that found it important enough to report on the amount dead on any given day in our wars when Bush was in office, but no longer feel it is important to report on those numbers now that it is Obama's war'?

So lets forget Fox news. Where is the criticism for the media they so vehemently support?

Or do the liberals really not care about our dead soldiers...do not care about people who admire a murderer like Moa; do not care about their tax dollars paying salaries to people that within the past 10 years declared themselves as communists.

Yeah...I guess that must be it seeing as their only complaint about these things is that Fox news reports on it.

Pathetic.

 

[Coyote]

She is an oddball with extreme views. I hope she is shown the door.

She should most definately be following Van Jones out the door and also Kevin Jennings should be going. In all honesty how can this administration have an Education czar who supports homosexuality between old men and young boys. Isn't that just a little "icky". This whole administration is so off the wall that I actually fear for my life with the a-holes surrounding the Chosen One.

Care to substantiate that claim or are you just blowing methane out of your arse?

 

[Oldandtired]

She is an oddball with extreme views. I hope she is shown the door.

She should most definately be following Van Jones out the door and also Kevin Jennings should be going. In all honesty how can this administration have an Education czar who supports homosexuality between old men and young boys. Isn't that just a little "icky". This whole administration is so off the wall that I actually fear for my life with the a-holes surrounding the Chosen One.

Care to substantiate that claim or are you just blowing methane out of your arse?

He hiomself admitted that a student in his school where he had authority approched him about an affair he was having with an older man...and he did not say anything about the ethics of it...he simply asked if the kid was using a condom.

Does this mean he supports it? No. Was it illegal? No. Would you, as a parent, expect your childs school to do nothing about a 16 year old meeting with an older man to have sex?

It is a matter of judgement. He is a man, IN MY OPINION that allowed his own ideology dictate his judgement. If the 16 year old were a female and she told him she was haviong sex with an older man, I bet he would have done something about it......MY OPINION.

 

[Coyote]

I will respond to you with a PM....bvut cant now...got hit hard with rush business....but do not get me wrong.....I am enjying this debate.

And BTW.....they DID attack Fox News....and an ABC reporter pointed out to Gibbs that it is only Beck and Hannity...and Gibbs refused to back off and included all of their news shows as the issue.....

Ok, you are right, I did not realize that. There's a good article on this that makes some interesting points.

Dunn argues it's not just Beck, nor Sean Hannity, nor Bill O'Reilly. She says the supposed wall between Fox's news programs and its sprawling opinion shows has become extremely porous.​

But there does appear to be evidence that Fox's straight news isn't necessarily that - it seems mixed with plenty of opinion and it seems as if the "opinion" personalities (Beck, Hannity) are setting the tone for station. If Fox chooses to allow that, then the repercussions are that they aren't going to be taken seriously as a news organization.

Another interesting point this article makes - which applies to most of cable, not just Fox is:

Obama faces a changed media landscape with Fox News and now MSNBC, says John Harwood of The New York Times and CNBC. In newspapers, Harwood says, the hard news divisions determine the agenda — not the editorial page. "But in cable television, the editorial page drives the train," he says. "That is where the power and the attention come from.

"And in Fox, you've got a network that is self-consciously set out to correct what it sees as the leftward bias of the rest of the media. And you're guaranteed to have a Democratic White House feeling the heat and feeling some frustration about it."
​

Whether it's wise of the Obama administration to take on Fox remains to be seen - this might be a short lived boycott. The irony of this current kerfluffle is powerful though. Fox supporters conveniently ignore the fact that this isn't the first time administrations or politicians have threatened or participated in network boycotts.

The Bush administration, for example, attacked NBC in 2008 accusing them of "deceitful editing" in airing only portions of an interview between NBC reporter Richard Engel and Bush. But the ultimate irony is that the Fox News "personalities" questioned why Bush would agree to be interviewed by NBC in the first place and applauded the White House's decision to attack NBC.

Or, how about in 2006 when GOP House members tried to prosecute the NYT - or, in 2004 when the NYT reporters were excluded from Air Force Two? Or, In 2002 when GOP leadership boycotted Crossfire?

This really turns the faux outrage into yet another partisan sham.

But I will get back to you....need to make money so I can support my neighbor...He is defaulting on his mortgage and since he is away on his boat for the next 3 weeks someone needs to make the payment for him......So Obama decided I will be the chosen one....

You are indeed a good neighbor I too am enjoying this debate!

 

[Oldandtired]

I will respond to you with a PM....bvut cant now...got hit hard with rush business....but do not get me wrong.....I am enjying this debate.

And BTW.....they DID attack Fox News....and an ABC reporter pointed out to Gibbs that it is only Beck and Hannity...and Gibbs refused to back off and included all of their news shows as the issue.....

Ok, you are right, I did not realize that. There's a good article on this that makes some interesting points.

Dunn argues it's not just Beck, nor Sean Hannity, nor Bill O'Reilly. She says the supposed wall between Fox's news programs and its sprawling opinion shows has become extremely porous.​

But there does appear to be evidence that Fox's straight news isn't necessarily that - it seems mixed with plenty of opinion and it seems as if the "opinion" personalities (Beck, Hannity) are setting the tone for station. If Fox chooses to allow that, then the repercussions are that they aren't going to be taken seriously as a news organization.

Another interesting point this article makes - which applies to most of cable, not just Fox is:

Obama faces a changed media landscape with Fox News and now MSNBC, says John Harwood of The New York Times and CNBC. In newspapers, Harwood says, the hard news divisions determine the agenda — not the editorial page. "But in cable television, the editorial page drives the train," he says. "That is where the power and the attention come from.

"And in Fox, you've got a network that is self-consciously set out to correct what it sees as the leftward bias of the rest of the media. And you're guaranteed to have a Democratic White House feeling the heat and feeling some frustration about it."
​

Whether it's wise of the Obama administration to take on Fox remains to be seen - this might be a short lived boycott. The irony of this current kerfluffle is powerful though. Fox supporters conveniently ignore the fact that this isn't the first time administrations or politicians have threatened or participated in network boycotts.

The Bush administration, for example, attacked NBC in 2008 accusing them of "deceitful editing" in airing only portions of an interview between NBC reporter Richard Engel and Bush. But the ultimate irony is that the Fox News "personalities" questioned why Bush would agree to be interviewed by NBC in the first place and applauded the White House's decision to attack NBC.

Or, how about in 2006 when GOP House members tried to prosecute the NYT - or, in 2004 when the NYT reporters were excluded from Air Force Two? Or, In 2002 when GOP leadership boycotted Crossfire?

This really turns the faux outrage into yet another partisan sham.

But I will get back to you....need to make money so I can support my neighbor...He is defaulting on his mortgage and since he is away on his boat for the next 3 weeks someone needs to make the payment for him......So Obama decided I will be the chosen one....

You are indeed a good neighbor I too am enjoying this debate!

Dam...I forgot to get back to you yesterday as promised....Bear with me......I owe you a response...I will....just juggling work and debating at the same time....

Al

 

[Coyote]

She should most definately be following Van Jones out the door and also Kevin Jennings should be going. In all honesty how can this administration have an Education czar who supports homosexuality between old men and young boys. Isn't that just a little "icky". This whole administration is so off the wall that I actually fear for my life with the a-holes surrounding the Chosen One.

Care to substantiate that claim or are you just blowing methane out of your arse?

He hiomself admitted that a student in his school where he had authority approched him about an affair he was having with an older man...and he did not say anything about the ethics of it...he simply asked if the kid was using a condom. Does this mean he supports it? No. Was it illegal? No. Would you, as a parent, expect your childs school to do nothing about a 16 year old meeting with an older man to have sex?

Is that really "all" he said? I somehow doubt it. It's what the pundits claim, but it is strangely bare for what has been a number of conversations with the student and teacher. And it is a stretch to then jump to the claim that he "supports homosexuality between old men and young boys". Negative evidence is not evidence to argue from.

But as to the parents issue - I answered something similar from WickedJester. None of us know what the child's family situation and stresses were. And there was nothing in the law that would prevent the teen from choosing to have sex. I agree it was poor judgement not to notify school authorities. He himself admits that. But that is not the same as "supporting" sex between older men and boys.

It is a matter of judgement. He is a man, IN MY OPINION that allowed his own ideology dictate his judgement. If the 16 year old were a female and she told him she was haviong sex with an older man, I bet he would have done something about it......MY OPINION.

He was a 24 yr old new teacher. In fact, I read an interesting article on brain development, maturity and judgement. The last area of the brain to mature is the prefontal cortex where what the term the "executive brain" resides. That is the portion that makes social judgements, weighs alternatives, plans for the future and holds our behavior in check. All aspects of what we regard as social "maturity". He made a bad decision but the rightwing pundits want to spin it as a lifetime error and worse, one in which he actively supports putting children at risk which is just plain wrong because there isn't the evidence to support it - not if you keep it in context.

As to whether it would have been different with a girl student - it may well have been. There has always been a double standard in regards to boys and girls, irrespective of whether they are straight or gay.

 

[Coyote]

Dam...I forgot to get back to you yesterday as promised....Bear with me......I owe you a response...I will....just juggling work and debating at the same time....

Al

No problem....I wasn't on last night anyway, off teaching dog classes.

-- Hope

 

[Oldandtired]

Care to substantiate that claim or are you just blowing methane out of your arse?

He hiomself admitted that a student in his school where he had authority approched him about an affair he was having with an older man...and he did not say anything about the ethics of it...he simply asked if the kid was using a condom. Does this mean he supports it? No. Was it illegal? No. Would you, as a parent, expect your childs school to do nothing about a 16 year old meeting with an older man to have sex?

Is that really "all" he said? I somehow doubt it. It's what the pundits claim, but it is strangely bare for what has been a number of conversations with the student and teacher. And it is a stretch to then jump to the claim that he "supports homosexuality between old men and young boys". Negative evidence is not evidence to argue from.

But as to the parents issue - I answered something similar from WickedJester. None of us know what the child's family situation and stresses were. And there was nothing in the law that would prevent the teen from choosing to have sex. I agree it was poor judgement not to notify school authorities. He himself admits that. But that is not the same as "supporting" sex between older men and boys.

It is a matter of judgement. He is a man, IN MY OPINION that allowed his own ideology dictate his judgement. If the 16 year old were a female and she told him she was haviong sex with an older man, I bet he would have done something about it......MY OPINION.

He was a 24 yr old new teacher. In fact, I read an interesting article on brain development, maturity and judgement. The last area of the brain to mature is the prefontal cortex where what the term the "executive brain" resides. That is the portion that makes social judgements, weighs alternatives, plans for the future and holds our behavior in check. All aspects of what we regard as social "maturity". He made a bad decision but the rightwing pundits want to spin it as a lifetime error and worse, one in which he actively supports putting children at risk which is just plain wrong because there isn't the evidence to support it - not if you keep it in context.

As to whether it would have been different with a girl student - it may well have been. There has always been a double standard in regards to boys and girls, irrespective of whether they are straight or gay.

My overall point is this....those in the WH should always be held to a higher standard. I know...where was I the last 8 years....but the truth is, I would have been complaining if there were members of his staff that had questionable "comments"....if ANYONE in the WH the last 8 years used Mao as someone they admired...no matter how insigificant the comment was...it would have concerned me. Likewise, if there was anyone who at anytime in their adult life referred to themselves as a marxist hired by Bush I would have been all over it.

To be honest...there was a day....not long ago...where anyone who had a relationship with some shady characters never had a shot at getting elected. Gary Hart had a friend who hired promiscuous women on his boat...and Hart did nothing wrong other than attend the party on theboat....but being friends with the guy was Hart's demise as a candidate...and righfully so...as our WH should always live up to a higher standard.

Now, Obama had Ayers, Wright, Rezko exposed during the campaign and all in the media (except Fox) said...who cares....and the people diodnt care.

And now we have appointed officials who ALSO have had atr one time in their lives similar ideologies as Ayers.....yes....poeople in the white house who have, when adults....called themselves a marxist....We have a man who may not believe in Man Boy sex....but he did not try to prevent it....we have a woman who may not be a Moaist....but to our children to put Mao on a pedesatl....perhaps to make a point.....but she put a murderer on a pedestal.

So you see...we can rationalize each and every "strange and unusual" issues...and say each one was a mistake...and say each one was 10 years ago....

But when you add them all up, I must ask one question...and yes, it was asked by Beck...but you can not deny it was a good one...

The question I have....

"Please show me someone in this adminsitration or frineds with this amdinistration who is on record BEFORE THEY WERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE saying that they loved AMerica....or saying that they admired Jefferson...or Adams...or Franklin.

We have seen many say the opposite....from Michelle Obama (calling America a downright mean country), Wright (who obviously hates much about America) Ayers, (well, you know HIS story), Van Jones (called himself a marxist) Dunn (well...youget it).

Can you show me any appointee that did not need to be confirmed that ON RECORD admires America?

 

[Coyote]

My overall point is this....those in the WH should always be held to a higher standard. I know...where was I the last 8 years....but the truth is, I would have been complaining if there were members of his staff that had questionable "comments"....if ANYONE in the WH the last 8 years used Mao as someone they admired...no matter how insigificant the comment was...it would have concerned me. Likewise, if there was anyone who at anytime in their adult life referred to themselves as a marxist hired by Bush I would have been all over it.

Maybe it depends on what someone terms “questionable”. I don’t see it as so black and white, and perhaps that is just the way I tend to think. If someone said they admired Mao, the person – I would agree. But that was not what was said. Perhaps a hint of “communist” and “Marxist” cause much stronger reactions in you than in me.

If someone were currently a communist, or a member of the communist party, I would be skeptical of their nomination. But many people go through political and ideological changes throughout their life and to condemn someone based on past ideology is dodgy because anyone with political passion, a sense of outrage over injustice and an ounce of backbone probably went through a phase of Marxism of some sort. Marxism grew in part as a means to address the gross inequalities and abuses that existed in Europe at the time. Maturing means you realize that Marxism (and Communism) like most political ideologies work better in theory than in practice as a means of social change. In fact, they really don’t work at all in their pure forms.

So is a charge of “Marxist” at some point a person’s life a real point of concern or an over-reaction on the part of the ideological right who still views communism as the threat it was in the cold war days?

Personally, I found former administration official’s ties with PNAC (Project for the New American Century) Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to be much more alarming than past references of “Marxism” in current officials.

To be honest...there was a day....not long ago...where anyone who had a relationship with some shady characters never had a shot at getting elected. Gary Hart had a friend who hired promiscuous women on his boat...and Hart did nothing wrong other than attend the party on theboat....but being friends with the guy was Hart's demise as a candidate...and righfully so...as our WH should always live up to a higher standard.

I don’t really agree there….and I’ll tell you why. I do agree that anyone with a hint of “Marxist” taint – even by rumor, wouldn’t have had a shot of being elected - but that is a legacy of the McCarthy era and the Cold War fears That sort of excess is not something I’d ever like to see again. And, people have been elected despite relationships with shady characters (Kennedy for example).

I actually think the it is harder now to get elected if you have any sort of skeletons in your closet because the nature of today’s media exposes everything….true or untrue, relevant or irrelevant. Anyone with balls will have screwed up at some point in their lives. Anyone who’s had to use judgement on difficult calls will make some bad ones occasionally. With the media scrutiny they are now under – will good candidates refuse to run because of minor flaws that get magnified? Will those who are left be the mediocre - too dumb or clueless to have ever made a mistake or too slick to have been caught? I really wonder. There have been few candidates in the past couple decades I have gotten really excited about.

Now, Obama had Ayers, Wright, Rezko exposed during the campaign and all in the media (except Fox) said...who cares....and the people diodnt care.

Well…why should they care? Ayers has not been involved with radical groups for some 30 years – people change. Rezko was hardly a close friend, and Wright was a pastor who had some radical views but who also, I suspect got taken out of context and blown out of proportion some of the time..

When some one is a public figure they gain thousands of aquaintences, friends, people who do business with them, or casual contacts. There are going to be controversial figures around them. It’s reminiscent of the debunked Clinton (and later Bush) “body counts”. snopes.com: The Clinton Body Count

And now we have appointed officials who ALSO have had atr one time in their lives similar ideologies as Ayers.....yes....poeople in the white house who have, when adults....called themselves a marxist....We have a man who may not believe in Man Boy sex....but he did not try to prevent it....we have a woman who may not be a Moaist....but to our children to put Mao on a pedesatl....perhaps to make a point.....but she put a murderer on a pedestal.

I think that is a very subjective interpretation of things, and I doubt we’ll ever agree here There is nothing whatsoever in the manner of evidence to support the claim of Jennings believing in “Man Boy” sex – a direct reference to NAMBLA I might add, and absolutely abbhorant. Nor was Mao put on a pedestal – he was used in the context of a political philosopher to make a particular point along with Mother Theresa’s example and that point was a very good point. Why can’t people see beyond the partisan spin and see what she was actually telling these kids? She wasn’t telling them about Marxism, she wasn’t extolling Mao’s “virtues” – she was making a very simple and important point and using a specific example from Mother Theresa and from Mao to illustrate it.

So you see...we can rationalize each and every "strange and unusual" issues...and say each one was a mistake...and say each one was 10 years ago....

Don’t you think you can take any administration – dig through it’s member’s pasts and come up with a similar disjointed list of coincidental faux pas? Again, it is very like the Clinton body count.

But when you add them all up, I must ask one question...and yes, it was asked by Beck...but you can not deny it was a good one...

The question I have....

"Please show me someone in this adminsitration or frineds with this amdinistration who is on record BEFORE THEY WERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE saying that they loved AMerica....or saying that they admired Jefferson...or Adams...or Franklin.

We have seen many say the opposite....from Michelle Obama (calling America a downright mean country), Wright (who obviously hates much about America) Ayers, (well, you know HIS story), Van Jones (called himself a marxist) Dunn (well...youget it).

Can you show me any appointee that did not need to be confirmed that ON RECORD admires America?

I have powerful – and very angry objections to this. We do not demand some sort of ideologically based “loyalty” tests nor should we. The fact that a person is willing to run for public office and perservere despite the incredible personal toll in the form of adverse publicity, personal attacks and attacks on family, rumor mongering and at times downright lies from the opposition tells me they must love their country because no one else would be able to tolerate such treatment.

Just because a person’s vision for their country may differ from yours or does not mean that they do not love it – patriotism is not the domain of any one ideology. I disliked Bush’s policies intensely – but I never felt he “hated America” – he just had a different vision for her than I do.

And, you know – I don’t blame Michelle Obama for saying America could be mean (if that is what she said). If you look at the things said about her, about Obama that have nothing to do with policy it is easy to come to that conclusion. I would never have a thick enough skin to endure it as gracefully as the Obamas or the Bush’s. American politics in recent decades has become very mean-spirited. Or maybe it just seems that way.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I still don't understand why so many are still confused. Hopey Changey does control the Media. I have been saying this all along. His Henchmen and Women are just being honest about this. I have to give this woman some credit for at least being honest. This really should be offensive to all Americans and especially Journalists. This administration really is becoming increasingly arrogant.

Heres the deal.

During the Bush Administration there was a significant slant towards bashing Bush in the media. They constantly made fun of him, dogged his policies and treated his family like a bunch of punching bags. NOT ONE SINGLE TIME did Bush or his Administration officials launch such a public attack against the media.

Now we have Obama and his minions trying to shift this country fundamentally towards a big government socialist society and Fox calls them on it.

What does all of this mean...during the Bush years the MSM wasn't viewed as a threat by Bush because his policies were in keeping with what the majority of Americans supported at the time. Even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were supported by America in spite of organizations like ThinkProgress, MoveOn, Democratic Underground, Huffington, liberal talk shows and Hollywood which began undermining the war effort with false accusations and lies. Bush dealt with it standing up like a man. Obama and his pals on the other hand view Fox as a major threat to their socialist agenda. Already we have seen the influence of Fox on Obama's Administration with the resignation of several officials. Now we are seeing skewed polls on healthcare, the economy and a host of other issues important to America. This administration is attempting to force America to conform to their will by passing legislation America clearly doesn't want.

Fox News ... indeed...is all powerful and will continue to be so in the future and there isn't a goddam thing Dunn or any other of the Maoists can do about it.

I think those with a liberal view should question themselves the following...

'Why do they support a media that found it quite important to report on how Bush pronounced "nuclear" but does not find it important to report on a white house appointee who, ten years ago called himself a communist? Perhpas he is no longer a communist...but they did not feel it important that a man appointed to the White House declared himself as a communist as an adult?'

'Why do they support a media that felt it important to report on how Bush had trouble finding the real door at a banquet, but did not find it important to question the president and report on a WH appointee that tols high school students that Mao is one of her two facorite political philosophers?'

'Why do they support a media that found it important enough to report on the amount dead on any given day in our wars when Bush was in office, but no longer feel it is important to report on those numbers now that it is Obama's war'?

So lets forget Fox news. Where is the criticism for the media they so vehemently support?

Or do the liberals really not care about our dead soldiers...do not care about people who admire a murderer like Moa; do not care about their tax dollars paying salaries to people that within the past 10 years declared themselves as communists.

Yeah...I guess that must be it seeing as their only complaint about these things is that Fox news reports on it.

Pathetic.

It's a shame...when they get a dose of their own medicine...they whine like little puppy dogs who's tail got caught under the rocking chair.

Their whole agenda was to paint Bush as a stupid oaf...let's face it...Bush certainly gave them plenty of ammo.