Obama freezes unfriendly coverage

[saveliberty]

Coyote,

You choose your examples well. Appointees are moderate liberals? Certainly not the ones that failed before they even were appointed. Certainly not the czars who have been given a pass at the appointement process. It is a little early to pass the label on Sotomayer until we see some actual Supreme Court rulings.

 

[Ame®icano]

I agree that Clinton was pragmatic, but that is also what I see in Obama. With Bush, he may not have been ideologically driven but his administration sure was.

I read a very interesting book called "The Bush Tragedy" which examined his administration in a surprisingly thoughtful way. When he governed Texas, he was more centrist. But in the White House, many of his closest advisors and policy makers were very ideologically driven and it seems he was strongly influenced by them. In the end, I think his Administration was one of the most ideological since FDR.

Look Coyote, Obama campaign was based on redistribution of wealth and finishing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll pass talking about wars now, but... I hope you do know what redistribution of wealth means and from what ideology is coming from...

I know what "redistribution of wealth" means and I also know when a quote has gotten taken out of context and out of proportion.

It may be taken out of context few times, I agree.

But he was talking about redistribution of wealth since his Illinois senate days and he stayed at the same course ever since. I called that ideology... Maybe I am wrong?

Here is the interview with local radio station from 2001 where he's talking about redistribution of wealth thruout the judical branch...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck]YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered[/ame]

Check out this video too, first few minutes...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzkXkY5wNmg]YouTube - JUST SURFACED! The Obama "Socialism" Interview Tapes[/ame]

 

[Vast LWC]

I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June, though he did not mention Fox by name. He added, “You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”

Here's a thought...

How do you know Obama was talking about FoxNews, if he didn't mention it by name, unless they resemble his remark?

 

[Ame®icano]

I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June, though he did not mention Fox by name. He added, “You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”

Here's a thought...

How do you know Obama was talking about FoxNews, if he didn't mention it by name, unless they resemble his remark?

Just like we don't know to whom he denied coverage and interviews. Do you know, maybe?

 

[Immanuel]

I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June, though he did not mention Fox by name. He added, “You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”

Here's a thought...

How do you know Obama was talking about FoxNews, if he didn't mention it by name, unless they resemble his remark?

Because it is evident that every other network literally fawns over him?

Immie

 

[Coyote]

I disagree with your assessment of his SCOTUS appointment.

It's not really my assessment but rather that of her judicial peers.

But that being said, the rest of your examples are all "will be's"

True, the outcomes are "will be's" but you can make determinations on how he approaches and what he is willing to reject (for instance in the healthcare bill).

He has not yet decided on Aghanistan....but his non decision to this point leads me to believe that he wants to do what makes him po;pular, but at the same time, he wants to do what drives him ideologically...and they conflict....thus the reason for no decision

No, he has not decided - but an ideologue would already have a decision - in fact, would be incapable of anything but one decision.

This non-decision can be what you say - or it can be a genuine attempt to understand all options put forth and struggle to find the best one. This decision is a hard one - what is achievable in Afghanistan, what is the cost both in human lives, political cost, and strategic gain - if any. An ideologue would see it as simple: withdraw all troops or give them all the troops they want. An ideologue is incapable of adjusting his game plan when new evidence indicates that his chosen path is wrong.

You've rationalized his "non-decision" but it's not based on any actual evidence is it? Simply being liberal or being conservative is not the same as being an ideologue.

He has not yet signed a healthcare bill./...but if you listen to his previous speeches (before November) he supports a single payer system and he went as far as saying that a public option will lead us to the single payer system.....and if you noticed in today's presser....Gibbs dodged the question about whether or not he wnats the public option in there.

That is actually misleading - or at best incomplete. Those statements were made six years ago, before he was even elected Senator. Once in office, and confronted with the realities of governance he has changed his opinion on single payer systems.

At a May 14 town hall in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, the president was asked why a single-payer plan had been taken off the table. His response was similar to what he had said while campaigning:

Obama, May 14: If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That’s the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world.

The only problem is that we’re not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer-based health care. And although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is, is that the vast majority of people currently get health care from their employers and you’ve got this system that’s already in place. We don’t want a huge disruption as we go into health care reform where suddenly we’re trying to completely reinvent one-sixth of the economy.

So what I’ve said is, let’s set up a system where if you already have health care through your employer and you’re happy with it, you don’t have to change doctors, you don’t have to change plans — nothing changes. If you don’t have health care or you’re highly unsatisfied with your health care, then let’s give you choices, let’s give you options, including a public plan that you could enroll in and sign up for. That’s been my proposal.

In addition, he has gotten a lot of criticism from proponents of a single payer system for not including them in healthcare discussions. That doesn't sound like an idealogue to me.

SO as I see it....you are obviously an intelligent well informed guy (not sarcasm)....but you are making a decision based on what he WANTS you to beleive he has acheived and pushed for....but he has actually done nothing that actually implies he is not ideologically driven.

If you look at the individual steps leading up to decision making - yes, you can say he has done things that are not ideologically driven. I think the war in Afghanistan is a prime example. That's not to say he doesn't make choices that are ideologically based - I'm sure everyone does to some degree or another - but that doesn't make a person an ideologue.

So yes, you can ask what I base my sentiment on.....and mine is based on gut.

But the difference is your is also based on gut, but you believe it is based on fact.....but there is yet to be any fact to base it on.

See how well his administration uses the gift of gab?

My decisions are often based on "gut", like yours - but when I argue, I try to argue with facts, not feelings.

Edit to add: doesn't always work though!

 

[Vast LWC]

I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June, though he did not mention Fox by name. He added, “You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”

Here's a thought...

How do you know Obama was talking about FoxNews, if he didn't mention it by name, unless they resemble his remark?

Just like we don't know to whom he denied coverage and interviews. Do you know, maybe?

That remark was made well before interviews were denied.

 

[Coyote]

Look Coyote, Obama campaign was based on redistribution of wealth and finishing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'll pass talking about wars now, but... I hope you do know what redistribution of wealth means and from what ideology is coming from...

I know what "redistribution of wealth" means and I also know when a quote has gotten taken out of context and out of proportion.

It may be taken out of context few times, I agree.

But he was talking about redistribution of wealth since his Illinois senate days and he stayed at the same course ever since. I called that ideology... Maybe I am wrong?

Here is the interview with local radio station from 2001 where he's talking about redistribution of wealth thruout the judical branch...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck]YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered[/ame]

That's a pretty deceptive video - check out: Obama's Redistribution 'Bombshell' - Fact Checker

 

[Coyote]

Coyote,

You choose your examples well. Appointees are moderate liberals? Certainly not the ones that failed before they even were appointed. Certainly not the czars who have been given a pass at the appointement process. It is a little early to pass the label on Sotomayer until we see some actual Supreme Court rulings.

You can judge Sotomayer by her considerable judicial record. In fact - it is easier to judge her than it was Roberts.

As to his appointees, here is what one liberal source has to say: Jack Rothman: Appointments and Disappointments: Sizing Up Obama's New Cabinet

I suspect that to many on the right - anything left of center, by even a degree is "far left" and "radical".

 

[Vast LWC]

I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” he said in June, though he did not mention Fox by name. He added, “You’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.”

Here's a thought...

How do you know Obama was talking about FoxNews, if he didn't mention it by name, unless they resemble his remark?

Because it is evident that every other network literally fawns over him?

Immie

If you mean by "fawning all over him" that the rest of the media doesn't immediately attack every single thing the man says or does, then yeah I guess they do.

Of course I wouldn't call objective reporting "fawning".

What FoxNews produces is a constant criticism of every breath the President takes.

When the President takes his wife out for a nice night on the town, Fox tells us how much money is being "wasted".

When the President picks a dog, Fox is there to tell us that a "Real American" would have picked another breed.

When the President has a beer, Fox is there to tell us how the beer isn't "American enough".

When the President uses a restroom, Fox tells us how the smell is much, much worse than that of a "Real American".

According to Fox, whatever the President is doing at the moment must, by definition, be wrong.

 

[saveliberty]

Coyote,

You choose your examples well. Appointees are moderate liberals? Certainly not the ones that failed before they even were appointed. Certainly not the czars who have been given a pass at the appointement process. It is a little early to pass the label on Sotomayer until we see some actual Supreme Court rulings.

You can judge Sotomayer by her considerable judicial record. In fact - it is easier to judge her than it was Roberts.

As to his appointees, here is what one liberal source has to say: Jack Rothman: Appointments and Disappointments: Sizing Up Obama's New Cabinet

I suspect that to many on the right - anything left of center, by even a degree is "far left" and "radical".

No you can't judge Sotomayor on her past record. Only what she actually does as a Supreme Court justice. You are simply assuming. I see you completely ignored the czar group. I'll claim that as a concession.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote,

You choose your examples well. Appointees are moderate liberals? Certainly not the ones that failed before they even were appointed. Certainly not the czars who have been given a pass at the appointement process. It is a little early to pass the label on Sotomayer until we see some actual Supreme Court rulings.

You can judge Sotomayer by her considerable judicial record. In fact - it is easier to judge her than it was Roberts.

As to his appointees, here is what one liberal source has to say: Jack Rothman: Appointments and Disappointments: Sizing Up Obama's New Cabinet

I suspect that to many on the right - anything left of center, by even a degree is "far left" and "radical".

No you can't judge Sotomayor on her past record. Only what she actually does as a Supreme Court justice. You are simply assuming. I see you completely ignored the czar group. I'll claim that as a concession.

I'll agree that Supreme Court justices can rule differently then their past records would indicate but usually it is to the ideological disappointment of their nominators who had hoped for a conservative or liberal judge and got instead, a judge who ruled on law, not ideology - Sanda Day O'Conner for example.

The Czar group? As a group they are poorly defined (in fact, it seems the media defines the term) and diverse. They also hold no real authority beyond advising, control and dispense no funds, and a number of them answer directly to congressionally approved appointees. What's your point?

 

[chanel]

He was voted the most liberal senator during his short reign. He surrounds himself with radicals. He is not a centrist at all. But he is a politician and he's going to have to compromise to get things done. Second term - if there is one, he push all the socialist crap he wants. He's prob telling the far left whackos "be patient comrades"

 

[Oldandtired]

You can judge Sotomayer by her considerable judicial record. In fact - it is easier to judge her than it was Roberts.

As to his appointees, here is what one liberal source has to say: Jack Rothman: Appointments and Disappointments: Sizing Up Obama's New Cabinet

I suspect that to many on the right - anything left of center, by even a degree is "far left" and "radical".

No you can't judge Sotomayor on her past record. Only what she actually does as a Supreme Court justice. You are simply assuming. I see you completely ignored the czar group. I'll claim that as a concession.

I'll agree that Supreme Court justices can rule differently then their past records would indicate but usually it is to the ideological disappointment of their nominators who had hoped for a conservative or liberal judge and got instead, a judge who ruled on law, not ideology - Sanda Day O'Conner for example.

The Czar group? As a group they are poorly defined (in fact, it seems the media defines the term) and diverse. They also hold no real authority beyond advising, control and dispense no funds, and a number of them answer directly to congressionally approved appointees. What's your point?

y point is I reallyt do not care what they are called nor do I care what power they have.....but when it comes to our tax dollars paying slaries....is it not possible to find talented people without radical backgrounds or backgrounds of tax issues?

I mean really....300 million poeple and Van Jones was the ONLY well educated individual with a background of 5 years or more in green analyses and research that we had to overlook his radical past (including RECENT past)?

This safe school guy is the ONLY individual outrthere who is qualified that we had to overlook his poor decision making in the past?

Gheitner was the ONLY one out there qualified that we had to overlook his tax issues?

 

[driveby]

Sorry, I must agree with Obama on this one. Fox "news" isn't a valid news organization anymore. It's more like Rush Limbaugh TV.

Sucks really bad. So bad in fact I went back to network news.

Agree with Obama on this ONE ? ......

 

[Otter_Creek]

Sorry, I must agree with Obama on this one. Fox "news" isn't a valid news organization anymore. It's more like Rush Limbaugh TV.

Sucks really bad. So bad in fact I went back to network news.

Agree with Obama on this ONE ? ......

Shhhh, let her think she's special okay?

 

[Coyote]

y point is I reallyt do not care what they are called nor do I care what power they have.....but when it comes to our tax dollars paying slaries....is it not possible to find talented people without radical backgrounds or backgrounds of tax issues?

First off - a president is entitled to choose whomever he wants as an advisor - whether it's a former "radical" or a former "convicted criminal" (like Ollie North). You might not like it. I might not like it. But as far as "tax dollars" go - tough shit.

Second - "radical" really depends on viewpoint doesn't it? Right now it seems as if the rightwing punditry is labeling "radical" anyone who is left of center or who had an ounce of independent backbone and passion in his youth.

Tax issues - if major (like Daschle) it should be avoided but also, as far as wrong doing, it seems as common in this country as littering.

I mean really....300 million poeple and Van Jones was the ONLY well educated individual with a background of 5 years or more in green analyses and research that we had to overlook his radical past (including RECENT past)?

Who cares about a "radical" past? Did he commit a crime? No. Did he commit violence? No. Did he commit fraud, molest children, abuse little old ladies? No. Jones was actually a damn good choice melding capitalism and green.

This safe school guy is the ONLY individual outrthere who is qualified that we had to overlook his poor decision making in the past?

Again:
Did he commit a crime? No. Did he commit violence? No. Did he commit fraud, molest children, abuse little old ladies?

Can you say no one has ever made a single poor decision if indeed that really was? Frankly, I think the fact that he is homosexual has more to do with it - certainly, that's what I get from the desperate attempts to link his name with NAMBLA and underaged sodomy. Here is a man fully qualified, for whom the right had to dig realllllly deep in the ideological outhouse to find anything to try and smear him with. More power to him.

Gheitner was the ONLY one out there qualified that we had to overlook his tax issues?

He was more questionable.

 

[Vast LWC]

He was voted the most liberal senator during his short reign. He surrounds himself with radicals. He is not a centrist at all. But he is a politician and he's going to have to compromise to get things done. Second term - if there is one, he push all the socialist crap he wants. He's prob telling the far left whackos "be patient comrades"

Ahh, there you go again. More Glenn Beck Bullshit.

This is a word for word talking point.

Why do you bother to post this as if it were an independent thought?


All I read is: Baaaaaah! Baaaaaaah!

 

[Coyote]

He was voted the most liberal senator during his short reign. He surrounds himself with radicals. He is not a centrist at all. But he is a politician and he's going to have to compromise to get things done. Second term - if there is one, he push all the socialist crap he wants. He's prob telling the far left whackos "be patient comrades"

Define "radicals".

 

[saveliberty]

You can judge Sotomayer by her considerable judicial record. In fact - it is easier to judge her than it was Roberts.

As to his appointees, here is what one liberal source has to say: Jack Rothman: Appointments and Disappointments: Sizing Up Obama's New Cabinet

I suspect that to many on the right - anything left of center, by even a degree is "far left" and "radical".

No you can't judge Sotomayor on her past record. Only what she actually does as a Supreme Court justice. You are simply assuming. I see you completely ignored the czar group. I'll claim that as a concession.

I'll agree that Supreme Court justices can rule differently then their past records would indicate but usually it is to the ideological disappointment of their nominators who had hoped for a conservative or liberal judge and got instead, a judge who ruled on law, not ideology - Sanda Day O'Conner for example.

The Czar group? As a group they are poorly defined (in fact, it seems the media defines the term) and diverse. They also hold no real authority beyond advising, control and dispense no funds, and a number of them answer directly to congressionally approved appointees. What's your point?

My point is, you are not looking for liberals very hard.

POLITICO has compiled a wide-ranging list of President Barack Obama's various "czars." The bolded names were confirmed by Congress, and the italicized names are statutorily created positions created by Congress in legislation.

Afghanistan Czar - Richard Holbrooke

AIDS Czar - Jeffrey Crowley

Auto Recovery czar - Ed Montgomery

Border Czar - Alan Bersin

Car Czar - Ron Bloom

Central Region Czar - Dennis Ross

Domestic Violence Czar - Lynn Rosenthal

Drug Czar - Gil Kerlikowske

Economic Czar - Paul Volcker

Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner

Faith-Based Czar - Joshua DuBois

Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis

Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones (resigned on Sept. 6)

Guantanamo Closure Czar - Daniel Fried

Health Czar - Nancy-Ann DeParle

Information Czar - Vivek Kundra

International Climate Czar - Todd Stern

Mideast Peace Czar - George Mitchell

Pay Czar - Kenneth Feinberg

Regulatory Czar - Cass Sunstein *

Science Czar - John Holdren

Stimulus Accountability Czar - Earl Devaney - statutory position

Sudan Czar - J. Scott Gration

TARP Czar - Herb Allison

Terrorism Czar - John Brennan

Technology Czar- Aneesh Chopra

Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion Jr.

Weapons Czar - Ashton Carter

WMD Policy Czar - Gary Samore
*Nomination was sent to Senate on April 20, no action yet taken



Read more: President Obama's 'Czars' - Politico Staff - POLITICO.com