About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Politico, please define "exacerbating"

October 21, 2009 4:31 pm ET by Jamison Foser

Here's Politico's Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, on what they describe as a White House "campaign" to undermine ideological adversaries: 

It's too early to tell if the campaign is working, but it's clearly exacerbating partisan tensions in Washington.

"Clearly"?  Really?

According to VandeHei & Allen, the campaign is the result of August planning meetings among White House staff.  And what had been happening prior to the launch of this fall "campaign"?  Conservatives had been accusing President Obama of secretly being Kenyan, of favoring government death panels, and assorted other atrocities.

But according to Politico, we're supposed to believe that the White House is to blame for "clearly exacerbating partisan tensions" because it began responding forcefully to the people behind those smears?  Absurd.

Even if there were any evidence at all that there is greater "partisan tension" in Washington today than there was two months ago -- and there isn't -- it would be nothing short of perverse to blame people who have begun responding to overheated attacks for worsening the tensions.

Tags: Mike Allen, Jim VandeHei, The Politico

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by peace4all (October 21, 2009 4:47 pm ET)
      4  
      what i don't get is why anyone thinks it's bad for the white house to go after fox, rush or really anyone else who spreads lies about what the administration and congress are doing. i have seen some of the posters here say that it's beneath the dignity of the white house. you have fox news promoting bogus news stories like acorn, death panels, van jones, just to name a few, ridiculing the rest of the media for not jumping on board with the stories fox is creating and then when the white house responds by correcting the misinformation fox is selling and calling out the lies for what they are, fox is being attacked by the white house. i say good for the administration. if there is someone at your work or school that is spreading lies about you and ridiculing others for not helping to spread those lies are you just going to sit back and do nothing or will you defend your honor by calling out the liars? this administration is not trying to silence fox or the right wing, they are trying to get them to debate facts and to be truthful. so maybe fox are the ones who need a thicker skin. but i guess they can dish it out but can't take it. kind of sums up the whole right wing i think.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by flounder (October 21, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
      4  
      It is surely exacerbating to the careers of "journalists" who keep wanting to write stories about weak, pushover Democrats and the ascendant tough guy Republicans riding to our rescue.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by thebewilderness (October 21, 2009 8:14 pm ET)
         
      In the village you can tell all the lies you like and the village will accept it all as just your opinion, free speech and all that, because they think everyone is a liar for profit.
      If however, you point out that someone is lying it sets up a terrible dissonance in the brain of a villager and the tension is unendurable. They might have to actually fact check one of their cocktail circuit friends. That could impair advancement in the village.
      Report Abuse