Perino suggests White House is doing "like dictators do" by criticizing Fox
October 20, 2009 9:40 pm ET
From the October 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Beyond that, she does remind me of Eva Marie Saint. She has that going for her.
Considering that Sean Hannity is not rotting in a jail cell after being tortured by Obama's secret police, and that Glenn Beck's body has not been found riddled with bullet holes, I'd say Dana Perino is simply a fan of exaggeration and story telling...just like when she was White House spokesperson.
I love Mike Malloy's nickname for her: Dana "too much cappuccino"
Perino
Your boss, George W. Bush.
Saying he wished he was a dictator? That's the sign of a dictator.
Stealing an election, and maybe two? That's the sign of a dictator.
Politicizing the police and prosecutors to reward your friends and punish your opponents? Dictator.
Ignoring the laws passed by the legislative branch? Dictator.
Lying your country into wars of discretion? Dictator.
Intimidating the media? Dictator.
Paying no heed to the decisions of the judicial branch? Dictator.
The really amazing thing about aspiring dictator Bush is that he bothered to leave office at the end of his second term. Based on this track record, I was sure he'd come up with an excuse to declare martial law and refuse to leave the White House.
Dana, losing an election is not the same as actually facing the prospect of a dictatorship. Your remedy is to try for a better result for your side at the next election, not to accuse the other side of treason and dictatorship.
And don't deposed dictators and hopeful wannabe dictators make up lies and smear the people currently in power? Perino is doing like dictators do.
Didn't most Americans criticize Goebbels and Pravda? Does that mean America was doing like dictators do ?
Please give some proof of that. That's proof, not some wild accusations.
Boo Hoo Michelle, Fox is picking on me, what shall we do.
As for the rest of your usual Fox talking points, you are mischaracterizing the issue. What Dunn and others have said is truth, verified by a Fox spokesperson, Fox's night-time programming is opinion only, and the White House is treating it as such. The President will go on their programs, but with the understanding that the WH considers it an opinion network only. That's what it is. The only thing that the Fox spokesperson said which is incorrect, based upon your ridiculous posts here EVERY DAY, that Fox viewers are intelligent enough to understand the difference between opinion and news. You most assuredly do NOT understand the difference. Ergo . . . .?????
Hahahahaha! Again, you liberals are so funny. Simply saying "Actually, there was proof,.." isn't proof. Proof is indisputable evidence.
Point: The economy is in the toilet; unemployment is near 10%; the deficit is out of control and we have two wars to button up.
Liberal response: Bush! Cheney! Republicans! Fox News lies!
You guys are so much fun!
If you were truly a conservative you would understand that it was the decidedly non-conservative actions of the last administration which caused the economy to be in the toilet, the unemployment to be near 10%; the deficit being out of control and the two "wars," one of which was completely and totally UNNECESSARY and potentially illegal. If you were truly a conservative, you would be INCENSED at the irresponsibility of the last administration. If you aren't, then you are simply a Fox groupie.
Try educating yourself and then come back and talk.
I was incensed at Bush and Congressional Republicans and Democrats; but, the Iraq war, however unnecessary, immoral, costly and irresponsible was not "illegal" (perhaps it is you who needs education) and realize that FNC suffers from sensationalism and hyperbole, at the very least on the opinion side. You're correct on one thing, I'm not a "conservative". Nor am I a "liberal". I can't muster the level of hypocrisy to subscribe to either camp. Your assertion however that if one wasn't incensed by the Bush administration one is a "Fox groupie" is also deliciously ridiculous and flawed.
Perhaps you are not a liberal, I have to take your word for it. You do debate like one.
Perhaps you should take your own advice; on second thought don't bother you're much more amusing this way - Peace.
Does that clarify your question, or were you just trying to get in a clever dig?
Oh, and regarding Bush screwing up the country solo in 8 years, I suggest that you rethink that and dig a little deeper. There are a lot of fingerprints on both sides of the aisle and in corporate/investment banking on that one; and a few of them predate Bush.
Silly me -- I keep forgetting those all began this past January 20th . . .
Typical. Can't make coherent a point? Call names. Good Liberal.
Also, base it on the SCOTUS ruling that they state in their ruling on Bush v Gore that their ruling should not be used as a precedent, as in, this has never happened before, and hasn't happened since. They abdicated their oversight responsiblity by stating, we'll rule on this one case, but don't quote us on it.
And, moving on to your other "point". Where has anyone within the Obama administration moved to silence anyone? What laws have been passed to stop Fox from saying what they're saying? None have been made, none have been passed, no moves have been made to silence anyone, but yes, aides for Obama have stated things in opposition to Fox's coverage, and have called out their malicious lies and misinformation. That's a lot different than silencing don't you think?
Also, if someone was constantly putting forth lies about you, say personally, like if I said, "Fairliberal is a goat rapist, and a pedophile." what would you do? Would you not call out the ridiculous lies, or would you just let it go?
Let's look at the reason why some aides are criticizing FoxNews shall we? You spend enough time on this website to see their lies and misinformation, and nobody, repeat nobody, should let items like this go unanswered. If FoxNews is going to challenge Obama on, well, just about everything, don't you think Obama's administration is allowed to answer back, or is that just for the poor victimized republicans?
On your second point; There is a difference between liable and opinion. Claiming that someone is a goat rapist (are there such things?) and pedophile without merit or evidence is libelous. Those are criminal claims. If you thought and said someone was stupid, or ugly, or fat, although rude, it's your opinion. Saying Obama's policies are bad for America, for example, is opinion. Saying he engaged in an illegal war on the other hand (something that requires compelling evidence and legal definition) is libelous.
Of course the Obama administration should be allowed to answer ANY charges made against them, but they seem, in this case anyway, not to be refuting or clarifying the "facts" but instead maligning the network for daring to question their authority or assertions. If you make what seems to be an assertion of outcome based on policy and I ask you to explain or even say that it doesn't make sense and won't work and your response is "you're stupid" that doesn't help make your point or help me or anyone else to understand your position any better.
The "poor victimized republican" comment was pretty funny. It always makes me laugh when the parties point fingers and claim obstruction or persecution, and then they go out for lunch with the lobbyists.
Also, base it on the SCOTUS ruling that they state in their ruling on Bush v Gore that their ruling should not be used as a precedent, as in, this has never happened before, and hasn't happened since. They abdicated their oversight responsiblity by stating, we'll rule on this one case, but don't quote us on it." - magnolia
Exactly. And, if you are in favor of this bizarre ruling, then you are certainly not a conservative. And you are certainly not against "activist judges". And if you claim to be either a conservative or a defender of states' rights and you supported this SC decision, then you have chosen party over priniciples and you lack the courage of your convictions. Pretty simple, actually.
Every single lawyer in my firm was disgusted by the S.Ct.'s involvement in Bush v. Gore. And, most of them VOTED for Bush.
How do we fix the problem?
Obama's solution was to appoint Sotomayor. Think she'll be an activist justice? We will see.
And the beat goes on...
Not that those who are hard core haters will care, I have made a few observations here that perhaps might open the eyes or at least an eye of one or two of you.
Apparently many of the folks here, not all, but many just want to sip their own political vommit while orbiting around each other high fiving over calling out right-wing political provocatures like Beck and Limbaugh for hyperbole or inconsitancies.
You call out FNC for their bias yet exercise an even more vitriolic bias in this forum, engaging in name calling, rather than though out, spirited and good natured discussion. Essentially you are what you loath, you are a mirror image of what you hate.
When faced with a problem, reasonable and intelligent people and there might be a few here, seek solutions. We look at the causes of the problem with open eyes and seek the truth, not just what we want to be the truth or what emotionally comforts us. Once we recognize the true cause of the problem we can effectively move in a direction to solve it. Politics is a difficult venue for problem solving because there is no true right and wrong; all political ideologies, at least in theory, work. The issue is power, not the lack of, but the exercise and abuse of power; and until you realize that as most of our founding fathers did
To finish the thought:
... The issue is power, not the lack of power, but the exercise and abuse of power (I know "Bush!") and until you realize that, as most of our founding fathers did, you are lost. The two prime principles of liberty and freedom make perfect sense if you respect and apply them for all people. The problem is that with liberty and freedom come responsibility for ones self and own actions, your exercise of liberty and freedom cannot infringe on another persons freedom and liberty. I'll leave you all with a quote from one of my favorite political philosophers John Stuart Mill:
My time here has been enlightening to some degree and amusing as well. Good luck in your pursuits, where ever they may lead you.
LOL! So the absence of the appearance of innocence is proof of guilt? Hahahahahaha! This gets better and better. Disdain for Bush seems to be the only evidence you need of his guilt. There are plenty of factual lousy policy choices and breaches of constitutional principles (think Patriot Act) to find fault with Bush, but you are over the top!
"Saying he wished he was a dictator? That's the sign of a dictator." - 1st Republic 14th Star
And YOU spend time quibbling over Beck's comments? Take a reading comprehension course, because your interpretation of that quote is just as bad, if not worse than Beck extrapolating that Anita Dunn "worshiped" Mao.
If this is your idea of proof, your entire thought process is suspect and I hope you never sit on a jury.
Just because you want it to be so, doesn't turn it into a fact, but nice try. - LOL!
I couldn't stop laughing. Isn't that more or less what the Democrats did for 8 years under Bush; and Eric Holder is even are trying now? Weren't you just accusing Bush of 8 years of dictatorial aspirations? Whew thanks for the chuckle, you Liberals are hysterical!
"Phony conservative Fox groupies" Wow, you must have been captain of the debate team! Can't make a logical point? Call names and give big bad thumbs down.
As long as you confuse your own opinion with facts; why shouldn't I find you amusing? So you keep railing, and I'll keep laughing and fun will be had by all. Hey did you catch the person who cleverly changed my tag to "libertypoop"? I rest my case. - LOL!
More importantly, look at the Democratic response. Al Gore abided by the Supreme Court ruling that denied him what he knows he won. John Kerry refused a recount in Ohio in 2004 out of a belief that the country would benefit from finality in a time of war. Democrats in Congress and President Obama have been remarkably restrained -- not moving to impeach, conducting only the most cursory investigations, and otherwise indicating a desire to move forward rather than rehashing the past.
Show me one example of a media figure calling someone treasonous for disagreeing with Obama. Just one. You cannot do it. Although, during Bush's terms, when we disagreed with him, we were un-Patriotic, treasonous, siding with terrorists, and so on and so forth. I mean, they even said during the '04 election that a vote for Kerry was a vote for the terrorists.
What I did when Bush was running the show was to work towards getting more democrats elected to Congress first in 2006, and then to win the Presidency in 2008. If you want to change things, then try to get some of your people elected, but polling results for republicans aren't looking too good for your side my misinformed and ignorant friend. We'll be seeing democratic control for quite some time moving forward.
Nancy Pelosi didn't say people at town halls opposing Obama-Care were "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."?
I would extrapolate that she was trying to marginalize those that opposed the proposed policy.
Conservatives call you a traitor
Liberals call you a Nazi
You know what your assumption that I am a Republican makes you, right?
Keep trying my (I won't stoop to insults here) friend. - still laughing BTW!
Does she even know how stupid this makes her look? But then again, she's on Fox, she's talking to Foxdittobots anyway.