Blitzer, Blankley falsely claimed Obama was calling NY Times back "to clarify" he's not a socialist
SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, Tony Blankley and Wolf Blitzer mischaracterized President Obama's call back to The New York Times following an interview during which Obama was asked if he was a "socialist." Blankley asserted that Obama originally "answered and didn't like his answer and called back," to which Blitzer replied, "To clarify, to clarify." In fact, Obama explicitly made the point during the initial interview that he was not a "socialist"; rather, in his follow-up call, Obama criticized the Times' question.
On the March 10 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, syndicated columnist Tony Blankley and host Wolf Blitzer mischaracterized President Obama's call back to The New York Times following his March 7 interview. After Blankley stated that "the fact The New York Times asked President Obama a few days ago, 'Are you a socialist,' suggests that the idea that he's for big government is obvious," Blitzer responded, "He later called them back and said he's not a socialist." Blankley then asserted that Obama originally "answered and didn't like his answer and called back," to which Blitzer replied, "To clarify, to clarify."
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, according to the audio posted on the Times' website, in his post-interview follow-up phone call with the Times, Obama did not call back "to clarify" that he is "not a socialist" -- he had explicitly made that point during the initial interview. Rather, in his follow-up call, Obama criticized the Times' question, stating, "It was hard for me to believe you were entirely serious about that socialist question." Obama later said during his phone call, "I think that it's important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we've actually been operating in a way that is entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word socialist around can't say the same."
From the March 10 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Well, let's take a look at that. Is he in favor of big government? Because as all of us remember, former President Clinton said the era of big government is over.
DONNA BRAZILE (Democratic strategist and CNN political contributor): But we can't compare one era to another era when we -- when the president has inherited a recession and massive job losses and a huge national deficit. And so what he's doing right now is he's investing in the economy to help get people back to work. So I don't think there's a comparison.
What he has said is that he wants smart government, he wants efficient government, he wants accountability, he wants responsibility. And you know, what you consider a lie and what you should have considered a lie, Tony, was the fact for the last eight years, we did not put the cost of fighting in Iraq in our budget. We did --
BLANKLEY: That was a budget procedure.
BRAZILE: Yeah, but it was a --
BLANKLEY: It was a supplemental appropriation instead of a regular appropriation.
BRAZILE: It was -- it was -- it was a gimmick that should not have been part --
BLANKLEY: Well, there's lots of gimmicks in budgeting.
BRAZILE: It should not have been part of the budgeting because we never saw the real picture of the debt. So what the president has done in this budget is he's laid it out --
BLITZER: Very quickly, Tony.
BLANKLEY: I think the fact The New York Times asked President Obama a few days ago, "Are you a socialist," suggests that the idea that he's for big government is obvious. The question is, "How big is it?"
BLITZER: And he later called them back --
BLANKLEY: He had to call back --
BLITZER: -- and said he's not a socialist.
BLANKLEY: He answered and didn't like his answer and called back, he was so sensitive.
BLITZER: To clarify, to clarify.
BRAZILE: Well, I think at the end of the day, the American people want to know is he effective and will he lead us out of this -- hard times.
BLITZER: And remember, it's only 50 days. So, you know, it's very limited amount of time. He's done a lot in 50 days, and he's got certainly a huge agenda ahead of him. Guys, thanks very much.
BRAZILE: Thank you.
Do we have to keep doing this? What's wrong with being called a Socialist??
Throughout the 80s and 90s, we had Democrats running in terror from the label "Liberal." Now they are running from another label. I wish they would stop running away and just call themselves Progressives- and when referred to as "Socialist," just ignore the idiots. Stop responding to these morons.
Better yet, accuse them of being Fascists and make THEM do the denying.
Obama did not call the New York Times to deny being a socialist. He called to ask why the reporters would ask such a stupid question.
So, the only question is are Blitzer, Blankley and Cokie Roberts so stupid that they don't understand this, or do they think that WE'RE so stupid that they can lie to us?
If they didn't have their lies and distortions,, they'd have nothing. That's why.
From what I was told, Obama and his camp weren't even sure if that question was a joke. Kind of like that Joe Biden interview with that local reporter lady (somewhere in the USA) when she said, "Isn't Obama being a Marxist?" Biden replied, "Is that a joke?"
Can these two idiots even define a 'socialist'? It's a term someone thought recently to attach to any Democratic President, so one fool says it and the other fool goes along with it.
Rest of the ignorant fools in the country repeat it.
I know it's against his nature, but soon Obama is going to have to be more strident and public about these kind of things. When he's cool and understated, it is deliberately misinterpreted as acquiescent.
Yeah we need The Rock Obama. :D
Ain’t that a hoot, one fat sack of lying horsesh-t and one smaller sack of the same. Whatever individuality Blankley & Blitzer possess, each still prods then prances before [each] proudly neighs when their respective, overly filled bucket needs emptying. It is routinely repetitive—their daily...rapacious mendacity.
I gotta tell you, I'm not seeing the point of great inaccuracy and outrage here, or in your previous criticism of Cokie Roberts over what she had said on the same matter.
What are you really proposing here? That Obama was calling back to make a point as media critic of the NY Times, and not really trying to shoot down as best he could any notion that he might be a socialist?
I should think that his precise political goal in calling back the Times over the question is that he felt that his original answer did not come across as emphatic and clear enough, and he wanted to straighten out any potential misimpression that might have been left.
Maybe when Blitzer said, "to clarify", it didn't quite get the nerve of what Obama was really trying to do, namely, I'd expect, to make his denial that he was a socialist as emphatic as possible (and his rebuking them for even asking the question was a standard political move to demonstrate his "outrage" over even the suggestion). But if Blitzer (and Cokie Roberts) felt that Obama's real goal was to rebut as strongly as possible the idea that he was a socialist, I should think they were very much on the money.
Honestly, I don't even get why you are harping on this issue, as if Blitzer (and Roberts before him) is somehow "lying" about it, rather than somewhat inaccurately capturing what went on.
Really, you look like partisan hacks, whose emotions no longer allow you to parse the English language, and establish any sort of real perspective when examining people's utterances.
but if you call out W. you are calling out dick and making him a liar.....and we all know Dick is no liar........
What's wrong with being a socialist for goodness sakes. Embrace the truth President Obama, be proud that you are a socialist!!!
This is from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America newsletter called New Ground,
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932
Chicago New Party Update
by Bruce Bentley
About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.
The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.
(I added the emphasis. Here's a link to the archives of the Democratic Socialist's newsletter......)
Check out the link below and see what our president stood for and who he stood shouder to shoulder.
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/index.html
Here is the mission statement of the Democratic Socialist's party of which President Obama has held membership:
He has been and is governing as a socialist. Be proud!