100 days of myths and falsehoods
April 24, 2009 9:13 pm ET
SUMMARY: As media figures prepare to recognize President Obama's 100th day in office, Media Matters has reviewed coverage since the inauguration and identified numerous myths and falsehoods about the administration and its policies.
As media figures prepare to recognize President Obama's 100th day in office, and presumably assess the administration's performance thus far, Media Matters for America has reviewed coverage since the inauguration and identified numerous myths and falsehoods about the administration and its policies.
MYTH: Obama has weakened our standing abroad
During and following Obama's trip to Europe for the G-20 summit and to Trinidad and Tobago for the Summit of the Americas, conservative media figures frequently mischaracterized Obama's actions and comments to claim they were signs of weakness, continuing the media trend of portraying Democrats as weak on matters of national security and foreign policy:
- During his trip to Europe, Obama at one point stated: "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Numerous conservative media figures quickly latched on to these comments, claiming they represented an example of Obama, in Fox News host Sean Hannity's words, "blam[ing] America first" and omitting the next two sentences of Obama's speech, in which he said: "But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad."
- Hannity also falsely claimed that Obama "seemingly apologiz[ed] for our engagement in the war on terror" when Obama stated during an April 6 speech before the Turkish parliament that "[t]he United States is not ... at war with Islam." However, in those same remarks, Obama also stated that "Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism" and that "we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda."
- Several Fox News figures also criticized Obama's comment that "we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation," which he made during an April 6 press availability with the president of Turkey. For example, Fox News contributor Karl Rove suggested that Obama denied the reality that "we have historically had, you know, a robust presence of faith in our public square." But as Media Matters noted, Obama was making a broader point about the ecumenical nature of our country. Indeed, after recognizing earlier in the speech that the U.S. is "a predominantly Christian nation," Obama stated: "[O]ne of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
- Following Obama's trip to the Summit of the Americas, conservative media figures similarly attacked Obama for shaking hands and accepting a book from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and listening to a speech by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, characterizing Obama's actions as weak and in some instances using explicitly gendered language to denounce the president's conduct. Fox News hosts and contributors, in particular, repeatedly criticized Obama for the handshake with Chavez, but did not similarly condemn President Bush's 2002 handshake with Uzbekistani President Islam Karimov, whose government the State Department has condemned for human rights abuses. FoxNews.com financial columnist Liz Peek even claimed that the "Chavez Handshake May Cost U.S. Billions," because it signifies that Obama will "buy Chavez' friendship."
- Conservative media figures have further suggested that Obama's actions in Europe and during a subsequent visit to the Middle East were motivated by a desire to be liked, rather than by U.S. interests. For instance, Hill columnist and Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus stated on CNN, "I think he's more concerned with his personal popularity and being personally liked -- which he is now in Europe -- than about the strength of the United States."
- Media figures such as Fox News' Dick Morris have advanced the false claim that in signing the G-20 communiqué establishing a new Financial Stability Board (FSB), Obama ceded U.S. sovereignty to international economic regulators. In fact, the FSB referenced in the communiqué does not contain cross-border authority and thus does not in any way limit or eliminate U.S. sovereignty.
MYTH: Obama and his policies have endangered the U.S.
As Obama proposed a Department of Defense budget for fiscal year 2010 and announced plans to close the U.S. prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, media figures have put forth falsehoods and other misinformation as purported evidence that Obama's policies would endanger the United States:
- Media figures have advanced the falsehood that Obama's budget reduces overall defense spending. But as CNN.com noted on April 6, "The proposed overall fiscal year 2010 Defense Department budget is almost $534 billion, or nearly $664 billion when including the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current Pentagon budget totals slightly over $513 billion, or almost $655 billion including the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts."
- Further, media outlets have uncritically reported claims that targeted spending reductions within the proposed defense budget, including plans to end funding for the F-22 program and to restructure the Army's Future Combat Systems program, would make America less safe. But during an April 6 press briefing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that "it was not a close call" to end funding for F-22s once four more jets are constructed and further stated that "the military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement for numbers of F-22s beyond the 187" the military will have once those four additional jets are completed. Moreover, in an April 7 conference call posted by Wired magazine's Danger Room blog, Gates stated that the design of Future Combat Systems vehicles had "not really adequately integrated the lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq" and specifically referenced "the vulnerability of [FCS vehicles'] lighter armor to EFPs [explosively formed penetrators] and IEDs [improvised explosive devices]."
- Responding to Obama's plans to close the U.S. prison in Guantánamo Bay, media figures have alleged that at least 61 former detainees held there have returned to terrorism. In fact, according to the Pentagon, the 61-detainee figure includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having "return[ed] to the fight," as Media Matters has repeatedly documented. Indeed, during a January 13 press conference, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell stated: "The new numbers are, we believe, 18 confirmed and 43 suspected of returning to the fight. So 61 in all former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight."
- Following the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates, The Fox Nation touted a dubious WorldNetDaily.com report -- nearly all of which echoes an anonymous anti-Obama chain email -- claiming that Obama "actually delayed [the] pirate rescue." Additionally, Hannity distorted a Politico article to falsely allege that Obama was "legally required" to authorize the use of force against the pirates.
MYTH: Obama is responsible for the recession, stock market decline
Even as Obama was inaugurated in the midst of a recession and stock market decline that began under Bush, media figures have perpetuated myths and falsehoods that place responsibility for that recession on Obama.
- Media figures including Hannity and radio host Rush Limbaugh have promoted the myth of an "Obama recession," thereby exculpating Bush and suggesting that Obama is to blame for the decline in the stock market. However, analysts have refuted the proposition that the market decline has anything to do with anticipation of Obama's presidency.
- Indeed, during the first months of Obama's presidency, media figures ignored the stock market performance prior to the election and inauguration to advance the claim that Obama is responsible for the stock market's decline, often declaring an Obama bear market and occasionally showing cropped charts that obscured the fact that the Dow Jones industrial average was on a downward trajectory months before the election. Such references to an Obama bear market were rarely accompanied by an analysis of factors that arose during the Bush administration that continue to affect the market today. But as the Financial Times' Dan McCrum stated on the March 3 edition of MSNBC Live, "[I]t's the economy which is driving the market down here" and that "what's important is that President Obama doesn't try to address that in the short term. He's quite right that short-term market movements aren't -- shouldn't be driving government policy. What he needs to do is concentrate on fixing the economy, and the market will sort itself out."
MYTH: Obama is engaging in irresponsible spending
Media figures have frequently advanced falsehoods about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the administration's fiscal year 2010 budget proposal, and other administration initiatives aimed at stabilizing the economy. For example, media figures often omitted the widely held views that governments must increase their spending during a recession and that all government spending has a stimulative effect.
- A Media Matters review of the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs from January 25 through February 15 found that of the 59 broadcasts that addressed the economic recovery package and debate in Congress during the three-week period leading up to and immediately following its passage, only three of those broadcasts included discussion of whether that package was big enough, despite statements from many economists that it may not be.
- Discussing the economic recovery plan, media figures advanced the false claim that most of the act's spending won't occur until 2011 or later. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score of the enacted version of the recovery act, 59 percent of the spending and 74.2 percent of the combined spending and tax cuts included in the recovery package will take effect by the end of fiscal year 2010 (September 30, 2010). Moreover, economists, including CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, have said that fiscal stimulus in 2011 or later could be effective in the current economic situation, in which economic output is projected to remain below its potential long after the technical beginning of the recovery.
- Media figures have repeatedly advanced the false claim that a provision in the recovery act created the right for AIG to pay executive bonuses. In fact, the act did not create AIG's right to pay those bonuses, which would have been paid without the act. Indeed, the act imposed restrictions on the ability of companies receiving aid to pay bonuses in the future. Had that provision of the act not been enacted, there would have been almost no congressionally mandated restrictions on the payment of bonuses by companies receiving government aid. Many media figures also advanced attacks on Democrats for purportedly allowing the bonuses without mentioning that several Republican senators reportedly said in February they oppose any government restrictions on executive compensation.
- In support of criticism that the recovery act was full of "pork-barrel spending," media figures adopted the oft-repeated and false Republican claim that the recovery act directed funds to the salt marsh harvest mouse. In fact, the act did not contain any language directing funds to the salt marsh harvest mouse or its San Francisco wetlands habitat, a fact that the House Republican leadership aide who reportedly originated the claim has reportedly acknowledged.
- Numerous media outlets have devoted significant coverage to the earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations legislation, even though, according to most estimates, earmarks constitute less than 2 percent of the total spending in the legislation. In many instances, the media have allowed attacks by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and other opponents of the omnibus legislation to dominate their coverage of the legislation, and media figures have at times asserted as fact that the legislation is laden with "pork." As purported evidence that Obama has failed to follow through on his campaign promises, media figures have also falsely claimed that Obama pledged during the presidential campaign to eliminate earmarks. In fact, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not eliminate earmarks altogether.
- Discussing the Obama administration's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, media figures have echoed remarks by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) to advance the claim that the bill rewarded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but not taxpayers. In fact, as economists Paul Krugman and Dean Baker have noted, the government -- that is, the American taxpayer -- now owns most of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In Baker's words: "[T]hese companies are currently in government conservatorship, with the shareholders having lost almost all their ownership stake, and the executives replaced by the government."
- Media figures also forwarded the frequently repeated Republican falsehood that Democrats steered money in the recovery act to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). In support of this claim, Republicans have pointed to a provision in the act that would, in the law's final version, appropriate $2 billion "for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008." However, the act does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding, and the provision cited by Republicans requires that the money be distributed through competitive processes.
- Media figures advanced the unfounded claim that "welfare programs" included in the recovery act -- like food stamps -- will not stimulate the economy. In fact, economists have said that programs that provide aid to state governments and low-income or out-of-work individuals would, in Elmendorf's words, "have a significant impact on GDP."
- Fox News at one point also falsely claimed that Obama's $3.6 trillion FY 2010 budget is "4x bigger than Bush's costliest plan." In fact, Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion budget for FY 2009 and a $2.9 trillion budget for FY 2008.
MYTH: Obama will raise your taxes and cap your paycheck
Media figures have advanced several other myths and falsehoods about Obama's economic recovery package and his budget proposal, including that Obama has sought to eliminate charitable deductions, that Obama's budget would increase taxes on a large percentage of small businesses, that Obama has proposed broad compensation restrictions throughout the private sector, and that the estate tax affects many small businesses.
- Media figures have advanced the false claim that, in the words of Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), Obama's FY 2010 budget proposal "will remove the ability to make charitable contributions deductible." In fact, beginning in FY 2011, the provision in Obama's budget would reduce the rate at which families earning over $250,000 could take itemized deductions from the current rates of 33 percent and 35 percent to 28 percent.
- Many media figures and outlets, including CNBC host Joe Kernen, CNBC host Maria Bartiromo, ABC News' Jake Tapper, CNN's Dana Bash, Fox News' Sean Hannity, CNN's David Gergen, Politico, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, have advanced, uncritically repeated, or failed to challenge the debunked Republican falsehood that Obama's income tax proposals would increase taxes on a large percentage of small businesses. For example, Kernen didn't challenge Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) when Gregg referred to Obama's proposal as a "tax policy that basically is focused on raising taxes on small businesses especially." In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center's table of 2007 tax returns that reported small-business income, 481,000 of those returns -- about 2 percent -- are in the top two income tax brackets, which include all filers with taxable incomes that would be affected by Obama's proposals to let portions of the Bush tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers expire and to reduce the tax rate at which families making more than $250,000 could take itemized deductions.
- Fox News repeatedly advanced the false claim that the proposed Pay for Performance Act would regulate compensation for all workers. In fact, the bill would regulate compensation only for employees of financial institutions that have received federal assistance.
- Media have uncritically advanced the claim that the estate tax affects "many" small businesses and family farms. However, the Tax Policy Center estimated that in 2009, "about 90 percent of the 700 small farm and business estates that will have to file estate tax returns will not owe any estate tax."
MYTH: Obama will nationalize health care and other health care misinformation
As Obama prepares to release his plan to reform the country's health care system, numerous media figures and outlets have falsely claimed that he has proposed "nationalized" health care -- something he has not proposed either as a candidate or as president.
Other health care-related myths and falsehoods include:
- Conservatives in the media have once again dusted off their 75-year-old "socialized medicine" smear to undermine Obama's reform efforts.
- Media outlets and figures have repeated the falsehood -- which first appeared in a Bloomberg "commentary" by Betsy McCaughey and was subsequently promoted by Limbaugh and Drudge -- that the economic recovery act includes a provision that would amount to government-dictated health treatments. As Media Matters documented, in her "commentary," McCaughey distorted a section of the House-passed version of the recovery bill to claim that "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions." In fact, the language in the House bill that McCaughey referenced -- which is unchanged in the final act -- does not establish authority to "monitor treatments" or restrict what "your doctor is doing" with regard to patient care; rather, it addresses establishing an electronic records system such that doctors would have complete, accurate information about their patients "to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care."
- Media outlets also continued to repeat the baseless claim that small businesses will have to provide health insurance under Obama's health care proposal. However, as Media Matters repeatedly documented, during the presidential campaign, Obama stated that small businesses would be exempt from his proposal requiring large businesses that do not provide employer-sponsored health coverage to pay a percentage of their payroll into a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans purchase private health insurance.
- Many media figures have claimed or suggested that given the size of the current and projected U.S. federal debt, the Obama administration's health care reform proposal is untenable. For instance, Hannity said on March 26 that "Obama wants to expand government. We've got health care, unbelievable amounts of spending -- we're gonna bankrupt the country." However, in making such statements, neither Hannity nor other media figures addressed the argument Obama has repeatedly made in response to such claims: that health-care reform is essential to the long-term economic and fiscal health of the country.
MYTH: Obama is targeting conservatives, vets, Christianity, and "your gun"
- A recent Department of Homeland Security report detailing potential increases in right-wing extremism prompted claims, often repeated or uncritically reported by the media, that the report was politically biased, unfairly targeted veterans, and concluded that right-wing extremism was the "number one threat to American safety." In fact, while the report addressed potential issues that could spur right-wing extremism, it did not allege that individuals are extremists simply because they hold conservative views. The DHS report does not make any conclusions about what constitutes the biggest overall threat to American safety and security, and DHS previously issued a similar assessment of left-wing extremism. Moreover, as evidence for its conclusion that "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat," the DHS cited a 2008 FBI report -- authored during the Bush administration -- as evidence that "some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups."
- Media outlets and figures misrepresented an April 16 CNSNews.com article to suggest that the White House specifically requested that Georgetown University "hide[] 'Jesus' " during a speech there by Obama. However, the CNSNews.com article made clear in the lead paragraph that Georgetown says that the White House requested Georgetown "cover up all signs and symbols" on the stage, not solely the name of Jesus. Indeed, CNSNews.com quoted a Georgetown spokeswoman saying that the university "honored the White House staff's request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage," and that this request was "consistent with what they've [the White House] done for other policy speeches."
- Since Obama's election, several conservative media figures have warned their audiences that Obama is planning to, in the words of Fox News host Glenn Beck, "slowly but surely take away your gun or take away your ability to shoot a gun, carry a gun" or have suggested that a government effort to ban guns is likely.
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
obama's words and actions about cuba have already done some good. because now it's castro who is looking like the stubborn one because he's saying that the relationship with this country will not change. there is one reason alone why we have had the failed policy we've had for the last fifty years. it's because of catering to the right wing cubans in florida, the biggest swing state. not that castro hasn't repressed political dissent, he has, but we've provided him the propaganda excuse to do so. his claim is that he has to protect cuba from the powerful yanquis. drop the embargo and take away all castro's excuse making.
the new york times reported a huge loss for the quarter this week. i think it will be a very bad thing for this country if we lose our print papers. no online edition is going to replace a newspaper for influence in the community. newspapers do the expensive legwork that holds a lot of local politicians feet to the fire. no one is going to pay for any online local paper in the numbers needed. people may read a few links or favorite columnists online, but it is simply too time consuming to "read" a paper online, in the same sense as a print paper. too much clicking back and forth and killing pop ups. [and it's not that tough to recycle]
Is MM kidding with this post?
1. Obama's own administration grades the media an 'A' !
2. From today's Wash. Post:
And MM wants to imply that Obama has somehow gotten poor, unfair coverage?
C'mon. Never has a President gotten such glowing, adulatory coverage than with Barack Obama. Has anyone here even visited a newsstand recently?
Ha!
^
"And MM wants to imply that Obama has somehow gotten poor, unfair coverage?
C'mon. Never has a President gotten such glowing, adulatory coverage than with Barack Obama." - shoes89
Yeah . . . that MUST be why the "librul" media spent the better part of a year focusing on Obama's birth certificate, Madrassa education, Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayres . . .
.
except the center for media and public affairs is heavily funded by right wingers, including the scaife foundations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs
Each of these "myths" have merit. Media Matters is not just reporting on conservative media, but spinning the truth to match the progressive point of view, and feed the bias against conservative views.
People need to educate themselves. Many Americans believe that our country needs to be strong. We could care less if other countries "like us". I am proud of this country, and its history. Yes, we have bad spots (slavery), but We don't own an apology to any country. Especially the dictators from Cuba and Venezuala.
As for spending, how STUPID do you have to be to believe that printing money is a sound monetary policy? Yes, he inherited a deficit...but who in their right mind thinks to spend more money than any other President in history? That is ridiculous. Of course its irresponsible. Yes, Bush spent entirely too much. Even conservatives admit it (if you listen). But why the heck would anyone agree to spending 3.7 TRILLION? Its not responsible. Period.
This president will go down in history as one of the worst. Bush's first term was descent (not spectacular), but his second term may also be one of the worst. Has anyone that contributes to this hate blog ever read the constitution? Compare Obama's activities to the constitution. He is trampling our history, trampling our constitution, trampling conservative values...
What happened to the Hope? What happened to uniting the country? This is THE MOST divided our country has ever been, and its only gonna get worse.
This post is easily in the top ten of one of the dumbest and most talking point filled posts, without any actual facts to come along in quite awhile.
Keep it up and POV or AA will come looking for you.
could we have the words where obama apologized to either castro or chavez?
"This president will go down in history as one of the worst" - jstephens005
Doncha just LOOOVE how wingnuts will say in one breath "Bush can only be judged by history" . . . and in next, judge Obama after 100 days?
LOL.
.
First of all, when did Obama apologize to Venezuela and Cuba? Ostracizing them has gained us nothing, enabled their leaders to blame all of their problems on us, and restrict the flow of goods that would otherwise make them tend towards capitalism.
Second, are you even aware of the problems this country is facing right now? Worst financial downturn since the Great Depression, two wars, a great number of threats on from around the world (probably part of the reason Obama doesn't want to go around needlessly antagonizing more countries), an inherited deficit of already over $1 trillion, and issues ranging from healthcare to the environment that should have been addressed but haven't by previous administrations. Did you even read that Bush proposed a $3.1 trillion budget not even to address as many issues as Obama is?
So wait, 9/11, economic recession, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, false economic recovery, a superficial economy, "Mission Accomplished," "Stay the course," thousands killed and wounded, and hundreds of billions in surpluses squandered and turned into ballooning deficits is "descent" (nice spelling btw, Freudian slip anyone?) in your opinion? If so then I do not think that you have the intellectual capacity to critique the first one hundred days of Obama's Presidency. Finally, please name for me one way Obama has violated the Constitution (or the Bill of Right for that matter) and explain how this would constitute a more gross violation than those committed by the Bush administration.
Bush's first term was descent (not spectacular)
Yeah, except for that whole 9/11 thing, anthrax attacks, invading a country that didn't attack, not finding WMD, and not killing bin Laden. Yeah...brilliant....what a "descent" first term. Jebus, you teabagging reich-wingers are pathetic.
what part of the constitution is obama "trampling"? can you even list one example?
Sage post. Typical vitriol responses sans substance prove your points. Well done!
What substance did he offer? The nearest thing to substance was whining about spending without offering another solution. And "spending less" isn't a substantive solution, before you suggest it.
And if we can care less whether other countries like us, then what's the problem?
Now, of course, a lot of people might think that the opinion of the other 5.7billion people on this planet might matter somewhat. We might actually want their cooperation in the future. Of course, you only think it's unimportant because Bush so alienated the rest of the planet that it'll take Obama's two terms to repair the damage, and then some.
This president will go down in history as one of the worst.
Time will tell but, by all means, keep clinging to your own failed talking points. It doesn't look to good for you guys. We'll see. As it is Geroge W. Bush WILL (and to anyone who was paying attention, already has) go(ne) down as one of the worst presidents in history. And he's easily the worst two-term president in history.
Wait, the world regains its respect for us and for that reason OBama has weakened our standing? This illustrates nicely how the right prefers to act the bully; they equate being feared and loathed with strength.
I find that I can accomplish much more of what I want to get done when I keep people angry with me all the time. That's why I don't act respectful to them even if I already like them and they like me, so don't expect me to be respectful to them when they disrespect me.
THAT seems to be the Republicans' actual talking point about this.
It is long over do that we began to do business with Cuba. This is to our advantage all the way around! What is the mater with starting to make some frinds in the world? The right wing J-A cant stand that they got so beat up. They were hit with a train. Now they all flail away at anything trying to get somethimg to stick. Yes if I were the leader of the Republican Party I would say we don't want you in our party. Stick with what you are big busness Fascists. You are all about the rich. Your number one man was Reagan. All big money.
The right-wing is losing its collective mind for no better reason than their easy days of a gravy train are no longer going to be so easy.
The corporate owned media knows its place in the food chain... they will go down swinging, scratching and clawing the whole way... until they whither away and die or We the People demand that the media be forced... by law or amendment...
That the media can no longer be owned by a larger parent corporation that is taking money from the government...
The media as a whole must and should be absolutely free from the bonds of profits margins and extreme fanatism from the far-political spectrum!
This is not to say that it can not exist as a media... certainly it has a right to exist... but it should be allowed to legally lie simply because it is a corporation... which is the whole point!
it should be allowed to legally lie simply because it is a corporation... which is the whole point!
That should say SHOULDN'T, correct?
Obama promised that senior citizens making under $50,000. would not have to pay any taxes. This was not included in his gargantual shopping spree.
Barak had accomplished precisely nothing of significance throughout his short career — and yet still promised the world, and more, to his followers. Obama’s election was supposed to end the “politics as usual,” but has been filled with tired old partisan fighting and divisiveness and name calling. His followers like Keith Olberman and Janine Garafalo call you a racist if you so much as disagree with anything their idol Barack, is doing. Barack could put an end to all of that divisiveness with one statement but he will not.
He has publically attacked Rush Limbaugh ... a talk show host, for crying out loud. This kind of childish behavior is supposed to be beneath the office which Obama now holds.
Iran has launched its own satellite into orbit and is mocking Obama as a weak leader for wanting to have a dialogue with them. North Korea has withdrawn from its non-aggression treaty and is preparing another missile test. Somalia is in tatters. Yemen has released 170 al-Qaeda terrorists. Pakistan has released mad nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan from house arrest. Russia is blocking supply lines into Afghanistan.
Barack's approval rating has already dropped to 66% according to recent polls. Some say it's lower.
Hang on to your hats (and wallets); it might be a long four years.
There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama, unfortunately you did no such thing. All you did was follow the tired old tax and spend, weak on defense script. Well done on you, liar.
"Barack's approval rating has already dropped to 66% according to recent polls. Some say it's lower." - feminthecity
Which is still TWICE what Bubble Boy finished with. I'm sure he'll live with it.
Besides, I thought wingnuts said "polls don't matter" . . .
.
As long as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage (appropriate last name), and Ann Coulter continue to be the spokespersons for the Republican party it leaves liberals little choice but to attack them.
Their ilk has more to do with the division and failures of our country than most of the actual politicians.
Hang on to your hats (and wallets); it might be a long four years.
Well yeah... for you guys. And better make it EIGHT, (and TWELVE or SIXTEEN if you can't manage to propagandize and fear-monger your way back into office.)
“Hang on to your hats (and wallets); it might be a long four years.”
Too late! Unfortunately your, your children’s, and grandchildren’s wallets have already been plundered.
“Mr. Obama's characterizations of his budget unfortunately fall into this pattern. He claims to reduce the deficit by half, to shave $2 trillion off the debt (the cumulative deficit over his 10-year budget horizon), and not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. While in a Clintonian sense correct (depends on what the definition of "is" is), it is far more accurate to describe Mr. Obama's budget as almost tripling the deficit. It adds $6.5 trillion to the national debt, and leaves future U.S. taxpayers (many of whom will make far less than $250,000) with the tab. And all this before dealing with the looming Medicare and Social Security cost explosion.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html
Smoke and mirrors and redefined terms…up is down, weak is strong, and terrorist are arbiters of man-made disasters; victims no doubt, of a cruel past administration.
Well, the article started out good, but quickly desolved into nonsense. Basically, they DO admit that he cuts the deficit in half, but says that since "doing nothing" would cut it by 84%, he's actually INCREASING IT. How's that for conserva-logic? A 50% cut is an INCREASE. LOL. That BS completely falls apart even BEFORE factoring in the damage done to the economy by NOT making necessary investment in infrastructure and NOT stimulating growth in the economy. Really a pathetic argument all-in-all that can only appeal to those that have already concluded that Obama will go down as the worst president ever. (Despite the fact that the man he replaced, and who these idiots all supported ALREADY HAS.)
It’s not about Bush verses Obama, or a party issue. It’s about the individual against big government. Bush started this madness with TARP and now Obama is setting new spending records; no matter how twisted the numbers or redefined the terms. The only thing stimulated is the government and Obama’s power base. And it will continue to grow and amass power.
But perhaps that’s okay with you.
Obama-nomics, like the new deal, appeals only to Keynesian socialists (oxymoron) and/or those who ignore or rewrite history. And the current spender-in-chief will have out “stimulated” all presidents combined by 2010. Keep telling yourself, your children, and their children that’s it’ not spending or debt…its just stimulus.
Advocates for bigger government are either dependent, want more power, or just plain daft of consequences. But if you want an all encompassing nanny state to do your thinking (investing) for you…well then…your response makes perfect since.
It’s about the individual against big government.
*sigh* I'm getting tired of hearing this from the party that rode roughshod over the constitution for the past eight years. You never do get around to explaining why "big" government is in fact "bad" or why you are more concerned with the SIZE of government than it's actual, legal REACH. Why you are more concerned with limiting it's COST than it's POWER, ignoring completely the COST that would be bourne anyway were the government NOT to provide the services it does.
Bush started this madness with TARP and now Obama is setting new spending records
Agreed, on Bush. As for Obama? This is hardly new. So did Reagan, Clinton and Bush '43, just to name a few. In pure dollar figures, I'm sure that this can be said of all but a few presidents in this country's history, and in particular since 1930.
The only thing stimulated is the government and Obama’s power base.
The idea that the "gvoernment" is being "stimulated" doesn't even make any sense. As for "Obama's power base?" Yeah... you see that's being stimulated by pursuing polices that improve the lives of a broad cross sections of americans. If that doesn't happen (as you have suggested) then he's out in 4-to-8 and we're back to Reaganomics with the next (Republican) administartion. OTH, if it works... then what's your problem? (Aside from the fact that the DEMOCRATIC and LIBERAL "power base" will grow?)
Obama-nomics, like the new deal, appeals only to Keynesian socialists (oxymoron) and/or those who ignore or rewrite history.
I suspect that you don't really understand Keynes, or Adam Smith for that matter. As for history... well, it's not Liberal's that attempt to re-write it my friends. Case in point: The new deal appeals to almost ALL Americans who didn't own large corporations. The polls don't lie: Roosevelt was elected in FOUR LANDSLIDES. The first over an incumbant Predisednt that was HIMSELF elected in a landslide (the only time that's ever happened, BTW), another in the largest electoral landslide in HISTORY (more lopsided by % than Reagan's in '84 or Nixon's in '72). Roosevelt had FOUR elections that looks like Lyndon Johnson in '64. So your "only appeals to" point is utter nonsense.
Keep telling yourself, your children, and their children that’s it’ not spending or debt…its just stimulus.
Where were you in the Reagan years? I guess you SUPOPRTED Clinton's tax increases to reduce that debt, huh? (Considering his reduction in entitlements, you must think he was the greatest president ever!) And why do I suspect that you went silent once again as W. turned a record surplus into a record deficit in less than a year, and then started an uneccessary war. My "grandchildren" will be paying for that to, you know!
Advocates for bigger government are either dependent, want more power, or just plain daft of consequences.
Hmmmm... This is just right-wing bunk. Saying the third point undermines the first two. But I'll see you raise: Supply-Siders are short-sited, self-centered individuals just rtying to feed their own greed, regarldess of the consequences to the larger economy. Now that's just liberal nonsense, but it's a helluva lot closer to the truth than what you're saying. "Daft of consequences?" So, maybe, like... Invading a country that didn't attack us? Thus alienating our allies? Thus emboldening our enemies? Thus running up HUGE DEFICITS in the process? Or supporting interrogation tactics that are guarenteed not to privde good intel? Don't talk to me, or any liberal, about consequences, sir. Your lot have no credability in THAT dept. As for being "dependant?" ALL businesses (and thus all of our incomes) benefit from gov't sepnding. The money the gov't spends doesn;t get burned you know! It gets SPENT. At our business, buying our goods and services. And even if the gov't doesn't buy them directly, the people who's salaries ARE paid by the gov't orby gov't spending DO. The money hits each and every one of us. (But more on this below...)
But if you want an all encompassing nanny state to do your thinking (investing) for you…well then…your response makes perfect since.
More nonsense. No one is telling me how to spend my money. You people play the victim so well with this stuff. What you people [who bash Keynes] never seem to understand is that the moeny you "lose" to "high" taxes, is money that you never would have had in the first place, were it not for government spending. Your mockery of "stimulus" reveals your true ignorance of Keynes and MacroEconimics. (MBA, Univeristy of MI, with Honors, if you're wondering.) The economy has a DEMAND side to it as well. We've adress the SUPPLY side to the point where things have gone WAAAAY out of balance. It's time to strengthen to demand side. That means WAGES, and SPENDING. And it will benefit EVERYONE.
But thank you for at least admitting that my response makes perfect sense. I agree with that [part of your] point as well.
" The only thing stimulated is the government and Obama’s power base. And it will continue to grow and amass power.
But perhaps that’s okay with you." - aircanart
Was it OK with you when Dubya proclaimed himself "The Deciderer" and bragged about his "political capital" after winning by one state in '04?
.
Conservatives: RETREAT! RETREAT!
Progressives: FORWARD! FORWARD!
YEAH PRESIDENT OBAMA
(satire)
"The Irrationals," a new-old always cold, band of fools. GET YOUR TICKETS, GET YOUR TICKETS HERE, GET YOUR TICKETS! Fearturing your, all time, greatest hits:
We Cry Wolf, Sky Fall, and my, all time favorite; Let's hit Grandma, with a Great Big Stick! That one, makes me cry, everytime!
And, lest we forget: Big Bad Wolf, House of Sticks, Huff and Puff, Light Cross, 3/5 Boy, Woman No Vote, and Pay Tax You Vote, all on screen near you.
Proud words, from foolish men, are warnings. Heed or respond!
how many lies can one network tell until they're completely ignored and took off the air. lately fox has started turning on itself with anchors exploding on other anchors and having one person state the cold hard truth immediately being followed by 3 or 4 anchors jumping all over that person at the same time where nothing is really said but they all then smile and snerringly cut to commercial
You forgot to add that Obama was to blame for the 1871 Chicago fire.
Great. He serves on the same panel with Mrs. O'Leary's cow and we never hear the end of it.
that was the clintons. they had a contract out on mrs. o'leary's cow, you know the rest.
however, in 1906, as a community organizer in san francisco, and running for city council, he had a local neighborhood group physically move the tectonic plates on the san andreas fault, resulting in the great earthquake. he then threatened his opponent with planting stories in the local papers, that it was the opponent's doing.
the opponent dropped out of the race. the rest is history.
Amazing the disrespect the current crop of conservative media personalities have for not only the elected president of the United States, but also for the office of the presidency. During the last administration if even a word uttered to challenge Bush's decisions, and actions, and immediate flurry of accusations would follow, including grouping fellow american citizen's with terrorrists and unamerican activities. Thank the electorate for electing a regular guy who likes hamburgers, just like the rest of us, and also can stay cool under pressure.
It is just insane how this can go on... They just keep on lying, distorting facts, why isn't there a single big news channel that says "Well, guess what Sean Hannity! You're talking nonsense! These numbers and quotes you're using, don't exist except in your head!".
Fox gets viewers from discrediting people telling the truth, why couldn't someone get viewers from discrediting people who lie? (Yes Keith Olbermann etc do it to a certain extent, but MSNBC has a few lies as well. I mean 100% pure facts channel)
When are Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and the rest of their cabal going to be unmasked for the frauds that they are? Uneduacated pestilence at best.
The same crap comes out of their mouths day after day. All they do is complain.
In their own words, if you don't like it, leave. Lord knows they have told their listeners and callers that often enough.
its been a pathetic 3+ months for conservative media... just lie after lie. if it wasnt for MMFA, they wouldnt be going as crazy as they are.
Wow ,Too many lies and distorted views to process all at once . I feel like my brain has to take a crap to get all this right wing BS out of my mind. FOX SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN FOR THIS ANTI-AMERICAN POLARIZING PROPAGANDA.
No. Not shut-down. That's un-american. All that needs to happen is to EDUCATE THE POPULACE so that they realize just how much they are being LIED TO and market forces will shut down Fox on their own. It's their LACK OF CREDABILITY that needs to be driven home. You are, in fact, allowed to LIE. Even if you claim it to be the "NEWS." (That's just another lie, and outside of the courtroom and under oath, lies are in fact protected speech.) But if you CALL OUT the liar, and plainly state and PROOVE that they are LYING then people will (eventually) realize that they are a LIAR and stop listening.
You may think that's never going to happen, but to some extent we're already seeing it. It's small, but the culture and momentum are shifting. Just keep OUR GUYS honest as well, so that we never lose our credability, and in the long run WE. WILL. WIN.
This is juvenile, I know, but in the photo for this item, look at how short Glenn Beck's index finger is.
One word for his bitter disposition: compensation.
jstephen, who said we are apologizing to anyone? Yes, our country needs to be strong...this is a given, but we also need to uphold the laws in this country to keep it strong. Last thing we want is moral decay in the government. Let's keep our backyard clean before we go and point out the mess in other people's backyards.
Creating debt is definitely not something we want to continue, but what other choice does President Obama have? Virtually all economists agree that stimulating the economy by spending is the most effective means of getting out of this extreme recession. It's not President Obama's fault that were in this mess, it's the fault of 30 years of deregulation mentality that started with Reagan. If we didn't scrap the Glass-Stiegal act, the commercial banks wouldn't be able to create all these debt instruments that got us into trouble in the first place. Regulations were in place for a reason, to prevent catastrophe's like this.
And your prediciting that President Obama will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history? He has only been in office a little more than 2 months for Christs sake! Give him a chance. Already his approval rating is going up, not down. What activities are you talking about that go against the constitution?? You don't even list them.
And yes, whatever happened to uniting this country? Ask Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck who attack him for literally anything at all just to gain the politicial advantage. More of the same division from the right-wing media. Yet President Obama has gone out of the way to create bi-partisanship by not veering too far to the right or left. His stimulus bill is 40% tax cuts for god's sake...and yet you guys still complain! He kept the troops longer in Iraq than usual and yet you guys still complain. He released the troture memo's but is not actively seeking prosecution against Bush officials and yet you guys still complain! He even kept the trade embargo on Cuba and yet you guys still complain.
I mean...the right-wing movement is obviously not happy with this President, but you guys don't even give him a chance....so how are we suppose to unite everyone then if you keep attacking him??
Thanks, AoW.
The point I'd want to echo is the blame that those on the right place on Obama because those on the right are being even more partisan than ever before, like somehow it's under Obama's control. In fact, that partisanship has come despite Obama's behavior. Like you said, he included 40% tax cuts in the Stimulus bill, just for those on the right, even though tax cuts are a pretty poor economic stimulus. He DID do it right - he gave the tax cuts to the poorest people, and is giving them in very small doses, so that the money will get spent, and not saved or used to pay off bills. They got what they wanted, tax cuts, but he did them in the responsible way, and so they're teed off because they won't help the wealthy become more wealthy. They are stuck in their short term, me, me, me attitudes that George Bush et al helped foster.
He can only control his own behavior. He's being nicer and more concilatory than those on the right deserve, and they are still behaving like spoiled brats, and they are complaining because they themselves haven't been more bipartisan or nonpartisan? What tools!
The nonpartisan research group Center for Media and Public Affairs along with California's Chapman University released a study that found the nightly newscasts devoted 27 hours, 44 minutes to Pres. Obama's presidency in his first 50 days. That compares to 7 hours, 42 minutes for Pres. George W. Bush and 15 hours, 2 minutes for Pres. Bill Clinton during the first 50 days of their first terms.
Not only has Obama gotten more coverage, but that coverage has been more positive than his predecessors.
MYTH:
The Republican party is not a huge embarrassment to the United States.