NY Times disappears Fox's history of attacking Obama as "racist" and a fascist
In a September 21 article, The New York Times reported that President Obama "gave five back-to-back television interviews broadcast on Sunday," but engaged in an act of "Medici vengeance" and showed "a rare sign of frustration, and payback" by not "speak[ing] to 'Fox News Sunday.' " The Times reported that "the presidential slight" occurred because "Fox did not broadcast Mr. Obama's health care speech to Congress on Sept. 9," but the Times did not address that Fox News hosts have maligned Obama as a "racist" and repeatedly compared him to Hitler.
NY Times claimed Obama engaged in "Medici vengeance" in "boycotting" Fox News
From the September 21 New York Times article:
Mr. Obama declined to discuss his proposals on the one outlet guaranteed to find fault (or change the topic to the Acorn scandal). And that made his star turn look less like a media blitz than Medici vengeance -- Fox did not broadcast Mr. Obama's health care speech to Congress on Sept. 9, so Mr. Obama did not speak to "Fox News Sunday."
That omission was not as tactical as it was telling: a rare sign of frustration, and payback, by a White House that prides itself on diplomacy and an even keel. Mr. Obama sought on Sunday to bring a little order and civility to a debate that grows ever more heated and shrill. But by boycotting, the White House seemed to be getting caught up in the kind of hostilities that increasingly divide Fox News Channel from its rivals.
[...]
But Mr. Obama chose to make a statement -- and raise a distracting fuss on Fox News -- by declining to speak.
And Fox milked it. When he was not talking about Acorn, Mr. Wallace bemoaned the presidential slight, asking, "Whatever happened to reaching out to all Americans?" He told Bill O'Reilly that the White House aides were "a bunch of crybabies."
Apparently, the feeling is mutual. "We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform," a White House deputy press secretary told ABC News on Saturday. "Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again; not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon."
Beck and Hannity have accused Obama of race "problem[s]"
Beck: Obama is a "racist" and "has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture." Beck has said: "This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy -- over and over and over again -- who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture -- I don't know what it is. But you can't sit in a pew with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff and not have it wash over." He later added, "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. He has a -- this guy is, I believe, a racist. Look at the way -- look at the things he has been surrounded by." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]
Beck: Obama's desire to "settle old racial scores" is driving all legislation "getting pushed through Congress." According to Beck, "Everything that is getting pushed through Congress, including this health care bill, are transforming America, and they are all driven by President Obama's thinking on one idea: reparations." Beck later added that Obama's "goal is creating a new America, a new model, a model that will settle old racial scores through new social justice." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 7/23/09]
Hannity: "Do the Obamas have a race problem of their own?" Sean Hannity asserted on Fox News' now-defunct Hannity & Colmes: "As more is learned about Barack Obama's positions, his past, and his affiliations, it seems that the 'change' candidate has all the same problems with race as those before him." Hannity later added: "It's only fair to ask: Do the Obamas have a race problem of their own?" [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 3/2/08]
Fox News guests and hosts compared Obama to Hitler
April 2: Teasing show, Beck airs photos of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, asks, "Is this where we're headed?"
May 15: On Hannity, Randall Terry revisits comparison between Obama and Nazi leaders
June 10: Beck says "the Germans" during Hitler's rise "were an awful lot like we are now"
Remind me again. What is my incentive to include outlet F in my schedule?
Fox have some incriminating pictures of NYT Editors ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT liberal media?!
Obama's relationship to Jahn Emmanuelis identical identical to Charlie McCarthy relationship to Edgar Bergan
Criticism of Obama Not About Race, Says New Poll of White People Foreign Birth, Resemblance to Hitler Cited
People who criticize President Obama do so for reasons that have nothing to do with his race, a new poll of white people indicates.
According to the poll, which was conducted by the University of Minnesota's Opinion Research Institute, those who take issue with the President do so because of his questionable birth certificate, his love of socialism, and his Hitler-like health plan, but not because of race.
A significant number of Mr. Obama's critics strongly agree with the statement, I don't have any problems with Obama being black, but I do have a problem with him being a socialist from Kenya who is trying to kill my grandmother.
Professor Davis Logsdon, who conducted the survey, says that the poll is full of good news for Mr. Obama: It indicates that race is no longer an issue in America, but a foreign-born president trying to institute a Nazi-slash-socialist euthanasia plan is.
Elsewhere, Fox News host Glenn Beck called for stricter limits on the nation's IQ.
Borowitzreport.com
Smart, well-educated people are bad for becko's business. That's why these swine aren't just anti-education, they're pro-ignorance.
Then again, they'd kinda have to be.
It's sort of like saying that the NyTimes "isn't" liberal-leaning just because its editorial page hasn't endorsed a GOP candidate for president since....
False claim, on 2 of 3 Fox outlets they did carry the speech. Get the facts right please.
on Sunday are predominately caucasian. I see no reason why you
should apologize to the haters on "faux news". After the way THEY
have dragged you through their mud, you owe THEM (FOX) absolutely
nothing. Stay focused on healthcare, and forget FOX exists. They
want you to fight with them, because they play dirty, and they don't play by the rules. Besides they all have low IQs and are
blind, deaf and have heart defects. So, you would be fighting against the handicapped, and that would make you, Mr Obama, look real bad.
Fox News actually encourages and promotes events to the President's agenda and calls it News like Birthers, Tea Baggers and 9/12’s walk on Washington. In doing so Fox News is driving descents against this black President. Fox News is guilty of inciting hate and lynch mobs. Again, I don't blame the President. I believe Fox News should be boycotted.
he will go down as the Petty President. He (and moreso those who speak for him) make more personal attacks not only on politicians who oppose him, but the American people. Listen/watch his Sunday tour. whenever he talks about opposition, he attacks them, he can't argue logically with fact. many times he can't even control his petulant rage.
I would suggest the Obama administration get a memo to MMfA to stop all the race angling stuff, they want no part of it, and have said so publicly. Why MMfA keeps lighting the fuel on the front burner as a direct contradiction to Obama's wishes is puzzling.
And we should all blindly follow Obama's wishes at all times, right? First of all, Robert Gibbs said that it was Obama's opinion that the attacks on him weren't racially motivated. That's a far cry from your claim that Obama wants everyone to stop talking about it. Secondly, MMFA is simply stating an obviously provable fact. The NYT did ignore the racial attacks on Obama coming out of Fox News. Just because the press secretary says it isn't a factor, that doesn't mean that it isn't a factor.
Please show where Obama said that.
You are a mess. You just did. Above. "First of all, Robert Gibbs said that it was Obama's opinion that the attacks on him weren't racially motivated"
So now Gibbs is lying. Wow, everyone is lying except you.
You can't weasel your way out of this.
Fact: The White House has not denied this.
And if he had said that many of the attacks are racially motivated, he'd be "a whiner, playing the race card," or, in your reading, "shameless(ly) race baiting, and inciting a race war."
You're just mad at Obama because he didn't throw race baiters like you a bone that you could run with and cry racism. So insead you dissect stuff like these are his press secretary's words and not Obamas. It's such obvious nonsense that you look like a oomplete fool.
You have no idea what the motivation is. They don't want to talk about racism, because it doesn't help anything. Even talking about partisanship doesn't help much. Pointing out something factual avoids useless debate in the public arena about these things, while FOX's history of inflammatory nonsense might well be a reason not to go on that network.
Do you think that spokespeople tend to spin things, or do you think that everything they say is true?
Exactly.
Enjoy your afternoon.
He thought he could scold MMFA for contradicting Obama's wishes, and he wasn't shy about pulling those wishes out of his ass. His last comment brings it all back full circle. The WH doesn't want to talk about racism, so nobody else should either.
Both you and the NY Times believe the clever words of an unnamed deputy WH press secretary represent the singular reason for President Obama's reported "boycotting" of Fox News Sunday.
It's really not too big a leap to suggest that the inflammatory rhetoric that Fox News has spouted at the President for many months may also represent valid reasons for the Fox News Sunday boycott.
It's all about choices. Obama has made a conscious choice that talk of race only serves to deflect the conversation away from important issues that affect all of our lives.
On the contrary, there are those who have made a conscious choice that they don't care about the issues that affect all of our lives as much as they do about deflecting the conversation towards race.
It's as simple as that.
Isn't it entirely possible that Obama doesn't want to get bogged down in this sort of conversation, while having no opinion about others talking about it?
I believe what Right ON is saying is that in this discussion primarily race is not the issue that Obama will address. It isn't that race isn't important or doesn't affect people's lives, but that Obama has chosen to focus on the issues he is concerned about in the current political debates of the day, healthcare front and center at the moment.
I agree with him. To become embroiled in racially divisive rhetoric is a distraction for him and his supporters, myself included, during this critical juncture regarding serious issues such as healthcare reform. I thought his speech on race during the campaign was brilliant, and effective. I also believe his very clear intentions and words, either spoken directly by him or through his spokespeople, by refusing to be "sucked" in to the racial angles of the criticisms leveled against him is admirable, and the absolute correct approach.
In addition, I cannot believe that Obama has "no opinion about others" engaging in this sort of conversation but is only speaking of his own personal mindset. That doesn't really make sense because that would still distract the debate away from issues, and clearly that is not what he wants.
I can see no good coming from the racial tit-for-tat and I think that is Right ON's point. If I misread his posts on this topic and he cares to correct my interpretation, I would welcome the correction.
Frankly, I find racists unspeakably beneath contempt. However, I don't have much admiration for those who continue to beat the drums of race even though the target of these racially motivated attacks, Barack Obama, has tried to rise above it. I find that irresponsible.
I hope Obama succeeds.
They would do well to print your post and keep in handy. Thanks.
A conspiracy to hold him accountable for what he said.
Hi, westla.
You're going to have to help me out here. I normally completely agree with your infrequent but thoughtful and reasonable posts here, but the above statement rubs me the wrong way. How is it irresponsible for people to point out some of the racially motivated attacks on Obama simply because he tries to "rise above" it? The fact that Obama has risen above it is irrelevant to whether a third party condemns the behavior. After all, he never denied the existence of these racist elements. He admitted that some of the criticism is steeped in it, but that it wasn't the the overriding issue.
Now, if you're problem is that some supporters of Obama have a tendency to inappropriately inject race in cricticms of the man and even elevate it, then both Brab and I agree. Brab specially. He has gotten into numerous debates with fellow posters about how they misconstrue the level of racism aimed at Obama. I'll give you a specific example for clarity. I don't think someone who believes that Obama is a fascist\socialist\communist is necessarily a racist, but they are certainly uninformed (that's the nicest way to put it). However, when people like Beck speculate that health reform is a form of reparations, he is most definitely race baiting in order to scare his audience.
Whether Obama personally wants to get wrapped up in this discussion or not is irrelevant. As I said above, that would do no good. His involvement in such a back-and-forth would not come off well, and it would be a huge political blunder. For the public at large, though, reasonable charges of racism should not be held back for any reason whatsoever. Those in the government can avoid such discussions, and focus on issues, and we certainly have the capability to discuss more than one thing at one time.
Do you think there's a distinction between different levels of racism here? I'm not seeing that in your post either. If someone says something that is pretty clearly based in bigotry, would you say it was wrong to "become embroiled in racially divisive rhetoric"? Any outrage would be a distraction, obviously, which is what you are explicitly concerned about. So if we can't talk about this sort of thing, aren't you basically giving racists a blank check?
All this skepticism of what Obama means and what he says coming from many on this thread topic is strange.
So since racism doesn't affect you, then we shouldn't talk about it? Keep digging. And for the last time, Obama has NOT made the choice that you claim he has. You simply made that up. Obama has frequently spoken of race and racism.
So if someone talks about race, then that means they don't care about other issues? Brilliant argument.
You honestly don't know?
Because if he does make it an issue it would become a HUGE issue and a major distraction to what he is trying to do as President. It's called pragmatism.
Admittedly, I cannot read the man's mind, but that would certainly be my best guess.
Obama says it isn't about race, so you should just shut up about it or else you're just trying to instigate a race war.
Now which is it?
It's just more bemoaning by MMfA because not every media outlet in the country shares their hatred for Fox and displays at constantly. I guess some don't find it relevant at every single turn.
Apparently, the feeling is mutual. "We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform," a White House deputy press secretary told ABC News on Saturday. "Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again; not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon."
Fox chose sides.... for them to complain about the consequences seems a bit contrived.
www.mullins-world.com
Fox has made the political bed that they're lying in...and their whine rings pretty hollow...they need to hitch up their big boy pants.
And Fox milked it. When he was not talking about Acorn, Mr. Wallace bemoaned the presidential slight, asking, "Whatever happened to reaching out to all Americans?" He told Bill O'Reilly that the White House aides were "a bunch of crybabies."
Wallace's whininess borders on the infantile, and he's so divorced from reality that he can call others "crybabies."
Furthermore, if Fox News wanted to help the President "reach out to all Americans," as a genuine news service would do, then why did it refuse to air his address to Congress? Wallace's complaint is more hollow than a dollar-store chocolate bunny.
How are the statements Wallace made different from what President Obama and his administrators do everyday? He has done it once. The ObamaCorp does it daily.
Hudson_Hawk
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Aug 23, 2008
September 21, 2009 1:54 pm
Score: 46
Sign-up to rate:
* Sign-up to rate:
* Sign-up to rate:
Die Obama DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cute... huh?
Tea-Baggers were meant to just take it on the chin.
And then kept repeating that line everytime someone asks.
Why would the NYT push the smear that it's just fine for Republicans to use Fox News to repeatedly to hawk their agenda to the parrot media, but because Obama is smart enough to know that he's not going to get a fair interview on Fox, he's instantly painted with the hyperbolic - and nonsensical - phrase "Medici vengeance?"
The double standard for everything Obama does is contemptible.