Perino says it "feels un-American" for White House to criticize a news outlet, but as Bush's press secretary she blasted NBC
Former White House press secretary and current Fox News contributor Dana Perino has recently contrasted the Obama administration's criticism of Fox News with the Bush administration's treatment of MSNBC, saying, "I could have taken that tack, but I thought it was not the right thing to do and I think it's mostly because it's really unproductive, it feels un-American, and it's not inspiring." However, Perino did criticize NBC, MSNBC's parent network, during her time as press secretary, asserting that NBC had "intentionally" mischaracterized remarks made by President Bush.
Perino said she "could have" criticized MSNBC, "but I thought it was not the right thing to do ... it feels un-American"
Perino to Van Susteren: I felt criticizing MSNBC from the podium "was not the right thing to do ... it feels un-American." On the October 22 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta van Susteren, Perino stated: "What was interesting to me is, just from my perspective having been in a White House, there is a network, MSNBC, that I could have said that about the evening anchors, or some people in the morning or -- I could have taken that tack, but I thought it was not the right thing to do, and I think it's mostly because it's really unproductive, it feels un-American, and it's not inspiring."
Perino on Fox & Friends: "[T]here were some people who really wanted me, from the podium, to go after MSNBC, and I just thought it was a bridge too far." Perino stated on the October 19 edition of Fox & Friends: "I could have asked the same thing about MSNBC or about some of the programs that are on CNN. I understand that there are some commentators that have prime-time hours on Fox that they don't agree with and that they wouldn't want to do interviews with. And that's fine. But I think that they should then, you know, rise above it." She later added: "[B]elieve me, there were some people who really wanted me, from the podium, to go after MSNBC, and I just thought it was a bridge too far, not something that should be done from the White House. If they want to have the DNC bash Fox News all they want, you know, so be it. But, I would not do it from the White House. I don't think it's presidential, and I think people would see through it."
But Perino did take shots at NBC from the podium
As press secretary, Perino stated how "we had gotten fed up with the way that the President's policies are being mischaracterized" by NBC. In a May 20, 2008, press briefing, when asked about "the back-and-forth between you guys and NBC News," and a letter sent by then-White House counselor Ed Gillespie to NBC alleging the network had "deceptively edited" an interview with Bush, Perino stated, "The reason that we sent the letter yesterday is because we had gotten fed up with the way that the President's policies are being mischaracterized." She added, "We had complained before. And it just reached a boiling point when things had boiled over when we believed that NBC News specifically edited out -- intentionally edited out -- something that the President said in response to a question in an interview regarding Iran, and that it mischaracterized the whole interview because of it."
From Perino's May 20, 2008, press briefing:
MIKE EMANUEL [Fox News correspondent]: On the back-and-forth between you guys and NBC News, one of the issues Ed Gillespie brings up is NBC calling Iraq a civil war for a period, and then Ed notes that it stopped around September of 2007. Then Ed asks in his exchange with NBC, "Will the network publicly declare the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?" I'm wondering if you guys have gotten a response on that matter, and if not, are you still calling for a response from NBC?
MS. PERINO: We have not heard back from them on that specific matter. We anxiously await any response that we would get on it. But I think it's quite telling that they have been silent.
The reason that we sent the letter yesterday is because we had gotten fed up with the way that the President's policies are being mischaracterized, or the situations on the ground weren't being accurately reflected in the reporting. We had complained before. And it just reached a boiling point when things had boiled over when we believed that NBC News specifically edited out -- intentionally edited out -- something that the President said in response to a question in an interview regarding Iran, and that it mischaracterized the whole interview because of it.
As regards the civil war, I remember very distinctly how there was quite the pomp and circumstance when NBC, on the Today Show, decided to declare -- that they were declaring that Iraq was a civil war. But since then, after the surge and things certainly improved in Iraq, NBC has never had a corresponding ceremony to say that Iraq is not in a civil war. I was just curious to find out what they believe.
And the same goes with the economy. When we got the numbers just two weeks ago on the GDP for the economic growth, it said that we had grown at 0.6 percent. And yet the anchor that night decided to disavow that number. We're just curious what part of the official government data that's been coming out for years do they not agree with. So we haven't had a response on that.
And just another point on this is that President Bush is going to continue to state what United States policy is for the next eight months, and certainly during the six months that there's an election going on. If, for example, if tomorrow President Bush says that he believes that the tax cuts should be made permanent, that doesn't mean he's attacking anybody; he is stating his policy. And we just want to make sure it's really clear that we're not going to allow the President's policies to be dragged into the '08 election unnecessarily and unfairly.
Perino specifically criticized an evening news anchor. During the press briefing, Perino stated, "When we got the numbers just two weeks ago on the GDP for the economic growth, it said that we had grown at 0.6 percent. And yet the anchor that night decided to disavow that number. We're just curious what part of the official government data that's been coming out for years do they not agree with. So we haven't had a response on that." Her remarks echoed Gillespie's letter, which stated:
[W]hen the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: "If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession."
The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession -- neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).
Furthermore, never in our nation's history have we characterized economic conditions as a "recession" with unemployment so low -- in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.
Are there numbers besides the "government number" to go by? Is there reason to believe "the government number" is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop "just short of the official declaration of a recession"?
Mr. Capus, I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.
Perino's remark also subtly suggests that FOX News represents what is "American". After all it is an operation that glorifies patriots and "great Americans", right? As opposed to the allegedly un-patriotic, left-leaning MSM...
All they've accomplished is to set themselves and their fan base off into the conspiratorial fringe of the right.
The days of them defining patriotism and Pro-Americanism are over.
They're rounding up their wagons into a tighter circle and defining the interior of their circle as the real world. Their playing to those already inside so the circle will only strangle those remaining in their world.
They're getting what they deserve. It's about time that an administration had the balls to call them out.
Fox News gets the publicity and the attention they crave, their ratings may show an uptick, they play victim, they solidify their audience and squeeze every drop of "poor us, the WH has better things to do" that they can muster. I think Obama gets a lift as he looks strong and confident in exposing Fox for what they are, nothing but a shameless contrarian hypocritical "news" outlet.
But I believe part of Obama's strategy in all of this is not just to discredit Fox, but marginalize those that align themselves with Fox as extreme and out of the mainstream. Forcing the Republicans to take a stand, either you're with Fox, or you aren't. If Fox is the face of the Republican party, that is not a very good face to show.
I just don't agree that it should come from Obama. There are plenty of others lower in the pecking order that can do that for him.
Your post is thoughtful.
You sound pretty angry, maybe a little Jesus or Buddha might help with that.
You sound pretty stupid, maybe a little remedial reading might help with that.
I was joking about the tone and tenor of the post and the "Jesus fueled" comment.
Maybe your right, I am stupid for even responding to you. - LOL!
Bush invited conservative commentators to those kinds of things constantly--there's that well-known image of Bush sitting around chatting with Sean Hannity and Medved and others. And liberal commentators couldn't get an invitation to the white house to save their lives.
And Obama has met with conservative commentators, and has said that he actually enjoys discussing policy with people who disagree with him more than discussing it with people who do agree with him. But he has one lunch with some liberals and it's all, "omg double standard! waah!"
Less powerful than a locomotive...
Able to enter tall building through the front door...
Duh-Da-Da-Daaaaaaah!
It's CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, here to say the day by pointing out what everyone already knows:
"Remember kids, Republicans are hypocrites!"
--------------------------------------------------------------
And yet another insidious, though not very well concealed, plot is foiled thanks to...
CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!
All they know is that it has something to do with the Internets. :-)
Alan Grayson (D) FL: Darn right-wing!
Seriously.
Frankly I think there's a difference between calling out a news organization (I know, i know "FNC isn't a news organization"...etc.) on facts (NBC had edited a news piece to make it seem as though GW agreed with the reporters characterization of the issue, which he did not) and labeling it an opponent. As far as I know, NBC was not publicly labeled an "opponent" by the Bush White House, nor was NBC denied access to the President or staff doing press pool interviews. If any one has evidence to the contrary, please correct me.
Since politics in this country tends to run in cycles, I see what is going on now as fine. Democrats felt beat up for eight years and so they're adopting the same attitude and beating up Republicans (It's funny, that Grayson uses the term "bully" and then adopts a bully strategy himself. Guess it is passed on.) Democrats felt FNC was in the tank for GW. Republicans feel most of the media outlets besides FNC are in the tank for Obama. This is all very reasonable because it's about "feelings" and there is no accounting for emotion.
The thing that I caution some of the more vigorous opponents of FNC and the GOP here about is that at some point (and it's possible that we're are at that point) this will simply become a tit-for-tat. If whoever holds the power in Government can vilify, censor and shut down news organizations or even public opinion organizations who question or differ with their policy regardless of motive, what happens when your opposites occupy the seat of power; then where are we?
By the way, the press has always been partisan in support of one side or the other and I'm not sure why now it's such a big deal. Am I the only one who remembers new papers endorsing candidates? "Dewey Wins!" - LOL!
Liberty.
Of course, the problem is that only the "vilify" portion of your statement applies here - there is no attempt to censor or shut down Fox. Also, even a Bush spokesperson has admitted that they froze MSNBC out of the conversation in the last year of the Bush presidency.
If anyone, be it a "news" organization or an individual is telling outright lies or distorting the truth in service to their ideology, it is in the best interest of the democracy that they be vilified - the exercise of democracy depends upon an honest discussion of issues, so dishonesty is a disservice to that which we all supposedly hold dear.
I agree with you 100%. These are scary times when the white house goes after a news channel. Freedom of speech is important last I checked. And if FNC is lying; debate them and show where they are wrong. Hugo Chavez shut down radio stations that opposed him. Is that where we are headed.
That's what FoxNews does - their news reports are biased and slanted. In addition, their opinion pages don't fairly assess the strengths and weaknesses of Republicans and Democrats.
I don't care if you leave or not, but you are certainly dragging down the cumulative IQ of the trolls who inhabit this site, intent on willfully misunderstanding everything they read.
And Alan Grayson never threatened anyone physically. You did. But don't worry, I'll report your threat to MMFA.
P.S.
When I write "you" I didn't specifically you I meant the broader group.
Ahem, we're at a time of war, are we not? And last I looked Obama is the President, correct?
So do you agree or disagree with President Theodore Roosevelt: " there must be no criticism of the president and to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonous to the American public."
Nice try. I agree with the entire quote not your edited version. You edited the complete quote to make it sound as if TR said that there must be no criticism of the President in a time of war. Not the case. Here is the complete quote again:Nice try. Obama needs to be watched and criticized as well. Gotta keep democrat socialist radicals under close supervision ;)
Wah Wah Wah!
Somebody should tell the goon squad at MindFox that insulting the collective intelligence of America is, in itself, un-American!
No rational person could look at the White House actions and statements and turn it into "attacks" or "going after Faux." Unfortunately, there are plenty of irrational people who are perfectly willing to do just that.
If they have a brain they will act like adults and stop this silly war on Fox - Oops...
Learn it and stop doing it.
Republican Axis of evil!
Bush lied about his National Guard Service!
Bush bought his degree!
Bush was a coke fiend!
Bush "stole" the 2000 election!
Bush appointed right-wing judges who oppose the bill of rights!
Bush was behind 9-11!
Bush "stole" both elections!
Bush started an illegal war!
Bush is a war criminal!
Bush let Osama bin Ladin escape Afghanistan!
Impeach Bush!
Nah, no personal attacks. No hypocrisy or selective memory here, move along.
I'm not sure why people so interested in facts and truth just thumbs up posts that are ridiculous. Politics has always been full of personal attacks, yes even in the press. Hamilton & Burr, anyone? Anyone?
Now, go back and tell us which of those attacks came from the media.
You still think the blame is equally shared?
No. You misinterpreted my statement.
When you didn't apportion the blame, you were saying that it was at least close to equally shared. But it's not. The vast majority belongs to the Republicans. Any fair look at the past 30 years tells us that.
The communication problem in this string isn't of anyone's making but yours.
Get a clue.
If you want to be treated respectfully, you'll have to treat us respectfully and treat facts respectfully.
And don't even try to claim that you tried, but we wouldn't reciprocate.
Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"
Right. Keep living in your fantasy world. Show me where I was disrespectful and it wasn't a response to some nasty little dig. Go through and read, DellDolly. Where did I start out calling anyone "stupid", "ignorant" or use any other disrespectful term? Hmmmmm? Where?
In fact I did get baited into a nasty little name calling match in another thread, realized that it was juvenile and apologized to the person and the group.
I contend at this point it's you who needs the clue.
It's apparent that the majority "liberal" members of this group don't want anyone in here who disagrees with their political bent. The evidence of that abounds. Lie to yourself, oh lover of facts; but even of the most vitriolic anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-FNC, anti-Libertarian, anti-Conservative comments are all high fiving with thumbs up and sipping their own vomit. That's all most of you want to do here.
There are exceptions, but few.
You don't want debate or discussion unless it is to sit in here spewing vitriolic rhetoric in total agreement. I like to think, to coin a phrase, that people can disagree without being disagreeable, but not here, Dolly, not here. - Nice try.
Are you talking about newspapers?
Network TV?
Cable TV?
Interent Media?
Domestic or foreign media?
All of those assertions were covered somewhere in the media. I didn't pull them out of thin air. Most I heard on MSNBC at one point or another.
Dan Rather - CBS: The National Guard documents.
Down and Dirty : The Plot to Steal the Presidency - Jake Tapper
(recognize that name?)
Obama deserves a chance and by virtue of his winning the election and the Presidency has it. FNC also has the right to analyze and criticize and yes even air opinion based shows that question the President's policy and politics. If Obama wants to freeze out FNC, he too has that option, but it's not going to make things any easier.
It already has.
Okay prove that Bush lied about his National Guard Service. I won't even hold you to the rest, just prove that one.
Remember that service in the Guard or reserves have very different peace time rules than full time service in the military. You can miss drill dates and training exercises and make them up at a later time and it's not desertion or even AWOL. Service in the Reserve also is a two way contract and often if they fail to train within a specific period of time you can walk away without negative consequence.
I can keep pointing out evidence that Obama is a socialist and that his political appointments are evidence. Does that prove he's a socialist or communist or radical? Does that make it fact? Hardly. Yet you people hated Bush so much that you can't even see passed the claims of your own fringe, which by the way a lot of you here are a part of.
I disapproved as Bush also, but not for the reasons the left chooses. I disapprove because of the procedural use of government to trample the rights of individual citizens with things like The Patriot Act and elements that violate the 4th and 5th amendments of the United States Constitution.
You people hated the Patriot Act and I was right there with you on that one, yet you sit by silently as your messiah, Obama, conducts the same warrantless intrusion, secret police tactic and spying on Americans as the guy you viewed as the devil. But now it's okay because at least he's left leaning and not Bush and when he does it he must be looking out for us. There's a word for that, hypocrisy.
Neither did Bush start an "illegal" war. The power to declare war falls to congress under section one article eight of the U.S. Constitution. You can chant all you want about "illegal war" you are wrong, end of story.
I opposed the War in Iraq as well, not because it was "illegal" but because it was tactically unsound and would lead to the inevitable draw off of resources and manpower from Afghanistan. Our military, after being decimated by a majority Republican congress and Bill Clinton, wasn't equipped to fight a successful two front war.
You're wrong about impeachment as well, as were congressional Republicans with Bill Clinton. This whole "well they did it" mentality in politics is ridiculous, yet I do understand it after my time in this forum. If I say or question the status quo here right away there are those here that just want to attack. I in turn start feeling that since it's pointless to expect civility just start engaging in the same tactics and using the behavior of others to justify it. Is it right? Probably not, but it is easier than trying to remain civil in the face of incivility. So I do get how the leftists feel, but facts aren't about feelings.
Now back to my school yard tactics.
Bush was in the National Guard while we were at war in Viet Nam.
"Obama is a socialist..his political appointments are evidence." So Tim Geithner is one of those damn socialists. As an entrepreneur, I should have seen through his great deception.
What kind of people choose to use the "m-word" in a sentence describing Obama? Are you really seeking rational discourse? If your goal is to seek the facts you'll find enough people here who are skeptical of many assertions and will pursue the facts. Responding with hollow name-calling will generate more of the same.
I could claim that I'm reassured to know that under Obama we have gays in the military and security services using the Patriot Act to listen in on my conversations and read my communications. It will be interesting to discover if Rahm Emmanuel is using Patriot Act wiretaps to influence key Republicans on legislation as Cheney appears to have done. When CHeney's people are documented to have used wiretaps to silence skeptics in the intelligence services, we have much to fear. That Obama has not shut these programs down means we still have much to fear about the potential, although the desire seems absent...so far.
Iraq was an illegal war in light of International Law. It was a pre-emptive invasion based upon a set of facts that had been pre-baked, with new contrary facts and choices eliminated from consideration by congress and the electorate.
The politically correct decision in the spring of 2003 was to pretend contrary facts didn't exist. If I misled my venture capital investors in the same manner I, and likely our entire management team, would be promptly replaced.
It's impolite to ask ;)
That was my bad, you know I did not, when I wrote that, recall that the alleged incident took place during Vietnam. Neither Johnson or Nixon called the Guard to active duty though, did they? They therefore remained more or less in peacetime status, but point taken.
Vietnam was not a war as defined by our Constitution (declared by congress). Granted it was a war in all other respects (ask anyone who was there), but legally not a War. Under Carter "draft dodgers" were granted full amnesty and nobody (except his opponents) cared that Bill Clinton possibly avoided the draft.Of course Clinton's take was different and who knows what the truth is and frankly who cares? It's water under the bridge. So to me, all of the hay made by the left over GW's service is what's the term? Astroturfing. It was one of those well they went after Clinton, so...
I was not claiming that Obama (or all of his appointments, least of all Geithner) is (are) actually a socialist, my point was: saying that he is over and over doesn't make it so. I can suspect that he is or see socialist tendencies but that doesn't prove he's a "socialist".
I'm not debating or contradicting your assertion on 2003. You're right, but it didn't happen in vacuum every member of Congress that voted for that war is culpable or should be.
The "m" word is fitting for the way some people here view Obama and also indicative of the atmosphere. I do appreciate the civil discourse but don't at this point care if anyone here takes me seriously or not. I'm kind of passed that point. - Peace. Liberty
The thing is, the right has disowned the Bush Administration. They say Bush isn't a "real" conservative because he jacked up the deficit, blah, blah, blah.... Of course, if you point out that Saint Reagan conducted his presidency in exactly the same fashion, albeit more intelligently, your average con will go ballistic and claim absurdities like, "Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall," which is patently false, but nevermind that pesky truth widget.
If that happens and we end up with two vibrant, healthy political parties that discuss issues and argue honestly with integrity - and these talk show nutcases are sent packing to the fringes of their ideologically corrupted zoo, then I will publicly retract every thing I have said criticizing this tactic by Obama and his White House. He will have proven me dead wrong.
By the way, I think you automatically get at least 2 thumbs down for saying anything at all as a conservative or non-Obama lover. Don't forget folks here are reflective of the intellectual party of Hope and Change. At this point I'm gonna step back, watch, and hope the whole thing doesn't implode. Maybe I should be learning Mandarin.
I don't think they really exist. Every time conservative policy is put into action through our government, i.e. small government and less taxes; the tax distribution is shifted away from the top income earners, the middle class shrinks and the little guy gets the shaft.
I think that the idea of the real conservative has been mythologized. I think conservatism is a con game intended to give more control to the economic royalists and suppress the liberties of working class families through economic tyranny.
The author made some interesting points, not sure I agree entirely, but they were interesting.
Liberty however does not guarantee any particular outcome with regard to economic status or station, just that you are free in so far as your own person is concerned. The only way you can guarantee economic status, is to control production and distribution of wealth, but that too suppresses liberty by demanding the individual be part of that system. You should read J.S. Mill as well.
Perhaps you can tell us of any modern society that has built great prosperity through a laissez faire economy? Or minimal government? Perhaps you can show us where high taxes have inhibited growth over time?
Liberty does not guarantee financial well-being, indeed that is true, but liberty is robbed by a life of necessity.
I gave you the opportunity to clarify what you meant by 'distribution.' You used terms commonly associated with socialism to make your point about broad prosperity. So what conclusion, other than you making a minimal government argument, was I supposed to draw?
"The only way you can guarantee economic status, is to control production and distribution of wealth..."
That is a patently false alternative. There are other ways to guarantee economic freedom and I mentioned them.
"but that too suppresses liberty by demanding the individual be part of that system."
You certainly seemed to be making an argument for hands off economics. I suggest, as tenderly as possible, so as not to pique your delicate nature, that you be more specific in what you are trying to say.
No actually I'm not making an argument for hands off economics.
I do have a few questions, and I'm not trying to be obtuse or difficult, I just want to understand how what you propose works within our frame work and global economic system.
When you refer to living wages how do we define that? How do we guarantee jobs to everyone? Do we force companies to produce or provide against their own best interest when we (government) feels it must? Should we implement wage and price controls?
A chicken in every pot sounds great, but I don't think you really believe that everyone pulls equally, or should be compensated equally regardless of their effort. Do you?
Should every American be guaranteed a job and living wage regardless of effort? I don't know, it doesn't sound any more sustainable than what ever it is you think that I think is. ;)
I'm not really that sensitive, I just get to a point in here where it just seems like it's always a fight. Truth is I don't mind a fight, but here it's gang warfare. If you're part of the crowd like the guy I'm in the slapping match with now, it's fine for him, but not for me. I know fairness is a state which is of human invention, but we can't have it here, how're we going to achieve it across society and economics?
As for folks here attacking you, you might consider the history of this place. We're used to to being assaulted by right wing intransigents, so as humans will, we have to band together to stay strong. We often jump to faulty assumptions about those who challenge our ideas. It's cool. You show signs of genuinely wishing to participate in talks. So I'll join you. Then again, you can sometimes come off as one who is operating from a strict conservative code with some of your characterizations of liberals and liberalism. Just saying, know your audience a little better and consider our attitudes and stereotypes of recalcitrant Republicans who post here.
You bring up some good questions though, and some assertions I would love to address.
First, you ask "When you refer to living wages how do we define that? How do we guarantee jobs to everyone? Do we force companies to produce or provide against their own best interest when we (government) feels it must? Should we implement wage and price controls?"
It's a bit hard to separate all those questions, so I'll respond, in order of importance, to each frame of thinking to which they pertain.
Not everybody can or should be compensated equally, but there needs to be greater equity in income disparity due to the very fact that, every human has an inherent dignity. There is no moral justification for the economic phenomena that states one person's labor is worth 500 times more than anybody else's. And history will show us that any modern culture, or society, is doomed to collapse that has as top heavy an accumulation of wealth as we do here and now. No one can feel as though those words that say, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal," have much weight when even economic equality is so mocked by the have mores.
Wage controls already exist. Government already tells companies that there is a certain level of pay that you will not go below. It's called the minimum wage. And many, many companies abide by the letter of that law and have no quarrel whatsoever with that form of government intervention. God Bless their patriotic hearts! But why not create a maximum wage? Since corporations are little more than a banding together of people, why not tie the top salaries and the bottom salaries to the profitability of the corporation? That way if a top executive wants to give himself a raise, he is obligated, as it should be, to transparently justify his compensation to all persons involved. But I don't see that happening unless the workers are unionized and/or it becomes law. Maybe you have a better way?
We also have price controls as it is now, aka, price fixing, and it's a negative effect of unregulated capitalism and couldn't exist in a truly free market. So, no. We should not control prices, nor should our basic human rights, like healthcare, have price tags attached to them. Not everything needs to have a profit motive. Some things, like education, make us better as a whole when we have equal access to their reward. It's common sense to build strong foundations.
You and I both know that we can't guarantee a job to everybody, it simply is not feasible. In fact not a soul has suggested that to be our ultimate aim. But we can make opportunity more available by making work pay better than welfare. Those who won't do for a living, well they are actually few and far between, but we have to spark their imaginations too. Besides, it's not human nature to sit and do nothing. We are overwhelmingly driven by a need to play and stay busy. There is no "can't," in America, so I don't want to hear things like, "we can't have it here." This is the land of innovation. We can and will find better ways to include all willing souls in the Dream.
Have you seen Sam Tanenhaus and his book "The Death of Conservatism" on any talk shows over the last month or so? I was wondering (if you had) what your take is on what he has to say? Because I myself have been wondering if "real" or "true" conservatives really exist as well.
Now there are classic conservatives. Is that the same? And if so, what contributions do you think they make to our discourse?
Would you consider a Bruce Fein or Richard Brookhiser real conservatives?
Thanks for paying the compliment of asking my grumpy opinion :) It means quite a bit to me that you would consider anything I have to say as worth giving a listen.
I haven't heard of any of the people you mentioned, but I will look them up and get back to you at some random juncture.
Promise.
What is occurring with the Obama WH and Fox is Fox makes a claim, the WH ignores the claim, Fox makes another claim, and another, and another, and another...the claims keep coming, the WH never responds.
Then when the WH realizes that more and more viewers are turning to Fox, do they "respond" to the claims? No. That would be acting like an adult, and this WH is occupied by little children who grew up in the entitlement era of "Give me! Take me! Buy me!"..."Mine! Mine! Mine!" No, this WH responds by attacking not an issue, not a specific item, but by attacking *the entire network*
That my fellow logicians, is an Ad hominem attack and is a logical fallacy (which this WH is full of). If the WH has an issue with something reported on Fox, why don't they release a press release to the contrary? They have an entire staff that could certainly do that. But then, that would mean they would have to stick to the facts, and we all know that the facts are not on their side.
For those of you who hate Fox, be aware that Fox has *THE* most diverse audience of Democrats, Republicans & Independents. No other network has their diverse and *equal* cross-section. The majority of the country has already figured out that the MSM/fringe-media (ABC,NBC,MSNBC,CBS and somewhat CNN) is not reporting news, but is providing cover for this failed Obama Administration.
Obama is a one-term president. In fact, worse than a one-term president, he is rapidly becoming un-elected while still in office. Once his approval ratings reach < 41% he will be essentially un-elected as a sitting president (GWB did the same thing in his 2nd term).
The only chance Obama has of being re-elected at this point is if he attempts to follow in the steps of Mao, Fidel or Chavez, and unlike China, Cuba and Venezuela, we have a 2nd Amendment here to prevent that from happening.
Her opinion means nothing. Fox Snooze lists her a political analyist when she on shows sometimes!
LOL!!
I'd like to know why anyone would care what Dana Perino has to say about any subject.This is the same genius who, while serving as George W. Bush's hand-picked White House press secretary, was forced to admit that she had absolutely no idea what the Cuban Missile Crisis was.I'm not making this up! It that wasn't so utterly pathetic it would be hilarious!!
And Fox News continues to spew this crap about Obama and ignored any and every dastard deed bush did. I get so sick of all the news channels who scue the news reports to favor a republican view.