Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 02 Jul 2009 15:45 Post subject: Helen Thomas: Not even Nixon tried to control the media....
You would never see this in the New York Times or NBC News.
Quote:
Helen Thomas: Not Even Nixon Tried to Control the Media Like Obama
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
By Penny Starr and Fred Lucas
(CNSNews.com) - Following a testy exchange during Wednesday’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.
Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.
“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said.
“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”
During today’s briefing, Thomas interrupted a back-and-forth between Gibbs and Chip Reid, the White House correspondent for CBS News, when Reid was questioning Gibbs about who was going to decide what questions would be asked of President Obama in a townhall meeting that was scheduled to take place in Annandale, Va., today.
Gibbs then had an exchange involving Reid and Thomas that went as follows:
Gibbs: “… But, again, let's--How about we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP's tradition of asking the first question. I will let you [Chip Reid] ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted in Annandale—“
Chip Reid: “I'm perfectly happy to—”
Helen Thomas: “That's not his point. The point is the control--”
Reid: “Exactly.”
Thomas: “We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some, but not-- This White House.”
Gibbs: “Yes, I was going to say, I'll let you amend her question.”
Thomas: “I'm amazed. I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and—”
Gibbs: “Helen, you haven't even heard the questions.”
Reid: “It doesn't matter. It's the process.”
Thomas: “You have left open—”
Reid: “Even if there's a tough question, it's a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened.”
Thomas: “It's shocking. It's really shocking.”
Gibbs: “Chip, let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that?”
Reid: “Okay.”
Gibbs: “I think—“
Thomas: “No, no, no, we're having it now--”
Gibbs: “Well, I'd be happy to have it now.”
Thomas: “It's a pattern.”
Gibbs: “Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?”
Thomas: “It's a pattern. It isn't the question—”
Gibbs: “What's a pattern?”
Thomas: “It's a pattern of controlling the press.”
Gibbs: “How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press--poorly, I might add.”
Thomas: “Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.”
Gibbs: “How so?”
Reid: “Well, and controlling the public—”
Thomas: “How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they're going to be called on. That is shocking.”
Gibbs: “We had this discussion ad nauseam and—”
Thomas: “Of course you would, because you don't have any answers.”
Gibbs: “Well, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen.
Go ahead.”
Thomas: “Well, you should have.”
Reporter: Thank you for your support.
Gibbs: “That's good. Have you e-mailed your question today?”
Thomas: “I don't have to e-mail it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask.”
Gibbs: “I don't doubt that at all, Helen. I don't doubt that at all.”
Thomas, 89, has covered the White House during every presidency since John F. Kennedy’s.
This is great. When a liberal icon is criticizing the Great One in this manner, it is only a matter of time when some more in the media will turn against him.
I also love Gibbs, whatever Obama does, please keep Gibbs as your Press Secretary!!!!
Quote:
“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
With this administration and Congress the answer is a resounding YES. They are supposed to be our servants, but me thinks they look at us as their servants, we are their subjects. We'll see how long this lasts before the people turn against this President and Congress.
The scariest thing is that most in the media goes along with this. They are supposed to be the watchdogs on government, not in cohoots with government.
You ain't seen nuthing yet. They say a 'Honeymoon period' lasts about 18 months, so I'll give him at least that much time. You just can't spend your way outta debt. And you can't lie, shift blame, and try to control things on the sly either.
I hope it doesn't, but I'm afraid the stimulus plan will prove to be a disaster. Once people wake up and find out what we're been sold on, expect another political shift. Its time for all these politicians to put up or shut up. The American public is tired! Unemployment is up 2 points and after another year or so, Obama's talking point of "I inherited this mess" ain't gonna fly no more. It will happen, but we're still in survival mode now.
This can't go on much longer...expect the usual suspects to decry 'racism, racism' at first, but when the facts start leaking (look first to the Internet, then to social media, then to the MSM), the 'powers that be' won't be able to hold back the tidlewave. The Banks got their $$$, the American people will get the bill!
A whole lotta people heavily invested in the Obama presidency no matter what, are going to be disappointed (if they aren't already) real soon....
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 02 Jul 2009 23:46 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
You ain't seen nuthing yet. They say a 'Honeymoon period' lasts about 18 months, so I'll give him at least that much time. You just can't spend your way outta debt. And you can't lie, shift blame, and try to control things on the sly either.
I hope it doesn't, but I'm afraid the stimulus plan will prove to be a disaster. Once people wake up and find out what we're been sold on, expect another political shift. Its time for all these politicians to put up or shut up. The American public is tired! Unemployment is up 2 points and after another year or so, Obama's talking point of "I inherited this mess" ain't gonna fly no more. It will happen, but we're still in survival mode now.
This can't go on much longer...expect the usual suspects to decry 'racism, racism' at first, but when the facts start leaking (look first to the Internet, then to social media, then to the MSM), the 'powers that be' won't be able to hold back the tidlewave. The Banks got their $$$, the American people will get the bill!
A whole lotta people heavily invested in the Obama presidency no matter what, are going to be disappointed (if they aren't already) real soon....
You're right Melani. I know there's quite a lot of people who are disappointed already in Obama, the thing is they do not want to admit it just yet. Something I heard on the radio not long ago which described the situation perfectly. They likened it to a couple who just got married, and within several months, they realized they had made a mistake, but were not ready yet to admit it.
I expected this, but I admit, I didn't think it would be this quick.
I don't think either one of you are familiar with the litany of critiques offered from the left pretty much since Day 1 of the Obama administration. It is natural to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they start a new job and are tasked with cleaning up a huge mess, but people elected Obama to make changes. Many are so acutely needed and complex to bring about that I think he and others have overestimated the ability to get them done in 6 months or even 1 term. Even our worst presidents (half the country knew that GWB would be a disaster the minute he declared his candidacy) have a grace period. The fact that Obama's is coming to an end in the public dialog is about right.
There's a lot to undo from the Bush debacle, and Obama can't and won't undo it all. Since the GOP strategy is to fold its arms like a toddler and scream "NONONONONONO" rather than coming up with viable counterplans, I don't think any of them have room to talk. All they wish for is more turmoil and to hold up the "I Told You So" banner in 2010, STILL with no good solutions for the environment, healthcare and the economy.
I am disappointed that Obama has not moved on issues that I think are extremely important. I also did not expect him to do so unequivocally. A president would have to commit to one term, low approval numbers and the death of his/her party in national politics for the next 2-6 presidential election cycles in order to right the course of this country and attend to its fiscal and social problems. No one, NO ONE is willing to do that. These minority party candidates who say they would cannot even be elected, and if they were, would find that they would like to stay viable past one term and find reasons to ease up on the rhetoric.
Here's a hard truth: Politicians know that they have to tell us what we want to hear and never ask us to sacrifice our lifestyle to achieve a greater good (not even while fighting a war it seems). If you want a source of the problem as an American, look in the mirror. You, who want your mile-long SUVs, suburban houses, low interest rates, cheap food, Chinese imports, limitless public services, free college, free healthcare and low taxes are the problem. Anyone who tells you the truth cannot get elected. Obama is one who dared to come close, and the only reason he got away with it is because he ran against the worst president in recent history. Stop blaming politicians. It's the country's fault for insisting that we can live as we do with no consequences.
The party in most danger of making itself irrelevant is the GOP. No strategy, no candidates, no message (except "no"), no solutions other than scare tactics, no credibility. The insistence on clinging to supply-side economics and evangelical social values is killing it, and it's suicide. In 20 years, if it doesn't change, the GOP will be a regional, theocratic largely race- and gender-based option for 25% of the population (mostly rural/Southern Christian White males). Its platform will be intolerable to everyone else, including fiscal conservatives and Libertarians who are tired of the religious fundamentalism and warmongering.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 03 Jul 2009 14:42 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
Even our worst presidents (half the country knew that GWB would be a disaster the minute he declared his candidacy) have a grace period.
Not so fast. It will still be many years until that determination is made. Granted at this juncture, Bush was a disaster and paved the way for Obama. This is why I am pissed at him and think he was terrible. I know I'm jumping the gun on Obama, but I have a suspicion that my gut feelings about him are right. Once people not dedicated to the left see how much less money they will have in their family budgets because of Obama/Pelosi/Reid policies, not only will the honeymoon be over, they will be in deep trouble for the midterm elections.
I told my brother that Obamamites should love Bush. If he wasn't so bad, Obama woud not have had a chance.
Since the GOP strategy is to fold its arms like a toddler and scream "NONONONONONO" rather than coming up with viable counterplans, I don't think any of them have room to talk.
True, but since Republicans can no longer even filibuster, they are now powerless as a legislative force. From now on, rising resistance to Obama will come from the Democrats. The fight is no longer Democrat versus Republican. The fight is now between Congress and an imperial presidency.
Watch this video for an example of what I mean. Now that the executive branch runs federally-owned General Motors, auto dealers who are not Obama-connected are being ordered to shut down and to turn their customer lists over to competitors who are Obama-connected. Obama's appointees are blatantly depriving citizens of their property without due process. The Chicago political machine now rules the nation.
Similarly, W's destruction of the Bill of Rights has been embraced and expanded by Obama (in a good cause, of course). It reminds you of Thomas Jefferson's excoriating John Adams for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts making it a federal crime to criticize the government. Jefferson rightly accused Adams of making a mockery of the First Amendment. But when he became president after Adams, Jefferson immediately used the A&S Acts to imprison newspaper editors who criticized him. (In a good cause, of course.)
Incidentally, you may notice in the video, the sub-text is that, now that GM is government-owned, the (Democratic-controlled) Congress should reap some of the spoils. The Congress should help decide which dealership is rewarded and which should be shut down. The gist of the Congresswoman's complaint is that the Executive Branch is hoarding all the corruptive power to itself.
Again, my point is that Americans should be afraid, be very afraid, not of conservatives versus liberal squabbles nor Democrats versus Republicans, but an Executive Branch that, over the past decade or so, has amassed dictatorial powers and now ignores the Bill of Rights with impunity. (In a good cause, of course.)
Not so fast. It will still be many years until that determination is made. Granted at this juncture, Bush was a disaster and paved the way for Obama.
What "best" presidents are commonly known to have been "disasters?" I have no wish to call the race to the bottom, but there's no doubt that GWB is among our worst presidents. Is he the worst? Sure, that's debatable.
DChapman wrote:
I know I'm jumping the gun on Obama, but I have a suspicion that my gut feelings about him are right.
LOL you also predicted that he wouldn't win the election.
DChapman wrote:
Once people not dedicated to the left see how much less money they will have in their family budgets because of Obama/Pelosi/Reid policies, not only will the honeymoon be over, they will be in deep trouble for the midterm elections.
This is totally incorrect. The effect of crippling debt, imbalanced budgets, refusing to resolve expensive social problems like healthcare, inability to mobilize on the environment was hardly caused by Nancy Pelosi (or Obama or Harry Reid). They were exacerbated, but not caused, by GWB's policies for 8 years. Previous administrations are all partially to blame, as are the American people (as electors, speculators and spenders). Aside from the brief interlude in which the Feds balanced the budget and started trimming the debt, our foreign policy as well as domestic policies have propagated the 'spend now, pay later' mindset that is now a cultural tenet in virtually every American ethnic group.
As tempting as it is to lay the blame at the doorstep of a few politicians whom you have ideological beef with, you could at least offer up a more complete list of culprits. Why no mention of Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan and Dick Cheney?
This is so far beyond take home pay, taxes and the 2010 election. I'm sure that the GOP will attempt to convince the American public that the reason why there has been no speedy recovery is because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid passed the stimulus package, but that notion would be laughable to anyone with a non-partisan view. Is anyone who ostensibly supports the "free market" prepared to accept the long term consequences of a do-nothing government?
The sad truth is that taxes have to go up, and will go up. That was going to happen before the recession. We haven't been paying for the lifestyle we've lead as a nation for the past 40 years, and our Chinese lenders/future overlords do not have to be kind, especially if we're not buying their exports. The tragedy of GWB is that his administration exacerbated virtually all of the existing fiscal problems that we have, and added a couple more for comedically tragic effect. It was an experiment, testing the neo-con worldview, and the results don't look good.
It did not have to be this way (exhibit A: the Canadian banking system). Capitalism is not dead, but I hope and pray that the theories of Lafferites, Friedman's apostles plus the U of Chicago crowd fall on deaf ears.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 03 Jul 2009 15:25 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
The party in most danger of making itself irrelevant is the GOP. No strategy, no candidates, no message (except "no"), no solutions other than scare tactics, no credibility. The insistence on clinging to supply-side economics and evangelical social values is killing it, and it's suicide. In 20 years, if it doesn't change, the GOP will be a regional, theocratic largely race- and gender-based option for 25% of the population (mostly rural/Southern Christian White males). Its platform will be intolerable to everyone else, including fiscal conservatives and Libertarians who are tired of the religious fundamentalism and warmongering.
Disagree completely. If I were a Democrat, I would be very nervous for the next year and a half. They will have no one to blame. They have the Executive and both parts of the Legislative branches, a super majority in the Senate. It's all on their shoulders. If things deteriorate over the next year, they are in big trouble. Expect in fighting among Democrats. This is the best chance for the GOP to re-invent itself. I do not have a lot of confidence in them for this to happen. I don't know. What will not bode very well for Obama is if Senate Democrats from states not real liberal running for re-election, have to explain why their constituents energy bills, taxes have taken more money from their budgets. These Democrats will turn against Obama. If I were Obama, I would want at least one of the Houses of Congress to be the opposition, that way you have at least someone else to blame. Right now, he has no one....Oh yeah, I forgot, it will be Bushes fault. I don't think that tactic will work in 2010, it certainly will not work in 2012.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 03 Jul 2009 15:39 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
This is totally incorrect. The effect of crippling debt, imbalanced budgets, refusing to resolve expensive social problems like healthcare, inability to mobilize on the environment was hardly caused by Nancy Pelosi (or Obama or Harry Reid). They were exacerbated, but not caused, by GWB's policies for 8 years. Previous administrations are all partially to blame, as are the American people (as electors, speculators and spenders). Aside from the brief interlude in which the Feds balanced the budget and started trimming the debt, our foreign policy as well as domestic policies have propagated the 'spend now, pay later' mindset that is now a cultural tenet in virtually every American ethnic group.
As tempting as it is to lay the blame at the doorstep of a few politicians whom you have ideological beef with, you could at least offer up a more complete list of culprits. Why no mention of Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan and Dick Cheney?
Because Gramm, Greenspan, and Cheney are no longer in power. So it's not going to make any sense to blame them for whatever consequences in 2010. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are currently. They will get the blame, you remember the old Truman saying?? "The buck stops here". Truman when he left office in 1953 was not popular, but his stock has rose considerably over the years. At least Truman had a backbone.
Imbalanced budgets??? So Obama budgets will bring financial responsiblility to the Federal government??? Taxes will go up (a broken promise of course) and/or they will have to print money (inflation). Either situation is not good for the economy, you can't blame Bush for this, too bad.
But then again I could be totally wrong and Obama will save the world from itself.
Last edited by DChapman on Fri 03 Jul 2009 15:42; edited 1 time in total
Again, my point is that Americans should be afraid, be very afraid, not of conservatives versus liberal squabbles nor Democrats versus Republicans, but an Executive Branch that, over the past decade or so, has amassed dictatorial powers and now ignores the Bill of Rights with impunity. (In a good cause, of course.)
It's hard for me to be sympathetic to GM and its dealerships, who are now on the federal dole afterall. The federal government is not demanding that Ford dealers hand over its customer lists afterall. If the administration was taking this heavy handed approach to AIG or Citigroup, would Michelle Bachmann be outraged? No, but Chris Dodd probably would be.
Where are the checks and balances in our government? Where was Congress when Bush (Cheney, really) channeled the Stasi in his attempts to align the entire executive branch to the neo-con agenda? Where is Congress now that the Obama administration continues to trample all over the BoRs? Right, they are doing the bidding of their corporate sponsors (it's obvious that Obama does not have the ability to align the entire party behind his platform...maybe he will after the next terrorist attack). GM was riding high, using the members of Congress it had purchased to block environmental legislation and healthcare reform. Now that it can't afford to keep Congress in the lifestyle to which it has become accustomed, there are repercussions.
I put this problem of too much executive power firmly at the door of Congress and the Supreme Court, who are completely on board with expansion when it fits the political ideologies and economic interests of their donors. Real campaign finance reform would fix that problem, but that's like asking the fox to design henhouse defenses.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 03 Jul 2009 15:46 Post subject:
Quote:
I completely agree with you, though I admit seeing Michelle Bachmann, one of the more buffoonish members of Congress (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/michele-bachmann-were-run_n_167650.html), as an advocate nearly caused me to close the window. Still, I listened to what she had to say.
Barney Frank is not a buffoon????
That's right, he's a cartoon character!!!!
Disagree completely. If I were a Democrat, I would be very nervous for the next year and a half. They will have no one to blame. They have the Executive and both parts of the Legislative branches, a super majority in the Senate. It's all on their shoulders. If things deteriorate over the next year, they are in big trouble. Expect in fighting among Democrats. This is the best chance for the GOP to re-invent itself. I do not have a lot of confidence in them for this to happen. I don't know. What will not bode very well for Obama is if Senate Democrats from states not real liberal running for re-election, have to explain why their constituents energy bills, taxes have taken more money from their budgets. These Democrats will turn against Obama. If I were Obama, I would want at least one of the Houses of Congress to be the opposition, that way you have at least someone else to blame. Right now, he has no one....Oh yeah, I forgot, it will be Bushes fault. I don't think that tactic will work in 2010, it certainly will not work in 2012.
That's short-term thinking, which is the reason why the GOP (after the Democrats) are now in this position. The GOP has exactly the wrong approach to win the votes of the electorate in my generation and younger. This demographic is less concerned with low taxes and much more concerned about resolving long-term problems that will have an impact on us long after the average values voter has entered the nursing home. Higher taxes due to universal healthcare with improved outcomes and sound environmental policies? Bring it on.
Yes, either political party can make short term gains by blaming incumbents from the opposite party (though to my recollection, GWB did indeed go to war against Iraq and neglect to enforce regulations in financial markets). Everyone knows where to place the blame for current economic problems, and most of the electorate understands that recovery is not exactly around the corner. The stimulus package, though being dispersed much faster than federal funds in the past, has only been partially allocated (90% to go). There are signs that the funds are working, and future money will prop up state budgets anyway.
So in 2010, the GOP will rely on what it always does: Wedge issues for values voters.
Also, the Democrats have yet to take advantage of their majority. Most still act as if they are dealing with a Republican opposition with power. The energy bill is one of the few examples of Democrats using their majority to pass controversial legislation, and I believe that it still has to get through the Senate. In addition, conservative Democrats from certain states are doing what GOP representatives refuse to do and are trying to pass legislation that reflects the ideology and needs of their constituents. If they succeed, there's little reason to believe that a do-nothing GOP candidate could run successfully against a conservative Democrat who could point to legislative success unless Obama damages the Democratic brand.
Because Gramm, Greenspan, and Cheney are no longer in power. So it's not going to make any sense to blame them for whatever consequences in 2010. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are currently. They will get the blame, you remember the old Truman saying?? "The buck stops here". Truman when he left office in 1953 was not popular, but his stock has rose considerably over the years. At least Truman had a backbone.
In all seriousness, can you deny that the effects of the GWB administration have outlasted their time in office? Especially their economic policies? Of course it makes sense to identify the cause of an effect! Let's not pretend that legislation passes one day and it's effects are felt the next. That's ridiculous. A perfect example is the stimulus package: Passed early this year, 90% of the funds still to be dispersed. It's efficacy may not be known until well after the 2010 election.
GWB was in office 8 years. We'd had ample time to see the effects of his policies by the 2008 election, and are actually still not fully clear on the impact that they have had. Now, people who have a Pavlovian response (bad effect today = it's the fault of whoever is currently in power) will certainly blame the incumbent. This happen to Lincoln Chaffee in '08. He was a casualty of the repudiation of the GOP in his state, but had actually done a good job as a senator.
DChapman wrote:
Imbalanced budgets??? So Obama budgets will bring financial responsiblility to the Federal government??? Taxes will go up (a broken promise of course) and/or they will have to print money (inflation). Either situation is not good for the economy, you can't blame Bush for this, too bad.
Please read what I wrote again. Then we can talk about it. It's GWB's fault. It's also Carter's, Reagan's, GHWB's and Clinton's fault. Since supply side economics encourages deficit spending, unfortunately supply siders who are Republicans do not get to lower taxes, say that they are being fiscally responsible, and portray Democrats as irresponsible liberals. The most recent president to balance the budget was a Democrat.
DChapman wrote:
But then again I could be totally wrong and Obama will save the world from itself.
Personally I'm not one to look for a savior, but I suppose one ought to leave open the possibility since the man has 3.5 years left in his term.
Similarly, W's destruction of the Bill of Rights has been embraced and expanded by Obama (in a good cause, of course). It reminds you of Thomas Jefferson's excoriating John Adams for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts making it a federal crime to criticize the government. Jefferson rightly accused Adams of making a mockery of the First Amendment. But when he became president after Adams, Jefferson immediately used the A&S Acts to imprison newspaper editors who criticized him. (In a good cause, of course.)
Incidentally, you may notice in the video, the sub-text is that, now that GM is government-owned, the (Democratic-controlled) Congress should reap some of the spoils. The Congress should help decide which dealership is rewarded and which should be shut down. The gist of the Congresswoman's complaint is that the Executive Branch is hoarding all the corruptive power to itself.
Again, my point is that Americans should be afraid, be very afraid, not of conservatives versus liberal squabbles nor Democrats versus Republicans, but an Executive Branch that, over the past decade or so, has amassed dictatorial powers and now ignores the Bill of Rights with impunity. (In a good cause, of course.)
Really? Ive never heard of this before. I mean it wasnt mentioned in that hbo series on Adams. lol
I completely agree with you, though I admit seeing Michelle Bachmann, one of the more buffoonish members of Congress (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/michele-bachmann-were-run_n_167650.html), as an advocate nearly caused me to close the window. Still, I listened to what she had to say.
Barney Frank is not a buffoon????
That's right, he's a cartoon character!!!!
I really, really wish that instead of doing the whole "gotcha" thing ("what???? how dare you point out X as Y when this guy I think you agree with ideologically is also Y!!") you could just read what I wrote. Still, to clarify, I believe Congress is full of buffoons.
I didn't say that only Republican Congress members are buffoons, and to point out that the person we're actually discussing (which was not Barney Frank) is one IMO is actually relevant to the discussion.
Example: It would be nice to point out the Mark Sanford is an adulterer without someone insinuating that, because I didn't point out that John Edwards is as well, that I've essentially said that "only Republicans cheat on their spouses" when I've said or implied no such thing.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 03 Jul 2009 16:18 Post subject:
I'm going to split this thread.
sagascend wrote:
Please read what I wrote again. Then we can talk about it. It's GWB's fault. It's also Carter's, Reagan's, GHWB's and Clinton's fault. Since supply side economics encourages deficit spending, unfortunately supply siders who are Republicans do not get to lower taxes, say that they are being fiscally responsible, and portray Democrats as irresponsible liberals. The most recent president to balance the budget was a Democrat.
I agree it was all those Presidents fault. But the one who they will try to blame will not be Carter, will not be Reagan, will not be Bush 41, will not be Clinton, it will be Bush 43. The most recent Democrat President to balance a budget also had a GOP majority in both Houses of Congress, remember, the Congress controls the purse strings.
Really? Ive never heard of this before. I mean it wasnt mentioned in that hbo series on Adams. lol
On the contrary. Adams's signing was in the series's narration. It was during the crisis that almost led to war with France.* The pivotal scene about it happens in the Adams's bedroom. John is pacing around, consumed with angst, approaching and retreating from the document that is on his dresser. He feels compelled to sign it in order to restrict agitation by French citizens living in the U.S. But he also realizes that Jefferson will eat him alive politically when he does. Finally, Abigail says something to the effect, "John, sign the damned thing and come to bed." And he does.
Jefferson's criticism of this trampling of the First Ammendment is then mentioned a few more times in the show. The most direct mention is when the newly elected Jefferson visits the sitting President Adams in the White House and they briefly discuss their differences. Jefferson's later hypocritical use of the A&S Acts to stifle criticism of himself after his taking office is not mentioned in the show because by then the narrative has switched away from Washington City to Massachusets, to the Adamses in retirement.
*The war with France never happened, of course. Personaly, I was unhappy that the show never mentioned that one important reason why the risk of war with France went away was that Alexander Hamilton, who for years tirelessly agitated for such a war, was finally shot to death by Jefferson's vice-president.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1752 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Sat 04 Jul 2009 02:57 Post subject:
sagascend wrote:
Example: It would be nice to point out the Mark Sanford is an adulterer without someone insinuating that, because I didn't point out that John Edwards is as well, that I've essentially said that "only Republicans cheat on their spouses" when I've said or implied no such thing.
I agree, you did not imply any such thing, I was making a joke, perhaps a little bad humour on my part....
If you could hear a collage of news reports regarding that dirt bag Sanford, it was quite comical, I wish I could dig up some of it, but here's an example: "Republican Governor Mark Sanford...., GOP Conservative SC Governor Mark Sanford..." and on and on. No such mention made on John Edwards.....like, "NC Democrat Senator John Edwards....", nope. But anyway, this is how the government collusioned media works and I am used to it and I expect it, and I would not want them to change an iota.
It reminds me of my brother calling the office of that Senator from Idaho who was arrested in the bathroom of that airport in MN, I cannot remember his name at the moment. My brother, called and said it was typical of Republicans, yada, yada, yada. I said, ok, what about Spitzer, McGreevy....I guess that's typical of Democrats???? To which he responded with insults....It was amuzing.
I love to critcize Obama in public because I watch folks get very nervous.
My family hates it. I know I'm not the most popular poster here because of it. That's all ok.
I'll split these posts from the original since it has veered off the main topic of the thread which was Helen Thomas accusing the Obama administration of trying to control the media in a way that made her remark, that Nixon did not try to do that. If that doesn't scare anybody, then I guess nothing this administration will do will. I suppose after all, it's all for the common good....
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
