About Me

Name: RME KRNL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Ripped from the headlines...


...of the normally liberal LA Times, no less, November 8, 2009: "Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News"

A Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox News, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again.

Hmmm, I guess the White House's "war" with Fox News is still ongoing, albeit the one in Afghanistan -- you know, the "good" war, the "necessary" war, the one where soldiers are dying? -- is still on "hold." No doubt just another instance of Obama being "nuanced" and "multi-tasking," however.
 
But now the White House war with Fox seems to have escalated in a way, because it's gone from publicly denouncing the most powerful cable news channel as a whole and as a large organization down to contacting and threatening individuals, even if they're Democrats. Makes one wonder just how paranoid and petty Team Obama really is about anyone who criticizes it at all. Well, so much for freedom of speech and maybe the right to freely associate as well.

He said the call had an intimidating tone. The message was, "We better not see you on again." An implicit suggestion, the strategist said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

White House Communications Director Anita "I love Mao Tse Tung" Dunn said that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and that they had not told people to avoid Fox. This from a woman who lumps mass murderer Mao Tse Tung and Saint Mother Theresa together as her two favorite political philosophers and who does strange things with her tongue when giving a public speech. Maybe that's because it's forked, but I don't know for sure.

So, when she was asked about it, maybe she just checked with those "colleagues who deal with TV issues" that she already knew had not told people to avoid Fox. That way, her statement would be "technically true," don't you see? This president and this White House play that "technically not lying" game all the time. With them, and some other liberals, prevarication by parsing words is not a past-time; it's a passionately practiced procedure.

Oh, and in a related matter:

POLITICO's Michael Calderone reports that President Obama met with several journalists for lunch last Friday at the White House.

The attendees were: CNN's David Gergen, Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Howard Fineman, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker, POLITICO's Mike Allen, NPR/ Fox's Mara Liasson, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall and New York Times trio David Brooks, Andy Rosenthal, and Gail Collins.
 
(What? You mean Glenn Beck wasn't there? Of course, he's not a "journalist," you know, and rather proudly doesn't claim to be. He's just been digging up and reporting on stuff the "journalists" won't. But, hmmm, so Fox News' Bret Baier and Sheppard Smith had conflicts, too, huh? Imagine that.) 

Administration officials David Axelrod (Senior Advisor), Anita Dunn (Communications Director), Bill Burton (Deputy Communications Director) and Robert Gibbs (Press Secretary) also attended. (Hey, why not? Free lunch, literally.)

The off-the-record lunch lasted about two hours, and included a green salad, halibut and a pear tart for dessert.

How nice! Well, first I'm just "dying" to know what they had to drink with that delicious sounding lunch. Kool-aid, perhaps? And did NYT's David Brooks check out the sharp crease in Obama's pants again -- to make sure he's still going to be an excellent president? No, don't tell me.

Second, I'm wondering why they all met in a government building, ate a meal prepared and served by government employees, at taxpayer's expense, and several government employees (yes, I mean the prez and gang) were present, yet the meeting was "off the record"? I'm guessing that's the only way they could ensure the White House talking points that were passed out would not have to be reported on, but I could just be being cynical again, as is sometimes my wont.

And in addition to Mara Liasson being about the only journalist of the bunch attending who might have an objective bone or two in her body, I also wonder, with Obama meeting so often with members of the media and "off the record" and all, when he is going to meet again "on OR off the record" with, say, General Stan McChrystal who's still waiting for going on three more months now (and with Winter's nonfighting months in Afghanistan closing in) for a decision on that war and who last only had a less than half hour meeting with the Undecider-in-Chief on Air Force One while idling on the tarmac......and that didn't even include lunch, much less a pear tart for dessert.
 
Where ARE Obama's priorities? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FOX News Is Only An Arm of the Republican Party - Oh, Really?

[Subtitle: And the survey says...]

White House Communications Director Anita "I love Mao Tse Tung" Dunn says that FOX News is "an arm of the Republican Party." And White House Chief of Staff Rahm "run amok" Emanuel and top advisor David "door-to-door salesman" Axelrod say that FOX News is not really news but only opinion. Oh, and add in that Obama Press Secretary Robert "frat boy" Gibbs' best defense that FOX News is only about opinion has been that that's the White House's opinion -- huh? -- and you have a pretty full-on attack against FOX News.

However, a recent survey funded by the nonpartisan League of American Voters revealed some interesting results. These data come from a national telephone survey taken by the Global Marketing Research Center in Melbourne, Florida, during the week of October 13-16, 2009. The survey was taken from a statistically valid national sample of 800 registered voters, 36% of whom said they voted for more Democrats than Republicans, while 32% said they voted for more Republicans and 24% said they voted equally for each party.

It appears that Democratic and Independent voters clearly beg to differ with Ms. Dunn et al. The national survey shows that 46% of those who watch FOX News "just about every day" are -- guess what? -- Democrats or Independents, as are 50% of those who watch it "several times each week" or more. Now, why would that many Democrats and Independents be watching "an arm of the Republican Party" which only deals not in real news but only in opinion? The obvious answer is they wouldn't. They are apparently watching because they are getting "news" from FOX News which they feel they are not getting from other so-called "news" outlets, both TV and print.

Overall, the survey showed that 21% of all American voters watched FOX News every day and 18% watched it several times each week. So, combined, 39% watched the station several times each week or more.

• Among Democrats, 17% watched it several times each week or more

• Among Independents, 46% watched the station several times each week or more

• Among Republicans, 55% tuned in several times each week or more

The survey indicated that 11% of all American voters watched CNN "just about every day" and 20% watched several times each week or more. Combined, 31% watched CNN several times each week or more.

The totals for MSNBC were that only 10% watched just about every day and 8% watched several times each week. Combined, 18% watched MSNBC several times each week or more.

These data, compared to the recent storm of White House criticism, shows the Administration attacks on FOX News in a different perspective. Could it be that Team Obama is concerned about FOX News not because it's "an arm of the Republican Party" but because it is so widely seen among Democrats and Independents?

The frontal assault on FOX News by Dunn and the two top spokesmen for the Administration, plus Obama himself dismissively saying he's not losing much sleep over it all (maybe not, but why then do you send your minions out to do your dirty work?), reveals much less about FOX's operation than it does about just how obsessed this thin-skinned and arrogant president is with his coverage.

He wants it all, or he feels "slighted." Evidently, only absolute adoration, all the time, by everyone is sufficient. How really deeply insecure does one have to be for that to be the case? He's got (and has long had) all the liberal lamestream media in his pocket (or, since they've been behaving like his lapdogs, is that in his lap?), with FOX News having been the only major holdout.

But at least this most recent foray by the Obama attack dogs has coincidentally finally given us something Obama has promised since the campaign but has repeatedly not delivered on -- transparency. The White House attack on FOX News is so transparently just that, an unwarranted attack (as evidenced by the survey cited here), and it has been done with such heavy-handed clumsiness that it mostly shows what amateur hour at the White House from the top down really looks like. A peek behind the Wizard of Oz curtain, if you will, to reveal how small the little man hiding there really is. Thank goodness for small favors.....oh, and some transparency, finally -- albeit coincidental, accidental and unintended. Thank you, Mr. Petty President.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Now, just a darn minute! Who the heck's really in charge of this cluster... er, ah ...fluke, anyway?

I've long questioned not only Obama's inexperience but also his lack of judgment (and veracity) because of some of his questionable associations. One or two radical associations (e.g., Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright) might just have been "guilt by association," as Obama, et al., claimed back during the campaign. But several, and continuing, conscious choices reveal a pattern of deliberate and intentional behavior to associate with and advance radicals.

And creating a job for and handpicking Van Jones to serve in the White House as a special advisor (AKA "czar") is just one of the latest examples.

After not reporting on the Van Jones controversy at all, until it was all but over and Jones had finally resigned -- around midnight, on a weekend night, and still claiming that he had been unfairly smeared (albeit with his own words, acts, lies and off-the-wall, un-American and/or racist conspiracy theories), the liberal MSM, ever in cahoots with this White House, and Obama's "frat boy" mouthpiece Robert Gibbs are now trying to spin it that the flap over Jones was no big deal because his was such a low level position and he really didn't have that much influence.

But, wait a minute. The White House created a specific post just for Van Jones. It didn't simply recruit him to fill an already existing post. It didn't simply look at something it had to get done and then select Jones as the most qualified to do it. Instead, it created a job tailored to Jones and his background. We don't know how much Jones was paid, how large a staff he had, how much they were being paid, or whether that staff still exists (and is still being paid) now that Jones himself is gone, but, according to a Washington Post interview with Jones himself, he had about $80 billion of taxpayer money to "play with" in creating "green jobs," some of which it now seems went to prison inmates, no less. (Now, THAT'S the kind of accountable management of my tax dollars I want to see from one of my -- uh, Obama's -- specially appointed special advisors!)

Well, pardon the heck out of me, Mr. and Ms. Lamestream Media, but having a job created especially for me, in the White House, and giving me "responsibility" for spending $80 billion would make me think that I was pretty damn important.

(By the way, is that $80 billion perhaps -- hopefully -- the same $80 billion in TARP money an Obama administration bean counter told a Congressional committee back in January or February had simply "disappeared" -- POOF! -- now you see it, now you don't -- and couldn't be accounted for? No? Jones' $80 billion was to come out of the $787 billion so-called stimulus plan for which the Van Jones co-founded Appollo Alliance helped dictate the legislative language to members of Congress, you say? Well, maybe that other $80 billion of TARP money will turn up sometime, but I'm not going to hold my breath. After all, to this profligate president and his Democrat handmaidens in this 111th Congress, $80 billion is just a rounding error.)
 
And at least one of the people, if not the main person, responsible for recruiting Van Jones to work in the White House was Obama's right hand woman, Valerie Jarrett, someone indeed very important and very high up in the Obama White House hierarchy. She's even been shown on video on TV saying how they had followed Jones' work for some time and how pleased they were to have gotten Jones to work in the White House. In fact, Jarrett overruled objections about Jones' background raised by the White House Counsel’s Office and insisted Jones be put in his post anyway. So much for whatever little "vetting" Jones got. It seems Jarrett has been a cheerleader of Jones for a while, as has Michelle Obama, also reported to be a big Van Jones "fan."

These things from a woman whose Vogue profile revealed her disclaiming much of any power or influence at all. It was all, "No, no, no, I'm not really in charge of anything." Jarrett claims to give the Obamas "their own perspective," whatever that means.

(I would think two Ivy League educated people, like the Obamas, for example, would be capable of forming their own perspectives, but maybe I'm mistaken and that's not what "Ivy League educated people" are educated to do. In fact, with the Obama administration and its involvement of one kind or another with a seemingly ever growing list of other "Ivy League educated people" from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc., I'm becoming increasingly suspicious that I've previously given those prestigious institutions too much credit for being the hallowed halls strode by only really, really smart people anyway. Privileged either by birth, money or government mandated access, maybe. Smart, not so much.)

Anyway, Jarrett reportedly went on to say, “I am a sounding board. I know him well. I know them both well. So I kind of know what makes them who they are. And I don't have a portfolio, so I can come in really only looking at it from their perspective. I have never been through a campaign before on a national level. I'm not a pollster, I'm not a strategist. I'm freed up from all of that.”

Hmmm. Well, pardon the heck out of me for possibly being rude, there, Valerie, but if you're "freed up from all of that" and a lot of "all of that" sounds like experience and qualifications to serve in the White House in the first place, that makes it sound like you don't really have any qualifications for being in the White House, except that you know the Obamas really, really well. And if you're not really in charge of anything, are not this or that, have never done this or that, and are "freed up from all of that," what the hell is the American taxpayer paying you for? Oh, yeah, I guess for things like the recruitment and vetting (or not) of someone like Van Jones.

So, someone who has never done this or that, doesn't have this or that portfolio or experience, isn't really responsible for this or that, gets to pick someone for a White House position, with salary and staff, insist they not be properly vetted, brag about getting them to work with the president, but when they are revealed to be racist, radical, irresponsible and irrational, it's no big deal because they and their White House position weren't all that important to begin with? Huh?

And now, Dear Reader, you know the reason for my exclamation and interrogatory in the title of this article.

The blind leading the blind? The inmates running the asylum? Or is it just that the crooks, cronies and incompetents are covering for each other? You be the judge.
 
Me? I'm just askin' - just sayin'.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Spam Is Bad, But White House Spam May Be Okay?

After Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett was alerted last week by some of his viewers that they had received unsolicited emails from the WH, Garrett asked WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about it on Thursday, raising privacy issues. (As it happens, Garrett was later joined by the ACLU, of all groups. Who would have thought the very liberal ACLU and rather conservative Fox News would be on the same side of an issue? Go figure).

Gibbs gave one of his somewhat snarky and arrogant NON-answers and then basically stonewalled Garrett for the next few days as Garrett pursued trying to find out how the WH obtained people's private email addresses and why it was sending them unsolicited emails, mainly about ObamaCare.

Now, finally, the White House has provided its version of what happened. Politico.com's Mike Allen reports that WH spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a statement Sunday night: “We are implementing measures to make subscribing to emails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individual's behalf.” (Italics added for emphasis.)

So, the issue was raised on Thursday and surely could have been answered by someone by sometime Friday but the answer wasn't provided until late Sunday night. Talk about being able to claim credit for finally responding while at the same time trying to bury your answer out of the normal news cycle!

And did you notice that, once again, it's not the White House's fault? Heaven forbid that this White House should ever admit it made a mistake, much less actually and intentionally did something wrong. No, no, no, this time people's private email addresses were obviously but inadvertently obtained by the WH because, while these people didn't specifically opt in to receiving WH emails, they had apparently signed some kind of petition, letter, etc., etc., at some time or other, which some third party organizations (vague and kind of hard to trace, eh?) sent to the WH. So, it was these appropriately amorphous third party organizations' fault, you see -- NOT US! (What kind of ether do these people breathe -- and do they think if they pump enough of it into the news cycle that we will inhale it, too?)

Awww, now see, here I thought I was so "special" because I got three -- yes, THREE -- unsolicited emails from the WH, one from Obama and two from Axelrod. I was just SURE that I had earned a place on SOME kind of WH "enemies" list. Oh darn! Well, guess I'll just have to keep trying.

Just as I can't get over Axelrod's appearance somehow reminding me of a door-to-door salesman of some kind (Fuller brushes? Electrolux vacuums?), Gibbs reminds me of the overly large, overly self-important, overly privileged and overly boorish frat boy I sometimes ran across during my college days. You know the guy -- his daddy made sure he got into the right school and the right fraternity, had the right kind of clothes, the right kind of car and plenty of money, etc., but his daddy couldn't disguise the fact that his little boy wasn't quite as smart as he was arrogant and wasn't quite as polished as he was just plain used to being privileged and pampered.

You may also remember that the WH recently asked Americans to notify it of any "fishy" info, mainly pertaining to health care/insurance reform, that their family, friends or neighbors might casually mention or repeat. Well, the only thing "fishy" to me about the WH explanation of this latest apparent disregard for citizen privacy is that most of the organizations for and with which I've signed petitions, letters, etc., have specifically (in accordance with privacy and anti-spamming laws) stated that your email address may be requested for purposes of notifying you that your petition has been sent or for sending a copy of your letter back to you, etc., but that it will not be published or released to anyone else.

So, how do you explain that, Mr. White House Spokesperson? Anyone?

AFTERTHOUGHT: A poster named roxsteady claimed on Politico.com that Major Garrett and Fox News (I guess, along with the ACLU) were idiots for raising the question of the WH sending unsolicited emails to citizens and sought to excuse the WH by saying it is simply known as SPAM.

But isn't SPAM wrong, even illegal? Why, I think there are even LAWS.....and stuff.....against it. So, roxsteady, are you saying that Garrett, Fox News, etc., are idiots for even asking the questions, but the WH is okay for spamming its citizens, if in fact that's ALL it's doing?

Get a grip and stop excusing the Obama White House for everything. After all, normally AFTER they're CAUGHT, they do enough of that for themselves, usually by blaming someone -- and sometimes it seems, anyone -- else!


 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why am I one of the "chosen ones"?

(Subtitle: Anybody else getting unsolicited emails from the White House lately?)

Well, I am evidently one of the "chosen ones." Within the last month or so, I have received an unsolicited email from Barack Obama and two unsolicited emails from his senior advisor David Axelrod. (I'm secretly waiting and hoping for a personal billet-doux from Rahm Emanuel next. That would give me a trifecta.)

The emails are individually and singly (not one in a multiple listing) addressed to my email address, greet me with the salutation of "Good Morning" or "Dear Friend" and have the WH logo at the top and the standard 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address info across the bottom.

Now, I can assure you that they didn't get my email address from any of their campaign supporter lists or from any nice letter I've sent the White House lately, but I'm not going to be paranoid about where they did get it -- just curious. It is a little Big Brother-ish, though. 

So, it is just me being "targeted" because I'm already on Obama's "enemies list" and they're trying to persuade me to "come over," or have many -- any -- of you also received these emails? Are they sending them to some of us, or are they sending them to all of us? And if it's only some of us, how are those some being "chosen"?

I now know that at least some other people are receiving these, because Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett was recently alerted to it by some of his viewers and is now pursuing an answer from Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about how people are selected to receive them (and good luck to you with that, Major).

Finally, it all makes me wonder just how desperate the White House is to "get its message out." And why.        


WH Email #1
Subj: My Supreme Court Nominee  
Date: 7/14/2009 10:38:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Good Morning,
Subject: Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
From: Barack Obama


WH Email #2
Subj: It's time for a reality check  
Date: 8/10/2009 8:29:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: The need for health care/insurance reform and sources to use for the "truth"
Encourages visiting the new www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck web site and helping to "spread the truth" to family, friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod


WH Email #3
Subj: Something worth forwarding  
Date: 8/13/2009 7:56:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about health insurance reform, and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now  
Encourages visiting www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck and forwarding email to friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »