The Obama Administration v3.

[Sherlock Holmes]

In the interest of respect, let's leave words like "crybaby" and "chicken" out of posts, please. It's fine to say that you think he didn't interview with Fox because he expected harder questions and was unwilling to face them.

[ComicBookWorm]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

ther George Steph who asked one series of rather tough questions, Obama got the same softballs he's gotten all along, in my opinion.

David Gregory asked tough questions as did John King. Meet the Press even gave equal time to the Republicans. I thought Stephanopoulos looked ridiculous when he took out his dictionary definition to try to redefine an insurance mandate as a tax. Stephanopoulos was trying to score points with a silly gotcha that came off looking petty instead. I thought Gregory asked tougher questions.

BTW, Fox News Sunday airs on Fox, not Fox News, so what goes around comes around is still relevant for why Obama didn't go on Wallace's show.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm

David Gregory asked tough questions as did John King. Meet the Press even gave equal time to the Republicans. I thought Stephanopoulos looked ridiculous when he took out his dictionary definition to try to redefine an insurance mandate as a tax. Stephanopoulos was trying to score points with a silly gotcha that came off looking petty instead. I thought Gregory asked tougher questions.

BTW, Fox News Sunday airs on Fox, not Fox News, so what goes around comes around is still relevant for why Obama didn't go on Wallace's show.

Except that the Baucus bill does call it an excise tax. One can argue all day whether it is or isn't a tax, but the language of the bill does call it a tax. Stephanopoulos had a point there.

[AldeberanBlack]

When did this turn into the Make Fun of Fox News thread? I get that it is not the liberals choice for news, but it is still a highly respected news channel.

I don't think it's respected at all. FOX News is very clearly biased towards the right wing of American politics. It's really more of a "commentary" channel than anything else. If Obama wanted nothing to do with that channel, I can understand and appreciate that.

[Lord Godric]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced an amendment today that would allow for a weak, state by state, public option that would only be instituted if private insurers fail to bring down premiums and expand coverage on their own. Her constituency of Mainers is taking particular exception to her stance:



Snowe speaks of the public option being "universally opposed by all Republicans in the Senate," but polls coming out of Maine underscore how avidly Mainers support having a strong public option from the onset.

Being from Maine, I can honestly say that it does seem that Mainers want the public option a lot. Protests have recently been held here in hopes of getting the attention of Snowe (and a longshot Collins), and most people do not seem very happy with Snowe's involvement with the gang of six, and her complete opposition to a public option. Snowe and Collins have served Maine well, and Maine is a moderately liberal state, and this is one example where I feel our Republican Senators are not serving the needs and wants of the public. And I realize this is slightly off-topic, and I'm sorry.

[ComicBookWorm]

Originally Posted by Chris

Except that the Baucus bill does call it an excise tax. One can argue all day whether it is or isn't a tax, but the language of the bill does call it a tax. Stephanopoulos had a point there.

That's only in reference to the penalty for not having insurance. The mandate itself isn't a tax. That's just an insurance premium. I suspect that the government doesn't have a legal way to collect money from individuals that isn't called a fee or a tax.

I still think it was weasel words to try to trip up Obama, claiming he was taxing the middle class. If people buy their mandated insurance (and I'm sure there will be a minimalist plan) they will not pay a penalty.

[Chris]

There's plenty of people who do like, enjoy, and turn to Fox for their news. It's almost undeniably conservatively biased, but in and of itself that doesn't mean that the stories are untrue. I think that, like any story, one needs to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis whether distortion is playing into it. The same applies to MSNBC and CNN.

So, please don't automatically discount a story because it's on Fox. And it probably was a bit immature of Obama to snub them, but in the grand scheme of things, I think he and Rahm, etc calculated that they were more likely to turn more public opinion by appearing on Univision than they would have turned by appearing on Fox, mostly because of the viewership composition.

[ComicBookWorm]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think he and Rahm, etc calculated that they were more likely to turn more public opinion by appearing on Univision than they would have turned by appearing on Fox, mostly because of the viewership composition.

I think that is entirely the calculation they made.

[Klio]

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

Being from Maine, I can honestly say that it does seem that Mainers want the public option a lot. Protests have recently been held here in hopes of getting the attention of Snowe (and a longshot Collins), and most people do not seem very happy with Snowe's involvement with the gang of six, and her complete opposition to a public option. Snowe and Collins have served Maine well, and Maine is a moderately liberal state, and this is one example where I feel our Republican Senators are not serving the needs and wants of the public. And I realize this is slightly off-topic, and I'm sorry.

Well, I at least am grateful for your opinion. It's always nice to hear a voice from the place where things actually happen.




On a completely different note.

UN speeches today. Not exactly very concrete commitments - but I think the tone has changed considerably - both from China and from the US.

I am happy about that, although we still need a lot of progress before December, and then a will to keep any promises made.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

for being unwilling to face real questions from a network that is willing to challenge him when he misrepresents facts and distorts what's actually in the bills before Congress.

That sounds noble and courageous - and, as such, your description is nowhere near being representative of Fox as the Obama administration has known it. I thought the President was very smart in excluding Fox from his itinerary on Sunday. The network earned the rebuke.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Chris

:So, please don't automatically discount a story because it's on Fox..

You can forget that one!

[leah49]

Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm

BTW, Fox News Sunday airs on Fox, not Fox News, so what goes around comes around is still relevant for why Obama didn't go on Wallace's show.

I do have to disagree with that. I don't think it was a slight at all or having anything to do with Obama. I just that Big Fox cares too much about some shows and doesn't want them pre-empted for anything ().

And why is it okay for people to snub a more conservative news channel but not a more liberal news channel?

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

That sounds noble and courageous - and, as such, your description is nowhere near being representative of Fox as the Obama administration has known it. I thought the President was very smart in excluding Fox from his itinerary on Sunday. The network earned the rebuke.

Right. Fox has been tough on Obama. Thankfully they are the only ones, right? I mean he is the President of the United States, that comes with some scrutiny doesn't it? As he has made plenty of mistakes so far, and has taken "change" to a new level by changing his platform, dramaticly in some ways, why wouldn't he face some tough questions and a little less cheerleading?

[ComicBookWorm]

Originally Posted by leah49

And why is it okay for people to snub a more conservative news channel but not a more liberal news channel?

Because there was no snub. There was no obligation to use Fox or Fox News or any other news outlet. This is the reverse of what to expect from any President. Obama decided his message was best conveyed elsewhere. Bush was selective about who interviewed him. All Presidents are.

Otherwise, it would imply that Leno was snubbed because Obama went to Letterman. Or is the other way around since Obama went to Leno last year, so Letterman was snubbed then? The President can't go everywhere. If Obama wants to communicate a particular message, he's entitled to choose where he thinks he'll best be able to communicate it.

Originally Posted by OldLupin

As he has made plenty of mistakes so far, and has taken "change" to a new level by changing his platform, dramaticly in some ways, why wouldn't he face some tough questions and a little less cheerleading?

That's still not the point. Obama wanted to convey his message. He was under no obligation to endure a trial by ordeal to prove his bravery under fire. He would have been just as justified in choosing a series of softball interviews somewhere. But I watched all the interviews. They were tough. But they were also fair and balanced. He didn't think his time was well-invested by interviewing with Fox. Ignoring all other factors, the demographic wasn't the right one.

I'm curious though, where has he changed his platform? I think he's trying much harder than most Presidents to stick to his platform.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

Right. Fox has been tough on Obama. Thankfully they are the only ones, right? I mean he is the President of the United States, that comes with some scrutiny doesn't it? As he has made plenty of mistakes so far, and has taken "change" to a new level by changing his platform, dramaticly in some ways, why wouldn't he face some tough questions and a little less cheerleading?

Lupe, Fox had unparalleled access to the Bush White House and snagged far more interviews with President Bush than the other networks. You have no basis, therefore, to complain about President Obama's choice to not grant an interview to Fox last Sunday.

Fox ran the fake madrassa story in February 2007.

Fox went overboard on Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright in 2008.

Fox currently employs Glenn Beck.

O'Reilly seems to think Fox has trumped every other network, that they don't matter because "Fox is damaging the President of the United States," and that the President has no choice but to come to Fox on Fox's terms.

He is delusional.

[Klio]

Originally Posted by Klio

On a completely different note.

UN speeches today. Not exactly very concrete commitments - but I think the tone has changed considerably - both from China and from the US.

I am happy about that, although we still need a lot of progress before December, and then a will to keep any promises made.

Anyone?

On Obama's agenda this week:

Iran
Nuclear disarmament (meeting on Thursday)
Climate Change (speech today)
Israel & Palestinians (trilateral talks today)
Russia
oh, and the small matter of the G20 and the world economy

I might have forgotten something.



The BBC is giving an overview here


... and we spend a whole page on whether he did a Fox interview or not? I wonder whether I have been missing something.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm

That's still not the point. Obama wanted to convey his message.

The he could have taken out an advert. If he wants to do an interview and have that interview be perceived as anything more than a farce then he has to be willing to answer tough questions. By staying with the "liberal friendly" media he avoided having to answer tough questions. George Stehp's one series of questions was just about the only time Obama was challenged.

He was under no obligation to endure a trial by ordeal to prove his bravery under fire.

I'm not sure we elect our President's to run an hide when the going gets tough.

Ignoring all other factors, the demographic wasn't the right one.

I thought he was President of the United States of America, not President of those who agree with him.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

The he could have taken out an advert. If he wants to do an interview and have that interview be perceived as anything more than a farce then he has to be willing to answer tough questions. By staying with the "liberal friendly" media he avoided having to answer tough questions. George Stehp's one series of questions was just about the only time Obama was challenged.

That's bull. You know that, don't you? When do a a few right-wing buffoons get to determine how POTUS should communicate to the American people?

I'm not sure we elect our President's to run an hide when the going gets tough.

Funny... I'm seeing Obama all over the place these days. He doesn't appear to be hiding at all.

I thought he was President of the United States of America, not President of those who agree with him.

Were you on another planet during the eight years "you're either with us or against us" Bush was in office?

Fox made its bed a hard one. Now it has to lie in it, probably on the fringe as far as the media is concerned. I'm glad to see it, frankly. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than seeing a hate monger taken down by its own hand.

[Chris]

Closed pending review.

[Morgoth]

Oh this thread is staying shut for a long time.