Vicki, you’ll note that both of our responses just kept getting longer and longer. So, since you and Chet were both concerned that I might have misrepresented Mr Beck, I’ll restrict myself to that one topic. (Easy choice – that big watermelon head of his is such an easy target.) And since Chet was concerned that I “falsely stated some facts,” I’ll even give specific examples.

(Don’t trouble yourself thinking that I obsess on the guy – I’d already run across most of this, but I didn’t memorize his lies. I just did a quick couple of googles, and there it was. It’s all out there, with extended video documentation so you can’t say it’s taken out of context; Youtube is great for that.)

Now, my “off his meds” comment was snarky humor. Obviously went over your head. However, I have a hard time seeing how you can defend him. Let’s ignore the fact that his violent rhetoric (poisoning Nancy Pelosi, pretending to set a staffer on fire, that whole baseball-bat thing last week – the list goes on) is probably a bad idea in a time when the Secret Service is overstressed, fighting against four times as many threats as from any comparable period during the Bush era. We already have multiple incidents of right-wing extremists not merely attacking the president, but the police, and sometimes just random collections of liberals (I assume you remember Poplawski, von Brunn, Adkisson and their ilk; I’m hoping you’ve heard about the recent rise in right-wing extremism and the strengthening of the white supremacist movement). Wouldn’t it be a good idea not to suggest that violence is the answer to a political disagreement? (Of course, he’s been doing this for years now – google “beck kill michael moore” sometime.)

Let’s move on to his continued lies on all manner of subjects. For example, he spent weeks talking about FEMA concentration camps, and then made one brief mention that he didn’t have any evidence that they existed.

He said that no other president had ever been sworn in to office without a Bible, and said he “checked.” Which is a lie on two fronts – first, Obama was sworn into office (both times!) on a Bible. John Qunicy Adams used a law book. Franklin Pierce didn’t even swear. He affirmed. Teddy Roosevelt used no Bible. Several Presidents kissed a Bible but did not swear on one. So apparently, Beck was just checking with the voices in his head.

Those same voices, talking about anchor babies, can probably also be blamed for him saying “Why do we have automatic citizenship at birth? No other country does!” Well, except Canada… most of South and Central America… actually, a lot of countries do. (None in Europe, though – maybe that’s it. All those other countries are full of brown people! Well, except Canada, but they speak French, right?)

(Boy, it gets complicated trying to make enough excuses for his twisted logic, doesn’t it?)

He said that John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.” Yeah, guess what? Holdren wrote a textbook about science and ecology, and mentioned those as bad ideas that have never been tried anywhere. (But Holdren is one of those “czars” that make you all cranky, so that one’s probably OK, right?)

And he regularly indulges in blatant tin-foil hat conspiracy thinking – his recent chalkboard antics come to mind. A better example, though, would be his claim that fascism was taking over in America, and had been since the time of Woodrow Wilson! His proof? The Mercury dime has a fasces on the back, which was a symbol used by Mussolini.

Of course, like any good conspiracy theory, that idea ignores a number of simple facts. Like the fact that the Mercury dime (actually “Winged Liberty Head” – that’s the goddess Liberty, not Mercury) was designed by American sculptor Adolph A. Weinman five years before Mussolini set up his first sad little band of 200 fascisti in Italy. Or the fact that the fasces ( or fasces lictoriae) was actually a symbol of office dating back to the Roman Empire, and it was widely used in medieval heraldry and American iconography. You know, little details like that.

You think that Van Jones was involved in a concerted program to get companies to boycott Beck’s show? You don’t think that maybe it’s because of the flaming drivel Beck has been spewing? Maybe because he called the president of the United States a racist on national television? (Which is humorous, since on his radio show a few months earlier, he’d said that Obama was “very white” and “colorless.”) Maybe, just maybe, the companies that pulled their ads just realized that they didn’t want their names associated with a raving loon with an inability to distinguish truth from conspiracist fantasy.

Glenb Beck is either fifty pounds of crazy in a thirty-pound sack, or he’s a manipulative, lying opportunist (possibly a little of both). Either way, he’s getting rich playing off the fears of the gullible.

Liberals are often angry, fact-devoid people who shamelessly enjoy the fruits of capitalism but say they despise it – I can’t understand why they’re so “glass is half empty” all the time.

As you pointed out, the House, Senate, and presidency are predominantly Democrat. So why all this fuss from the WH admin over FOX? Why not just ignore FOX and run the country? Bush did it for 8 years. Ignored the vicious attacks that were directed at him all the time, and kept our nation safe. Up until the last 6 months of his administration, we enjoyed record employment and prosperity. The last 6 months weren’t so good, but for 7 and a half years, all the libs could do was whine and gnash. Now that he’s out of office, they still whine and gnash.

Why doesn’t Team Obama ignore FOX and focus on the real issues Americans are concerned about?

Because CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS News are tanking – in America, the press is tantamount for communication (even the fringe media still has some importance). CNN is embarrassingly low in viewership as of this week. FOX is being watched by more Americans than most, if not all, of them COMBINED. Because the truth on so many issues are being ignored, buried, or distorted by them.

Thanks for your input, Chester, and thanks for popping in – hope to see you again. let freedom ring and God bless America.

Americans are wising up about the socialists/fascists in this administration. Conservatives aren’t taking your radical Alinksy attempts on the chin as we used to. Rally up patriots!

I did a quick read-through on this new post of yours… pretty much what I had expected. Although, I’m surprised that you included Crooks and Liars, because they actually flow left and right and I do read that blog. For an Obama supporter to not be sucking exclusively at the Daily Kos teat, that’s refreshing to know.

But then I clicked your Media Matters link. How mundane and predictable. Liberal gazillionaire (BTW, “gazillionaire” is not to be taken literally, I know you needed that clarified before getting riled up) George Soros, who has more money and power than most small countries, is its lord and master. His statist hand is heavily on the Democrat Party and most assuredly on Barry Obama. I’m familiar with Media Matters and its leftwing propaganda.

Address on your main points:

I had randomly selected some posts on your site. No conservative comments, only liberal. If they’re there, didn’t see them. I’ll take your word for it they’re there.

The term “czar,” which was used with great frequency this past summer by the Democrat Party (I first heard it used during the presidential election in May or June 2008 on the national news by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, although it likely was used earlier than that, and term she used was that of “car czar”), is used with casual frequency by the White House. You taking issue with me for using it is laughable. The White House administration uses the term as a shorthand for the longer position titles. You criticizing me truncating the lengthy titles of the 30-plus non-vetted Obama appointees, or you pointing out Ronald Reagan’s use of it several decades ago is deflecting the real concern with these present-day czars. That of an unprecedented number of people getting high-end security clearance in our nation’s capitol. Bush had a few czars, too. But neither he nor Reagan nor Clinton had more than thirty – many people are alarmed by this (particularly Democrat leaders who fear this will set a precedent for the next Republican president to have this many “Special Advisors”/czars without any interference from members of Congress). Several of these Obama-appointed czars are being revealed/exposed as having radical backgrounds, not the kind of background that sets well with a majority of taxpayers. The high security clearance levels they have with the questionable backgrounds and associations they have had would not pass muster nor permit them to work in a number of other high-security jobs without more investigation. But in our White House, they’ve been allowed. Cavalier and dangerous. Very troubling.

You have no problem with it, it appears, but I do. As do a growing number of Americans. I hate the term “czar” as it smacks of Russian aristocracy and the oppression that was a part of Russia’s history, and have said so before. Yes, yes, I know that Reagan first used the term “czar” – he said it jokingly but did use it. I loved Reagan, but still hate the term.

Polls of Americans are reflecting the drop in confidence and trust with this administration, and most particularly with Obama as Commander in Chief, reflecting the opposite of what you zealously cling to about the president and the Dem Party. It’s not over by a long shot, so hang on tight, because it will be a bumpier ride soon when ObamaCare and Waxman-Markey bills are finally put to congressional votes. It’s looking pretty dismal for this administration and the Democrat Party on other fronts. And that’s just THIS week.

Hmm… on Glenn Beck, did you suddenly become a clairvoyant? So glad you’re gifted with this mind-reading ability. You wrote: “Sorry, Vicki. The only people with a “major problem” with Beck are his doctors, because he’s been off his meds for years now. (I mean, really, doesn’t that weepy schtick kind of creep you out?) And I know that he claims he isn’t a Republican. He says a lot of things that don’t really reflect reality; I’ll bet I can tell you how he voted in the last several elections, though.”

Yes, he’s a Libertarian, not a Republican. He criticized Bush daily for months on end on his radio show for a number of things, but was supportive of his genuine concern for our nation. I’m not aware of any “meds” Beck is/was taking — what is your source for that, and what kind of medications were they? Is he still taking them? This is the first time I’ve ever heard about this, so I’m suddenly interested in what you have to say here, while verifying your source(s). Also, what were the problems you said his doctors had with him? What is your source for that information? It seems strange that one or more doctors would publicly reveal that kind of patient/doctor confidentiality, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I do know that Beck has professed many times that he is a recovering alcoholic. Knowing several recovering alcoholics, I commend him for his candor and his efforts to make up for a life of being a nasty SOB. Is he perfect? Of course not. How did he vote, Nameless?

You’ve conveniently left out that Keith Olbermann, the most deranged, irresponsible, lying leftwinger on television, announced his pathetic “Help Me Get Any Kind of Dirt on Glenn Beck, Even If You Have to Make It Up” campaign to his limited fan base (which was then mysteriously dropped, likely because MSNBC told him to not do it, but I’m merely speculating on why Olby suddenly stopped).

You also left out that former Special Advisor “Green Jobs” Czar Van Jones and Buffy Wick were spearheading a sponsor boycott against Beck’s show. This is not what our American government is suppose to do, attack private citizens and try to threaten their livelihood and reputation. Nixon tried it with his infamous “enemies list” and suffered the most when Watergate was revealed; did one lead to the other? I believe an argument could effectively be made for that. Jones was paid a six-figure salary with taxpayer dollars for his WH position and worked in the White House while conducting this arm-twisting of Beck’s sponsors. He couldn’t have devoted time to this without the express permission of his immediate supervisor, who was POTUS. Jones also was front and center on the attacks on Whole Foods for its CEO’s WSJ letter on options to the socialized health care plan – a nasty attack.

Wick, on the other hand, in addition to her involvement in the Beck boycott, is also part of the new expose’ of NEA being used by the White House as a propaganda tool to help push through ObamaCare – a gross and potentially illegal misuse of the NEA. Either you’re listening too often to Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, or you’re genuinely uninformed. Either way, you’re trying unsuccessfully to whitewash Team Obama’s attacks over the months on Beck and others, including FOX. If this kind of intimidation was being conducted by a Republican in the White House, I’d be just as outraged. I don’t like Beck’s crying, but he’s passionate about what is happening to America and is determined to stop or slow down this administration’s attempts at dismantling our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Beck backs up his claims with documented research (although he does go “over the top” at times, in my opinion, to get people to pay attention). Olbermann, on the other hand, spews like an imbecile and viciously attacks anyone who is a conservative with little more than name calling, no legitimate facts, just schoolyard bullying. His viewership is in the toilet because most Americans can see through his deplorable rantings. They don’t want to watch the ravings of a madman who isn’t all that patriotic or honest.

This administration is whiny and vengeful and wants the media to fawn all over Obama, accept and not question his motives or “authority”, write pretty prose about his lack of real accomplishments and his radical agenda. In other words, a good journalist in their eyes would be a zombie. FOX isn’t buying into it, and hasn’t for months.

You’re getting lazy, Nameless. The fact-checking revelation of SNL on CNN is old news now. No, I’m not gifted with the same clairvoyant prowess as you are to say that I KNOW that Obama spearheaded all the FOX News attacks, but honestly, any president with the media this much in the tank for him either gives a thumbs up to “make it happen, I don’t need to know the tedious details” from his adoring minions, but does not necessarily say the words of “Please call CNN and make sure they look like jackasses when they fact check that SNL skit that didn’t paint me as rosy as it should have.” No one in the White House, except maybe Joe Biden, goes in front of the press without the president or Emanuel giving approval and having a good solid idea what will be presented. You’re either disingenuous or are a naive pumpkin.

I did like your Abe Lincoln “lamb’s tail” reference. No snarkiness. Liked it.

You wrote: Incidentally, “right arm of the GOP” etc.

I didn’t phrase the term to precisely mimic what you wrote, but that’s because it’s been referred to with a number of subtle differences by the White House. Anita Dunn, in a CNN interview and other interviews, has said that Fox News is “the research arm” or “the communication arm” of the Republican Party. Axelrod has phrased it slightly differently. Rahm Emanuel has phrased it slightly differently as has Barack Obama. The term “propaganda” is not used all that often by the White House lately on this issue (from what I’ve observed, anyway), and the news/commentary stories that Fox and only Fox was running on Van Jones and ACORN’s corruption is finally, laggingly, being acknowledged by the other mainstream media. Reporting the truth is not propaganda. FOX reported the truth on ACORN and Jones, even if the other news sources chose to ignore those stories.

For many in the Dem Party, ACORN and Jones were being unfairly examined by FOX, and they attempted to marginalize it as just “FOX lies” or “FOX propaganda” and the other news stations ignored stories presented on FOX or were written by conservative reporters/bloggers on both ACORN and Jones. Oops, proved not to be “propaganda” or falsehoods on either, but it took months before the liberal media deigned either worthy to explore. They are usually uncomfortable with acknowledging that what they pooh-poohed is suddenly unveiled to be real corruption – as a result of Breitbart’s posting of the ACORN fraud/child prostitution scandal, Louisiana, California, Nevada, Oklahoma, NY, and other states are now investigating ACORN closer than they ever have. Subpoenas by state officials are being served. Quite a bit is being discovered, as I’ve written about on many occasions. ACORN is not the stellar organization liberals have tried to make it seem like – the corruption is apparently rampant. Congress even voted to defund ACORN, withhold stimulus/taxpayers’ money (although, there is a provision that the funding of ACORN will resume after Oct. 31). So, FOX did hard-hitting journalism on its own, including fact-based exposés; by Beck and Hannity, and also aired videos that other news stations refused to air until the cow patties hit the proverbial fan. So, you’re splitting unimportant hairs here – I don’t believe that journalists asking tough questions of politicians is “propaganda” and wish the other networks would stop fawning nauseatingly over Obama, something none of the networks, including FOX, did with the previous administration.

Jake Tapper of ABC News is one of the only ones from the other MSM who asks slightly tough questions, so good for him. Veteran reporter Helen Thomas has also publicly criticized the White House for its bullying attacks on FOX, and she’s been a liberal reporter since the JFK era, working in the White House press. She’s said this is the worst she’s ever seen an administration operate against a news station in all her years. So, it’s not just me, not just conservatives who have decried this thuggery… you obviously don’t care enough to research it, and that’s your prerogative. But to say there is a no “war” ensuing from the White House on FOX is misguided and false, and you’re playing with semantics or playing ignorant.

You asked: “You know, Univision wasn’t granted access either, nor was al Jazeera. Neither were any local anchors. I don’t see you complaining about that – why is that?”

Aw, c’mon, you’re kidding with this, right? Comparing apples to oranges, fallacious argumentation attempt and not what I expected you to do – disappointing that you’d try this liberal tactic to shift the parameters/criteria of the situation. FOX wasn’t being GRANTED access – it was being DENIED access. The five major news stations are part of the press pool which is used to expedite and share news. Neither Al Jazeera nor Univision are a part of that White House press pool – if they had been and then, following unflattering news stories released about this administration, were then attacked on television and in the print media, then attempted to be blackballed from the press pool by the White House, then you’d be onto something. But you’re twisting this dishonestly. An obvious ploy to alter the circumstances – had the circumstances been the same for the others, it would still be alarming. As I have written before, freedom of the press is intended for BOTH sides of the political fence – at least, it’s suppose to be in America.

I wasn’t part of the White House “powers that be” who decided years ago how to create their press pool. Neither were you, so I have no definitive answer to this silly rhetorical question of yours about why other news stations aren’t part of the WH press pool. Ask Robert Gibbs. I’m going to take a guess and say because it’s a pool of national (i.e., American) TV/cable news networks, of which local anchors are not a part nor are al Jazeera nor Univision — of the latter, I’ve often thought Univision should be included to represent Spanish-speaking Americans. But that’s just my opinion. You throwing Al Jazeera in, on the other hand, is idiotic since it is Middle East based. Maybe you were trying to be funny. If so, you left out Pravda and BBC. But I do agree that Univision should be included in the White House press pool. I often use “fascist” and “socialist” in the same sentences because they are not the same thing. And I mean them as they are defined. Likewise, when I use the terms “statist” and “Communist.”

“Going Postal” – was snarky humor. Obviously went over your head. Other countries: polls conducted on how “wonderful” Obama is? You’re funny. I don’t think he’d score as high as you think he would these days – maybe with those who have no clue about the terrible job he’s doing he would do well. Nope, I didn’t consult an MSNBC poll, I’m going by national and international news sources. Real quick: Afghan students burn effigy of Obama over weekend (I wrote a post on it), France is distancing itself from Obama (links to news stories on it), G20 leaders ticked off that he won’t be at global warming conference but will be going to pick up his peace prize instead, Afghan president and Castro think Obama is weak, etc. I included a man-on-street poll video of Brits laughing about him receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. That should count. We can go on and on, but the glowing approval you’re trying to peddle isn’t there. Oh, it was many months ago, but the bloom is off the rose with many. And at a much faster rate than any president in known history (from major news sources). Before you bring up GW Bush’s approval/disapproval overseas, let me say that Bush is out of office. He’s not the problem today. Obama is the problem today. So before it even starts, I’m nipping it now (and if you weren’t going to pull out the “bash Bush” card, then good) and don’t suddenly branch off on your Bush grievances. He NEVER attacked any news station for unflattering coverage like Obama’s team is doing now, and THAT is the point of this particular post. Team Obama is operating much in the “Chicago Way” and is dropping the ball on so much that is important right now to Americans: unemployment, the plunging economy, Afghanistan, Israel, business bankruptcies, and other more important issues, and yet, they are going nuts about saying FOX News has been unfair in not writing glowing approval and having opinion pundits who agree with POTUS? Lack of proper priorities. Narcissism. Childishness.

Gallup, Pew, and Rasmussen have reflected unprecedented plummeting numbers for the past few months on his approval – big drop this past week. Record lows for a president in his first year of office.

Thin on facts: sigh. This is a comments section, Nameless. There are plenty of facts here. You want more facts, then read at least a month’s worth of my other posts and corroborating links. I’m a blogger, not a major newspaper journalist. There is more valid citation here at this blog than on any liberal blogs I’ve seen. I didn’t see much in the way of you writing anything very lengthy that was fact-based to your conservative naysayers in your comments section (of which you say you have, but I didn’t see any… again, I said I’ll take your word for it). I’d like to think that you devote as much space to conservatives writing lengthy comments on your own site as I’ve permitted you to do here. Frankly, I’ve written comments on MANY, MANY liberal blogs, very politely, very fact-based, none attacked the site’s blogger… NONE have been posted. Typical. Yours was not one of them. I had never heard of your blog before now.

Overall, enjoyed this debate. Good workout. You’re a stubborn liberal who should wise up and stop drinking the Obama Koolaid, but you were far more logical than most libs I’ve encountered and not profane (shock within itself – liberals DO love that F-bomb, LOL).

Enjoyed this (but don’t think this means that I agree with you, sport). We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Peace out.

Nice response – just as “fair and balanced” as Fox has ever aspired to. So I’ll assume that you do want that 2,500 words. (And by the way, if you think that maybe I’m coming across a little condescending here, that’s because I’m very reflective – if you want to raise the tone of the discourse, I’ll be happy to do the same.)

OK then. Let’s just start at the top.

might I add, your blog is suspiciously devoid of any conservative comments

Well, depends on your definition. I have a number of conservative commenters, if you go to the response section. We have a fairly free-flowing dialogue going there. But since you probably mean me, no, what you won’t find is a lot of Republican comments. You’ll find plenty of truth, honesty, respect for people – you know, things that the GOP gave up with Gingrich.

You are correct that a lot of the media is repeating this “war” nonsense. The question I asked, however, was not “are they calling it a war?” I asked “how is it a war?” Subtle difference. I believe it was Abe Lincoln (you know, a Republican, before he, too, abandoned your party in 1864) who is commonly credited with asking “If you call a lamb’s tail a leg, how many legs does it have?” (A hint: four.)

To put it another way, how many people need to repeat a lie for it to become the truth? (You know, “to kind of catapult the propaganda…”)

the White House DID deny Major Garrett of FOX News access to a press pool interview with Obama’s pay czar.

You know, I did hear something about that. Inelegantly handled.. Funny thing, though. What did I say up there? “They just don’t feel like sitting down and having to deflect massively spun questions, distortions and half-truths from what they’ve rightly described as the propaganda wing of the GOP.”

Maybe, just maybe, Kenneth Feinberg didn’t feel like doing that very thing. (You know, Univision wasn’t granted access either, nor was al Jazeera. Neither were any local anchors. I don’t see you complaining about that – why is that?)

Incidentally, the term isn’t “pay czar” – it was Ronald Reagan’s white House that revived that fascinatingly communist term. He’s technically the “Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation.” He was assigned there after his previous Special Master (a term going back to English Common Law) position, for the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, expired.

You say the White House hasn’t tried to take FOX News off the air… (with) the White House head honchos… spending LOTS of time… to malign and marginalize the news network over the course of several days? … Which, in America, seems to smell much like trying to drive them off the air.

Oooh, it smells like that? Really? Like end-of-life counselling “smells like” death panels? And the way that 95% of America paying lower taxes “smells like” Obama’s raising our taxes? Or like a valid Hawaiian birth certificate “smells like” a Kenyan forgery?

Or is is like how failing to support the president during a time of war “smells like” treason? Oh, no. Wait. That’s a GOP talking point from the last presidency. Sorry. You know, that’s pretty Orwellian of you – do you actually practice doublethink, and keep to conflicting ideas in your head at the same time, or do you just wipe the slate clean and absorb the fact that “we’ve always been at war with Obamia”? You remember “1984,” right? I mean, any radical disciple of Karl Rove should recognize that.

Actually, your whole rant there sounds like a somebody trying to borrow tactics from Herman Goering during the Nuremberg Trials, where he said: “it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism.” But then, a good protofascist – sorry, “neocon” – ought to recognize that, too. Either you’re playing dumb or, well, you’re not too bright.

But, you know, keep trying to sling literary allusions and false comparisons. We can both play that game.

Never once did he or CNN try to “fact-check” comedy skits about him on SNL.

And neither has Obama… Oh, right. You’re trying to claim that CNN is the propaganda arm of the White House. Because either you’re an idiot, or you assume your audience is. Give it up. This “liberal media” meme is played out.

they have a major problem with Glenn Beck

Sorry, Vicki. The only people with a “major problem” with Beck are his doctors, because he’s been off his meds for years now. (I mean, really, doesn’t that weepy schtick kind of creep you out?) And I know that he claims he isn’t a Republican. He says a lot of things that don’t really reflect reality; I’ll bet I can tell you how he voted in the last several elections, though.

Incidentally, “right arm of the GOP”? Need to work on that reading comprehension a little. The term is “propaganda wing of the GOP.” And it applies to the entire network, not just Beck. But if you have a better term for somebody who will loudly, consistently and repeatedly lie and spin the truth for you, I’ll be happy to listen.

I find your description of his international popularity interesting, since there hasn’t been a single poll saying anything but how much other countries love him – of course, the bar is set pretty low after Bush; a badly-trained monkey would look like a diplomat next to him (mostly because the monkey would fling less feces). Sure, you’ll probably find the odd commenter saying mean things about him, but then again, you’ll find that in America, too. (And many of them on Fox “News”)

You’re pretty thin on facts, here. “Obama wants EVERYONE to be in lockstep with his socialist agenda” – I’d respond, but since you also like to call him a fascist (sometimes both in the same sentence), it’s apparent that you don’t know what either word means and are just blindly repeating talking points, so I’ll just move on.

Here, though. You’re all proud of your links. Let me throw two at you. That second one even has video (so you don’t have to read too much), with lots of your heroes on it. Enjoy.

And you also have a fascinating definition of “going postal.” Trust me, I’m on my best behavior here. (Of course, that bar is set pretty low, too…) But if this is your definition of “going postal,” it becomes a lot clearer why you might consider that the White House’s passive-aggressive dealings with Fox to be a “war” – because you’re so thin-skinned that you could potentially get a fatal wound from a thumbtack.

Your second paragraph is essential to us (conservatives) as to what you mind numbed intellectuals deem necessary to put into effect to destroy this Country.

FOX News is not the problem, Tyranny is the direction that we are headed to and if you can’t see that at this point, you are a fool, and give us all a break on the next election cycle, DON’T VOTE !!

The trollish liberals took a break for a while – today was nuts. This was the only “nice” comment I could post. Yeah, this was the very nicest one I received. All the others were so filthy and deranged, I simply deleted them. Didn’t even read one (I did catch on one where I was supposed to do something disgusting with my “male organ.” Can’t these liberal nutroots figure out that “Vicki” means I don’t have a “male organ”???)

The polls are showing a shift in the political climate… and the statists are lashing out harder than ever.

VMD

Enough is Enough dammit.

Thanks for your insightful comments, and your elegant dispensation of the current crap that is infecting our news media.

God Bless America !

Debunked pus? Ouch. You’re pretty cranky. You need to shoot off a letter to ABC News about the term “war” you’re freaking out over — that’s the word in the title block they used in the broadcast of “Roundtable” I embedded (I’m guessing you didn’t watch the video… kinda lazy of you, don’t ya think), which last time I looked, was very left leaning. George Stephanopoulos’s “This Week” roundtable is not heavy on conservatives, nor is Stephanopoulos a conservative… I wouldn’t know if he or his show’s producers are of a “drug-addled mind” as you put it. So your beef with the phrase about the White House’s “war” against FOX, which is a lamentably silly one, is with Stephanopoulos or with ABC. I don’t think Rush Limbaugh or “his ilk” had anything to do with titling the ABC News discussion panel’s talk. But maybe you know something the rest of us don’t.

In case you were snoozing last week (you must have been asleep for days), the White House DID deny Major Garrett of FOX News access to a press pool interview with Obama’s pay czar. In an act of unity, the other four major news stations were up in arms and stated that if FOX was denied access in the press pool, they would not conduct the interview, either. So, like whimpering puppies, the White House henchmen backed down. For now. But they’ll try again, of that I’m sure.

You say the White House hasn’t tried to take FOX News off the air? You mean in a bloody Castro/Chavez-styled attack? Or in the style of the White House head honchos (Emanuel, Axelrod, Dunn, et al.) spending LOTS of time over the past few weeks so as to get in front of any TV camera possible to malign and marginalize the news network over the course of several days? It’s the latter, of course. Which, in America, seems to smell much like trying to drive them off the air. It’s a page right out of the Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” which any lefty blogger worth his salt would recognize. Either you’re playing dumb or, well, you’re not too bright.

You sound like the kind of short-sighted guy who wouldn’t worry about putting a roof on his house until it started raining, then would have a whiny temper tantrum that he was getting wet. Oppression of the press or control of the press by ANY administration is not to be condoned. Imagine if Bush and his minions had gone public for days about the crappy treatment they were receiving from MSNBC, wanting to silence the unhinged, pathetic Olbermann (which would be a blessing) and Maddow. We’d all be laughing at the White House, and rightfully so. Obama is indeed on his way to becoming Nixon, Jr… which I’ve written about, and have read plenty on it. Freedom of the press is precious. If a Democrat president can get away with this, when Obama is voted out (and it looks pretty bad for him as of late, per Gallup and Rasmussen), then it would set a precedent for a Republican president to muzzle the left-wing fringe media. I’m not for either. Freedom of the press is for all… not just those I agree with. You sound like you don’t go along with that, but I could be wrong.

I love this line of yours: They just don’t feel like sitting down and having to deflect massively spun questions, distortions and half-truths from what they’ve rightly described as the propaganda wing of the GOP. They just don’t FEEL like it? Hilarious. So when did Bush spend so much time trying to debunk the MSM during his presidency because he didn’t feel like deflecting the garbage left-wing reporters were writing about him every single day? As I recall, he just ignored it and moved on. Never once did he or CNN try to “fact-check” comedy skits about him on SNL. The truth is, Obama has never been interviewed by FOX… because they ask real questions, tough questions, as journalists are suppose to do but so few have. He can’t handle it.

For the record, they have a major problem with Glenn Beck, who is not a reporter, but a commentator. And he isn’t a Republican, which he has said countless times on radio and TV. An informed blogger would have known that, a lazy blogger wouldn’t. So this “right arm of the GOP” is a hoot.

Obama is a weakling, a thin-skinned narcissist, a socialist waffler. In England, he’s being called President Pantywaist (that’s not a compliment, look it up) and in France, Sarkozy is distancing himself from Obama (although, I really don’t care what the French think of us). He’s very unpopular in Afghanistan now, too. But they LOVE him in Norway. That’s nice.

Obama wants EVERYONE to be in lockstep with his socialist agenda without question, and because FOX isn’t, that’s the real reason for the attacks. Same thing with Humana and with the US Chamber of Commerce…. opposition is followed by WH attacks. Months back, the White House stated they wanted to silence the opposition… and now, they’re trying their darndest to accomplish that.

If you’re “curious about the war” as you claim (and I don’t really think you meant it, but I’ll play along), read any of the links provided in any of the pieces I’ve written about the White House’s attacks. I do the research of related sources so that my readers don’t have to — and obviously, so that left-wing bloggers don’t have to do any work, either. You might try reading the entire blog before you go postal like this in the future.

Thanks for stopping in. Let freedom ring!

The White House hasn’t denied any of their reporters credentials, and hasn’t tried to take Fox off the air. They just don’t feel like sitting down and having to deflect massively spun questions, distortions and half-truths from what they’ve rightly described as the propaganda wing of the GOP.

(As for the current meme about all this being “Nixonian”? Look up Roger Ailes’ background sometime.)

This “war” is entirely in the drug-addled mind of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. The White House’s “attacks” are to merely say “nope – don’t want to be interviewed by you.” The remainder of their input is to explain this reasonable policy, when asked. It’s Fox making the actual attacks.

So, how is this a war? I’m just curious.