Top White House Official Says Obama Team ‘Controlled’ Media Coverage During Campaign – Political News – FOXNews.com
See???!! This is exactly what Obama is talking about. Obviously, pointing out what his people say is biased and partisan. How dare they question him.
The Obama campaign’s press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on "making" the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute "control" over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year.
In a video of the event, Dunn is seen describing in detail the media strategy used by then-Sen. Barack Obama’s highly disciplined presidential campaign. The video is footage from a Jan. 12 forum hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development in the Dominican Republic.
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."
I honestly think this will do wonders for Fox News. I bet it will be a rating bonanza. All those people out there are going to think, “Wow. Obama is pissed that Fox News is actually fact checking what his people say. Might have to check that out.”
Oh, you know what would be fun as hell to see? If Fox News is not really a press organization, why doesn’t the White House remove them from the White house press briefings. They control that, right?
One last question I have to ask. Why the hell is Helen still in there? I am thinking that her chair must be molded to her ass by now and have that funky old lady smell or something. I can’t see any other reason she is let in there like actual press reporters.
Veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since Jack Kennedy, advised the White House to abandon their attacks on Fox News today. She attributed the administration’s visceral reaction to attacks from Fox to a naive sense of invincibility generally held by new presidents.
Asked by Joe Scarborough of MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ what "we want our president to know and do," in reference to the title of her new book, Thomas immediately replied "stay out of these fights… They can only take you down. You can’t kill the messenger."
A few of the conservative blogs out there disagree with me on this, but in my opinion, they misunderstand the whole situation.
They seem to think that ignoring a federal law is ok as long as the states want to handle it. That’s not the way its supposed to work.
Federal law trumps state law. No questions, no debate. That’s the way its supposed to be. Not enforcing a federal law because that state has its own ideas is insane. At what point do we draw the line? What if one state says the illegal immigration is legal? What if California, in a fit of liberal insanity decided that all military installations belonged to them? Would that be ok because it supports “Federalism”? Of course not!
As I said, when federal law covers anything, a state law can add additional restrictions, but cannot lessen nor remove the impact of that federal law. Disagree? Well, guess what? You are wrong. Let’s check that little thing we call a Constitution:
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So, these blogs misidentify the problem and think that putting the states over the federal government is the way it should be. Not even close people. You are trying to fix the wrong problem with the wrong solution.
The problem is that the federal government is regulating TOO MUCH, not that the laws shouldn’t cover the states.
Remove a federal law and the states decide what happens. If you want medical marijuana legal in a state, change the federal law to remove the restrictions on it, then it is automatically up to the states to decide. Ceding power to the states and ignoring federal law weakens the entire nation.
The federal government should be loathe to put ANY law in place and only do so if they have to. States can decide most of this on their own. Instead, we have a situation where the federal government wants to control every aspect of our lives and every new law they add weakens the powers of the states.
You want a state to have a law about something? Make the Federal government give up control of that thing. Ignoring a federal law because a president doesn’t like it sets a dangerous precedence. What happens when he says “Let’s not enforce immigration laws?” When the borders open up because the states don’t have the resources to protect them, will the conservatives say “If we could count on this as an indicator for a trend towards federalism in the Obama administration, I’d call it the best development since Election Day” as Hot Air did about this?
The president is the head of the executive branch of the government. His JOB is to enforce the laws. He is failing at that job and sadly, getting praised for it by some conservatives. Conservatives are supposed to believe in a smaller central government, not one that picks and chooses what laws it will enforce.
In a shocking move, the Obama administration has decided to embrace federalism. Well, not really all that shocking, as the Department of Justice plans to reverse a Bush administration policy of enforcing federal marijuana laws in states that allow for medicinal use of the substance. The decision, to be officially announced later today, will impact fourteen states that allow for the possession and distribution of marijuana under varying levels of medical supervision:
Federal drug agents won’t pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.
Gateway Pundit – Obamacare is for the peons and knaves. Congress will keep their own health care while forcing Obamacare on us.
Oh, the irony… err hypocrisy.
Obamacare is for the peons and knaves.
Our moral superiors have more important things to worry about.
Personal doctors on call 24/7. Coverage that knows no caps. No exemptions for pre-existing conditions.
Those are the sorts of benefits members of Congress currently enjoy on the taxpayer’s dime, and the kinds of benefits Americans on a government-run public health care plan will never see if Obamacare passes.
“One thing is certain: Congress will exempt itself from whatever lousy health care system it forces on we little people,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute. “Congress will get better insurance than you do because politicians always get a better deal under government-run health care.”
While it’s not news that Congressional health insurance plans are posh, CBS News recently uncovered the details of plans – right as the details of the Baucus health care bill are being hashed out.
The White House is pissed that Fox News doesn’t mindlessly accept what Obama and his goons say without question. How dare they?
The White House stopped providing guests to ‘Fox News Sunday’ after Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August. Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I’ve never seen a Sunday show do."
"She criticized ‘FOX News Sunday’ last week for fact-checking — fact-checking — an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn’t say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."
"Let’s fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn’s facts were just plain wrong."