Town Square

Post a New Topic

Obama/Emanuel Places a Horses Head on FoxNews' President's Bed...

Original post made by ! on Oct 23, 2009

When I first heard this, I did not think it actually happened. But it did. Read the despicable truth.

The Obama administration wants to delegitimize any significant dissent.

Web Link

By Charles Krauthammer

Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a live pollster. Now he's put a horse's head in Roger Ailes's bed.

Not very subtle. And not very smart. Ailes doesn't scare easily.

The White House has declared war on Fox News. White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Fox is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Patting rival networks on the head for their authenticity (read: docility), senior adviser David Axelrod declared Fox "not really a news station." And Chief of Staff Emanuel told (warned?) the other networks not to "be led (by) and following Fox."

Meaning? If Fox runs a story critical of the administration — from exposing White House czar Van Jones as a loony 9/11 "truther" to exhaustively examining the mathematical chicanery and hidden loopholes in proposed health-care legislation — the other news organizations should think twice before following the lead.

The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry — finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox.

At first, there was little reaction from other media. Then on Thursday, the administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations — except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.

This was an important defeat because there's a principle at stake here. While government can and should debate and criticize opposition voices, the current White House goes beyond that. It wants to delegitimize any significant dissent. The objective is no secret. White House aides openly told Politico that they're engaged in a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants, from Fox to health insurers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

There's nothing illegal about such search-and-destroy tactics. Nor unconstitutional. But our politics are defined not just by limits of legality or constitutionality. We have norms, Madisonian norms.

Madison argued that the safety of a great republic, its defense against tyranny, requires the contest between factions or interests. His insight was to understand "the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties." They would help guarantee liberty by checking and balancing and restraining each other — and an otherwise imperious government.

Factions should compete, but also recognize the legitimacy of other factions and, indeed, their necessity for a vigorous self-regulating democracy. Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize, and destroy is not Madisonian. It is Nixonian.

But didn't Teddy Roosevelt try to destroy the trusts? Of course, but what he took down was monopoly power that was extinguishing smaller independent competing interests. Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be comical — and that doesn't even include the other commanding heights of the culture that are firmly, flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite newspapers.

Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN's and MSNBC's combined) need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN — which recently unleashed its fact-checkers on a Saturday Night Live skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?

Defend Fox from whom? Fox's flagship 6 o'clock evening news out of Washington (hosted by Bret Baier, formerly by Brit Hume) is, to my mind, the best hour of news on television. (Definitive evidence: My mother watches it even on the odd night when I'm not on.) Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a speech at a high-school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?

The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?

Web Link=

Comments (20)

Posted by Very Concerned, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 1:06 pm

Unchecked, we're on the road to tyranny. It's time to wake up, America!


Posted by poster boy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 1:29 pm

if he keeps dropping in the polls, and he will after this healthcare disaster, watch out! because you are going to see the real obama come out if you have not been able to see it already.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Stay Cool is a registered user.

This is a great argument if you would like to keep pretending that Fox News reports fairly and responsibly, but they don't. They exist to attack Obama, his administration, his policies - everything about him. Glenn Beck calls him a racist. Fox started this war, not Obama.
When Fox starts showing some responsible, non-partisan journalism along with their inflammatory rhetoric, then they should be given equal access. Of a five network pool, 20% is blatantly pushing a conservative agenda. It is incredibly convenient to accuse every other news organization and every institution of higher thinking liberal. And hey, if that IS true, maybe there's a reason?...


Posted by Patti, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 2:23 pm

What are your thoughts on MSNBC because they certainly cannot be considered a news network. Ever hear Keith O? Wow! what a hater and how about Rachelle Madow? Maybe to be consistent Obama should boycott them as well. Owned by General Electric so I cannot see that happening.


Posted by Keith Olbermann, a resident of Del Prado
on Oct 23, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Stay Cool; then 80% of the media is pushing a blatantly liberal agenda. Do you truly not understand that or are you just helping the party to marginalize anyone who questions Obama?

Twelve months ago it was patriotic to question the president; now it's racist.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 2:43 pm

Stay Cool is a registered user.

As I've said before, I don't watch MSNBC - they are just noise. I also can't find any evidence that they are one of the five networks in the pool in question (NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox), and as such would not be part of this story or considered for boycott.
Here is some additional perspective:
Web Link


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Stay Cool is a registered user.


RE: "then 80% of the media is pushing a blatantly liberal agenda. Do you truly not understand that or are you just helping the party to marginalize anyone who questions Obama?
Twelve months ago it was patriotic to question the president; now it's racist."
1. That Fox is conservative doesn't make the rest of the media liberal.
2. Do you not understand that or are you just helping Fox portray everyone who is not like them as being blatantly liberal?
3. The other networks question the president as well. Perhaps you should watch them. As for the racism comment, let's all note here who brought it up first. Besides your comment about racism, I know that Glenn Beck called Obama a racist, so since you're implying it's the left crying racism, I guess I'm confused ... about who ... keeps talking about racism.


Posted by Patti, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Well I for one think that President Obama is pretty racist. Did you read his book where he said he grandmother or mother I forgot which is just another white woman or observe him accusing the cop of being racist or implying he was being racist because the other guy was black or his friend? You need to be more objective and fair I believe.


Posted by News Flasher, a resident of Amador Estates
on Oct 23, 2009 at 3:15 pm

News Flash: Glenn Beck is not a journalist. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hanitty are also not journalist. They will be the first to inform you of this (and do, repeatedly). They are commentators. They have opinions. They are exercising their first amendment right to freedom of speech (remember that short document called the U.S. Constitution?).
Look at any full coverage newspaper. You have the news section and the opinion/editorial section(s). I support MS-NBC commentators of their right to free speech. I also support the above mentioned commentators of the same right.


Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community
on Oct 23, 2009 at 3:37 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

The other networks in the broadcast pool in the White House stood together for FNC! --> Web Link
Lamont Hill, recently fired from Fox, was asked about the Obama admins actions the day after he was fired. He agreed that MSNBC is far further to the left than Fox is to the right --> Web Link
He also agrees that the WH is playing a losing game. Even if one agrees (which I don't) that FNC news reporting operation is biased against the Obama admin, what does the admin have to gain out of plying this game? They aim to isolate Beck and Hannity two of the most effective administration opponents on TV by attempting to punish the news operation. Why anyone is OK with any WH administration attacking opponents in this manner is absolutely beyond comprehension.


Posted by Pleasanton Parent, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Oct 23, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Smoke and mirrors.

Put the focus on the "war" on Fox News and take it off of:
- The financial sector reverting to unregulated terciary products
- The Economy
- Unemployment
- Healthcare
- Wars being fought overseas
- Iran / N. Korea
- etc.


Posted by News Flasher, a resident of Amador Estates
on Oct 23, 2009 at 4:07 pm

This OPINION piece in today's Wall Street Journal sheds more light on this issue.

Web Link


Posted by !, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 5:00 pm

Back to the main thread, where I am from which is southside Chicago...the same district as where Obama was deeply involved with ACORN, sending a horsehead to anyone is tantamount to a mafia-style death threat.

How's that "Hope and Change" working for you?


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Stay Cool is a registered user.

O.K.
Patti, you wrote: "Well I for one think that President Obama is pretty racist. Did you read his book where he said he grandmother or mother I forgot which is just another white woman or observe him accusing the cop of being racist or implying he was being racist because the other guy was black or his friend? You need to be more objective and fair I believe." I understand from this comment that you think Obama is a racist. I do not understand how the extremely vague examples that you offer prove that he is a racist. Could you provide the exact comments, in context, for proper evaluation? I do not understand how me pointing out that Glenn Beck called Obama a racist makes me unobjective or unfair, or what it has to do with me at all, or why or how you have an opinion on my objectivity or fairness, most particularly when I have indicated that I don't subscribe to far left media, either.
Pleasanton Parent: Fox News is the one who keeps talking about the war on Fox - google "Obama Fox," etc., and it is Fox News that keeps popping up. The administration is clearly discussing the issues you mentioned, so there is in fact neither smoke nor mirrors on the part of the WH.
Jimf01 - MSNBC is not relevant to this discussion, as they are not part of the news pool in question.
Here is an OPINION piece on why journalists should not defend Fox News (which I already posted):
Web Link
There are numerous issues with Fox: the bias, the active promotion of an agenda, purposeful presentation of misinformation, etc. - I have already posted examples and links regarding this on a previous thread to back up my claims, in case you want to look.
Ask yourself this question. Did the actions of the WH have a chilling effect on the media? No. They are simply finally calling out Fox News and holding them accountable. Fox should step up the the plate instead of whining about it.
'!', please tell me you understand that the horse head is a metaphor in this article, and that they really didn't send a horse head. You can't possibly believe they sent an actual horse's head. Could you?




Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 5:59 pm

Stay Cool is a registered user.

News Flasher:
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News)...

"...on August 1, 2007, News Corp. and Dow Jones entered into a definitive merger agreement.[20] The controversial US$5 billion sale added the Wall Street Journal to the media tycoon's news empire, which already included Fox News Channel, financial network unit and London's The Times, and locally within New York, New York Post, along with Fox flagship station WNYW (Channel 5) and MyNetworkTV flagship WWOR (Channel 9).[21]
On December 13, 2007, shareholders representing more than 60 percent of Dow Jones's voting stock approved the company's acquisition by News Corp.[22]
In an editorial page column, publisher L. Gordon Crovitz said the Bancrofts and News Corp. had agreed that the Journal's news and opinion sections would preserve their editorial independence from their new corporate parent:[23]
" Mr. Murdoch told the Bancrofts that 'any interference -- or even hint of interference -- would break the trust that exists between the paper and its readers, something I am unwilling to countenance.' ... Mr. Murdoch and the Bancrofts agreed on standards modeled on the longstanding Dow Jones Code of Conduct. "
A special committee was established to oversee The Journal's editorial integrity. But after the managing editor, Marcus Brauchli resigned on April 22, 2008, the committee said that he resigned under pressure, and that News Corporation had violated its agreement by not notifying the committee earlier.[24] Brauchli said that he thought it was reasonable that new owners would appoint their own editor.
****However, a June 5 Journal news story quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past. One large shareholder commented that Murdoch has long "expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations." Journalist Fred Emery, formerly of the British newspaper The Times, recounted an incident when Murdoch was reminded of his own earlier promises not to fire The Times' editors without independent directors' approval and allegedly responded, "God, you don't take all that seriously, do you?"****
****emphasis mine****
Web Link


Posted by poster boy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 6:55 pm

change we can believe in!!! right........what are his poll numbers now? .....-13%


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Stay Cool is a registered user.

Here are his *actual* poll numbers:
Web Link
They are neither -13%, nor down 13%.
Not that polls are the deciding factor, anyway.


Posted by poster boy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 7:15 pm

you are right me bad -13 yesterday but -9 today. funny polls meant something when it was Bush as President and when Obama was campaigning but now that he is President and his numbers are down no problem. I bet if his numbers were good they would mean something wouldn't they?


Web Link


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 7:19 pm

Stay Cool is a registered user.

Didn't care about polls under Bush, either. Just look at Gallup v. Rasmussen and you get an idea of the value of polls overall. Very subject to influence by selection.


Posted by poster boy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 23, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Stay Cool,

probably so and the only thing I really pay attention to are the trends. you and i probably disagree on most things but i believe one thing we do believe in or we do is the US and the future of the kids. just different methods but this guy truly scares a lot of people.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

CPRA: Balancing privacy, public's right to know
By Gina Channell-Allen | 3 comments | 1,321 views

and my friend here will have the kibble."
By Tom Cushing | 12 comments | 1,035 views

Job growth is driving housing prices
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 976 views

Sentinels of Freedom Newsletter
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 666 views