The coming Barack Hussein Obama thugocracy

[dude1394]

Hard to argue much with this blogger imo. I've never seen a president of the US target a single news organization like this.

http://neoneocon.com/2009/10/12/obamas-war-on-fox-news/

Appearing on CNN [Sunday] morning, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said Fox News exists simply to further the agenda of the GOP.
“Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,” Dunn said.
This is the second time in a week that Dunn has blasted Fox.
She was quoted in Time Magazine on Thursday blasting the cable network as “opinion journalism masquerading as news.”

These statements (and others; see here: “they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House”) are no accident; Dunn is an official White House spokesperson. And they go along with the curious fact that Obama himself has repeatedly taken time out from his busy day to personally blast pundits on the Right such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in a way that used to be considered un-Presidential.
It seems that having all three networks, plus CNN and MSNBC (have I left anyone out?), as well as most of print journalism (AP, the Times, Time, Newsweek) firmly in his pocket isn’t good enough for Obama. He must have a Pravda/Izvetzia/Tass situation; no dissidents allowed!
I noted early on that Obama is no fan of free speech—if that speech happens to be critical of him. So will he be following in the footsteps of admirer Hugo Chavez some day? If not, it will only be because he can’t, not because he wouldn’t want to:

Venezuela will pull the plug on 29 more radio stations, a top official in President Hugo Chavez’s government said on Saturday, just weeks after dozens of other outlets were closed in a media clampdown.
Infrastructure Minister Diosdado Cabello closed 34 radio stations in July, saying the government was “democratizing” media ownership. Critics say the move limits freedom of expression and has taken critical voices off the airwaves.
The powerful Chavez ally has threatened to close over 100 stations in total, part of a long-term campaign against private media that the government says are biased against Chavez’s government.

Whether Obama’s attempt to clamp down on the media that dares to challenge the party line will be through the mechanism of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, or through some other means such as actions resembling Chavez’s pitch for “democratizing” media ownership, or whether Obama will just continue to use himself and/or surrogates to attack media voices that happen to disagree with him, it’s a dangerous—and dare I say un-American—move.
Here’s a video of Dunn explaining herself with almost laughable projection (”Let’s not pretend [Fox] is a news network the way CNN is”):

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hard to argue much with this blogger imo. I've never seen a president of the US target a single news organization like this.

can you indicate how obama's "attempt[ed] to clamp down on the media"? really, any single action on his part to stop or impede ANY news org from doing their job?

you can't. he has done nothing to curtail any news media.

the comments are right on, fox is not objective, and they promulgate the message of the right.

really, talk about overreaction and thin skinned.

[dude1394]

The thugster and the dems keep on keeping on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us...u5i09eJqz0COag

President Obama mounted a frontal assault on the insurance industry on Saturday, accusing it of using “deceptive and dishonest ads” to derail his health care legislation and threatening to strip the industry of its longstanding exemption from federal antitrust laws. In unusually harsh terms, Mr. Obama cast insurance companies as obstacles to change interested only in preserving their own “profits and bonuses” and willing to “bend the truth or break it” to stop his drive to remake the nation’s health care system. The president used his weekly radio and Internet address to challenge industry assertions that legislation will drive up premiums.

[dude1394]

Guvment Motors at work.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kau...c-edition.aspx

Unions Bend the Curve!

Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2009 4:06 PM | By Mickey Kaus

sponsorship

I knew they'd find a way to punish Ford: The new UAW contract with Ford apparently does not give America's surviving non-bankrupt automaker parity with GM and Chrysler, reports Bloomberg: "The plan doesn’t include cuts to retiree benefits, such as vision coverage, that were granted to GM and Chrysler." Rather, the pain seems even more concentrated on future hires (if there are any) than with the GM/Chrysler deals. ... TTAC wonders whether the UAW had an extra incentive to resist giving concessions that might make Ford more successful now that the union owns a large chunk of its main domestic competitors. ... P.S.: The argument that "the day the union owns the firm is the day workers will need another union" has always seemed a bogus argument against worker ownership. But in this case, where the union actually owns only competing firms, maybe it's not so bogus. Ford, GM and Chrysler workers used to have more or less equal status within the UAW. Now the union has a reason to give GM and Chrysler an edge wherever possible. ... 5:39 P.M.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Guvment Motors at work.

it's interesting that you left this part of the article out...

Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Ford Motor Co., seeking concessions granted to U.S. rivals, reached a tentative United Auto Workers accord that includes a six-year ban on some strikes and a wage freeze for new hires, two people familiar with the matter said.

UAW leaders will present the plan Oct. 13 in Detroit to the Ford National Council, which consists of factory-level union chiefs, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the terms aren’t public. Ford offered pledges for new production and a $1,000 bonus tied to quality goals, the people said.

New savings would help Ford build on a $500 million cut in labor costs under a UAW agreement in March, while the sweeteners are aimed at damping resistance to fresh concessions. General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC won union givebacks to help them with their U.S.-backed bankruptcies.

“There’s a lot of sentiment against concessions inside the plant,” said Gary Walkowicz, a union official at a Ford truck factory in Dearborn, Michigan, who isn’t directly involved in the national contract talks.

Ford, the only U.S. automaker to avoid bankruptcy, is seeking parity in labor expenses with GM and Chrysler, which received UAW approval for a six-year pay freeze for entry-level employees, a no-strike accord until 2015 and fewer union job classifications.

The March accord with the UAW calls for Dearborn-based Ford’s 41,000 U.S. hourly workers to cede annual bonuses and cost-of-living increases and accept reduced layoff benefits.

I'm sure that the lack of concessions on "vision coverage" (as a side note, I have a vision plan "vsp" and it costs- get this- a whopping $10/month for a family of four) is due to the "thugs" of the obama administration working with the uaw to weaken ford so it too can be thrown onto bankruptcy and then, the diabolical plan oh so apparent, will also become a part of your "guvment motors".

or maybe, as shown above, the uaw and ford are working to provide ford with similar concessions, but not every concession, given to ford's rivals, without any involvement of the obama administration btw.

[chumdawg]

Lolz

[dude1394]

I'm starting to understand barry's political compass.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: “I am not a big fan of saying that officials should resign for stupid remarks. But interim White House communications director Anita Dunn’s praise of Mao Zedong as a ‘political philosopher’ is so unhinged and morally repugnant, that she should hang it up, pronto. Mao killed anywhere from 50 million to 70 million innocents in the initial cleansing of Nationalists, the scouring of the countryside, the failed Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, Tibet, and the internal Chinese gulag. Dunn’s praise of a genocidal monster was no inadvertent slip: She was reading from a written text and went into great detail to give the full context of the remark. . . . So where do all these people, so intimate with our president (Dunn is the wife of his personal lawyer), come from? A right-wing attack machine could not make up such statements as those tossed off by a Dunn or a Van Jones.”

[Mavdog]

I'd suggest that you and hansen should listen to the speech.

if saying "stupid remarks" were basis for termination, hucksters such as hansen and glenn beck would be unemployed.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I'd suggest that you and hansen should listen to the speech.

if saying "stupid remarks" were basis for termination, hucksters such as hansen and glenn beck would be unemployed.

I listened to the speech.

She unequivocally sites the greatest mass murderer in human history as one of her two favorite philosophers. That isn't a stupid remark, it's vile and indefensible.

[Mavdog]

really? so to say "al capone was my favorite gangster of all time" means that you fully support his murders, and that you are stating that he should be held up as a role model? or to say "cortes was my favorite explorer" entails that you support the genocide of the aztecs?

no, not in the least. there's a concept called context, I suggest that it be applied. knee jerking is hazardous to your mental health.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

really? so to say "al capone was my favorite gangster of all time" means that you fully support his murders, and that you are stating that he should be held up as a role model? or to say "cortes was my favorite explorer" entails that you support the genocide of the aztecs?

no, not in the least. there's a concept called context, I suggest that it be applied. knee jerking is hazardous to your mental health.

There is a concept called context, and apparently you're the one that is struggling with the concept. She was citing Mao approvingly, as an inspiration...in exactly the same context in which she cited mother Theresa.

This was a political figure talking political philosophy citing a mass murderer as her favorite political philosopher. That's disgusting and if you had more sense than political herd instinct you'd distance from that ugly old bitch.

[Mavdog]

"ugly old bitch"?? tsk tsk. childish to say the least. sort of expected, and revealing at the same time.

yes, the context was to persevere in what your goals are no matter what others say is the impossibility of your reaching those goals. it was not in regard to any actual political philospohy of mao, nor in regard to how mao acted towards the chinese people in his reign as supreme leader.

likewise in citing mother theresa (the fact that these two were included tiogether should show the context...not to mention the humour pointed out at the time) dunn wasn't promoting the ideal that these students should become nuns, or live a life of rejecting material things. it was in regard to the singular quote of theresa and how the students should apply it to their lives.

really, it's fascinating to read how the lynch mob mentality takes hold.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it was not in regard to any actual political philospohy of mao.

ahh...now I get it. When Anita Dunn unequivocally stated that the mass murdering Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers, she wasn't referring to any ACTUAL political philosophy of the genocidal maniac, but instead to amorphous comments that one could as easily pull from a Successories poster as a Little Red Book.

Gotcha

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

ahh...now I get it. When Anita Dunn unequivocally stated that the mass murdering Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers, she wasn't referring to any ACTUAL political philosophy of the genocidal maniac, but instead to amorphous comments that one could as easily pull from a Successories poster as a Little Red Book.

Gotcha

so, just what "political philosophy" of mao (or mother theresa for that matter)did dunn mention?

what, there wasn't anything political that dunn mentioned?

yeah, that's exactly what I heard too. no "political philosophy".

gotcha right back.

[alexamenos]

Anita Dunn: "the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa..."

Clearly it's unreasonable to infer from the above comment that Chairman Mao is one of Dunn's favorite political philosophers.

My mistake. Cheers

[Mavdog]

to repeat, just what "political philosophy" did anita dunn relate?

yes, apparently you are mistaken. cheers.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

to repeat, just what "political philosophy" did anita dunn relate?

I don't want to jump into this debate, but I'm curious - what were Mao's non-political philosophies? (because the only things I've ever read from him were 100% political...)

[dalmations202]

What is the definition of "is" ? ?

Sound familiar?

[Usually Lurkin]

It's like if Clorox were to run an ad admiring the whiteness of the KKK. Why would anyone assume anything other than laundry?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I don't want to jump into this debate, but I'm curious - what were Mao's non-political philosophies? (because the only things I've ever read from him were 100% political...)

he is seen as a very literary poet.

not that I am able to judge, but this is one of his most revered.

"Ode to the plum blossom"

Rain and wind wave spring goodbye,
Dancing snow rejoices over her arrival.
Although heavy ice claws cliff tightly,
There stands a handsome flower defiantly.

Handsome yet no ambitious desire,
Only a brave herald of spring time.
As hills blessed with blossoms widely,
She will smile amongst them brightly.

[bernardos70]

It's funny how everything in this country has now become a partisan matter. Which is better? Top Ramen or Maruchan Ramen? Choose wisely, your political alliance lies within....

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

It's funny how everything in this country has now become a partisan matter. Which is better? Top Ramen or Maruchan Ramen? Choose wisely, your political alliance lies within....

you mean the partisan preference for mass murdering communists? yeah - that's only been around since, well, communism.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

you mean the partisan preference for mass murdering communists? yeah - that's only been around since, well, communism.

Yeah...when someone favorably cites the single most murderous person in the history of humanity as one of their favorites, it's more than just partisanship to be a bit taken aback.

[mavsgirl4134]

I usually stay away from political debates because frankly I'm not good at them. But anyway, seriously?? This is one of the reasons why I have given up on politics altogether, all it is is bickering back and forth about which person is the worst. This is the reason why this freaking country can't get anything done. Instead of doing the crap that needs to be done it's people whining about stupid stuff such as this woman quoting this guy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe she said ONE WORD about thinking this guy was amazing for all the stuff he did blah blah... She quoted something HE SAID. This is kinda like me saying I believe in the quote, "Do unto others as you would have them unto you" but not believe in God and what he stands for or the Bible. It is a QUOTE PEOPLE. The dude may have been a great philosopher, and a crappy person but just because one may agree with a certain aspect of their philosophy doesn't mean they agree with their whole philosophy on life.

Not sure if I explained this well enough, but I think people need to have an open mind.

[bernardos70]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Yeah...when someone favorably cites the single most murderous person in the history of humanity as one of their favorites, it's more than just partisanship to be a bit taken aback.

You are fascinated by propaganda huh? How's this quote:

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."

Pretty interesting quote........... by Adolph Hitler, isn't it?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

You are fascinated by propaganda huh? How's this quote:

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."

Pretty interesting quote........... by Adolph Hitler, isn't it?

If one of our politicians, or a politician's mouthpiece stood up and said they admired Hitler, they would be vilified.

[bernardos70]

Kinda like quoting Mao?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

Kinda like quoting Mao?

um, yah. that's my point. The only reason it would be partisan is if only one party kept an admiration for totalitarian mass murderers.

[Usually Lurkin]

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/..._photo_feature

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/..._photo_feature

this is not a simple issue, it is a very complex issue. there's more to the story...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Department rejects non-partisan voting
David Anderson 2009-08-18 20:53:26

After months of waiting, Kinston citizens heard the U.S. Justice Department’s views on non-partisan voting this week.

Its view did not agree with Kinston’s voters.

In a letter sent to City Attorney Jim Cauley late Monday, acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King stated “the elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice.”

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the DOJ must approve voting changes in selected states and communities such as those in Lenoir County to ensure those changes would not hurt minority voters.

King wrote that data from several prior elections in Kinston indicated that few black residents typically voted, and candidates who would appeal to the black community — which often votes Democratic — win because of straight Democrat ticket votes from the wider electorate.

“Black candidates will likely lose a significant amount of crossover votes due to the high degree of racial polarization present in city elections,” King stated.

In a non-partisan system — which the majority of North Carolina municipalities have — a primary election is not needed.

County elections officials had not planned to hold a primary this year, assuming DOJ approval, but now must scramble to hold one by Sept. 15.

“I’ve got 28 days to get ready,” Dana King, director of elections, said Tuesday, as she laughed.

The Board of Elections must prepare ballots, mail out absentee voting forms and check voting machines in time for One-Stop early voting, which begins Aug. 27. The primary will add an estimated $15,000 to $20,000 price tag to this year’s election.

“We’ve got to get it all ready, but we’re going to have an election!” King said.

Mayoral candidate Earl Harper planned to run unaffiliated. He had not filed during the official period to do so during July, and will now have to obtain signatures from 4 percent of Kinston’s 14,000 registered voters.

Harper said his campaign was prepared to get those signatures, though.

“We’re ready to move forward and get our signatures,” he said. “It’s not about me; it’s about Kinston.”

B.J. Murphy, who will be the lone Republican candidate for Kinston mayor, said the Justice Department’s decision was a “slap in the face” to the city voters who voted 2-1 in favor of non-partisan elections during a referendum last November.

“We’re Kinstonians, we’re Americans, we’re not Democrats and Republicans,” Murphy said. “How many Democrats and Republicans does it take to fix a pothole? The answer is none. The reason why it’s none is it doesn’t matter. City leaders fix potholes and protect the community.”

Stephen LaRoque, who has worked for non-partisan voting since the lackluster City Council elections of 2007 — he and a number of other volunteers obtained about 1,400 signatures on a petition to put the matter on the ballot — was also outraged at the DOJ’s decision.

“I would hope that the city would vigorously defend the voters’ choice for non-partisan elections through whatever appeals process is available, and it should be expedited,” he said.

According to the DOJ’s letter, the city can appeal the decision to either the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., or to the U.S. attorney general.

The city announced in a press release Tuesday that Cauley would speak with the City Council to determine what steps to take.

Councilman Joe Tyson was the lone council member to vote against placing non-partisan voting on the November ballot last August. During the same council meeting, he also voted against a proposed resolution in favor of non-partisan elections because it had no provision for creating districts or wards.

In Tyson’s opinion, wards or districts — which are used in Lenoir County commissioner and school board elections — would ensure minorities would win a seat on the council in the absence of partisan voting.

“I would have gone with districts and wards, but since the resolution did not discuss districts and wards I was totally against it,” he said.

Tyson shared his concerns about how losing the ability to vote straight Democrat would hurt local black voters with the Justice Department after officials contacted him and other city leaders.

“Looking at the nine (city) precincts as they are now and going into a non-partisan election, it was my personal belief that that would prevent a certain segment of the population from being able to be on the City Council,” he said.

http://www.kinston.com/news/departme...e-waiting.html

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by bernardos70

You are fascinated by propaganda huh? How's this quote:

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."

Pretty interesting quote........... by Adolph Hitler, isn't it?

Yeah it is an interesting quote and I very much agree with Hitler. Stalin too made more than a handful of observations that I (and just about anyone else) can agree with....osama bin laden as well.

That said....isolated observations are not political philosophies.

(Also...Stalin, Hitler and OBL didn't kill as many people as Mao)

Mao's political philosophy was an extreme totalitarian Marxist-Leninism which routinely expressed willingness to kill off great swathes of people to further the interest of the communist party. He hated religion (thought it was a mental illness) because it undermined subservience to the state and he thought liberalism was wothless.

So...when one of Obama's staff members says that the mass murdering totalitarian Marxist was one of her favorite political philosophers, I tend to think that's a little creepy.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

this is not a simple issue, it is a very complex issue. there's more to the story...

King wrote that data from several prior elections in Kinston indicated that few black residents typically voted, and candidates who would appeal to the black community — which often votes Democratic — win because of straight Democrat ticket votes from the wider electorate....

http://www.kinston.com/news/departme...e-waiting.html

Kinston is over 60% African American. I don't think civil rights legislation is meant to decide representation for you, especially when you decide not to vote.

in effect, the ruling says: we want the white minority to continue to choose representatives for the black majority.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

If one of our politicians, or a politician's mouthpiece stood up and said they admired Hitler, they would be vilified.

and rightfully so I think. If someone said, 'Adolph Hitler is one of my favorite political philosophers'....what followed next in the speech wouldn't make a
whole lot of difference.

And it's not hyperbole to compare this to what dunn said....arguably what dunn said is more offensive.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Kinston is over 60% African American. I don't think civil rights legislation is meant to decide representation for you, especially when you decide not to vote.

in effect, the ruling says: we want the white minority to continue to choose representatives for the black majority.

you are correct, the legislation is to enable voters to choose a candidate and not have a minority use the election to subvert the will of the voters.

your conclusion on the ruling isn't logical. with at large voting the elections can very well produce the result you predict, while a lack of identification may also yield that same result.

the problem in this community is a lack of voter turnout. there really isn't much the feds can do about that.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Yeah it is an interesting quote and I very much agree with Hitler. Stalin too made more than a handful of observations that I (and just about anyone else) can agree with....osama bin laden as well.

That said....isolated observations are not political philosophies.

(Also...Stalin, Hitler and OBL didn't kill as many people as Mao)

Mao's political philosophy was an extreme totalitarian Marxist-Leninism which routinely expressed willingness to kill off great swathes of people to further the interest of the communist party. He hated religion (thought it was a mental illness) because it undermined subservience to the state and he thought liberalism was wothless.

So...when one of Obama's staff members says that the mass murdering totalitarian Marxist was one of her favorite political philosophers, I tend to think that's a little creepy.

ahh, the mantra of those who wish to silence others who dare to utter anything about evil people. yes, let's go burn all the writings of mao and stalin and hitler! to disseminate any of their words is akin to promoting their evil ways!

your limited vision is the type of attitude that frankly promotes narrowmindedness.

mao, just like many other leaders who we understand brought on evil, have put forth concepts that can be seperated from that evil. in this instance the concept dunn was mentioning- the concept that one should stand by their beliefs in oneself and not bend to the negativism of others- is valid and applicable to the audience.

I can say that the words of mao in leading his battle against the colonialists were insprational and visionary. does that mean that I endorse his rule of oppression and murder? no, not in the least. completely seperate, except to people with narrow mindsets.

it's very revealing about your intellect that you distort the message of dunn simply because she used the word "favorite" in regard to mao.

[mcsluggo]

I would think that most would agree that if you are going to cite a figure that is generally perceived to be evil in a positive way, you should be pretty clear in not endorsing the whole package.

This, btw, is known as being "politically correct". It is nice to see the conservative and libertarian brothers of this community bending over backwards to support a PC world for us all.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I would think that most would agree that if you are going to cite a figure that is generally perceived to be evil in a positive way, you should be pretty clear in not endorsing the whole package.

a few random remarks here...

I think when we're talking about someone who killed more people than Stalin and Hitler combined, it's fair to say that he IS evil, not some one 'generally perceived' as evil as if the perception and reality may be at odds.

Not only was Anita Dunn not clear that she wasn't endorsing the whole package, she was unequivocal (literally) in her endorsement of Mao's political philosophy. She went so far as to group Mao with the beatified Mother Teresa, lending further implicit endorsement of the mass murdering maniac.

Moreover, these were planned, written remarks (not some thoughtless slip of the tongue) at a high school graduation. Had Dunn wanted to find other examples typefying the behavior she wanted to stress she could have easily done so...but of all the people she could have chosen she went with someone who killed 50,000,000 people. This is to say...if I wanted to encourage kids to eat their vegetables, I could probably do better than citing Adolph Hitler as an example and I certainly don't need to preface my remarks by naming him one of my favorite philosophers.

I think the most reasonable, parsimonious interpretation of her remarks is that Mao is one of her favorite political philosophers on par (in her mind) with Mother Teresa. Given that part and parcel of Mao's political philosophy was a willingness to kill millions for the greater good of the communist party, that doesn't speak very well of her, IMHO.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

This, btw, is known as being "politically correct". It is nice to see the conservative and libertarian brothers of this community bending over backwards to support a PC world for us all.

the incorrectness of admiring a mass murderer is not political.

[dude1394]

How ridiculous the one has become. Maybe Olbermann can just tell Barry that he's married to a sack of meat with lipstick.

Here's a curious turn in the White House vs. Fox News fight.
On Monday, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were among several people who attended an off-the-record briefing with Pres. Obama at the White House. Sources tell us other attendees at the two-and-a-half hour chat included Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS and Gloria Borger of CNN. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one from Fox News was in the room.
This fact quickly turned into ammunition for the folks at FOX. Last night on "Special Report," Bret Baier revealed the information pointing out that opinion hosts from one channel were being invited to a briefing with the Commander-in-Chief, all the while Fox was declared not a news organization.
And it continued on Fox & Friends this morning, as the troika talked about the back-and-forth ABC News White House correspondent Jake Tapper had with press secretary Robert Gibbs in the morning off-camera gaggle yesterday.

[bernardos70]

Here's what I mean about everything being partisan in this country anymore:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...2009/rape-nuts