Gannonization of Obama’s White House Press Corps
Welcome Instapundit Readers! While you’re here, you may want to check out the theme song we’ve discovered for the Democrats’ stimulus, sung by one of Broadway’s great Republicans!
According to David Cay Johnson of the Columbia Journalism Review, the new president’s press team prefers questions from friendly reporters:
interviews with a dozen Washington reporters indicate that the Obama press operation tends to embrace friendly questions, while treating skeptical questions as not worth their time or, worse, as coming from an enemy.
Questions as coming from the enemy? Is that how they see criticism? Doesn’t sound like a team of post-partisan unifiers to me.
Embracing friendly questions. . . . Didn’t the left-wing blogs raise quite a ruckus over the presence of one reporter, Jeff Gannon, who asked such questions in the previous administration? Seems we have a herd of Gannons in the current president’s press corps.
Wonder if those blogs will say anything this time. . . .
(H/t Instapundit.)
67 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
…this coming from the a person from the party that literally went to fox news with their talking points on a weekly basis. [and this is not a rumor; cheney has admitted it. try a google search.]
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 12:17 pm - January 30, 2009
“…this coming from the a person from the party that literally went to fox news with their talking points on a weekly basis. [and this is not a rumor; cheney has admitted it. try a google search.]”
that is such an awesome defense of why Obama is a hypocrite. Ya’ll should try this with every criticism going forward….oh wait, that seems to be the plan.
Comment by Dave — January 30, 2009 @ 12:56 pm - January 30, 2009
Washington reporters reporting indicates the Obama press operation tends to embrace friendly questions I think. Did he for real need to do interviews? Journalists are slow at best I think.
Comment by happyfeet — January 30, 2009 @ 1:00 pm - January 30, 2009
I think that should be reporters’ really.
Comment by happyfeet — January 30, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - January 30, 2009
What more needs to be said to the mainstream media? How clear does “WE WON” have to be? Report what you’re given and don’t ask questions. That’s no different than what you did during the campaign.
Comment by redherkey — January 30, 2009 @ 1:11 pm - January 30, 2009
Fox News, not THE WHOLE FRIGGIN’ MEDIA. Also, if the talking points were scripted, the guionist surely wasn’t very friendly with them…
Answering questions? No, We Can’t.
Comment by Sir Sefirot — January 30, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - January 30, 2009
Oh bob, you don’t have to fear the ‘cheney’ boogieman any more. I guess you can if you want to, but don’t expect others to buy it. *snicker*
Comment by Troy — January 30, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - January 30, 2009
hey bob,
since the NYTimes, CNN, ABC, et al, were the mouthpiece of al Qaeda and the insurgency…
Comment by not bob — January 30, 2009 @ 1:14 pm - January 30, 2009
Bob, even if true, are you really equating Fox News to the collection of ABC/NBC/CBS/NPR/CNN and, notably, MSNBC?
Also, does Fox News really offset the New York Times, WaPo, Time, Newsweek etc.?
I’ll gladly trade Fox News for the MSM, would you?
Comment by Rick — January 30, 2009 @ 1:15 pm - January 30, 2009
Gee, bob, it seems that if one does a google search on cheney and fox news, the first few items involve an “exit” interview that fox news dc-bureau chief chris wallace had with the veep at the end of december.
all cream puff questions, here.
let’s see: chris interrupts the veep repeatedly to make his point at the clear frustration of the veep getting to complete his answer.
chris asks the veep if the bush administration’s “expansion” of presidential powers may have actually caused a backlash and led to greater prez powers restrictions not expansions?
chris asks the veep if biden has it right on cheney being the worst veep in history with the worst approval ratings?
chris asks the veep if was right on the patriot act, etc? when the veep points out that congressional leaders were briefed, chris retorts “a few” were briefed. when the veep brings up SCOTUS, chris retorts they slapped down the administration on Geneva, etc
chris asks the veep if firing rumsfeld was a good decision by the prez.
chris asks the veep the veep’s cowboy politics in saying iran won’t have a nuke arm wasn’t dumb given that iran is closer to arming nuke weapons than when the veep made that statement.
chris asks the veep if he disagrees with the administration’s aim of resolving these problems with diplomacy and then badgers the veep to try to distinguish his real position is different.
chris asks where the GOP has gone wrong, gotten it wrong, etc.
trying to drive a wedge between cheney and the balance of the hard core, arch-conservative base, chris asks if Sarah Palin is a serious candidate for the nomination in ’12
Oh yeah, bob. those are some cream puff questions by CBS 60 Minutes and uber-liberal journalist Mike Wallace’s kid, Chris Wallace.
Or were you expecting chris to first put cheney on the spit roast, fire up the wood and being roasting in order to prove to you they were tough questions a’coming?
really, bob, fox news has consistently gotten the highest marks from all TV news viewers as being more balanced, more fair, more forthright than any leftwing MSM tool or outlet that panders to your side of the swamp.
Yeah, Fox News and the Bush Administration were literally hand-in-glove? Go find a different soapbox, would ya?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 30, 2009 @ 1:16 pm - January 30, 2009
Susan Utzinger’s comment at cjr deserves to be reprinted here I think…
Comment by happyfeet — January 30, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - January 30, 2009
Gee Bob – What a surprise that you can’t even get that right.
1. Cheney never made that statement.
2. McClellan says it on Hardball
3. He retracts it when confronted
Too good to be true I guess. Fully Documented but why let facts get in the way of the tingle running up my leg…
Do a google search and you’ll find it – Oh too lazy – Here you go Mcellean Retracts
Comment by TonyG — January 30, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - January 30, 2009
Well, if the Obama administration keeps b*tch-slapping the press, eventually some of them will find some self-respect. Then we’ll see how Mr. Smooth handles some tough questions/analysis.
Comment by Mark — January 30, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - January 30, 2009
anyone who thinks fox news is fair and balanced should immediately lose his or her credibility when commenting on a political blog.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 1:21 pm - January 30, 2009
Anyone who thinks Baracky Soros Chavez is anything but a dirty socialist tool should immediately pay 85% of their income in taxes I think.
Comment by happyfeet — January 30, 2009 @ 1:23 pm - January 30, 2009
Bob, you didn’t answer Matt’s question.
Comment by Cousin Dave — January 30, 2009 @ 1:28 pm - January 30, 2009
Anyone who feels that Fox is less fair and balanced that ABC, NBC, CBS, and the NYT, needs an IQ transplant.
Rick
Comment by Rick Caird — January 30, 2009 @ 1:33 pm - January 30, 2009
“bob”, even if what you say about Cheney is correct, Gay Patriot is simply pointing out that the same people who bitched about the Bush administration playing up to friendly press will have no complaints about the shoe being on the other foot. i.e. Hypocrites.
Your semi-literate post put yourself into that same camp. The indefensible is indefensible, regardless of party affiliation.
Comment by Smashmaster — January 30, 2009 @ 1:38 pm - January 30, 2009
Anyone who thinks CNN/MSNBC/mainstream media is fair and balanced should immediately lose his or her credibility when commenting on a political blog.
See, I can make ridiculously all encompassing litmus-test statements as well. Aren’t I smart?
Comment by MJ — January 30, 2009 @ 1:45 pm - January 30, 2009
“bob”, when they say they are fair and balanced, they back it up by presenting both sides of any given issue. If they come across as right wing to you and other of your ilk, it is because they are not transparently leftist in their agenda. By your definition, ANYONE not operating like the other “news” networks would be right wing. Oh, my! Whatever will they do!
Comment by Smashmaster — January 30, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - January 30, 2009
“anyone who thinks fox news is fair and balanced should immediately lose his or her credibility when commenting on a political blog.”
Anyone thinks the rest of the media are needs to be seriously medicated.
Comment by jblog — January 30, 2009 @ 1:48 pm - January 30, 2009
Glad to see “liberals” are still fighting the good fight against Fox News. As a middle aged man who was a conservative in his late teens and has been a libertarian since, and has seen for decades how the pro-freedom side of any controversy is treated by the mainstream media, I know just how much “liberals” hate biased news reporting!
Comment by Bilwick1 — January 30, 2009 @ 1:50 pm - January 30, 2009
Cousin Dave,
He did answer the question. He took a cheap shot, appealed to emotion and stated his belief that “everyone knows is true”.
Unfortunately that is the way that many on the left prefer to argue. The sad thing is that we need great ideas from the left and the right. Unfortunately the left generally shirks their responsibility.
Case in point, President Obama attacks Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh responds with an economic stimulus plan. Intellectually honest people can agree or disagree with the proposed plan but at least he contributed an idea toward solving a problem.
Heck, most of my Libertarian friends and I still think that President Obama is doing a decent job. That number is declining but it is still not horrible. We disagree with many of his policies but he won so when the policies are consistent with his campaign promises you just have to grin and bare it. His cabinet appointments were actually a very pleasant surprise with a few exceptions such as Holder.
Contrast our hope that President Obama does well the way the left reacted when Bush was elected President. Look at their response to every nominee for any position. I have gotten to the point where I am tired of dealing with the childishness of people on the left. Many of them are just like Bob. They want to complain or to brag but they don’t want to share ideas or understand where their opponents are coming from.
So just pity him and let him be. Living live with an emotional chip on your shoulder seems like an awful fate.
Comment by Ross — January 30, 2009 @ 1:53 pm - January 30, 2009
The Bobs of the world view any news organization as “right wing” if they deviate at all to the center or right. Fox News has both viewpoints (something rare on other networks) and they are friendly to conservative viewpoints (something unheard of on msm outlets).
So like a fish doesn’t know it’s wet, Bob doesn’t know the MSM leans far left because they all do. If Fox does not it is obviously a tool of the Rethuglicans.
Comment by Jack Sheet — January 30, 2009 @ 1:54 pm - January 30, 2009
bob, rather than “google it”, can you provide a direct link to any reputable source supporting your assertion that Cheney went to fox news with their talking points on a weekly basis?
Perhaps you’re just confused after hearing the recent news that the Obama White House is the one feeding its talking points directly to the media on a daily basis.
Comment by r5d4 — January 30, 2009 @ 1:59 pm - January 30, 2009
The problem I have with this headline is that it implies something was wrong with Jeff Gannon, or with a President getting friendly questions.
There is nothing wrong with a President getting *some* friendly questions – that is, he should get a mix of friendly and unfriendly. And Bush got 100% unfriendly questions; then when Gannon tried to change that to 1% friendly, lefties freaked out. But now Obama is getting 100% friendly and many (not all) lefties just gaze with a glassy-eyed stare, like a well-fed infant reposing on a sunny lawn.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 2:02 pm - January 30, 2009
well, Bob, does this story say that Fox was getting shut out now? Is that your point? Or are you defending the One who can’t be challenged? this godhood thing is wearing thin, and it’s just the first week.
Really, what’s your problem with talking points being exposed? It’s not like you ever went to listen….And how do you tie that in to a president that won’t even countenance hard questions, again?
Comment by Bill Johnson — January 30, 2009 @ 2:03 pm - January 30, 2009
Because all Bob can say at this point is, “it’s only flesh wound!”
Comment by Dave — January 30, 2009 @ 2:07 pm - January 30, 2009
The Bush White House was remarkably tolerant toward the press, even when reporters were openly contemptuous.
The Obama campaign kicked Fox and WaTimes off the campaign plane, seeming to prefer only the company of “friendlies”. Other reporters and stations were denied further access by the Obama campaign after asking hard questions of Mr. Biden.
Comment by NoelArmourson — January 30, 2009 @ 2:15 pm - January 30, 2009
Methinks ‘bob’ protests too much about Fox News — but willingly ignores the rest of the media tossing loving softballs to Obama.
Hey, bob? Kettle, pot, bang!
Comment by Paul in NJ — January 30, 2009 @ 2:22 pm - January 30, 2009
bob is an idiot, but he mimics Obama’s and the Left’s reaction to questions they don’t care for very well, doesn’t he?
Too bad hypocrisy isn’t painful. I can just imagine bob and his Lefty friends screaming in agony.
Comment by JorgXMcKie — January 30, 2009 @ 2:28 pm - January 30, 2009
bob, anyone who can avoid facing a tough question has no credibility on a political blog… care to rethink YOUR evasive answer? I even put most of it in lower case so you could understand and comprehend without a taking a nap.
Don’t be evasive, bob; I know it’s a high artform already for your man, Obama-mouthpiece RobbieGibbs. Such a tool.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 30, 2009 @ 2:30 pm - January 30, 2009
matt, i’m not sure what the tough question was.
and i’m not saying there aren’t other biases in the media. msnbc is DEFINITELY biased to the left. but msnbc also doesn’t make its slogan “we report, you decide” and constantly have to claim that its reporting is “fair and balanced” in the “no spin zone.” i have on problem with editorialized media, even though i get concerned sometimes w/ the blatant propagandizing on certain channels. i have a problem with blatant bias trying to disguise itself as legitimate journalism.
i don’t mean this as a jab, but i think we should all be concerned that in some parts of the country, if you walk into any hotel, any restaurant, any public place at all, fox news is on the tvs. if you only get your news from fox news, you have a very skewed perception of reality. sean hannity is not a journalist.
also, there aren’t always two sides to an issue (at least not two valid sides). sometimes i think the media (on both sides) tries too hard to appear “non-partisan” by giving equal time to two sides to an issue, when one is objective truth (or at least has overwhelming evidence in support of it–see evolution, global warming, etc.).
also, rupert murdoch and roger ailes created the network (well rupert created it and appointed ailes as ceo) for the explicit purpose of having a right wing media outlet. none of the other channels were created with such an explicit political agenda, and that is noteworthy.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 3:17 pm - January 30, 2009
It’s OK to be biased, Bob, everyone is. Your complaint about false objectivity is humorous the MSM has always claimed the mantle of “legitimate journalism” but their icon Dan Rather gave it away.
Rupert and Roger saw a market niche that was open: a network that was friendly to conservatives. The results speak for themselves Fox tops every rating category over CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Also you slipped up when you say there is “overwhelming evidence of AGW” – even your bias is showing but everyone here knows where you stand so it’s OK.
When major network commentators report election returns and say “We’re ahead” they need to wear their (in this case) John Kerry button on their lapel while they are on camera.
Comment by Jack Sheet — January 30, 2009 @ 3:29 pm - January 30, 2009
something like 90 percent of scientists agree that global warming exists and is at least partially a result of man’s actions, but i’m not sure we need to get into an argument about that. we’re talking about media.
and you’re missing my point. i said i’m fine with fox and other editorialized media, they just shouldn’t have the EXPLICIT slogan of “fair and balanced.” we all know (even my conservative friends agree) this is not true.
btw, who said “we’re ahead” in the MSM?
that sorta reminds me of the leaked memo at fox after the ’06 midterm elections when the upper-level management started the memo w/ something like: “ok, everyone, it’s not all THAT bad…”
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - January 30, 2009
also, jack:
“Your complaint about false objectivity is humorous the MSM has always claimed the mantle of “legitimate journalism†but their icon Dan Rather gave it away.”
this is not a sentence. i may not use the shift key, but at least i write coherently.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - January 30, 2009
bob, like every other single dippy-lib, you have been trained to say that Fox News is a right-wing Al-Jazeera, but none of you can ever seem to answer the following question: if Fox News is a right-wing propaganda machine, then why is it that at any time of day or night, when you turn on Fox News there are conservatives debating liberals on every issue? If Fox News is strictly right-wing puff-press, why are so many liberals working there as correspondents? On ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN, the format is: anchor tells the story and then interviews a liberal who agrees totally. When has Keith Olbermann EVER had a guest on his program that doesn’t completely agree with him? Can you answer that? Or is that not a legitimate question?
Comment by Sean A — January 30, 2009 @ 3:42 pm - January 30, 2009
ad hominem
That didn’t take long.
Comment by Jack Sheet — January 30, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - January 30, 2009
Sean–please watch hannity’s show sometime. the number of conservatives strongly outweighs the liberals/moderates, and the libs he does bring on are people like fran drescher from the nanny. i’m not making this up. back when it was hannity and colmes, the air time they would give to alan and liberal guests was NOTICEABLY lower than that for sean and his guests.
keith’s show is the equivalent of a newspaper editorial. the point of his show is to rant, not to be balanced. keith never claims that his show is balanced. fox, on the other hand, puts up the commentator equivalent of a straw man and then claims everything is fair and balanced.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - January 30, 2009
the latter is more dangerous.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 3:52 pm - January 30, 2009
and fwiw, i’m a liberal who generally agrees with keith olbermann politically, but i don’t particularly like him. i think he’s a bit arrogant.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - January 30, 2009
So, we all agree, in the first place, Bob is himself misinformed, and secondly, is spreading that misinformation. Furthermore, and contrary to Bob’s misapprehension of reality, it is the Obama Administration that delivers talking points to the media.
Comment by b — January 30, 2009 @ 4:16 pm - January 30, 2009
#39 – Sounds right to me.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 30, 2009 @ 4:27 pm - January 30, 2009
i gotta hand it to ya, b, your little comment there has some pretty convincing evidence to support it…
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 4:57 pm - January 30, 2009
Hey bob, you know what? You haven’t had enough sockpuppets in this thread pretend to be independent people agreeing with you. Create a few, ok?
Tell you what. Create a sockpuppet, bob, to claim (laughably) that your opponents here have been pwned by you.
“90% of scienticians agree.” Like science somehow is about the (alleged) consensus. Where did I hear that last? Was it Galileo’s trial? Or Copernicus’? Or was it the proponents of phlogiston theory?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 5:08 pm - January 30, 2009
bob, still waiting for you to provide evidence to support your assertion from back in comment #1.
Were you really just confused and thinking that Rahm Emanuel was part of the Bush White House, and that Carville, Stephanopoulos and Begala worked for Fox?
I’ll make the assumption that you were not intentionally spreading disinformation, and ask you again to either A) make a good faith effort to substantiate your claim, or B) demonstrate some personal integrity by admitting you were wrong. Thanks.
Comment by r5d4 — January 30, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - January 30, 2009
r5dr:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/scott-mcclellan-white-hou_b_115099.html
headline: WHITE HOUSE FED FOX NEWS TALKING POINTS
ilovecapitalism: science is about having a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and then having peer-review of your findings. i give a lot more benefit of the doubt to science than to ppl with a political agenda or people who believe things because their religious text tells them so.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 5:16 pm - January 30, 2009
also, if the scientific consensus on global warming changes in the future, i would accept that (without batting an eye) and move on. the fact that your side, in the face of overwhelming evidence (evolution, anyone?), stubbornly holds on to their beliefs is striking.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 5:18 pm - January 30, 2009
Hey gang – Might bob really be a fraud who creates sockpuppets? Or are he and commentor ‘DavidKR’ two real people, just roommates and good friends? See GPW’s comment here, then discuss among yourselves:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=8182#comment-363414
Which is EXACTLY what the scienticians of AGW don’t do. They just repeat sensationalized, political comments about alleged “consensus” in a vast echo chamber.
Take the U.N. Hundreds of scientists have written the U.N. to say that U.N. reports on AGW misrepresented the scientists’ findings and the U.N. has perpetrated a kind of fraud. But, Bob, in the unfair / non-balanced Left media sources you rely on, you probably won’t ever find that out.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - January 30, 2009
davidKR is my roomate, btw. he voted for bush in ’04 and obama in ’08. he only came into my room and on this blog b/c he kept hearing me crack up at the morons on the comment boards.
he thinks most of you are paranoid, hyper-partisan idiots.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 6:07 pm - January 30, 2009
bob, the article at that link does not support the claim that you made in comment #1.
It contains a single quote from Scott McClellan which says nothing even approaching support for you claim the party that literally went to fox news with their talking points on a weekly basis..
It contains no quotes at all from Cheney.
The headline seems to be purely the fantasy of the author, as he provides no evidence to support it.
It’s looking more and more like you were simply trying to spread disinformation after all.
Comment by r5d4 — January 30, 2009 @ 6:09 pm - January 30, 2009
my point is that the white house went to fox with their agenda, and fox gladly reeled off the talking points. the frequency with which they went to the network, or the actual messenger who took the agenda, is not terribly important.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 6:12 pm - January 30, 2009
There’s no support for your contention that they ever went to Fox with any agenda, bob, except in your imagination and the imagination of the author of that Huffington Post article.
I appreciate your admission that you don’t care if you have your facts straight, though. That signals me to not waste anymore of my time trying to get answers from someone like you who thinks a “fake but accurate!” standard is sufficient when a story tells you what you want to hear.
I prefer to deal with actual reality rather than something that’s “reality-based.”
Comment by r5d4 — January 30, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - January 30, 2009
Naturally, nobody here has any independent way to verify that, so you or ‘he’ can say it all you want. But for the record, here is how ‘he’ represented himself, in the other thread:
In other words: *he posed implicitly as a disinterested, neutral observer*. Turns out – not so much, eh? I mean, whether or not you’re telling the truth now.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - January 30, 2009
Another way to say it, bob. Taking this bit:
From the point of view of us readers, bob, either:
(1) he has a relationship with you where it is 100% in his best interest to humor you about your blog participation and stay on your good side, that neither of you disclosed until after you were confronted; or else
(2) he IS you… so… either way…
WHO THE HELL SHOULD CARE what he thinks? I mean, WHAT’S THE SURPRISE? LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 6:38 pm - January 30, 2009
apparently you care, judging by the number of posts on the topic you’ve made.
Comment by bob — January 30, 2009 @ 6:57 pm - January 30, 2009
Wrong answer. Perhaps you need to re-read my comments, bob, if you are that far off in understanding my true concern.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - January 30, 2009
Well, there was a survey of 51,000 Canandian scientists, and 58% of them were skeptical of anthropological global warming. Where do these reputed 90% of scientists come from? From where I sit (which is an opinionated place) the number of scientists who are on board with the AGW hypothesis appears to be steadily declining. Not only that, but there are groups of scientists who believe the AGW hypothesis, but think the typical political responses are poorly thought out.
I wonder if you considered the Russian, Indian and Chinese scientists. I’ve been told they generally think the AGW hypothesis off base.
From what I know of science, the AGW hypothesis is skating on thin ice. Scientists just are not that good at having a sufficently accurate view of the past to support their claims about past climate conditions. They don’t have a time machine, and historical sciences, although useful, are a thin reed on which to hang what is really an engineering problem. Scientists are also not that good at modeling complex, chaotic systems, such as climate.
I’m sorry, but smart people are not as smart as they think.
To be confident that the AGW hypothesis is true, the proponents need to explain the amplifying mechanisms that would produce such warming. Simply adding CO2 in the simple greenhouse model will not produce the results they claim.
Yours,
Wince
Comment by Wince and Nod — January 30, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - January 30, 2009
I’ll even help you. This was a key sentence:
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 30, 2009 @ 7:48 pm - January 30, 2009
I fear for the president’s health as Chris Matthews alone could form a significant intestinal blockage and now CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC are also in the sigmoid and moving at a steady pace toward the transverse.
Comment by BlogDog — January 30, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - January 30, 2009
Bob reveals his true colors. On SOME issues, there is only one truth. Which issues would those be? Merely the ones that bob agrees with, of course.
No hypocrisy there. You see, bob, the truth is, global warming is a monstrous scam thrust upon us by politically-active scientists with an agenda – they want they governments of the world to get control of us rubes.
Real scientists know better, but they are constantly cast aside for those who agree with the RELIGION of climate change. When you’re freezing your ass off in the coming ice age, take a minute to put another log on the fire, thaw out your brain, and ask yourself, bob, where the hell did global warming to to anyway?
Comment by Antimedia — January 30, 2009 @ 8:42 pm - January 30, 2009
#23 We disagree with many of his policies but he won so when the policies are consistent with his campaign promises you just have to grin and bare it.
Ross, I like your thinking. Post pics, please.
Comment by Ignatius — January 30, 2009 @ 9:24 pm - January 30, 2009
If you wanted to get your message out, would you go to the other media outlets that nobody watches, or to Fox News, which everybody including most liberals watch????
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2009 @ 4:02 am - January 31, 2009
[...] Insty and GPW) Category: Near-Naked Propaganda ♦ [...]
Pingback by They’re all Jeff Gannon now | Cold Fury — January 31, 2009 @ 9:14 am - January 31, 2009
I wonder if this blogs hosting company will apply to have Joe (Sam) the not really a plumber, tax cheat, Wurzelbacher to cover the White House? His unique hee-haa insight would be only a few cuts below Bill O’Loofah or Oxycodone Addictied (but not jailed), America-Hating Limbaugh.
Comment by Timothy — January 31, 2009 @ 5:20 pm - January 31, 2009
Hey Timothy, what’s wrong with tax cheats — since your Obamamessiah not only supports and endorses cheating on your taxes, but elevates tax cheats to high government office?
Hypocrisy. The Obama Party mantra.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 31, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - January 31, 2009
[...] Heck, most of my Libertarian friends and I still think that President Obama is doing a decent job. That number is declining but it is still not horrible. We disagree with many of his policies but he won so when the policies are …$anchor_text[$anchor_choice] [...]
Pingback by …Makes Me Furious » Blog Archive » Gaypatriot » Gannonization of Obama’S White House Press Corps — February 1, 2009 @ 4:50 pm - February 1, 2009