(October 28, 2009 - Photo by Pacific Coast News)

Is It Blasphemous to Say That I Don’t Hate Diane Sawyer Thus Far?  I just thought I would throw that out there because I have been questioning my liberal hating skills and I think my Lib-dar may be malfunctioning.  That being said, I’m not cozying up with a cup of hot cocoa to watch her every evening either so we are dealing with a relatively small sample set here – I can admit that.  After seeing her interview with President Obama I began to roll through previous clips and I have to say I really don’t hate her.  I’m not saying that I have fallen in love with her and I am not dumb enough to assume that she won’t yank it over to the Left in the days and weeks to come, but I think she’s had a nice start to things.  Maybe Swayer is the mainstream media’s lifeline to the Right?  Their ratings have tanked and every day Fox News pulls away more of their audience.  Could she be –  if nothing else –  a sign that the big three are beginning to realize that America is more conservative than they would love to believe that it is?  Charlie Gibson wasn’t happy she was replacing his Left wing ass even though he started his career along side the woman.  Could her spot at ABC’s news desk be an olive branch to the Right?  She is a southern girl born and raised in the bread basket of conservatism?  I’m just saying, there may be some hope here…

I say that and tonight she will undoubtedly bow at the alter of President Obama after he delivers his State of the Union Address leaving me shamefully embarrassed and in search of a new liberal sensing device, but we shall see, there may be some hope for this one.  To be clear, I’m not saying that she has Fox News potential or that she’s going to be covering the Tea Party movement with even an ounce of enthusiasm.  So for those of you that think of that network as the pulpit of the Right – rest your weary hearts.  I’m not going that far here.  I think I am just elated that she may not be a Far Left nutjob like the rest of them.  The only point in even shedding light on the matter is I think it could be a sign that the nation may be turning faster than we think it is into a place where it is not only acceptable to be conservative again – but one where it is encouraged.  I seriously doubt that ABC, NBC, or CBS would “cater” to the Right by giving us an anchor to “love” but they may have finally realized that if they all don’t want to go the way of Air America they may need to march out an anchor or two that don’t make us want to smash televisions every night.  That’s all I’m saying, and she may be it.

Like I said earlier, I dont watch her nightly, I dont watch her often, Hell I have only watched her a few times… but I do watch ALL the BS interviews the three “major” networks produces each weeek… but this is the first “we love Obama network” interview that didnt make me vomit or throw things… Have a look.

Daytime Diva turned political prognosticator Oprah Winfrey is set to interview President Obama at the White House for a Christmas Special.  The program will air on Sunday December 13 at 10pm – (I add that because I know you will be dying to watch).  The interview will reportedly also include cameos from the First Family and will take a look at the “behind the scenes” happenings of the White House as it prepares for the holiday season. In case you have been in a coma for the last 18 months or so, Oprah decided to break from her Michael Jordan / Tiger Woods-esque apolitical posture with election 2008 and endorsed Barack Obama for the Presidency. In case you just broke out of that long somber this week, last week Sarah Palin released her memoirs, Going Rogue, and made an appearance on Winfrey’s program.

I certainly have no inside knowledge as to what Oprah will discuss with the Chief Executive, but I have to tell you that I am hoping for a Tom Cruise couch moment when the President discusses his relationship with the First Lady.  Lets just say that I am not expecting this interview to have much depth when it comes to substance.  The relationship between the two O’s combined with the timing of the holiday season, I anticipate that the interview will feel more like a Barbara Walters 10 Most Interesting People special than a legitimate interview.  But we shall see….

In an interview that will undoubtedly reverberate throughout this news week, Rush told Fox’s Chris Wallace that the President went to Dover, Delaware as a “photo-op” rather than as a Commander-in-Chief committed and concerned about the loss of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The statement came in the context of a discussion of the president’s Afghan policy and his slow progress on making a decision about troop deployment.  Rush said that the visit to Dover was an attempt to appear more concerned and more invested in the Afghan effort because of recent outrage over his inaction.  He also pointed out that the President was only able to find one family willing to allow pictures of the President to be taken as the other families abstained.  I agree with Rush on this one.  I think it would have been a classy move on the President’s part if he would have simply went and let the White House press pool write about the scene without the pictures.  Asking grieving families to take part in a PR campaign is flatly ridiculous and a shame on the office.

Fox News

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh accused President Obama of seeking a “photo op” when he traveled to Dover Air Force Base last week to witness the remains of fallen soldiers being returned from Afghanistan.

In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” the conservative host suggested Obama scheduled the trip in order to dampen criticism over the amount of time it’s taken him to overhaul the Afghanistan war strategy.

“It was a photo op. It was a photo op precisely because he’s having big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation,” Limbaugh said.

Obama traveled to the Delaware military base in the middle of the night last week to see the flag-covered cases unloaded. The trip was made at the end of the deadliest month to date for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod rejected Limbaugh’s criticism Sunday, telling CBS’ “Face the Nation” it was “appropriate” for Obama to head to Dover.

“My reaction is that I think that the president of the United States went to Dover to represent the American people and pay his respects to the families who had made so much of a sacrifice, to those brave service people who made the ultimate sacrifice,” he said.

On the same show, Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman said he disagreed with Limbaugh as well.

“I think he was there as commander-in-chief for all Americans. And I don’t fault him or question his motives at all. I was proud that my president was there,” he said.

White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett also defended Obama’s trip.

“Well, he wouldn’t have done it in public if the families had objected,” Jarrett said on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “So the first and foremost thing is what is important to the families. And I think that it’s important for us all to recognize what is at stake…I think it’s a reminder about how deep the sacrifice is,” she added.

Watch the full interview here

]]> http://republicanredefined.com/2009/11/02/rush-criticizes-president-obama/feed/ 1 http://republicanredefined.com/2009/10/31/white-house-guest-list-revealed/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=white-house-guest-list-revealed http://republicanredefined.com/2009/10/31/white-house-guest-list-revealed/#comments Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:19:56 +0000 T. CHRISTOPHER http://republicanredefined.com/?p=2986

The much awaited White House visitor list has been released today.  I will point out once more that this administration is brilliant at releasing these things on Friday evening/ Saturday morning so that no one pays any attention.  This “unprecedented” move toward transparency taken by the White House – as Press Secretary Gibbs has called it – comes after a week where stories rang out around Capitol Hill shedding light on the pay-for-play running rampant around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  There are many you’d expect to see on this list and a few celebrities that just add some entertainment to the President’s day I presume. Have a look…

Tom Daschle – 10 Times

Andy stern – 22  Times – SEIU  President

George Soros – 4 Times

John Edwards – 4 Times

Others making appearances:

Reverend Al Sharpton, Oprah – she’s Oprah she doesn’t have to say where she’s going, Brad Pitt – no destination listed, George Clooney – to discuss Crisis in Darfur

See the Full GUEST LIST here.

Obama Administration: Transparency and Broken Promises.  Here is a great video from the National Republican Senatorial Committee / NRSC.org.

(April 30, 2008 - Photo by Mark Lyons/Getty Images North America)

“Fox News is Like Talk Radio…I’m not losing any sleep over it.”

President Barack Obama sat down with NBC White House Correspondent Savannah Guthrie to discuss a variety of issues, but just shortly after beginning her interview with the Chief Executive, she asked him about his new role as Chief News critic. She said to the President,  ”Is this working the Umps?  Do you think it is appropriate for the White House to say what is and what is not a news organization?”  To which the President responded with a series of political answers, and then she pressed him to respond, reminding him that his advisors were the ones who started this debate.  To that he responded, ”We are going to take (uh) media as it comes…and if media is operating basically as a talk radio format that’s one thing, but if it is acting as a news outlet that’s another.”

I understand what the President is saying here, and I may even support his position if it was consistent in any way, shape, or form.  There are in fact programs on Fox News that are nothing more than talk radio programs with a camera and bigger budgets.  Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity put on essentially the exact same show on the radio as they do on the air.  The problem Mr. President is that they don’t claim to be news programs.  They are admittedly opinion-based programs offered for “entertainment and enlightenment” to steal a phrase from Beck.  The truth is, that two programs do not a network make.  And similarly, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews do not necessarily reflect the journalistic integrity of their network either.

If we must explore the biases of news reporting or networks in general, perhaps we should look at PBS and their treatment of issues relating to the President.  Under the administration’s rationale, can anyone make the claim that any degree of objectivity exists at PBS when one of their Chief personalities, Gwen Ifill, is the author of an Obama biography The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.  Her release date immediately followed the inauguration of the president.  It would have been hard to sell her thesis if a victory had not been claimed.

The position that this administration continues to support and defend is flatly contradictory.  If the Bush administration had taken a similar approach, all networks would have been characterized as “talk radio” – including Fox News.  The President may genuinely believe that Fox has a vendetta against his administration, and it may actually be a legit claim; but is that really something that the Most Powerful Man on the planet wants to admit?

How petty and childish does the President appear to his most cherished audience- the global community – when he considers a news outlet an opponent to his administration?  It is laughable.  For a nation that has always championed the cause of a free press in nations around this globe, we are now of the mindset that it is prudent policy to ostracize, marginalize, and ridicule a news entity within our own borders?

Thomas Jefferson once stated, “There are rights which it is useless to surrender to the government and which governments have yet always been found to invade. These are the rights of thinking and publishing our thoughts by speaking or writing.”  No President and no administration has the right and/or authority to make such determinations for the American people.  This defiant posture taken by this administration is a disgrace to our Founding documents and should be seen as such by all Americans and ALL media outlets.  A threat to one aspect of the press is a threat to the whole.

In speaking of the importance and the necessity of the Press, Jefferson also made the following remarks.

“One of the amendments to the Constitution… expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.”

A threat to the Institution of the Press is nothing short of a threat to the framework that has made this nation the bastion of freedom that the world has looked to for generations as a symbol of individual liberty and a promise of a responsible and accountable government.

Conservative radio, Fox News, the administration, and an invested media in the 21st Century and the Internet Age…

The Popular Rule was in its infant stages with the birth of television and the love affair with the Kennedy presidency and it has grown dramatically through the presidencies of Carter and Clinton.  Many were of the belief that it peaked with the presidency of Clinton as his rise to power mirrored the growth of the internet age and the explosion of new political coverage and commentary; however, the emergence of Barack Obama to the political fold showed the nation that the Popular Rule was here to stay and stronger than ever.

So exactly what is the Popular Rule?  This is not the Jefferson / Hamilton view of popular rule; however, it would likely be a distant cousin in that it is an outgrowth of the discussion of preserving this nation from the oppressions of tyranny.  It is the idea that those who create the news, who control the messages conveyed to the general public, those who have influence with American youth, and generally those who control the conventional means of dissent are united in one common cause and have a vested interest in its success.  It is essentially a mandate to rule by shear force of popularity.  It is the antithesis of republican democratic government.  It is purely rule by the man who’s most popular.  It is the notion that all that the individual who wields this power would say or do would be above dissent or criticism simply because the most outspoken from all walks of life from Academia to Hollywood threw their political support behind him and controlled the means of communicating any and all information.  While this may seem like a simplistic characterization of the state of affairs; if viewed objectively, it is plain to see that politics and the generation of power are no different than any other walk of life.  Those who are able to generate the most support and the largest consensus are generally those who lead; and when that leadership is successful in silencing all opposition for fear of alienation then they have truly reached the pinnacle of power and control.  While the Popular Rule is characteristic of most modern Democratic presidents, The Popular Rule that brought President Obama to office was historic and will undoubtedly go down in the annuls of American history as truly game-changing if not nation-changing.

At the core of the Popular Rule is a group of control elements that help to manifest, perpetuate, and maintain its actual controlling force.  They include two mediums for spreading and manipulating the facts; “The Media” and “Academia” and the audiences through which these messages will be shared and carried on to others “Hollywood” and “The Masses.”

The Media and Academia: Provide credibility and a means to distribute and control the message.  Together they can shape the very history that they will later serve to write.  The interjection of Academiato the support structure gives the administration credibility and limitless power to act above criticism except from those who are clearly definable as partisan.  The role of The Media in subjectively covering the news in a biased and favorable manner allows actions of the administration to go unnoticed when they are harmful to it and heralded when they can gain it favor.

Hollywood and The Masses: Every major American election draws a fair amount of support from both sides of the aisle.  The aim of both parties is to capture those not politically inclined and bring them into the fold to serve as the tie breaker in a close election.  Hollywood makes no qualms about which side they favor and they are usually there trying to bring those uninformed individuals into the political arena by motivating them through their “profound” and “well-informed” endorsements.  When The Masses are reluctant the Hollywood crowd loses interest, but when The Masses are passionate the two entities feed off one another as momentum begins to build.  When an element of race and that passion are added to the mix in the form of racism and hypocrisy they are more like fuel and wood in a blazing fire.

While Hollywood may be the only measure of the four that is readily expendable, it does serve as the ultimate icing on the cake.  The other three coequally make up a ring of influence that would lose its value to the bearer of the power if one element were lost in that they are circularly united.  The media could not favorably report on the news if Academia was admonishing its coverage from all angles; and Academiawould have no audience or platform from which to gain their credentials without Masses of citizen “students” to profess to; and The Masses get the majority of their news from the media; then the circle can go the other way and assume that if they weren’t getting the kind of media coverage that they like they would turn to another source; perhaps a more academic one; which is largely supports the administration; who then supports the media.  Hollywood thrusts itself into the discussion because it fully understands and embraces the marketability of being involved in such a popular movement.  Additionally,Hollywood also adds a bit of JFK-Rat Pack glamour to the movement that gives it the “historic” and “unprecedented” effect as if it is truly history in the making.

While these four elements are the core of what brings rise to the Popular Rule, another factor that is only tangentially related to the rise of Barack Obama’s reign over the Popular Rule may have been the most troubling addition to the weapons cache.  As the Popular Rule was strengthened and supported by it, it may have been the greatest weapon at the Popular Ruler’s disposal.  This was obviously the majority control of both Houses of Congress when he entered the presidency.

By all accounts, the two of the most liberal or perhaps even socialist, presidents in American history were Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baynes Johnson.  Implementing the New Deal and the Great Society respectively, they brought about the most overreaching federal spending programs in American history.  The effects of these spending bills have persisted for generations in every aspect of federal entitlement programs.  What did these two presidents have in common – and what do they have in common with President Obama?  Both FDR and Johnson took the White House with their party controlling both Houses of Congress, and so too did President Obama.  Johnson enjoyed 5 years of total party control of the Federal Government where FDR had 12 years.  Upon taking office, he was only guaranteed two years of such wide control, but the first two months of the Obama administration’s reign over the Popular Rule may have been all that was needed to drastically alter the face of the nation and place him in their class.  Total control and the fervor generated by the economic crisis of ‘08 allowed him to sprint out of the gate and implement as much of his agenda in a few short months as the legislative docket would allow.  While support from his party was not expressly guaranteed, the strength of thePopular Rule would have been yielded against them as well, and even those who used to share a party caucus with the Senator from Illinois would not have been free from fear of retaliation or public scorn for opposing such a powerful movement.  Those who would have attempted to oppose him would have undoubtedly faced the same unfavorable treatment as Republicans across the aisle.

Another contributing factor to the sweeping power and danger of the Obama Popular Rule was the economic crisis that spilled into 2009 and beyond.  Riding the wave of an outcry for government salvation of a failing economy, we were truly in the midst of a momentous time in American history and many hardly noticed.  They realized the economic dilemma but they blindly ignored the actions of President Obama and his first Congress which may very well have shaped the role of government and the economic future of this nation for the next 40-60 years as did the New Deal and the Great Society of liberal’s past.  Reactionary policies and crisis exploitation during that time moved this nation closer to a future that only the most ambitious of big government sympathizers and apologists would have ever imagined.

The Popular Rule is one with few enemies, and when enemies emerge they are met by attempts to marginalize and to remove them from public view with swift force.  Even in the first days of the Obama administration, they set their sights on their first target in the form of conservative talk radio.  With endless support and a growing influence, conservative radio posed the only real threat to the Popular Rule at the dawn of the Obama regime, and while its first attempts to marginalize this core conservative contingency were brief and ill-fated, the cards were shown that President Obama and The Popular Rulewill stop at nothing to quiet dissent.

When cries for the Fairness Doctrine began to reemerge – ever so subtly as they always do – conservatives from all walks of life were made aware that the battle was truly upon them.  When the attacks began to try to silence the lone source of opposition, all conservatives began to take notice as the result of such efforts would be detrimental to the future of our nation.   It has always been easy to dismiss or to filter through liberal television or left wing print media and to flat out ignore or laugh at celebrity banter; but when the lone voices of dissent are silenced, who among us can really be able to distinguish between what is the Left and what is the Far Left?  The center can only be found if there remains a Far Right as well.

The Popular Rule’s reemergence always means tough times for Republicans and conservatives alike.  It means their message will be met with unfriendly looks and great opposition.  It is aided by an inescapable barrage of support from the mass media and it is given “credibility” by the endorsement of the “intellectual” community.  This ignorant and blind support for a president simply because he is not a Republican is championed by all those who dominate the entertainment industry.  As conservatives bunker down and find sanctuary in the fortress of AM radio and their usual rallying points, the battle will wage on.  As the Popular Rule never goes quietly or truly ever dies; it is the duty of every conservative to wage those battles on a daily basis.  The only way to avoid an oppressive government is to continuously engage in well-informed dissent.  The First Amendment gives us that power and there has been no more fitting time in American history to exercise that Right than the present.

The Popular Rule of President Obama is unusually resilient and uniquely invested.  A favorable media hedged its bets on the success of “their” president; to manipulate the masses that rode the wave of Obama affection to the voting booth.  Hollywood adores him and the academic crowd champions his causes in scholarly papers and in the classrooms where they help mold the minds of our impressionable youth.  The Popular Rule aims to silence dissent and ostracize those who attempt to disobey.  The “cool crowd” has finally found their man and no one shoudl dare to challenge what they label as righteous, historic, or transcendent.  Obama’s greatest weapon in his young administration was to yield this great power to manipulate the masses and he used it well with four prime time “press conferences” in his first seven months in office, behind the scenes looks into the confines of the White House, and daily interviews with mainstream media.

He has been given the support of those who teach and those who control the media.  He has been given a mandate not granted through the voting booth but through his incredible popularity.  It was a popularity that transcended race and economic demographics.  It was fanatical and it was delusional; however, it could not be ignored – not by anyone that cared about the future of this nation.  Some of the most oppressive leaders in history have risen to power on the coattails of similar popularity.  A great many tyrants were cheered in similar regards as they rose to power.  Those who wish to think of America in greater terms can only pray that the foundation of a similar movement wasn’t laid in the first few months of Obama’s reign over the Popular Rule.

Today at the National Press Club, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles released the sixth video exposing corruption and misconduct at an ACORN affiliate.  This time the culprit was the Philadelphia office where the organization had alleged that O’Keefe and Giles were turned away.  The video released today at the Press Club had the audio of the ACORN employees removed for legal reasons, but O’Keefe narrates the film which shows they were anything but turned away.

The efforts of these two individuals is nothing short of Pulitzer-worthy.  I say that not as a “token conservative” giddy with a Left-wing organization being exposed for what it truly is, but because they saw a problem and they made every effort shed light on it for the world to see.  You may say that this is the objective of every journalist, and in a perfect world you would be accurate, but this is simply not the world we live in.

As Fox News continues to be marginalized by the White House and the Popular Rule in the interest of promoting state-run media as well other more favorable outlets, a great disservice is being done to the institution that is the Press.  Our Founding Fathers respected this institution enough to include the RIGHT that protects it in the same Amendment as religion. They fully understood the importance of a free press and its ability to prevent tyranny from ever coming to our shores.

I am not saying that the work of Giles and O’Keefe should be thought of as transcendent or even patriotic, but I am absolutely stating that they should be commended for their efforts in every way imaginable.  If their work inspired one person to engage in similar behavior to expose corruption, fraud, or mismanagement of government resources – at either end of the political or ideological spectrum – then they have done this country and the institution of the press a great service and we owe them our thanks.

In yesterday’s daily press briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, ABC’s Jake Tapper confronted Gibbs about the administration’s position regarding Fox News not being a “News Organization.”  I have posted a video and a transcript of the back and forth below.

It was a class move by Tapper who could have toed the favored network line and enjoyed the fruits of being part of a news network that was not Fox News, but he chose to defend the institution that is the Press, and he should be commended for it.  I do however, say that with a degree of caution.   I would hate to see my conservative brethren embrace him so lovingly that they hug him right out of a job because after all, he is now the token Fox defender.   You know what that can do to a career.

So what response did Gibbs have to offer?   He repeated that the administration views Fox News as opinion-based and unfair, then more or less said that the administration can do what it wants – and they don’t want to talk to Fox News.   Pretty mature for an Executive Branch policy if you ask me. No problems at all with the 1st Amendment on this one. Great demonstration of the “transparency” and openness that was promised on the campaign trail. I mean who is prepping these people? Is this really an actual strategy for a democratic government’s highest office?   When the “freest nation in the history of the world” has an federal government with an ownership stake in one news organization, shouldn’t the exercise a slightly higher degree of caution when attempting to squeeze out all competing points of view?   I thought we despised nation’s with state-run and state-censored media.  No?

ABC NEWS – Jake Tapper

(February 9, 2009 - Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images North America)

Fox News

October 19th, 2009

October 14th, 2009

Fox News has begun to address the concerted effort by the White House and the Obama administration to boycott their news channel, even though it is by far the largest cable network and its programs top the ratings charts.  What began as nothing more than a scheduling snub has turned into a budding war between the administration and Fox News.  Snubbing Chris Wallace, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck is one thing, but taking on the entire network is probably not the clearest path to bipartisanship or support from the constituency base that turns to Fox News for its “news.”

This President is so enamored with himself that I genuinely believe he has never felt criticism for any extended period of time throughout the course of his life.  I think he has always been so uniquely popular / favored amongst the people he has surrounded himself with that any detractors only appear to him as misinformed or misguided.  His entire march to the presidency was marked with praise and adoration, and only now as he sits as the most powerful man in the world, is he finally feeling vulnerable.

I think he truly sees himself as a victim.  He disregards how the other networks have treated previous presidents or how they still treat Republicans on Capitol Hill.  He ignores the fact that the tougher that Fox News gets on him and his administration, the softer that the big three networks, CNN, and MSNBC get in their coverage of the “maligned” Chief Executive.  He feels mistreated and misrepresented, and he wants the world to know that Fox News is the one in the wrong here.  He is absolutely blind to the cover he has been / is provided by the Popular Rule on a daily basis.  He wants to focus on the “biased” coverage he receives from one network while he takes for granted through his divine providence the favorable coverage he receives from everybody else.

What the president seems to overlook here are two glaring points that he either ignores or is blissfully ignorant to.  One is that maybe – just maybe – Fox News is providing a valuable service to the nation by offering balance to the News world that has been Left-Leaning for so long that it began to hardly even notice; and two that maybe Fox News is simply a shining example of capitalism at work.  There is obviously a demand for their version of news reporting and if there were not, Fox News would likely be filled with programs chasing Hollywood actors around town with the hopes of catching a bad hair day.

I am not foolish or naive enough to believe that Fox News is “Fair and Balanced.”  I can see their Right-Leaning message for what it is.  What Liberal Progressives like President Obama cannot now (or ever) begin to understand is that we as Republicans or conservatives have the ability to perform this clever little trick where we see the tilt in the news we get from media outlets.  We developed it through years of filtering through all the Leftist propaganda that was pumped down our throats by the other networks before we had Fox News to turn the dial to.

Here is Glenn Beck’s response