Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Robert Gibbs’


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 15, 2010

Zip at Weasel Zippers asks the question: “How many Czars are we up to now?”

He asks this in response to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ saying that President Obama will announce a Gulf oil spill recovery plan tonight.

That plan will be headed by a brand new Czar – the latest in an ever-growing stable of Czars that answer to no one but President Barack Obama.

Gibbs spoke with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America:

GIBBS: We are going to outline tonight groups of people and somebody that will be in charge of a recovery plan – putting a recovery plan together – and ready to have when we get past the cleanup and response phase of this disaster.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: So a “Recovery Czar?”

GIBBS: We will have somebody who will – yes – be tasked with doing that.

From Infotech Czar to AIDS Czar, from California Water Czar to Green Jobs Czar, there isn’t a Czar President Obama can’t whip up on a dime.

It’s hard to tally a precise count of exactly how many of these unaccountable, unofficial positions actually exist in ObamaLand, but some say in the neighborhood of 30 to 35.

Maybe they need a Czar Czar.


Posted in Gulf Oil Spill | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2010

Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary, Liar

Clarification time …

What is with this White House? Is it necessary to be dishonest about everything? Is it just an ideological reflex? Is it a biological preinclination? Do they think that no one has the capability to check these things?

I know Rush Limbaugh is under fire for supposedly suggesting that people should not donate to relief efforts in Haiti. This disgusting lie was proffered by the greatest White House Press Secretary the human race has ever had the privilege to know, Robert Gibbs. According to him, in every crisis, there are people who will say “really stupid things,” and this time, Limbaugh was one of them.

But it is blatantly, provably untrue.

Rush Limbaugh never said people should not donate to relief efforts in Haiti. It was never suggested, implied or even hinted. What Limbaugh did say, however, was that people who really want to see help extended to Haiti should send aid through private charities, churches, or any number of non-government entities which, as he pointed out, have always been far more efficient and far more successful in disaster relief efforts than the feds.  Don’t count on government aid to do much of anything.

How on Earth can that be denied?

The inability of the federal government to handle finances with any degree of efficiency, accountability and responsibility also cannot be denied. This is an entity that has severely botched Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and has supposedly created or saved two million jobs – the overwhelming vast majority of which are government-based – by sending taxpayer dollars to phantom districts and zip codes.

And they’re to be trusted to handle disaster relief?

RUSH: We’re going to start in Raleigh, North Carolina. Justin you’re first today. Great to have you with us.

JUSTIN: Mega Rush Baby dittos. My question is, why did Obama in the sound bite you played earlier, when he’s talking about if you wanted to donate some money, you can go to —

RUSH: Yeah.

JUSTIN: — to direct you how to do so. If I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the page and —

RUSH: Exactly. Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?


RUSH: Would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes.

JUSTIN: Absolutely.

RUSH: Absolutely right.

JUSTIN: That’s the point.

RUSH: Besides, we’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the US income tax.

JUSTIN: Rush, my mother was going to be on a missionary trip. She was going to leave at 4:30 this morning to go to Haiti with our church.

RUSH: That’s another point, too. Churches —

JUSTIN: No government money, Rush.

RUSH: Exactly right. Look, there are people that do charitable work every day in Haiti. It’s not as though — like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it’s our fault. Reverend Wright, it’s our fault, there’s no excuse for such poverty when there’s a nation as rich as we are so close. There are people that have been trying to save Haiti just as we’re trying to save Africa. You just can’t keep throwing money at it because the dictatorships there just take it all. They don’t spread it around, and even if they did they’re not creating a permanent system where people can provide for themselves. It’s a simple matter of self-reliance. Nobody takes that approach down there because this has always been a country run by dictators and incompetent ones at that.

How is that unclear?

Where did Rush Limbaugh say that people should not give money to Haiti?

If people are genuinely moved to boost relief efforts, would they best be served to see their contributions (i.e., tax dollars) make it to Haiti via the United States federal government on their behalf? Is there anyone who believes that US Government donations wouldn’t be turned over directly to corrupt Haitian politicians and officials? Who will be held accountable for what happens to our tax dollars? Remember that Haiti was a man-made disaster before the earthquake flattened it. How much of the money filtered through the federal government would find its way into hungry politician pockets instead of the millions who really need it?

Despite Obamacrat thinking, Americans are the most generous people in the world. They will always come to the aid of those in need. The government need not siphon its citizens for unaccountable, mismanaged funds.

Recall yesterday, I wrote:

This is not to suggest that the United States should not call on its citizens to come to the aid of a nation that has been incalculably overwhelmed by such a disaster. The President, in fact, handled his response to this earthquake perfectly fine. I am of the mind that citizens of the United States must come to the assistance of fellow human beings in a time such as this. The America that President keeps apologizing for will step up, as always, and do what’s right. That’s what the American people do, despite who is in charge. That isn’t the issue.

Note I said it is perfectly alright for the President to ask the people to donate to assist in relief efforts.

The people.

I never suggested the government was the right vehicle.

I did, however, say that Robert Gibbs was a liar. (Just reinforcing).

wordpress statistics

Posted in Natural Disaster, Obama Bonehead, Robert Gibbs, Rush Limbaugh | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009

It’s always an adventure of sorts to try and make some semblance of sense out of liberal thinking. Whether one finds himself (or herself) genuinely fascinated at the childlike cognitions that underlie liberal idealism, or aggravated at the disgustingly simplistic – and often destructive – “stage-one” notions that define modern liberal thought, it is often too tedious and far too bumper-stickery to be considered seriously substantive.

Unfortunately for this country and lovers of liberty, Democrats are in power.

Therefore, modern liberal thought must be taken seriously … for now.

Liberals, for instance, were dead wrong about the War in Iraq – on every level. From the moment they decided it was politically expedient for them to be opposed to it, the wrong side of history was theirs for the keeping – a trend for libs. Despite the overwhelming majority of Democrats voting in favor of military action against Iraq, opposition to the war became their “default” position once the invasion began. (Remember, Dems weren’t opposed to Bush because of the war. They were against the war because of Bush).

Indeed, libs still nosh on the dusty nuggets that fill up their ever-stale snack platters, blaming “Bush’s War” on everything from starving children in America’s inner cities to post nasal drip.

The fact is, Democrats don’t want to remember how the post-9/11 climate in America demanded a nation as terrorist-friendly as Iraq – with a ruthless dictator constantly violating Gulf War resolutions and firing on American war planes – be taken down for repeated failures to comply to the terms of those resolutions. To this day, Dems call the Iraqi War pointless, saying Bush should never have gone in. But had a terrorist attack on America been planned from the ever-accomodating confines of Hussein’s Iraq – or if training camps for terrorists had been allowed to thrive there (like under the Taliban in Afghanistan) – given the intelligence at the time, President Bush would have been hung from the village square for doing nothing – and rightfully so.

It’s likely “Bush’s War” will continue to be the beacon of blame for every malady that will befall America in the foreseeable future. One won’t be able to swing a dead mongoose without hitting an Obamacrat finding some way to blame the current state of affairs on “Bush’s War.” From unemployment to terrorist threats, from migraine headaches to anal fissures, it will all be Bush’s fault.

It’s how they think.

It’s their “default” position.

Take, for example, this commentary from Deputy White House Press Secretary, Bill Burton, traveling with the President in Hawaii, as he “recapped” the Sunday talk shows:

Robert Gibbs and Secretary Napolitano made clear that we are pressing ahead with securing our nation against threats and our aggressive posture in the war with al Qaeda. We are winding down a war in Iraq that took our eye off of the terrorists that attacked us, and have dramatically increased our resources in Afghanistan and Pakistan where those terrorists are.

Right on cue – the obligatory Iraq refrence.

So, if I am to understand … it was the Iraq War that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day? America’s eye was “off the ball” because of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? Conditions were such that if there was no invasion of Iraq, Abdulmutallab would never have been able to board that plane with explosive materials?

Yeah, okay.

But it gets better.

On Sunday morning, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said, “One thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.” And yet, both she and Gibbs announced that the President has asked for all procedures and policies at the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security be reviewed. Bush-era policies will, in effect, need to be dissected with a fine-tooth comb … but somehow, the system worked?

How could it have worked when it took passengers and members of the flight crew to thwart the attempted attack? And if it really did work, why the need to suddenly “review” everything?

The terrorist Abdulmutallab got on the plane, didn’t he? What worked exactly?

What are these people talking about?

Do they ever pull their heads out long enough to observe the happenings of the real world?

Again, note the instinct to laud themselves and blame everyone else. “It worked” because we are living in the Messianic Age. Whatever went wrong must be the fault of the other guy – the previous guy. Otherwise, all went quite well … even though a review of Bush-era implementations will be necessary … even though it worked … even though it will have to be looked at … even though it went like clockwork … blah, blah, blah..

Napolitano was forced to do an about-face this morning, admitting that after further review of the painfully obvious, the system actually did not work, saying, “”Here, clearly, something went awry. We want to fix that problem.”

Nothing escapes her.

Meanwhile, expect the “Blame Bush” brigades to keep it up. 

As [President Obama] said in West Point, we must put aside petty politics and recapture the unity that we had after 9/11.

Enough with the “unity” blather, okay? It is this administration that, at every turn, finds some way to place the blame for every blight and blemish on George W. Bush. No matter what the issue is, poor poor Obama constantly reminds the American people that he has been saddled with a host of inherited complications, so extensive and so problematic, that he may or may not be able to rectify them.


That’s how you get a B+. (Or an “A,” if you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger looking in).

wordpress statistics


Posted in terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 8, 2009

Robert Gibbs

Rush Limbaugh has called him the greatest White House Press Secretary in the history of this nation. Robert Gibbs may, indeed, be the brightest, most astute homo sapien – outside of President Obama – ever to take in air at the White House (and he’ll probably tell you so), but I’ve always found it difficult to slap a “greatest ever” label on him. Sure, over the last ten years, I’d probably rank him somewhere among the top six or seven White House press secretaries we’ve had, but the number one slot was a tough one to agree to … that is, until today. I now humbly concede that he may be the greatest press secretary of any house – white or otherwise – in all of recorded human history.

It’s hard to comprehend that Robert Gibbs – a man who exudes condescension, radiates arrogance, and reeks of superiority – could out spike himself on the superciliousness meter, but he has. Recall last week when Gibbs chastised a reporter, April Ryan – who was actually doing her job when she queried Gibbs about whether or not White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers invited herself to the White House state dinner two weeks ago. She kept at him until her frustration started to show. The payoff came when Gibbs told her she needed to calm down. He said she was throwing a temper tantrum, much like his son is wont to do sometimes.

Such class.

Lucky for him, the slope of his nose is at the perfect angle so as not to be a strain on his eyes when he peers down it’s regal slant to exchange words with the peasants.

However, as tasty as his exchange with Ms. Ryan was, it wasn’t until today that he finally won me over.

With the president’s approval numbers slipping to a paltry 47% in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll – one of lowest first-year December approval ratings for a president in recent history – Gibbs was asked to comment .

Said Gibbs:

I tell you, if I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I’d visit my doctor … If you look back, I think five days ago, there was an 11-point spread, now there’s a 1-point spread. I mean, I’m sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend.

A six-year old with a crayon?


He couldn’t just say that the White House doesn’t put a lot of stock in polls? He couldn’t muster just a touch of dignity and say that polls are not this administration’s biggest concern? Did he have to go through the whole “EKG” analogy to make his childish point? Was it necessary to call the work of Gallup something a six-year old might come up with?

And is everybody at this White House a damn narcissist? Note how Gibbs said he doesn’t put a lot of stake in polls … and never has.

It was a classic case of taking a gun to the messenger while dismissing what’s in his carry bag.

The sad thing is … he is probably telling the truth. The White House doesn’t give a damn about the polling numbers. If they did, they wouldn’t be trapsing down the liberty-destroying path they’re on.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obamacrats, politics, Robert Gibbs | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009

obama_b_ballThere isn’t enough government cheese in all the land to go with the latest flow of liberal whine coming from aggrieved women and lefty bloggers over the actions of the Neanderthal-in-Chief. Indeed, they still worship him as much as ever, but they’re disappointed (his maximum coolness and mouth-watering sex appeal not withstanding). As amazing as the dashing young Barack Obama is, there is concern that the dulcet-toned metrosexual from Chicago is slinging just a bit too much testosterone around the White House for their liking.

The assumption, of course, was that once the previous occupant of the White House – the God-obsessed John Wayne wanna-be – took his saddle and went back home to Crawford, the slick, bright-eyed, young Chicagoland urbanite would slide right in and show America what a true, well-balanced rainbow of success looked like. With the coming of the Messianic Age, along with varying shades of melanin, all chromosomes would be fairly represented at the House of Transformation.

However, there are genuine objections coming from non-testicled liberals and their allies. This Chief Executive, to their great dismay, seems tragically preoccupied with athletics, and sweat, and hanging out with the boys, and all of those things associated with … guys – and it’s got many irked.

Mark Leibovich at the New York Times, in his Washington Memo, explains:

Does the White House feel like a frat house?

The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.

The President, after all, is an unabashed First Guy’s Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a “big rambunctious dog” over a “girlie dog” and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.

Too much.

Isn’t that “Louie, Louie” I hear playing in the background? Am I the only one with visions of twisting togas filling my head?  What would the President’s frat name be?

“Dumbo?” “Marxie?” “Bam-A-Lang-a-Ding-Dong?”

Just asking.

And what about this high-level basketball game?

Barack Obama had the audacity not to suit up with chicks for a game of round ball, so naturally, women’s advocates are beside themselves with visions of Cro-Magnon patriarchy.


The President better get those urinals installed in the White House ladies rooms post haste.

He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other “dude” and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton administration whose sister, Betsy, served as the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer.

Ms. Myers said women have high expectations of the president. “Obama has a personal style that appeals to women,” she said. “He is seen as a consensus builder; he is not a towel snapper and does not tell crude jokes.”

Mr. Obama, in an interview with NBC on Wednesday, called the beef over basketball “bunk,” saying that the players were largely picked from a regular Congressional game and that the list of invitees was reviewed by women on his staff.

“I don’t think it sends any kind of message or signal whatsoever,” said the president, who often points out that he is surrounded by strong females at home (where he is the only non-canine male). He added, in the interview, that he had hired women into “some of the most important decision-making positions in this White House.”

You honestly cannot make things like this up.

“They don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle”?

What, pray tell, would the correct number of inner-cirle women be?

So then, are the events that need co-ed participation to be determined by the President himself? By staff members? By a counsel of angry and neglected women? Is there any limitation as to what the event could or should be?

What if the President schedules a staff bra-and-panties pillow fight? One would hardly be able to come up with something more “co-ed” than that. Of course, to be truly equitable, Obama, Gibbs, Emanuel and Summers would have to wear bras.

That, or the female invitees go topless.

Either way.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 1, 2009

Attorney General Eric Holder

Attorney General Eric Holder

In early August, it became Obamacratic doctrine. Officially, there was no longer a “War on Terrorism” to deal with.

A new sheriff meant new rules.

That whole “War on Terror” thing was so George W. Bush.

Instead, it was to be seen as the war against Al Qaeda and its “extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda’s murderous agenda.”

This, of course, was not to be confused with the phrase “Overseas Contingency Operation,” a term introduced by the Pentagon in March that, sadly, never became the iconic catchword the anti-Bushites had envisioned. Yesterday, in fact, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs – the greatest human ever to hold the position – went back and used the term “War on Terror” at his daily briefing.

It was an “oops” moment of considerable caliber.

(Those of us on the outside envision a punishment for Gibbs that will be as swift as it is severe).

If, as Obamacrats profess, there really is no “War On Terror” to fight – only a small group of crazed cave dwellers that need to be dealt with – then certainly it makes perfect sense to tie the hands of, and emasculate, the CIA.  After all, it is one of the prevailing motifs of modern liberalism – emasculation.

Attorney General Eric Holder simply is not going to allow patriotic Americans charged with the task of keeping America safe from terrorist attack to be rough with murderous thugs anymore. He has decided that the aggressive tactics and methods used to extract critical information from terrorists – intelligence that unquestionably kept America from sustaining a single post-9/11 terrorist attack – must now be investigated. We are, after all, living in a United States of America under new messianic management – one that is evolving and transforming. We measure our civility not by how we treat the innocent and the good but by how we coddle those who want to blow us the hell up. Tortuous interrogations employed by American intelligence operatives – like sleep deprivation and loud music – are things of the past.

Interestingly enough, Barack Obama finds himself in a bit of a bind. Before he became President, there can be no doubt that he was fully aware of Eric Holder’s belief that the Bush administration was guilty of sanctioning torture. Holder made it a point of saying so in speech after speech. Therefore, it would not have been unreasonable for anyone – including Bam – to conclude that Holder, as Attorney General, would look to bring the hammer down on what he viewed as the Bush torture machine.

Whether or not Barack Obama actually supports Holder in pursuing such a course of action is debatable (seeing as there is really nothing for Obama to gain from it), but for the President to not see this coming, or to be surprised by Holder’s actions, reflects far more on his naivety than anything else. Plus, to publicly go against the Attorney General on this would be a tough move, lest the hard left feel betrayed. And despite unconvincing – and frankly, pathetic – attempts by President Obama to somewhat distance himself from Holder’s time of “reckoning,” the time will come soon when he will have to do or say something presidential.

That ought to be entertaining.

Yet, it’s still interesting to note that in discussing the hypothetical “ticking bomb” scenario with those who feel that aggressive methods of interrogation are never to be used unless a threat is imminent, a peculiar contradiction emerges. Indeed, most libs (and some conservatives) will tell you that while they believe the chance of a genuine “ticking bomb” situation actually coming to fruition is slim to none, they would generally agree that if such a life-and-death scenario should ever play out, with tens of thousands of lives in the balance, vigorous methods of extracting information could probably be tolerated – but again, only in that very rarest of instances.

On yetserday’s Mike Gallagher radio program, former Chief Assistant US attorney, and National Review Online contributor Andrew C. McCarthy commented:

If you think about the arguments they’ve been making since 2004 when Abu Grahib exploded into our consciousness, it’s never made any sense. Even (Senator John) McCain, who is a doctrinaire opponent of torture, has always said these tactics never work, (but) if we were in a “ticking bomb” scenario, of course we would do what we have to do to get the information, and we wouldn’t prosecute the guy later.

Well, if the tactics don’t work, why would you use them in a “ticking bomb” scenario?


Posted in War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 3, 2009

Chip Reid and Helen Thomas

Chip Reid and Helen Thomas

No, I don’t think the love affair is over.

But perhaps the seemingly never-ending honeymoon is finally winding down.

While life itself is not (and cannot be) a pre-packaged, perfectly choreographed, script-dependant entity all done up in a pretty little bow, the current President – forever concerned with his own image, legacy and popularity – continues to take his cues from the Automaton Songbook. He conducts his business like a man who not only cannot think out of the box, but one who needs to have someone feeding him lines from it.

The Cue Card Chief Executive – the brilliant orator and thinker (as we’ve been told) whose only non-scripted efforts in recent times have been the killing of a fly on television (for which he was berated by PETA), laughing at tasteless jokes about Rush Limbaugh dying, and his procession of “uhs” and “ums” in those rare and unscripted moments when the cue card man was away – simply hasn’t the capacity to participate in a any formal public event without having every word scripted, every move blocked, every question pre-selected, every space around him filled with teleprompters, every “evil eye” glare strategically timed and every townhall meeting participant pre-screened.

From embarrassingly reading the wrong script off a dissenting teleprompter at a White House function – and not having the presence of mind to realize he was doing so – to needing his army of electronic idiot sheets all around him at even the briefest public venue (where only a quick word or two is necessary), the man who has been touted to be as quick as Kennedy, as great a communicator as Reagan, and as visionary as King is, in reality, as smooth as a sanding pad and as clueless as his own Vice President. (Unduly harsh?) His ability to think on his feet, collect his thoughts and summon the right words, as has been shown time and time again, is decidedly limited – perhaps nonexistent. “On the spot” thinking is not the President’s strong suit.

However, for all of his shortcomings, I will be fair.

There are things he knows – and quite well.

Big government is his forte. Driving a stake through the heart of liberty in the name of equality and justice is an Obama specialty. Drawing from his Marxist sensibilities, propaganda and manipulation is what he knows. It’s what he’s been taught. A protégé of the Saul Alinsky school of thought, Obama knows that his radical notions of government-controlled health-care, his unprecedented spending and government intervention in American lives must be carefully sold and crafted to sound reasonable. Every syllable must be uttered in perfect cadence. Every word must count.

The only way that is possible is to be able to control, restrain and limit the free press.

And so it was, on Wednesday, that the most magnificent press secretary ever to take the podium at the White House, Robert Gibbs, was surprisingly confronted by two of his own from the press corps. This was not a polite, pre-scripted, paddy-cake exchange between a blind main-stream-media Obamacrat and the Messiah’s spokesman. This was no staged conflict.

This was classic.

Michael Blatt from News Busters writes:

Is the press corps starting to tire of the Obama Administration?

At a press conference today (Wednesday), Helen Thomas and CBS’s Chip Reid got into it with Robert Gibbs over how the administration has been prepackaging media events.

First Reid asked why the questions for Wednesday’s town hall on healthcare were being preselected. After Gibbs tried to dodge that question a few times, Thomas became involved, saying, “We have never had that in the White House. I’m amazed that you people … call for openness and transparency.”

Thomas said that the administration was trying to control the media, and she pointed out how they coordinated questions with the Huffington Post at a press conference.

Indeed, I diligently checked the news wires, combed through endless weather reports and even managed to listen to the “top of the hour” news reports on the radio, and I could not find any reports of dramatic temperature drops in hell.

Blatt continues:

Thomas is not the first journalist to question the White House’s coordination with the Huffington Post. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank also took the White House to task for the coordination.

Wednesday’s press conference was also not the only media event that was in some way coordinated. Previous town halls have featured Obama campaign supporters and Democratic politicians lobbing softballs at Obama.

As Thomas noted, “[Obama’s] formal engagements are prepackaged.”

After Gibbs continued to dodge questions, Thomas said, “Of course you would, because you don’t have any answers.”

Before the exchange ended, Reid asked Gibbs to pass along this question to Obama: “Is he going to support a tax increase on the middle class?”

Afterwards, Thomas told CNS News that Obama’s grip on the media is even greater than that of Richard Nixon.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn’t control [the media]. They didn’t try that. What the hell do they think we are, puppets? They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them. … I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences. It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”

How about that?

My fingertips may actually detach themselves from the rest of my hand in revolt for typing this – and I may have to rub my eyes more than a couple dozen times to make sure that I have actually posted these words on my blog – but “Good for you, Helen Thomas!”

(Checking to make sure the world is still here).

As Eric at the great Vocal Minority website writes:

Why would two notoriously liberal establishment journalists suddenly turn on an administration they’ve heretofore been cheerleading for? My guess is it’s an ego/pride thing. The rigging of the Huffington Post “reporter” by the Obama team must have infuriated professionals like Thomas and Reid. And if there’s one thing you don’t want to do, it’s upset a news media type with a holier-than-thou complex.

Indeed, it goes without saying that the vast majority of the mainstream media has been in bed with President Obama since the moment he stepped forward from his blockbusting two years in the US Senate to become The One. He has done no wrong in their eyes – and it is reflected in the pages of their magazines and newspapers and in their broadcats. While never missing the opportunity to brand George W. Bush everything from a hayseed to a war criminal, the Messiah’s transforming blitzkrieg on American individualism, free market principals and liberty has brought very little in the way of hard criticisms from the lock-step fourth estate. They have done all they can to shamelessly promote and defend his intrusive big government policies while (unsuccessfully) attempting to maintain the veneer of impartiality.

However, media types don’t like being told what to do, how to do it and where it can be done – not even drooling, orgasmic Obamacrats.

Bam had best watch his step.

Media toes do not like being trod upon, even if the feet doing the smashing can walk on water.

Posted in First Amendment, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »