tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post4287115672167407880..comments2023-10-28T02:10:29.103-07:00Comments on Something You Might Like: Obama’s Enemies List: Are You on It?Eddie Howellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18179867281158581924noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-59962943742554335792009-10-27T18:19:08.055-07:002009-10-27T18:19:08.055-07:00Michelle,
Thanks for your kind words. I'm hon...Michelle,<br /><br />Thanks for your kind words. I'm honored to to have this on your blog. Best wishes.<br /><br />EddieEddie Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18179867281158581924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-87870005822903966712009-10-27T17:54:30.528-07:002009-10-27T17:54:30.528-07:00I posted your article on my blog. I'm sorry, b...I posted your article on my blog. I'm sorry, but it was just so good, well-written, and put-together. I put up a link to your blog as well and your name above the post. I basically did that quote thing so that it could be easily seen upon view. Thank you for writing this! Incredible work!Michelle Rosalyn Matthewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03719546700710088532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-31906438898828761072009-10-25T12:04:40.196-07:002009-10-25T12:04:40.196-07:00Michelle,
Of course, it's fine. Thank you.Michelle,<br /><br />Of course, it's fine. Thank you.Eddie Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18179867281158581924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-59832767161790542572009-10-25T11:20:00.849-07:002009-10-25T11:20:00.849-07:00Great job! I'm gonna link to this article in a...Great job! I'm gonna link to this article in an upcoming post if that's alright. This is awesome.Michelle Rosalyn Matthewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03719546700710088532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-30903767257388766022009-10-23T21:38:28.126-07:002009-10-23T21:38:28.126-07:00Not able to update my blog as often these days bec...Not able to update my blog as often these days because of my new job. But I did devote some free time that I have to addressing your response to me, because I found it worthy of response. You can check out my response over at my blog. It's a little snarky, and I'm a little too tired to be directly debating somebody, but we have serious differences worth exploring.Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00398844108547664989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-7208784235856556602009-10-23T16:26:12.540-07:002009-10-23T16:26:12.540-07:00Sorry about the duplicated comments. I pressed a w...Sorry about the duplicated comments. I pressed a wrong button.<br /><br />If you want polls, try Rasmussen. As of October 22, Obama has a favorable rating of 47% of likely voters and an unfavorable rating or 52%. The “strongly disapprove” category is 39% compared to 26% strongly approving. Also, the generic congressional ballot stands at 42% for Republicans and 37% for Democrats as of October 20.<br /><br />Republicans, that is elected members of the House and Senate, have treated Obama much more kindly and gently than he deserves, and have been nowhere near as obnoxious as Democrats were to Bush. I do think the Republicans have hurt themselves by not being forceful enough and being to reluctant to advance a conservative agenda. <br /><br />If Democrats want to do well in the next election, they need to consider a few facts. (1) George W. Bush is not in office, nor will he be on the ballot. (2) The American people do not want the socialist policies Obama is trying to force upon them. (3) High taxes and ridiculous regulation, let alone insurance mandates and the like, will not be accepted by the people. People usually find ways around bad laws. (4) Members who support Obamacare and cap and trade had better be in liberal districts, or they are unlikely to be back after the 2010 elections.<br /><br />As for socialism, fascism, etc., Obama and the Congressional democratic leaders demonstrate little to no respect for the Bill of Rights, and it’s questionable that they understand it very well. It seems that just about every initiative from Obama (at least the major ones) involve limiting or removing freedom and trying to increase government control and power. The federal government is already involved in too many things it shouldn’t be, and Obama is stretching it well past its constitutional limits with no letup in sight.<br /><br />I don’t get a great many ideas from Fox News, but they often provide good analysis, e.g., Krauthammer in this video. But in straight news reporting, Fox is less opinionated than most network and other cable channel reporters. Since they aren’t so slanted left, they appear more right-wing by comparison.<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to write your comments. I do appreciate it.Eddie Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18179867281158581924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-32584600882325792842009-10-23T16:23:55.072-07:002009-10-23T16:23:55.072-07:00Looks like Fox News has struck a nerve. But Bill K...Looks like Fox News has struck a nerve. But Bill Kristol is correct that Obama’s problem is not Fox News, but the American public, a majority of whom do not support Obama’s health care plan. Also, the high unemployment rate is not being ignored by the public, nor is Obama’s total ineffectiveness in dealing with it. If he’s really trying to help the economy, he’s a total nitwit. And he’s not that.<br /><br />As for “Carrying water,” the MSM has been Obama’s loyal servant since he started running for president. Their job is to spin his missteps and make him look brilliant. <br />I would trust Fox News and Rush much, much more than the out-of-touch, elitist MSM, featuring the doubtful work of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Not many would have much credibility, but there are some. Fox doesn’t ridicule conservatives, so they’re considered right-wing. And of course, their commentators are right of center. You have taken up the party line expressed by Anita Dunn about Fox being an arm of the Republican Party. That is less true than saying that the MSM is the White House Propaganda Department.<br /><br />George W. was nowhere near Obama in destroying freedom; rather he focused on protecting it for all of us. As for the NYT, someone broke federal laws when that secret information was leaked and the newspaper earns no approval from me for publishing it. Of course, G.W. didn’t have them prosecuted. Bush was the least responsive to criticism of any president I have known of. Obama, on the other hand, is extremely thin-skinned and vindictive. Maybe Bush tried to choose favorable news outlets for interviews, but that is not the same thing as publicly saying that they weren’t valid news organizations.<br />All presidents want favorable news coverage, and I don’t blame Obama for wanting that too.<br /><br />What’s wrong with the White House attack on Fox News and the other “enemies” is the attempt to demonize and destroy, rather than simply attack and debate. Bush never did that. If Obama wants to practice “gangster government” then that’s what we’ll have. People can see through his strategy. He’ll soon have more enemies than friends. He probably does already.Eddie Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18179867281158581924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-20828388133014591312009-10-23T16:23:29.962-07:002009-10-23T16:23:29.962-07:00Looks like Fox News has struck a nerve. But Bill K...Looks like Fox News has struck a nerve. But Bill Kristol is correct that Obama’s problem is not Fox News, but the American public, a majority of whom do not support Obama’s health care plan. Also, the high unemployment rate is not being ignored by the public, nor is Obama’s total ineffectiveness in dealing with it. If he’s really trying to help the economy, he’s a total nitwit. And he’s not that.<br /><br />As for “Carrying water,” the MSM has been Obama’s loyal servant since he started running for president. Their job is to spin his missteps and make him look brilliant. <br />I would trust Fox News and Rush much, much more than the out-of-touch, elitist MSM, featuring the doubtful work of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Not many would have much credibility, but there are some. Fox doesn’t ridicule conservatives, so they’re considered right-wing. And of course, their commentators are right of center. You have taken up the party line expressed by Anita Dunn about Fox being an arm of the Republican Party. That is less true than saying that the MSM is the White House Propaganda Department.<br /><br />George W. was nowhere near Obama in destroying freedom; rather he focused on protecting it for all of us. As for the NYT, someone broke federal laws when that secret information was leaked and the newspaper earns no approval from me for publishing it. Of course, G.W. didn’t have them prosecuted. Bush was the least responsive to criticism of any president I have known of. Obama, on the other hand, is extremely thin-skinned and vindictive. Maybe Bush tried to choose favorable news outlets for interviews, but that is not the same thing as publicly saying that they weren’t valid news organizations.<br />All presidents want favorable news coverage, and I don’t blame Obama for wanting that too.<br /><br />What’s wrong with the White House attack on Fox News and the other “enemies” is the attempt to demonize and destroy, rather than simply attack and debate. Bush never did that. If Obama wants to practice “gangster government” then that’s what we’ll have. People can see through his strategy. He’ll soon have more enemies than friends. He probably does already.Eddie Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18179867281158581924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-32927558677331126922009-10-22T19:09:48.932-07:002009-10-22T19:09:48.932-07:00Also, I might add, it is a GOOD thing for Dems tha...Also, I might add, it is a GOOD thing for Dems that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's ratings are up; nothing emphasizes the fanaticism of the Republican Party more to those independents who both parties need in order to win elections. Look at it this way, Fox News dominates the other cable news outlets, and Rush Limbaugh's ratings have never been higher, but according to a WaPo poll only 19% of Americans are confident in the Republican Party. Will the measly 2% of Americans who watch Fox News all vote Republicans? OF COURSE. Luckily in a democracy you don't have to win the loudest voters, you have to win the most voters.<br /><br />The Democrats don't have to be well-liked, they just have to be less hated than than the GOP. And fortunately Beck/O'Reilly/Hannity/Rush are ensuring that this is the case. It's absurd to say that Repubs aren't "combative" enough. I'm just trying to help your side out right now, unless you enjoy wandering the wilderness of political irrelevancy you should focus more on developing a governing philosophy and less on the nontroversy of the day and Obama's creeping socialism/communism/fascism/secularism.Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00398844108547664989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615158207991140558.post-48976644559982844512009-10-22T16:39:19.572-07:002009-10-22T16:39:19.572-07:00I'm beginning to seriously wonder: Have you an...I'm beginning to seriously wonder: Have you any ideas not acquired from watching Fox News? The partisan support for a specific "news" organization may be unprecedented, as is the participatory behavior of Fox News in organizing and encouraging protests against the government (unprecedented in America that is, this sort of thing has happened in Venezuela), but Obama's treatment of Fox News is not only entirely appropriate, but innocuous when compared to George Bush's persistent pressuring of the news media.<br /><br />George Bush threatened to CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE the NYT for reporting on Bush counter-terror policies, imprisoned foreign journalists, refused to grant the media even basic information about Dick Cheney's whereabouts, and compiled a list of "reliably friendly" news analysts who they could grant exclusives to in order to marginalize those who were critical. The Bush DOD claimed to have developed a group who they could count on to "carry [their] water for [them]."<br /><br />It wouldn't be all that unusual if Fox News' coverage of Obama was colored with bias. But Fox News is essentially a propaganda and research arm of the Republican Party. If Obama claims to avoid Fox because he doesn't consider it a legitimate news organization, I don't see how you could honestly disagree with his reasoning. Actually, I could. You watch too much Fox News.Andrew Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00398844108547664989noreply@blogger.com