Author Topic: Official Obama Foot in Mouth Thread - he just can't STFU sometimes.  (Read 16579 times)

Mr. Magoo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9808
  • THE most mistaken identity on getbig
Re: Obama quote of the day
« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2011, 05:32:21 PM »
Isn't his point that being pleased should not be an expected outcome of budget cuts?

What's the problem?

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Obama quote of the day
« Reply #51 on: July 08, 2011, 05:55:06 PM »
Thats what you get out of his comment? No, he means I hate defense spending and am sad that I will also have to cut hand-outs, pet projects and other great society wealth redistribution bullshit that libs love to champion. Defense is the central job of the Federal government....healthcare and all the other lib projects aren't. But the world is a happy cheery place where higs and fuzzt bunnies abound...a place where all it takes is to give a speech and peace breaks out. He's an epic douche.
L

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Obama quote of the day
« Reply #52 on: July 08, 2011, 05:59:26 PM »
Wow, I guess all pretenses are out the windows now. What the POTUS and other anti-military types don't realize, is that without the military we have, they wouldn't be able to make such asinine statements
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama quote of the day
« Reply #53 on: July 08, 2011, 06:05:33 PM »
Bb can you put yhis in obama foot in mouth thread.  Wwwtttfff. 

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Obama quote of the day
« Reply #54 on: July 08, 2011, 06:06:04 PM »
"your president has your back"...minutes after completely fucking up who exactly he gave the MOH to. This guy is a joke. They swept the god and guns quote under the rug..and the media continues to ball wash for this guy.

Yeah..another one for the foot in mouth thread.
L

Mr. Magoo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9808
  • THE most mistaken identity on getbig
Re: Obama quote of the day
« Reply #55 on: July 08, 2011, 06:15:20 PM »
Thats what you get out of his comment? No, he means I hate defense spending and am sad that I will also have to cut hand-outs, pet projects and other great society wealth redistribution bullshit that libs love to champion. Defense is the central job of the Federal government....healthcare and all the other lib projects aren't. But the world is a happy cheery place where higs and fuzzt bunnies abound...a place where all it takes is to give a speech and peace breaks out. He's an epic douche.

no, he meant that defense spending (which republicans typically advocate for (Which is largely overfunded btw, we do not need cold war funding when there is not a cold war threat, but that is for another thread)) or social programs might be cut.

"or" in this sense does not mean "if one then not the other". It is being used that allows for both to occur. So the statement says that defense might get cut, social programs might get cut, or both might get cut. The implication is to not be emotionally involved in one to blind you to the larger picture of the deficit problem.

Again, I don't see the problem in the format of the statement.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Obama quote of the day
« Reply #56 on: July 08, 2011, 06:27:10 PM »
I don't suppose u would. Cold War defense spending? You are aware we're conducting major combat operations in Afganistan and over Libya...medium ops in Yemen and throughout Africa plus will likely keep troops in Iraq. Not to mention the rise of China and an actual blue water navy which will cause an regional asian arms race. We have Iranians with nukes..the list is endless and our military is less then half its size at the end of desert storm. I've been 3 friggen times with number 4 coming up. Defense is not something we need to cut in any major way. Barry hates us. The EPA/ATF/HUD/Dept of Ed all need to go or get seriously cut. Uncle sugar needs to do alot of cutting....its constitutionally mandated job is not one of them. He said exactly what he ment. I'll to not only cut stuff I hate, but fun happy stuff I like. He's a bitch.
L

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama quote of the day
« Reply #57 on: July 08, 2011, 06:48:55 PM »
I don't suppose u would. Cold War defense spending? You are aware we're conducting major combat operations in Afganistan and over Libya...medium ops in Yemen and throughout Africa plus will likely keep troops in Iraq. Not to mention the rise of China and an actual blue water navy which will cause an regional asian arms race. We have Iranians with nukes..the list is endless and our military is less then half its size at the end of desert storm. I've been 3 friggen times with number 4 coming up. Defense is not something we need to cut in any major way. Barry hates us. The EPA/ATF/HUD/Dept of Ed all need to go or get seriously cut. Uncle sugar needs to do alot of cutting....its constitutionally mandated job is not one of them. He said exactly what he ment. I'll to not only cut stuff I hate, but fun happy stuff I like. He's a bitch.

The military is the one thing we do well.   At least the money s going to decent people, not the skells raping the nation.   

I'd rather my tax dollars go to the military than the savages in the south Bronx.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama quote of the day
« Reply #58 on: July 08, 2011, 07:42:38 PM »
"We will have to make tough decisions about Defense spending, or even on programs that I like.”*
 
-President Barack Obama, Twitter townhall event.


My hate burns bright for him.

I don't blame you.  What a stupid thing to say. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama quote of the day
« Reply #59 on: July 08, 2011, 07:49:43 PM »
I don't blame you.  What a stupid thing to say. 

It's not stupid.   It's intentional and calculated. 

GraniteCityDon

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1555
He's dealing with things that Bush set in motion, but evidently he's dealing with them in the wrong manner. I genuinely can not believe this man is the most powerful man in the world - its 1 thing to make Bush Jr a consecutive term President but to follow him with THIS can only be described as negligent.

I struggle to grasp just how inept he is, it is as if he's trying to put across things that make perfect sense to him in his head but he doesn't realise the real world implications of his statements and actions.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half (2/22/2009. Blast to the past. Where's the MSM now?
Politico ^ | 2/22/2009 | mike allen
Posted on July 10, 2011 10:03:41 AM EDT by tobyhill

President Obama will announce Monday that he plans to cut the nation’s projected annual deficit in half by the end of his first term, a senior administration official said Saturday.

The plan will make explicit what Obama officials have been suggesting for months: Contrary to his campaign promise, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans expire as scheduled at the end of 2010 instead of seeking their repeal sooner. Officials determined that seeking to raise the taxes earlier during a recession was a bad idea, advisers said.

Obama, who will speak Monday to a Fiscal Responsibility Summit at the White House, also will outline steps he is taking to eliminate what his staff calls “accounting gimmicks” used by previous administrations.

“This budget actually is going to assume that there will be a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood or manmade disaster in the United States in fiscal year 2010, and each year going forward 10 years,” the official said. “The Bush budget never assumed that.”

Under White House projections, this year’s inherited budget deficit of $1.3 trillion will be cut to $533 billion by fiscal year 2013, the end of the first term.

“So we’ll cut it at least in half,” the official said.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...








Fail

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
He misspoke, he meant to say he was going to double the deficit. Damn teleprompter
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama vs. Obama
The Weekly Standard ^ | 1:21 AM, Jul 11, 2011 | STEPHEN F. HAYES


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2746722/posts



In a 75-minute meeting Sunday night, President Obama once again demanded that more than $1 trillion in tax increases be part of any deficit reduction package attached to a vote on the debt ceiling. In the session, Obama rejected a Republican proposal to seek $2.5 trillion in spending cuts and reforms, and insisted on higher taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals. Barack Obama,

It’s a curious position, given the anemic economic growth and rising unemployment. And it’s even more curious considering that Obama himself has warned about the deleterious effects of raising taxes in a struggling economy.

In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Todd reminded Obama that he had promised to raise taxes on “some of the wealthiest” Americans.

Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”

When Obama warned about the consequences of raising taxes, the economy was moving away from recession—growth in the fourth quarter of 2009 was nearly 6 percent. Today, however, economic growth has slowed to less than 2 percent. Even before the horrible June jobs report, economists were warning about the “substantial” possibility of a double-dip recession. Many others agreed after the news last week. “In addition to the shock value…we need to seriously question whether a double-dip is there,” David Ader, chief treasury strategist at CRT Capital, told CNBC. “I would say it’s back on the table.”

If raising taxes in a recession would be “the last thing you want to do,” wouldn’t raising taxes in a struggling economy teetering on a double-dip be the second last thing you’d want to do?

Obama made a similar argument in December, when he signed the bipartisan tax relief agreement – a deal that maintained Bush tax rates (even for the wealthy) and included additional tax breaks for businesses. “Millions of entrepreneurs who have been waiting to invest in their businesses will receive new tax incentives to help them expand, buy new equipment or make upgrades – freeing up other money to hire new workers.”

If Obama was right and the tax breaks in that deal freed up money for job creators to hire new workers, isn’t the reverse true? Isn’t it the case that new taxes on entrepreneurs and other job creators will leave them with less money to hire new workers? And wouldn’t raising taxes on the “wealthiest” just “put business further in a hole,” as Obama believed just two years ago?

His economics were right. So why the change?


________________________ ________________________ ___________


FAIL 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama Would Rather Be Talking About NFL Lockout Over Debt Crisis
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/11/obama_would_rather_be_talking_about_nfl_lockout_over_debt_crisis.html





"We are not out here trying to use this as a means of doing all these really tough political things. I would rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes like new programs or the NFL season getting resolved. Unfortunately, this is what's on our plate. It's before us right now and we've got to deal with it. What you are right about, I think, is that the leaders in the room here, at a certain point, have to step up and do the right thing regardless of the voices in our respective parties that are trying to undermine that effort."


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama Warns Best-Selling Authors: You're Not "Off The Hook"
Real Clear Politics ^





President Obama wants to let you know that no one is getting off the hook. Be it CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, corporate jet owners, hedge fund managers, or .... best-selling authors? Yes: We weren't balancing the budget off of middle-class families and working-class families. And we weren't letting hedge fund managers or authors of best-selling books off the hook. That is a reasonable proposition. Obama concluded, "we're not looking to raise taxes right now" -- just in 2013 and 2014.


(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...



________________________ ________________________ ______________________


What a moron.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Reminds me of a joke.

One day the POTUS gets out of bed and not feeling very well looks in the mirror to notice that he pale.
He goes to the doctor to get checked out.
The doctor examines him, the goes out of the room and returns a few minutes later and informs the POTUS to drink the concoction that he has returned with.
The POTUS downs it and say "Wow I feel much better, but that tasted like bullshit"
The doctor say "It was bullshit, you were about a quart low"
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
'Eat our peas': Pea growers react to Obama remark
L.A. Times ^ | 7/11/11 | Michael A. Memoli




That's the reaction of the USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council to the president's urging of budget negotiators to make the difficult choices necessary to reach a "grand bargain" to raise the nation's debt limit.

"It's not going to get easier, it's going to get harder. So we might as well do it now; pull off the Band-aid, eat our peas," Obama said at a White House news conference.

A spokesman for the pea council said it wasn't interpreting the remarks in a negative context.

"We take President Obama's comment on the need to 'eat our peas' as a reference to the first lady's push to get all Americans to eat a more healthy diet as part of the Let's Move campaign," Pete Klaiber, the council's director of marketing.


(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
In Obamaland, the Past is Irrelevant
Townhall.com ^ | July 12, 2011 | Guy Benson






President Obama inhabits a very special world.  It's a world in which his entire slate of previous statements, policy preferences, and actions is apparently wiped clean every time he delivers a new speech or press statement.  As my friend Mary Katharine Ham likes to quip, what Obama said -- or did -- last week, last month, or last year is regarded as irrelevant, so long as he's making himself "crystal clear" today.  Call it a transcendent belief in "the fierce urgency of now."  I'll illustrate this phenomenon shortly.


First, a few basic takeaways from today's lengthy presidential news conference, which made little actual news.  The president said a debt deal is still a ways off, and stated that although he appreciates John Boehner's "good faith efforts" to help prevent a disastrous default, Republicans must "budge" on taxes for a workable compromise to materialize.  He called on both sides to make concessions, arguing that it's time to "rip off the Bandaid" and "eat our peas."  He forswore short-term extensions, vowing to reject any 30-to-90 day debt ceiling patches.  "This is the United States of America, and we don't manage our affairs in three-month increments," he asserted.  (Except when we do, of course).  He also flatly stated that an accord will be forged by the August 2nd deadline.  "We're going to meet every day until we get this thing resolved," he said.  Negotiations are ongoing.


Now, back to mystical Obamaland:  The president talked quite a lot about the pressing and imperative need to strike a comprehensive debt deal this morning.  Largely reprising his hectoring performance of June 29th, Obama called on both sides to sacrifice their respective sacred cows to facilitate an agreement post-haste.  Such a visionary pragmatist.  Except...this latest incarnation of Barack Obama seems to have forgotten that a previous one was demanding a "clean" debt ceiling hike as recently as six weeks ago.  Out: We must hike this debt ceiling without any grand deal immediately!  In: We must reach a grand deal to hike the debt ceiling immediately!  No matter; new day, new paradigm.  Head spin.


To oppose a debt limit increase would be patently "irresponsible," today's Barack Obama intoned -- an apparent repudiation of 2006's Barack Obama, who did precisely that.  "Revenue increases" are "fair" and essential, today's Barack Obama insisted -- contradicting 2009's Barack Obama, who noted that raising taxes is "the last thing you want to do" in a sluggish economy. Head spin.


The president also spoke passionately about the necessity of making tough choices to help control the swollen national debt.  He assured us he's "willing to do hard things politically" to reach an agreement.  What might those "hard things" be?  He won't say.  It's as if today's Barack Obama has forgotten that when presented with an obvious opportunity to offer leadership on this front, February's Barack Obama introduced a budget that was universally panned for its inadequacy and utter refusal to propose any "hard things."  And that April's Barack Obama discarded February's Barack Obama's budget in favor of a laughably non-specific "vision," which still hasn't been fleshed out.  And that 2010's Barack Obama appointed a bipartisan debt commission to devise exactly the sort of comprehensive solution that today's Barack Obama demands -- but that February's Barack Obama completely disregarded its recommendations in crafting his (later abandoned) budget proposal.  Head spin.


Applying icing to his rhetorical cake, the president wrapped up his press conference by promising that his policies will help corral deficits and debt, eventually.  Without missing a beat, he closed with an astonishing brainstorm: He encouraged Americans to envision a large-scale government program to spur job growth through major infrastructure projects as a solution to high unemployment.  Today's Barack Obama clearly didn't know or care that the large-scale government program to spur job growth through major infrastructure projects -- championed by 2009's Barack Obama, then mocked by June's Barack Obama -- didn't even come close to meeting the expectations and projections 2009's Barack Obama established.  Head spin.


No worries, though.  Today is a brand new day.  Problem: Today's Barack Obama will soon become yesterday's Barack Obama -- whose stated policies and preferences are liable to slide into obsolescence as soon as tomorrow's Barack Obama opens his mouth.  What comes next is anyone's guess.


This cycle of presidential body-snatching may be a totally incoherent approach to governance, but it sure is exciting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Fresh doubt cast on Obama's health care story
By: Byron York | Chief Political Correspondent Follow Him @ ByronYork | 07/11/11 8:05 PM

 
Then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) addresses a rally in the gymnasium of Concord High School January 4, 2008 in Concord before the 2008 New Hampshire primary, where the Democratic presidential hopeful made this remark examined by Examiner columnist Byron York: "She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn't have to reimburse her for her medical bills."During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama often discussed his mother's struggle with cancer. Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995, Obama said, fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment.


"I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn't thinking about how to get well, she wasn't thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence," Obama said in September 2007.


"She was in her hospital room looking at insurance forms because the insurance company said that maybe she had a pre-existing condition and maybe they wouldn't have to reimburse her for her medical bills," Obama added in January 2008.

"The insurance companies were saying, 'Maybe there's a pre-existing condition and we don't have to pay your medical bills,' " Obama said in a debate with Republican opponent Sen. John McCain in October 2008.

It was a simple and powerful story, one Obama would tell many more times as president during the national health care debate. But now we're learning the real story of Ann Dunham's health coverage is not quite what her son made it out to be.

The news is in "A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mother," a generally admiring new biography written by former New York Times reporter Janny Scott. According to the book, Ann Dunham, an anthropologist who spent most of her working life in Indonesia, moved from Jakarta to New York in 1992 to work for a nonprofit called Women's World Banking, which encouraged micro-lending in Third World countries. Unhappy in New York, in 1994 Dunham took a job with an American company called Development Alternatives, which had a contract with the Indonesian State Ministry for the Role of Women. Dunham returned to Jakarta to work, and Scott reports the job provided Dunham with health insurance, a housing allowance, and a car.

At the time she took the job, Dunham was increasingly worried about her health; she was suffering from intense abdominal pains. In November 1994, Dunham went to an Indonesian doctor who diagnosed appendicitis. As Dunham debated whether to leave the country for surgery, she called her boss at Development Alternatives. "You've got health insurance, that's taken care of," the boss told her. "We can cover the airfare."

Dunham decided to stay in Jakarta, where she underwent an appendectomy. But the pain did not go away, and Dunham feared, correctly, that she was terribly ill. In January 1995 she left Indonesia to go home to Honolulu, where she was diagnosed with advanced uterine and ovarian cancer. She began a regime of surgery and chemotherapy.

That is the time during which Obama says his mother battled insurance companies to cover her illness. But Scott, who had access to Dunham's correspondence from the time, reveals that Dunham unquestionably had health coverage. "Ann's compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment," Scott writes. "Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month."

Scott writes that Dunham, who wanted to be compensated for those costs as well as for her living expenses, "filed a separate claim under her employer's disability insurance policy." It was that claim, with the insurance company CIGNA, that was denied in August 1995 because, CIGNA investigators said, Dunham's condition was known before she was covered by the policy.

Dunham protested the decision and, Scott writes, "informed CIGNA that she was turning over the case to 'my son and attorney, Barack Obama.' " CIGNA did not budge.

In September 1995, Dunham traveled to New York for an evaluation at the renowned Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Returning to Hawaii, she began a new course of treatment. She died in November.

A dozen years later, her son turned her ordeal into a campaign pitch for national health care. But the story Obama told, Scott writes, was "abbreviated" -- the abbreviation was to leave out the fact that Ann Dunham had health insurance that paid for her treatment. "Though he often suggested that she was denied health coverage because of a pre-existing condition," Scott writes, "it appears from her correspondence that she was only denied disability coverage."

That's a different story altogether. One the president never told.

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.


________________________ ___________________


More lies from Obama to justify obamacare.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Chief Actuary Says Obama Could Pay Social Security Checks During a Shutdown
GatewayPundit ^ | 7/13/11 | Jim Hoft




FULL TITLE: Confirmed: Chief Actuary Says Obama Could Pay Social Security Checks During a Shutdown (Obama Caught Playing Politics)

Yesterday Barack Obama told CBS that there simply may not be enough money in the coffers next month to pay Social Security payments.

But Obama was just playing games with seniors.

Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) pointed out that the decision to withhold checks “would be a political one” made by the President.

During this morning’s Budget Committee meeting, Congressman Huelskamp asked Stephen Goss, Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration, to explain how the Obama administration could withhold Social Security checks to American seniors.

The question was prompted by a statement by President Obama that he could not guarantee that Social Security checks would be mailed August 3, 2011, if Congress fails to increase the debt limit.

Yesterday, Congressman Huelskamp issued a statement noting that it is irresponsible for the President to use seniors on Social Security as pawns to leverage his point in the debt limit negotiations.

Mr. Goss told Congressman Huelskamp: “The responsibility of the Social Security Administration per se, my boss, Commissioner Astrue, is to in fact determine how much in the way of benefit payments people are supposed to receive.

We send that information actually over to the Department of the Treasury. They are the ones who actually send out the payments, whether it’s electronic funds, transfers, or check.”


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Documents Show Obama White House Attacked, Excluded Fox News Channel
Judicial Watch ^ | July 14, 2011






White House Emails Detail anti Fox Bias inside Obama White House: “I’m putting some dead fish in the fox cubby -- just cause” “[FNC Anchor] Bret Baier…is a lunatic”


Washington, DC -- July 14, 2011

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Obama Department of Treasury showing that the Obama administration, contrary to its repeated denials, attempted to exclude the Fox News Channel (FNC) from a round of interviews with Treasury’s “Executive Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The documents, which include email exchanges within the Department of the Treasury and between Treasury and White House staff, also provide colorful evidence of an anti-Fox News bias within the Obama White House.

The documents, obtained last week by Judicial Watch pursuant to an October, 28, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, concern a series of interviews with Feinberg, who served as the Special Master for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Executive Compensation, on October 22, 2009, organized by the Treasury Department. According to press reports, the Fox News Channel was specifically excluded from joining the pool of reporters which precipitated a backlash among the networks and a reversal by the Obama Treasury Department.

According to The New York Times: “Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Thursday [October 22, 2009] to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a ‘pool’ camera crew…”. Fox News Channel’s James Rosen reported this backlash forced the Obama administration to reconsider its position on the matter: “The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV news network consulted and decided that none of them would interview Feinberg unless Fox was included, and the administration relented…,” reported Rosen. Ultimately, after other media representatives objected, Fox News Channel was allowed to participate in the interviews.

The Treasury Department’s official response, as detailed in back-and-forth emails uncovered by Judicial Watch, included a clear denial of any such plot to exclude Fox News from the interviews: “There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing.” Moreover, in an October 23, 2009 email to one reporter (name redacted), Jake Siewart, Counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, repeated the denial that there was an effort to exclude Fox News Channel: “Call me today on your Fox-Treasury report,” Siewart wrote. “Not true that there was an ‘effort to exclude’ Fox.”

However, despite this public position, internal Obama administration emails obtained by Judicial Watch provide evidence that FNC was specifically singled out for exclusion. According to one October 22, 2009, email exchange between Dag Vega, Director of Broadcast Media on the White House staff, to Jenni LeCompte, then-Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs in the Treasury Department, Vega informs LeCompte that “…we’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”

Regarding general anti-FNC bias within the Obama White House in an October 23, 2009, email exchange between Jennifer Psaki, Deputy White House Communications Director and LeCompte, Psaki writes, “I am putting some dead fish in the fox cubby – just cause”. In an email on the night of October 22, 2009, commenting on a report by Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier noting the exclusion of the network from the pool, Psaki writes to Compte and fellow White House colleagues, “…brett baier just did a stupid piece on it -- but he is a lunatic”.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest bluntly described the White House’s position on Fox News Channel in an October 23, 2009, email to LeCompte: “We’ve demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews…”

The Treasury Department blacked out a key email regarding its refusal to make available Treasury Secretary Geithner for an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

“The Obama administration seems to have lied about its attempt to exclude Fox News Channel from access to an interview with the ‘pay czar.’ These documents show there is s a pervasive anti-Fox bias in the Obama White House,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The juvenile Mafioso-talk in these emails has no place in any White House. For the Obama administration to purposely exclude a major news organization from access to information has troubling First Amendment implications.”

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
In White House E-Mails, Staffers Wrote of Delivering Dead Fish to Fox News, Blacklisting Network
Thursday, July 14, 2011 | Kristinn




In e-mails obtained by Judicial Watch, Obama White House staffers wrote of their contempt for Fox News, including efforts to blacklist the network from coverage.

Deputy White House Communications Director Jennifer Psaki sent an e-mail on October 23, 2009, to Jenni LeCompte, then-Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at Treasury that said, "“I am putting some dead fish in the fox cubby – just cause”.

In another e-mail on October 22, 2009, Psaki calls Fox News anchor Bret Baier a "lunatic."

“…brett baier just did a stupid piece on it -- but he is a lunatic”.

Other e-mails show the White House lied when it denied trying bar Fox News from a round of media interviews with Kenneth Feinberg, Treasury's 'executive pay czar.'

One e-mail from the White House to LeCompte at Treasury is explicit in their desire to blacklist Fox: “…we’d prefer if you skip Fox please,” wrote Dan Vega, Director of Broadcast Media.