Obama now says he is open to newspaper bailouts (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59523-obama-open-to-newspaper-bailout-bill)...


The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

"I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them," Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called "Newspaper Revitalization Act," that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations. That bill has so far attracted one cosponsor, Cardin's Maryland colleague Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D).

What could go wrong?

I thought the NY Slimes was already non-profit.

What could go wrong? Everything. Now Obama will control the newspapers and demand they don't print anything "bad" or embarrassing about him. Just print more lies and fluff. That's what could go wrong.

Also, just how much money are you willing to have suddenly "disappear" and not get sent to the newspapers? Will this money disappear like it did on the bank bailouts, or disappear like it did to the Iraq war? No one is going to be held accountable to those sudden disappearances. Do you think a newspaper bailout is going to be miraculously handled any differently? NO.

What could go wrong? Everything. Now Obama will control the newspapers and demand they don't print anything "bad" or embarrassing about him. Just print more lies and fluff. That's what could go wrong.

What would be different from now? The Obama White House already has hissy fits over media that isn't compliant (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/19/chris-wallace-obama-administration-biggest-bunch-crybabies).


WALLACE: They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.

O'REILLY: And I can't.

WALLACE: They constantly are on the phone, or emailing me complaining, well, you had this guest.

O'REILLY: Right.

WALLACE: Or you did this thing. I mean, they are working the umps all the time. I think it works for the others. It doesn't work

Chris Wallace is a Fox news anchor - what do you expect him to say??


Meanwhile:


Republican politicians took some time from their appearances at this weekends Values Voter Summit to promote a conservative opinion site run by the Fox News.

A variety of conservatives who spoke at this past weekend's pow-wow of social conservatives taped bits promoting FoxNation.com, assembled into a video posted on Fox's website.

The rightward Fox Nation was launched in late March as an opinion arm of a network seen as itself leaning toward the right.

Chris Wallace is a Fox news anchor - what do you expect him to say?????

He's a pretty fair guy. Did you know he's a registered Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wallace_%28journalist%29#Registered_Democrat )?

Steve

Say FOX and their eyes glaze over . As I've pointed out before... their news coverage is not the same as their commentary shows. Chris Wallace and Shep Smith are as unbiased as you can get.

Interesting since he seems to toe the party line at Fox.

Interesting since he seems to toe the party line at Fox.

Unglaze your eyes and tell us by what measure Wallace toes the party line. The real question is, is Wallace wrong?

The real question is, is Wallace wrong?Here's my retort to you: doesn't he have better things to do?

Here's my retort to you: doesn't he have better things to do?

Better things than to tell the truth? Like what? And you don't get away with it that easy, by what measure does Wallace toe the party line? You threw out the charge now support it.

Better things than to tell the truth? Like Obama calling that guy a jackass in casual conversation?

Like Obama calling that guy a jackass in casual conversation?

Keep trying to swerve away, NK, by what measure does Wallace toe the party line? You threw out the charge now support it.

Keep trying to swerve away, NK, by what measure does Wallace toe the party line? You threw out the charge now support it.
News Video Clip TNCZ RED NEWS Global News Edmonton Fox 40 News Sacramento WBTV Channel 3 News | (http://www.newsvideoclip.tv/fox-40-news-sacramento-tncz-red-news-wbtv-channel-3-news/)

On Fox News, host Chris Wallace blatantly lied when he falsely claimed that Rush Limbaugh never said he wanted President Obama to fail, but rather he wanted Obama’s “policies” to fail. However, Limbaugh never said “Obama’s policies.”

WALLACE: I do want to point out though just as a point of information, that Rush Limbaugh says, and I think if you read what he says, he wasn’t saying I want the president to fail. He was saying I want his policies, his agenda to fail and that he disagreed with them and thought they were bad for America.

Here are Limbaugh’s exact words, the words “Obama’s policies” do not exist:

Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long. I Hope Obama Fails. Somebody’s got to say it. I hope he fails. And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say.



=_LUtNway9x4

Fox deceptively cuts out 15 seconds from ad critical of Rove - Daily Kos TV (beta) (http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001072/) (link contains video)
[QUOTE]As you can see, Wallace spliced out 15 seconds from the middle of the ad without disclosing or indicating that it had been edited. Wallace and Rove then went on to discuss the ad with Karl Rove as if they had just played the full thing, even though some of the toughest criticism of Rove (including the firing of U.S. attorneys and the outing of a CIA agent) had been removed from the ad they aired.
It’s common practice to use excerpts from ads, but when an ad is spliced together, news organizations should make it clear to their audience that the ad has been edited. They can offer verbal, textual, or visual indications of the edits, but in this case, the ad was presented as if it hadn’t been tampered with at all./QUOTE]

That's it?


Rush: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's got to say it.

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

Where was Wallace wrong? Your source flat out lied that Rush didn't mention his policies.

As for Kos, you give them more credibility than the man with 30 years of journalism experience?

I thought the NY Slimes was already non-profit.

There's a difference between "not-for-profit" and "not profitable". The Slimes is the latter.

Elliot

NK,

Are you saying that you don't see any problem with the government bailing out newspapers?

The last time Obama bailed out companies, it was the auto manufacturers. He then proceeded to take them over and run them. He fired their executives, put in his own executives, and started dictating the policies of those companies.

So... what happens when the government bails out newspapers? Does the government then take them over as well? Do they start firing editorial staff and putting in staff that they prefer? Do they start making policy for those newspapers? Do they start making editorial decisions for those newspapers? Do they decide what news to print and what news NOT to print?

And do those newspapers then become an arm of the government?

The left always demands separation of church and state. I think we need a separation between press and state. It's MUCH more important.

Elliot

NK,

Are you saying that you don't see any problem with the government bailing out newspapers?
Show me where I said that.

Are you saying that newspapers are communist?

Actually Elliot, I think that ties in with what I said earlier on health care that seems to have slipped by mostly unnoticed. He employed 5 networks to plug his health care plans yesterday, he used the NY Times and others to try and nudge Paterson out of the NY governor's race and his administration has employed the National Endowment for the Arts as his propaganda arm (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/09/21/explosive-new-audio-reveals-white-house-using-nea-to-push-partisan-agenda/) - which should have everyone outraged.

Of course Obama is open to bailing to newspapers and I don't think it's a stretch to say it's for that very reason, to start making decisions for them. Although for some media you probably wouldn't notice a change (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/on_the_air_prez_seems_like_endless_QNYXXyakSyHi8h3 06QRAKL).


During his first eight months in office, President Obama has sat down for three times as many television interviews as his most recent two predecessors combined.

And with yesterday's run of the Sunday-morning news show circuit and tonight's airing of "Late Night with David Letterman," Obama continues to blaze through the media hotter than any political figure in modern history.

"He's turning the presidency into an infomercial," warned former White House speechwriter Matt Latimer. "It's not just damaging to the White House. It will also ultimately hurt President Obama's image as a fresh, non-Washington leader."

The media blitz has won Obama unprecedented wall-to-wall coverage in the mainstream media.

In the New York Times alone, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, 405 stories on the Obama administration have appeared on the front page through mid-August of this year totaling 119,678 column inches. That's 9,973 column feet of Obama coverage on the Times front page alone.

Show me where I said that.

You didn't. That's why I'm asking for a clarification. You seem to be arguing with Speech's assessment that a government takeover of newspapers is a bad thing. So... if you are arguing with that point, it must mean that you think that it is OK for the govermment to take them over. That's why I'm asking for a position clarification. What IS your position?


Are you saying that newspapers are communist?

Nope. But a government takeover of newspapers WOULD be communism... in fact, a government takeover of ANYTHING is essentially the definition of communism. In the case of newspapers being taken over by the government, it would be worse because it would have a strong negative effect on freedom of the Press, guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. If the government controls the press, then the press is not free. If the government, by din't of the fact that it controls the newspapers, can keep anti-government or anti-policy sentiment from being printed in the press, then the press is not free.

That is why a government bail-out of newspapers must NOT be allowed to happen. If the press is beholden to the government for its financial survival, then the press cannot be free. There is already too much of an issue with the FCC controlling licensing of airwaves for radio and TV media. That already steps very close to government control of media. If the government takes control of print media through a direct takeover of the business, the line will have been crossed.

Elliot

You didn't.
Then damn it quit putting words in my mouth.

Then damn it quit putting words in my mouth.

To repeat...

I am asking for a clarification of your position!!

If you don't want to give one, then you're going to have to live with my assumptions about what your position is.

Your choice.

Sorry to digress from your discussion (but it is my OP anyway), but speaking of bailouts (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDYwYjIwMDMwMjFmY2YzMWVjOTdlYTI4OGI0YjhiNjA=).. .


September Auto Sales Go Clunk [Henry Payne]

When Congress gave away $3 billion for buyers to trade in their “clunkers” and buy new cars in August, lawmakers thrilled as buyers swamped showrooms to take advantage of the big discounts. “Cash for clunkers has captured the public’s attention . . . (it) has the possibility to truly jumpstart our economy,” said Rep. Candice Miller (R. Mich.). Other, more sober analysts, warned that the clunkers program was only stealing from future sales.

September sales are in, and sobriety can take a bow.

Edmunds.com reports that “September’s light-vehicle sales rate will fall to 8.8 million units . . . the lowest rate in nearly 28 years, tying the worst demand on record. After the cash-for-clunkers program boosted August sales to their first year-over-year increase since October 2007, demand has plunged. In at least the last 33 years, the U.S. seasonally adjusted annual rate has only dropped as low as 8.8 million units once — in December 1981 — with records stretching back to January 1976.”

“Many people regard February as the darkest month of the recession, but even then (sales were) higher, at 9.1 million units,” adds Edmunds.com statistician Zhenwei Zhou.

But sobriety comes hard for Washington. Now NHTSA says that, despite burdening manufacturers with $60 billion in new costs, its new 35.5 mpg fuel mandate will stimulate the economy by boosting auto sales by 65,480 vehicles through 2016 because Washington “expects stronger consumer demand for fuel-efficient models.” Sure.

Cash for clunkers, what a phenomenal success.

New mandates to add $60 billion in new costs, a sales increase 65,480 vehicles. That's what, a billion and a half dollars in new sales?

Sorry to digress from your discussion (but it is my OP anyway), but speaking of bailouts (http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDYwYjIwMDMwMjFmY2YzMWVjOTdlYTI4OGI0YjhiNjA=).. .



Cash for clunkers, what a phenomenal success.

New mandates to add $60 billion in new costs, a sales increase 65,480 vehicles. That's what, a billion and a half dollars in new sales?


Assuming a $40k sticker price for each unit, that would be $2.6 billion in increased sales... or .04% of the new costs.

Your point is well-taken.

Elliot

and his administration has employed the National Endowment for the Arts as his propaganda arm (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/09/21/explosive-new-audio-reveals-white-house-using-nea-to-push-partisan-agenda/) - which should have everyone outraged.

Update : Yosi Sergant has been thrown under the bus .
Yosi Sergant Resigns - Political Punch (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/yosi-sergant-resigns.html)

YouTube - Under My Bus: ZoBama's 100 Days & Throwing People Under the Bus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfL-Oj1rQ-c)

Under My Bus, lol.

The wheels on the bus go thump, thump, thump...

The politicians on the bus go squish, squish, squish...

Chris Wallace is a Fox news anchor - what do you expect him to say??

Seems CNN has gotten a taste of the crybaby (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/white_house_pulls_guest_from_cnn_over_new_obama_bo ok_136603.asp). Are they toeing the party line for us, too?


A White House senior adviser was scheduled to appear on CNN's "American Morning" this week, but the White House rescinded the offer after the network booked author Christopher Andersen. Andersen's new book "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage," is out today.

The inside flap of the book boasts having, "behind-the-scenes details of the Obama's courtship and marriage -- and the lovers who went before."

Andersen appeared on CBS' "Early Show" yesterday, but it's not clear if any booking offers to CBS were rescinded.

During her interview with Anderson this morning, CNN's Kiran Chetry said, "We reached out to the White House for a response to the book. They declined comment and made it known that they weren't happy. In fact, they pulled an interview they had with a senior adviser once they learned you were on the show."

That's why Obama would have no problem bailing out newspapers, the media just isn't quite as compliant with the crybaby any more.