Sites like Business Insider are angry when the White House does things like rebut Edmunds.com’s take on cash for clunkers. Conservative blogs and Fox News do not like when the White House doesn’t just suck up made up stories pushed by Fox News and conservative blogs. The media doesn’t like pushback, particularly not from Democrats.
In their minds, historically, liberals and Democrats just roll over and die when the media goes on the attack. Often, liberals and Dems have apologized for no good reason simply due to media attacks. The Obama campaign didn’t do this, and so far neither has the Obama White House.
This is very upsetting for in the media and the conservative movement. Their hearts wish for the day when Democrats just sucked it up and took it like during the campaigns of people like Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. It is highly upsetting to them when Dems don’t just take it.
If you don’t act like Glass Joe from Punch Out you’re a “radical”
50 points for good old school video game reference.
The media has always portrayed the Democrats as soft and the Republicans as strong, so when a Democrat “dares” to fight back, they’re being arrogant and/or mean, while if a Republicans even considers compromising, they’re labeled “liberal” or (in case of the Tea People) “traitor.”
Or a “RINO”
exactly….Cons want/expect to see the “Dem Cringe”. When the Dem doesn’t cringe before the Con attack, then they’re being arrogant, or some other dog-whistle codeword for ‘uppity’. Cons want Dems to be good little dogs and only whimper when kicked….
Be careful, you might get a scathing link from the Heritage Foundation!
No need to, Pollack. Some posts need no refutation.
The thought of you guys cheering Obama for his fighting back against the mighty, evil Edmunds.com is one better left alone.
It’s the Chicago Way!
See, THERE you go. I knew you’d find this thread! Good job!
Ok, Pollak , not that I mind, but why don’t you make a comment now instead of aout me? If you weren’t commenting about other commenters, you wouldn’t be saying anything.
Your ratio of comments about commenters vs comments about the topic is running at about 20-1.
And yet, still provides more thoughtful commentary than you. Funny, that.
Since I feel the urge to jump in on the thread hijack bandwangon today, August, would that be a link from the Heritage Foundation which has been a part of a 25 year conspiracy to destroy, defund, and harass any and all left-leaning advocacy groups out of existence?
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/conservatives-25year-goal-defunding-left-revealed-acorn-controversy/
All this is of a piece with why wingers are so exercised about that eeeeevil George Soros. Since left leaning groups tend not to have the secret super-rich sugar daddies that the right does (like the John Olins, Richard Mellon-Scaifes, Adolf Coorses, etc. etc.) and have to rely on the “little people” (or as Dick Armey likes to think of them, the “peasants”) to organize; and so long as big rich people can intimidate the peasants then such groups can be harassed out of existence. But if there’s a rich left-wing sugar daddy funneling them money, then ZOMG that upsets the plan! Heritage and AEI can’t bully and intimidate someone with as much money as Soros so easily! This shall not stand!
Once again, never doubt that Heritage, AEI, Freedomworks, ad infinitum are populated entirely by elitist America-hating motherfuckers.
See, Oliver, the point is that Obama is not campaigning any more. Or rather, he still is campaigning but it’s unbecoming of him. He’s the President now. Articles that attack rather insignificant sites like Edmunds.com with immature headlines like
“Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers”
is what you do when you’re running for president, not nine months after you’ve been sworn in.
What? Has Dennis add the White House to his list of people he tells what they should and should not blog about?
Man, get your own!
I don’t think you’re qualified to speak about what Presidents should or shouldn’t do, Dennis.
And get your own blog.
As qualified as you, Mambo the Chicken XXIII. What has ever held you back from speaking about what a President should or shouldn’t do?
I mean, before this President? You’re curiously mum on just about everything this one does.
It’s like Jim Carrey and his opinion of vaccination… there’s no need to take him seriously, whatsoever. You know why? Because he’s a clown, and vastly underqualified to speak about the science of vaccination programs.
I actually don’t think you’re as qualified as me to speak about this topic. You’re a clown – no one cares what a silly man with a goofy appearance has to say. Your opinion on political matters carries all the weight of Jenny McCarthy’s opinion on scientific matters. Zero.
Clown.
Mambo the Chicken, if you truly believed that, ask yourself why you respond to me so much.
You also might want to ponder on why you repeat yourself so much, too, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
I don’t ask myself why I respond to you so much – I know why I do. The answer to that question is the same as to the following questions:
Why do I respond to Frank so much? Or Amused Observer so much?
And the answer is, “Because you say stupid things, and I enjoy pointing that out… over, and over, and over again.”
The volume of the wrong-headed things you guys put out there is just incredible. And I enjoy wading through the sewage. It’s a manifestation of the masochistic side of myself.
As for repeating myself, I told you that I would continually refer to you as a clown, just so you know that you’re not being taken seriously. I just wanted to reinforce that for you. And I will continue.
Clown.
You’re a chicken calling someone a clown?
Okay.
Really, you’re going to try and make issue of someone’s online handle? OOOOOH, SICK BURN, Dennis! That one really hurt. Every post, you continue to demonstrate yourself a clown.
See, Oliver, the point is that Obama is not campaigning any more. Or rather, he still is campaigning but it’s unbecoming of him.
The administration is responding to criticism of its policies. How is that unbecoming? How is that even campainging? It’s what presidential administrations do it all the time since the founding of the country.
You just seem unable to grasp that its being done now in a new forum, in a new medium, that is a blog on the internet.
But this is why you’re a hack extraordinaire, Dennis. Whatever dumb, ridiculous attack your conservative leaders tell you to regurgitate, you spit it up here unquestioned.
The Chicago Way? “They post an article online, you post an item on your blog refuting their facts! That’s the Chicago Way!”
It’s not exactly like in the movie clip is it, Dennis?
Edmunds.com, Fafaroo. Obama is attacking Edmunds.com!
And they’re doing it by saying they must be on Mars.
Just listen to yourself defend this. It’s hilarious.
You’re a committed lemming, fafaroo.
Just listen to yourself defend this. It’s hilarious.
Uh, Dennis, what is there to attack? Fox News picked up the original Edmonds.com report and covered it as a news story, as I’m sure other media outlets did:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/study-cash-clunkers-added–new-cars/
The administration is responding to assertions being made about its policies in the news media by refuting the facts in the study being reported on.
And you think that’s “campaigning” and “unbecoming” a president and his administration?
How is that any different than anything any president or other politician has ever done in the history of politics?
It isn’t.
But some conservative moron told you that this was unprecedented, because they know how stupid you are, and guess what?
True to type, you’re here repeating it.
Comment Dennis says at 2:51 PM:
Articles that attack rather insignificant sites like Edmunds.com
Link in comment Dennis posts three hours earlier:
“highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds.com.”
Running total of comments on post that “needs no refutation” from Dennis: 4.
You’re trying way too hard, Pollack.
Edmunds is a “highly-respected and influential car site” and the White House treated them as such when they were rolling out the Cash for Clunkers program, oddly enough.
But they are also insignificant in the whole general scheme of things compared for the White House to suddenly turn on them as they did FOX News and suggest that they are living on Mars in the headline of their attack and then again at the end where they tell readers to put on their spacesuits and compare Edmund’s analysis (analysis they childishly put quotation marks around) and that of the Council of Economic Advisers…and calling the Edmunds press release ‘bombastic’.
Ah, just as I thought. They’re a respected and important website when you want to link to their article to claim the White House failed at something, but when the White House refutes it, it’s juvenile of them because of how minor the site is. How convenient for you.
Nuance, Pollack.
I linked to the article that said that. Different than me saying it. After the fact I happen to agree with it. Edmunds was highly influential every one of my last six or seven new car purchases and the few used ones, too. It’s a great source of information, but I never thought of them as being even slightly political. Even after reading the press release, I still don’t think of them as political; that’s why this attack is so bizarre. Now the White House has made them look political and like an enemy to anyone who would read that rebuttal. It’s beneath them, so yes, in that regard Edmunds is insignificant as being worthy of that kind of ire and attack from the President of the United States’ White House blog.
It sends the message loud and clear ‘Don’t fuck with us…even you little guys. Don’t even think about it.’
Not very presidential. Not very transformational. Not anything like he said he was going to be.
It only enhances their crybaby reputation.
Man, you are really obsessed with this “crybaby” meme of yours. You’ve barely made it through a single comment without harping on it. It’s getting pretty obvious your only interest in this story is trying to hawk the idea that the White House refuting someone’s attack against it is some kind of sign of weakness; what confuses me is how you actually believe you’re convincing anyone.
Dennis is a clowning concern troll.
Yes, Obama should just take it like a lil bitch. Please.
This one he should have, yes. Or put out information that supported their program. They didn’t do a good job of refuting Edmunds’ analysis, but they came off looking immature and unprofessional with the Mars references and the attack on a website like they did. A website that didn’t attack the White House, but merely stated their analytical findings.
Kid stuff, Oliver. Not the stuff of Hope and Change.
And not Obama’s proudest moment.
A website that didn’t attack the White House, but merely stated their analytical findings.
Dennis, this is not a neutral, analytical statement, especially the bold part:
This is a policy critique. The administration is entirely justified in responding to this kind of criticism in the news media.
Pretty weak tea to resort to Mars and space suits and ‘bombastic’ and ‘what kind of planet are you from’-type retorts, fafaroo.
There’s your ‘The Chicago Way’ examples you were asking about, though.
Actually, he should utilize Biden more.
“Don’t mess with Joe”!
Hey someone help me out here, how do I use a cool avatar picture?
I’d tell ya, but I clearly don’t know either.
The “rebuttal” was no such thing. The White House is just pissed that it got caught lying again and is lashing out with no substance and no facts. Edmunds was right and everyone knows it.
Wonder if we’ll get a fourth comment about that story that doesn’t even need to be commented on. Hmmm.
And I love this graph from Business Insider:
How is “no big deal” for a presidential administration to declare that
the entire US media, with the exception of Fox News and talk radio, is part of a vast liberal elitist conspiracy but fact checking a study that is certain to be used by conservatives in every upcoming election as campaign fodder is somehow outrageous?
If Obama declared every news outlet in America to be a conservative propaganda machine, that would be no big deal.
But if he just calls Fox a conservative propaganda machine, he’s just like Stalin.
You’re a committed lemming, fafaroo.
Yes, Dennis. You’re right.
The only free-thinking, independent minded response to this is to say that the Obama administration shouldn’t respond when the national news media runs stories on studies critical of its policies.
That makes a lot of sense.
They attacked the study from a group with no ideological slant, but one that provided their analyis of a program, not one that tried to be critical of the program, just how much money was spent and how many cars were bought as a result of the program. The study was not ‘critical’. Only President Thin-Skinned’s White House web site treated it as if was critical.
Obama and Gibbs just got through making nice with Fox, and Valerie Jarrett just got through announcing she wasn’t going to dare make an example of any other networks or cable companies to show they weren’t just going after FOX, so what does Obama do when these same news organizations runs the Edmunds.com press release? That’s right, they resort to attacking Edmunds.com. That’s pathetic, fafaroo. And it is lemming-like to cheer that on.
so what does Obama do when these same news organizations runs the Edmunds.com press release? That’s right, they resort to attacking Edmunds.com.
Yes, how dare the White House attack the source of a fraudulent claim against them. It’s fascinating watching how obsessed you are with insisting that no matter what way you look at it, the White House HAS to be doing something wrong. Of course, you’re also on your sixth or seventh comment about a story you said “wasn’t worth refuting” but we’ve known for a while about your little habit of getting obsessed with things.
Explain what was fraudulent, Pollack.
The White House didn’t make that assertion. Neither did Oliver.
What was fraudulent about the analysis?
They attacked the study from a group with no ideological slant, but one that provided their analyis of a program, not one that tried to be critical of the program, just how much money was spent and how many cars were bought as a result of the program. The study was not ‘critical’.
From the Edmonds.com release:
Now listen, Dennis, whatever the validity of the study Edmonds did, their release was not a straight publication of data. It was presented as a clear refutation of the administration’s claims about the program’s economic benefits.
Then you have an Edmonds analyst and its CEO in the news media, specifically at the Fox News link above, suggesting that the money could have been better spent another way. Again, that’s a criticism of the program.
Here’s Edmond’s CEO criticizing the whole idea behind the program and Fox News reporting it as such:
There are ways to be neutral, Dennis, and they don’t involve these kinds of comments.
The White House was responded to criticism of its policy.
It’s as simple as that.
That’s right, they resort to attacking Edmunds.com. That’s pathetic, fafaroo. And it is lemming-like to cheer that on.
You’re attacking this White House for something every White House does.
I’m telling you you’re an idiot for doing so and explaining why.
So once again, Dennis, please cite the exact language that suggests I am “cheering on” anything.
For example, Dennis:
You’re sole problem is that the Obama administration decided not to wait for the next news conference to respond to the findings of the study.
Welcome to the internet, Dennis.
I just looked at the WH blog post. Seems a pretty straight up rebuttal of the study. Their mileage varied, as it were.
Dennis, I don’t get why you don’t think the WH gets to say that they disagree with someone’s conclusions about their program? The “attack” was in no way political. It kept to the points raised in the study. I have no idea why your panties are in such a bunch, yet again.
August J. Pollak – congratulations on your website. You, of all people, should see that Dennis clearly intends humor; he simply lacks the ability to distinguish absurd from funny.
I think Dems learned their lessons the hard way in 2000 and 2004. When a Republican tries to smear you, you need to swing back twice as hard. The “liberal” media long ago gave up any pretense of fact-checking.
So yeah, get used to it cons. We like winners, and winners fight back.
Man, you are really obsessed with this “crybaby” meme of yours.
You’re giving Dennis way to much credit to say it’s his meme. It should be obvious by now that Dennis doesn’t really think for himself.
Dennis repeats. He doesn’t think.
Oh really, fafaroo? If you were sincere in that statement, and sincerity is not one of your strong points, then why fight so hard on every one of my comments? What’s the point of your obsession if it’s only to argue with someone you don’t consider a thinker? I mean, if that was the case, why don’t you go get a pet parakeet and argue with it all day long; you wouldn’t have to wait till I posted then.
Idiot.
People don’t argue with stubborn ignorants to convince them, when they so clearly established how comfortable they are in their ignorance. They do for other readers, who might not have been interested in a given issue before and get their first contact with it through these half-arsed arguments. More people read than post, you know?
Oh, and some also do it for the laugh. Because you, Dennis, are quite the “lolcow”.
Typical, Dennis. He runs out of steam after a few comments because no one told him what to think after his first post so he goes for the old stand by: “Why are you picking on me?!?!?!! Waaaaaaaa!”
I mean, if that was the case, why don’t you go get a pet parakeet and argue with it all day long; you wouldn’t have to wait till I posted then.
You know what would be easier, Dennis? You could just provide the links to the blog where you pick up your daily outrage distractions and then we can argue with the original author of the outrage.
Right now, Dennis, you’re just a middle man, an aggregator of stupid.
It’s hard to pin down a winner in the most pretentious sweepstakes but we have a serious contender.
“And I enjoy wading through the sewage. It’s a manifestation of the masochistic side of myself.”
LOL,
Mambo you even bullshit yourself. What you enjoy is a chance to recreate in the virtual world your own delusion that you dwell in the left hand of the bell curve. You picture yourself as a member of the intellectual elite
instead of just another intellectual lightweight example of acadamia mediocrity.
“But this is why you’re a hack extraordinaire, Dennis. Whatever dumb, ridiculous attack your conservative leaders tell you to regurgitate, you spit it up here unquestioned.”
And you differ from this just exactly how? Aside from your opinion of yourself you repeat the conventional wisdom of the left with nary a thought of where the logical conclusion from such thinking might lead.
If nothing else Mambo you are consistant.
You might want to reattribute this quote to the proper source. Idiot.
If nothing else Mambo you are consistant.
Amused, you know why you guys are consistently wrong? Because you lurch from one manufactured outrage to the next with nary a thought about what’s behind it. Neither you nor nor Dennis, Jay Tea nor Frank nor Save et al can argue your positions beyond whatever one or two line thesis you first posted because you haven’t really thought about what you’re saying. You just regurgitate the few lines you remember from this or that right moron you admire and you’re done. Because that right wing moron didn’t tell you any more either, because s/he doesn’t have to. They don’t have to get you to think, they just have to get you angry at something or someone and they got you.
When you get challenged, you splutter about about repeating the same thing over and over until, like Dennis, Frank Jay Tea et al do all the time, you start whining that people are picking on you.
It’s like clockwork. We give you facts and counter arguments, and you all inevitably, eventually retreat back to “Stop picking on me!”
Happens every time.
Amused Lollygagger is most thought provoking… nah.
“What’s the point of your obsession … .”
Relax Dennis, nobody is obsessed with you; you are manufacturing the obsession that doesn’t exist in reality; not one bit. Really.
AO, you don’t know shit about how good or bad I am at my job. But keep it up, though, and continue exposing yourself as the dummy you are.
Oh and Amused, you couldn’t be more wrong. Like all of the leftist socialists here I am well aware of the logical consequences of our leftist socialist policies: death camps for straight, white, Christian males. Isn’t it obvious?
Mambo,
Your biases are as obvious as the nose on your face. In a position where your output is mental, where there is no actual physical result of your actions, an open mind is much more critical than in other endeavers. You don’t possess one. Remember data first, conclusion second.
fafaroo,
LOL, I don’t whine about how you guys are picking on me. I couldn’t care less about my popularity here in Ollieland. Pointing out your hypocrisies and huge holes in your collective logic is a guilty pleasure. Nothing says more about your collective positions than the way you attack the messenger. Liberals live in a fantasyland where the laws of cause and affect don’t apply. If there was just one old fairytale I wish liberals would take to heart, it is the one about the golden goose. Where do you guys think prosperity actually comes from?
There are a few folks here that actually can think and of those few most are wasting their time trying to deny the obvious because it is not politically correct. Your attempted humor about logical thinking and death camps is so typical. You either can’t or won’t follow a course of action to it’s logical conclusion.
For example, What are the long term consequences of the unprecedented levels of debt Obama desires. Before you go off on a what about Bush etc. etc. etc. consider 2 things, that wasn’t good either and the amounts Bush overspent as large and worrisome as they are are trifling compared to the Obama level of debt.
You’re an idiot.
…of course, the dirty little secret of all of this is that when the Administration and Fox News pick a fight, both sides win. Fox gets something to fill its 24-hour news cycle and keep ratings up; the White House gets to look tough in front of the hard-left base without actually doing anything difficult. Everybody gets a cookie.
What are the long term consequences of the unprecedented levels of debt Obama desires.
Amused, are you trying to sell me gold?
fafaroo,
I’m not trying to sell you anything. You pride yourself on being a member of the selfnamed reality based community. What’s your reality based view of the effects of Obama’s unprecedented levels of projected debt, 100’s and 100’s of percent higher than Bushes drunken sailer spending binges.
Ever hear of a guy named Jude Wanninski? I found him quite interesting and followed some of his advice. What safe harbor would you suggest for the funds that have accumulated from following his observations? I want to take some profits as nothing goes up forever yet balancing taxes against inflation makes decisions hard to make.
What’s your reality based view of the effects of Obama’s unprecedented levels of projected debt …
What do you want me to tell you, Amused? That I’m not that concerned? I’m not. I’m fairly well convinced that things would be a whole lot worse right now if the stimulus plan hadn’t passed.
I believe that if we had taken any kind of “supply side” approach, as your Wanniski reference suggests, we would be a lot worse off now. A lot. If the choice was between a double dip recession or moderately higher inflation and a second Great Depression, it’s no choice at all.
I also don’t have the massive aversion to taxes to pay for public services that you seem to have.
But Amused, please feel free to tell me how naive I am not have a pile of gold tucked away in my seed bunker in preparation for the coming race war.
“That I’m not that concerned? I’m not. I’m fairly well convinced that things would be a whole lot worse right now if the stimulus plan hadn’t passed.”
Of course you’re not worried and of course you’re convinced.
I have an aversion to paying for public services because it is a poor value for the money spent. Public sector employees are notoriously ineffiencent and public sector management is even more inept. Even so, as Will Rogers put it so many years ago, “It’s a good thing we don’t get the government we pay for.”
The biggest price we pay for the welfare state you are so enamoured with is the loss of liberty and freedom that the state micromanagement of our lives causes.
You on the other hand appear to have an aversion to the idea of supply side economics. I wasn’t referring to Wanninski’s whole body of thought only his advice about gold since you mentioned it. I’ve been averaging a return of greater than 40% a year on gold. I’d like to nail down some of those profits but I don’t know where to put the dough. These are good times to being going Gault and now is the time to pay taxes but a bad bad time to be holding cash.
Every conservative cliche in the book. Nice work, Amused.
“I’d like to nail down some of those profits but I don’t know where to put the dough.”
General Revenues would be a good place. Pay your fair share and help our country through these hard times. People are suffering, losing homes and jobs and you run the other way, hiding in your bunker, head in the sand, smirking in condescension.
“Public sector employees are notoriously ineffiencent and public sector management is even more inept.”
But I’ll bet you bent over and supported the billions of dollars wasted on the occupation of Iraq. You wing-nuts are curious beasts.
Pay your fair share
You’re gonna have to give us an exact percentage on that. You can’t claim someone isn’t paying their “fair share” if you don’t explicitly label exactly what that “share” is.
You on the other hand appear to have an aversion to the idea of supply side economics.
That would be demand side economics, Einstein.
selfnamed reality based community.
Correction: The term “reality based community” is coined from a term used by an unnamed Bush aide. It is not “selfnamed”, like Teabagger is.
The biggest price we pay for the welfare state you are so enamoured with is the loss of liberty and freedom that the state micromanagement of our lives causes.
Yeah! We could lose the right to…uh…hmmm…Ah! Wait, running over homeless people isn’t a right, never mind.
Riiiight. American freedom ended when FDR put Social Security into place. It had nothing to do with making sure the elderly didn’t starve to death on American streets.
Wow we sure have a bright bunch here.
isms, Are you serious?
“General Revenues would be a good place. Pay your fair share and help our country through these hard times. People are suffering, losing homes and jobs and you run the other way, hiding in your bunker”
You want me, a middle aged conservative blue collar guy to donate my nest egg that I have accummulated by working over my lifetime? To donate it to the general revenues to be distributed through the federal govt.. Most people are not that charitable, neither am I nor do I suspect are you.
Jaim,
Are you defending the work ethic and productivity of the public sector? That’s a tough row to hoe, just want to clarify that. The evidence is all around you. For every public employee that actually works in an efficient manner there are many, many, others who do not. Civil service laws make it quite difficult to prune out deadwood and it accumulates quite thickly.
” elderly didn’t starve to death on American streets.”
You’re a bit of a drama queen Jaim. FDR’s program has increased it’s rate of taxation 750% and the amount of income taxed almost 5000% and is still slated to go bust way before your retirement. Wonderful program, very well planned.
Zython,
Your contribution is pointless.
“Are you defending the work ethic and productivity of the public sector?”
You have to judge professionals as they come. I’ve had bad experiences and some very good experiences when it came to dealing with local or federal government, just as I have with private businesses. I would say that my experiences with teachers, firemen, and police officers have generally been positive. Dealing with huge corporations? Not so much.
“Civil service laws make it quite difficult to prune out deadwood and it accumulates quite thickly.”
Because private businesses never, ever hire incompetent people to work for them.
“You’re a bit of a drama queen Jaim.”
You’re a complete and absolute shit-head, AO.
“Wonderful program, very well planned.”
Bush had a Republican Congress and could have killed Social Security, yet he didn’t. I wonder why?
But please, continue to try and besmirch one of America’s greatest presidents, one who was admired by St. Reagan himself. Tell old people they shouldn’t get Social Security or Medicare. Tell cops and firefighters and teachers that they’re leeches on the system. And enjoy your political party collapsing into a pile of rubble as your lies and scare-tactics blow up in your face.
Palin/Jindal 2012!
Your contribution is pointless.
Translation: “I can’t counter any of the points you’ve made, so I’m just going to pretend they never happened.”
I have an aversion to paying for public services because it is a poor value for the money spent.
Which is why I always repave the roads I drive on myself.