Obama's foolish war of choice
The reasons why Obama shouldn't wage war against Fox News
Obama's foolish war of choice
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
In conversations this week, people have repeatedly asked me two questions:
1. How 'bout dem Phillies, huh?
2. Is Obama doing a smart thing by declaring war on Fox News?
My answer to the first question is obvious. Here's my answer to the second question:
No. The president is actually doing a very dumb thing.
As I mentioned here last Friday, "it's no mystery" why the Obama team would feel tempted to wage war against Fox News, given the network's track record. Indeed, top Obama players ramped up their frontal attacks on Sunday and Monday, vowing that "we're going to treat them like we treat an opponent" because, in their view, Fox is merely "opinion journalism masquerading as news." That description sounds about right, but here's an even better characterization, courtesy of Northeastern University journalism professor Alan Schroeder: "Fox News is an entertainment network that employs the conventions of journalism to promote a right-wing political ideology."
But so what? Just because Fox is Fox, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Obama team is smart to go on the attack. Quite the contrary, it's tactically stupid:
1. Going after Fox serves only to elevate Fox, making it appear that Fox is on an equal footing with the White House. Every president gets unfavorable press coverage; lashing out at the press generally makes a president looks small. In this instance, Fox winds up looking bigger. There's no need for Obama to do that, because he's the one with the biggest megaphone. His last speech to Congress drew 32 million TV viewers, according to the Nielsens. His last appearance on CBS' 60 Minutes drew 10 million viewers. Glenn Beck, on Fox, typically gets 2.2 million; Sean Hannity, 2.1 million. Why go to war with Fox, which only boosts its profile and plays right into the hands of Fox chief Roger Ailes - the ex-Nixon aide who thrives on this kind of pugilism?
2. Speaking of Nixon, the attacks on Fox merely serve to make Obama look Nixonesque. Which is hardly Obama's preferred image. Back in '69, Nixon sent forth his vice president, Spiro Agnew, to wage frontal war against CBS and the other "nattering nabobs of negativism," and it made that president look petty and vindictive. In fact, if George W. Bush had waged the same kind of frontal war against MSNBC, the odds are high that much of the Washington commentariat would have accused him of trying to intimidate the press and despoiling the First Amendment. They would have assailed him as petty and vindictive. Is Obama less so? Or is he getting a pass from most pundits simply because his chosen target is Fox?
3. The war on Fox is an unnecessary public distraction. Obama has a lot on his plate already, most of it very substantive - Afghanistan, health care, the economy, climate change, stuff like that - and his smartest play is to keep his eye on the ball...rather than try and make a big fuss out of an old story about how Fox is conservative.
Maybe Obama would be wise to keep these four aphorisms in mind:
Harry Truman once said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Every president takes heat, much of it unfair. Deal with it, it's part of the job description.
Dwight Eisenhower once said, "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk." Because you'll just wind up smelling like the skunk.
Barack Obama himself said on Feb. 3, "I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lock step here..."
And as yours truly always likes to say, metaphorically speaking: "There are always ants at a picnic." Just ignore the ants, Mr. President, and bon appetit.
Comments (122)
Eisenhower's advice is remarkably apropos for the Fox propaganda network.— Yersinia Pestis- If someone just read Polman and the Inky as their sole source of news and opinion, how would that person view the world? It is funny how liberal "news" rags self-think and crown themselves as high and almighty, pure and fair. The liberal rage think it is okay for them to engage in advocacy journalism. Ignorant hypocrites.— CD75
- What you are seeing by Obama is an incredible lack of maturity at best or downright facsist censorship at worst. Even Bush 43 never cried and whined like this. At least Bush was mature enough (or believed in free speech) to ignore MSNBC, NYT, etc.— CD75
Comment removed.
don't you be calling me Boy!— potus- Comment removed.
- Obama is dead-on correct to call Faux News what it is. It is not a legit news organization, everyone knows that, except the batsh*t wing-nuts who are ignorant enough to believe fake news.— the anti-CD75
- What is sad is how the other networks will now cowtow to the Administration for fear of being put in the same category as Fox. Polman is correct with this post, and I felt it was "fair and balanced" for him to state what would have happened if GWB had done to MSNBC what Obama is doing to Fox. However, this Fox stuff may just be a distraction. What with another 531,000 filing first time jobless claims again last week, the stimulus not working, no decision on Afghanistan even though the troop request is now 60 days old, and the Healthcare bills becoming so unpopular, Fox is a nice distraction. Get things off of people's minds.— tom - wilmington, de
- Latest from Gallup, where Obama's job approval rating is now at 50%. "Nearly half of Americans, 49%, expect the costs they pay for healthcare to get worse if a healthcare bill passes, up from 42% last month. More Americans now also believe their coverage and quality will get worse than did so in September." Meanwhile, the pay czar wants to cut executive pay by 90% (Obama claims to have had no idea this was the pay czar's plan), which amounts to his setting policy without ever being vetted or approved by Congress. Whatever happened to Obama's promise to curb executive/presidential power? Whatever happened to criticism of the "unitarian executive"?— tom - wilmington, de
- Of course Mr. Polman is right on this one. You can't take on a news organization from the White House, no matter how distasteful their coverage is, because it brings the president down to their level (or perceived). It also makes him seem spoiled and thin skinned. Do you think the 'easy' coverage during the primary and general campaigns has caused this sense of entitlement to good news coverage and the thin skin?— NEPhilly
- Speaking of Fox and marginalizing the media, has anyone found a story about the shortage of H1N1 vaccine and statements yesterday from Lieberman on another news outlet besides Fox? This vaccine was coordinated by HHS, but it is nowhere to be found!— tom - wilmington, de
- How sick and messed up as well as angry must someone be to call themself "anti-CD75"? Strange dude.— Comrade Noodlehead
Heckuva job, Rahmie!— Mr. Smith- From AP "A top White House economist says spending from the $787 billion economic stimulus has already had its biggest impact on economic growth and will likely not contribute to significant expansion next year. Christina Romer, the chair of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent gave a jolt to the economy that contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year. She told a congressional panel that by the middle of next year, the impact of the stimulus will level off. Romer said spending so far has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs but warned that unemployment will remain high, above 9.5 percent, through the end of 2010." So the stimulus is over?— tom - wilmington, de
- Whoa, Tom. First of all, I doubt that George Will or Charles Krauthammer -- or David Brooks for that matter -- are afraid of being put into the same category as Fox. Mainly because they're NOT. They are well informed and are real journalists. I can't imagine any of those three saying something inflammatory like Obama having a deep-seated hatred of white people, at least not without having some pretty substantial proof. As I said yesterday, even op/ed journalists back up their opinions with source materials. And my second issue is merely a question. I was working out this morning and saw on CNN that the pay cut for executives only affected those few firms who had taken stimulus money. And the pay cut for the top execs is 50 percent, not 90. Where did you get your information? Are we talking about the same thing?— NigeltheMastiff
- Tom, ABC and CBS covered the H1N1 shortage on yesterday's broadcast. Katie Couric was quick to point out that HHS secretary Sebelius looked like a cyclops because she'd had a cancerous growth removed from her forehead the day before. Cholly Gibson did not point out that Kathy looked like Quasimodo.— A Friend
- ***The White House war on Fox News has now reached critical mass: JAY LENO, HOST, "THE JAY LENO SHOW": President Obama agreed to commit an additional 40,000 troops to help fight Fox News. Senior White House adviser David Axelrod told reporters that Fox News is just pushing a point of view. Well, yes, but at least they've got a point of view.*** http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569120,00.html— NEPhilly
- Two more porcine analogies why Obama shouldn't get into a dispute or try to educate with Fox Noise: 1-Never mud wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it. 2-Never try to teach a pig how to whistle. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.— parodox
- Not strange at all Noodlehead, you ever read this dude's posts? I am completely anti everything he says. Thus...anti-CD75. Wow, did I really have to explain that to you?— the anti-CD75
- Can't wait till OBAMA BIN LYING is gone along with his tax and spend cronies who are destroying the dollar and therefore running this country in the ground, what a useless infantile P.O.S. he actually is!!!— Mike S.
- Nigel, Krauthammer is a regular on Special Report (6:00 weekdays on FNC) and Fox News Sunday (Sunday's @ 9:00 on Fox). So, in a way, he is being labeled as not part of a news organization by being part of Fox News. That is what was at the heart of Jake Tapper's questions to Gibbs. How can the White House decide a network is not a news organization, saying thousands of employees do not work in news if they work for Fox, and why does that standard not apply to either MSNBC or CNN. Is it because MSNBC and CNN champion the administrations point of view? Are other networks now not reporting critical items about Obama and his administration for fear of losing access, advertisers, ratings, viewers, etc? As to the pay czar, yes, it only applies to firms that took bailout money. Regardless of the percentage, is this constitutional? If you take a student loan from the government, does that limit you to only certain schools and certain courses? If you are in the mortgage modification program so you could keep your house, does that give the government control over your future spending, credit, lifestyle? Allow this and where will it end? Just think of the restrictions if government gets control of health care, or passes a cap and tax bill.— tom - wilmington, de
- "Not strange at all Noodlehead, you ever read this dude's posts? I am completely anti everything he says. Thus...anti-CD75. Wow, did I really have to explain that to you?" Wow..TPS needs to get out more!— camtheman
- How ironic. Dickie used to provide "analysis" on the Inquirer's news pages. Of course, it was as biased as his "debate" is now. But, in his myopic liberal worldview, only Fox News is biased. Go figure.— RonaReagan
- Tom, I can see your point about the pay issue, but I can't help but be outraged over these financial institutions living this life of luxury off the backs of people like me -- who don't make all that much to begin with and are taking furloughs as a euphemism for pay cuts. In part, those are the people who got us into this mess. So would I like them to come down to earth and stop earning an obscene amount of money? Honestly, yes. Maybe that's wrong, but it's the way I feel. If they never took any of our money, that's a different story. But these billions in bonuses ... I don't know. It just doesn't sit well with me.— NigeltheMastiff
- the inky is just as bad as fox news, in fact worse because they don't even bring in alternative view points. why does o'reilly do so well.... because he brings in all view points to the debate. those who disagree aren't watching his show.— Bud Fox
- Bush planted "reporters" in his press conferences and banned reporters he didn't like. This is no different.— HandNik
- Republican have been anti-American and unpatriotic since Obama became President. No wonder only 20% of the public identifies themselves as such. No doubt that CD75, Noodlehead, Camtheman, NEPhilly and Tom from Wilmington all consider themselves part of that shrinking 20%.— the anti-CD75
- I disagree with Mr. Polman on this one. The Obama team should call out Fox when it releases over the top "news" stories. The only way to stop a bully is to smack him in the mouth and put him on his back. Fox News is the biggest bully the media has seen in a long time. Way to go Obama; show us some more cojones.— AHiredGun
- The lack of objectivity at MSNBC is just as bad as it is at Fox News (or Fox Sports, those announcers STINK!). What are the odds that MSNBC's cred will be a future post topic?— Joe Funk
- When do the other networks criticize Obama? Show me when Fox has been wrong. Please.— sleepy
- Obama administration officials said Fox News Channel "isn't news." The Bush administration, on the other hand... -Used reporters to out a CIA agent, then sat by and watched reporters and underlings go to jail to protect their sources. -Paying Armstrong Williams, Michael McManus, and Maggie Gallagher and others for favorable opinions about WH policies or to attack opponents of the WH. -Planting Jeff Gannon to lob softball questions. -Fed reporters misinformation about WMD in Iraq, then used those reporters stories as corroborating evidence of the existence of WMD in Iraq. -treated Helen Thomas like a leper. -waged a coordinated campaign against NBC. -kicked all the NY Times reporters off of their planes. -the Pentagon Pundit program, which sold the war by planting former military officers on networks. Uncovering this story earned a journalist the Pulitzer. -Staged mock press conferences with FEMA employees pretending to be reporters. -allowed Ari Fleischer to tell everyone (but directed at journalists) they needed to “watch what they say and what they do.” Um. Damn you, Obama, for being so mean to Fox News Channel!— the stupid does burn
- Nigel, from the WSJ this morning.."The US pay czar will cut in half the average compensation for 175 employees at firms receiving large sums of government aid, with the vast majority of salaries coming in under $500,000....As expected, the biggest cut will be to salaries, which will drop by 90% on average. So, it is both 50% and 90%. Nice, and this should not be allowed.— tom - wilmington, de
- anti-cd, I really could not care less who identifies to which party. I identify myself as a conservative, since I do not vote along party lines. I would also note that the majority of the country identify themselves as conservative or moderate, with less than 25% identifying themselves as liberal. Is it any wonder that more than 50% of the country disagrees with Obama's policies (from the latest CNN poll)?— tom - wilmington, de
- I would also note that the majority of the country identify themselves as conservative or moderate, with less than 25% identifying themselves as liberal. - LMAO - The Stupid Truly Does Burn!!!— let me in
- Why doesn't Team Obama's messaging unit use outside surrogates to proffer the argument, instead of internalizing the attack in Nixonian fashion? Surely the strategy comes from the top. That's troubling, a serious misreading of smart politics and smart "psy ops." There's lame psy ops all over the bureaucracy; here's some evidence: http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor But that's no excuse for the White House's tin ear. Far better to co-opt Faux News than to give the enemy more ammunition to make the argument that POTUS can't stand heat and thus should exit the kitchen.— aviben
- Sleepy, I remember the last debate with Hillary where ABC provided moderators. They skewered Obama. Same with the Rev. Wright thing. Last Sunday Maureen Dowd laid into him. Maybe you don't see these criticisms. As for times when Fox has been wrong, I'm pasting the Leonard Pitts list from his earlier column. He provides fact-checking sources, so you can check for yourself if you don't believe him to be credible: "June 3 -- In a column, Bill O'Reilly says he never called murdered abortion doctor George Tiller ``a baby killer.'' This is wrong. PolitiFact.com has documented 24 instances just since 2005 of O'Reilly referring to the doctor as ``Tiller the baby killer.'' June 10 -- Glenn Beck asks, ``Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We're the only country in the world that has it.'' This is incorrect. Canada has it, as do 32 other nations. June 18 -- Sean Hannity says that under the ``cash For clunkers'' program, ``all we've got to do is . . . go to a local junkyard. All you've got to do is tow it to your house, and you're going to get $4,500.'' This is false. The program required the car to be drivable and to have been registered for at least a year. July 22 -- Beck says the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy ``has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.'' This is untrue. The claim is based on a textbook John Holdren co-authored in 1977 that analyzed and rejected such coercive means of birth control. July 31 -- Kimberly Guilfoyle claims the government will get total access in perpetuity to the computer of any participant in the ``cash For clunkers'' program who signs up at the government website, cars.gov. This is inaccurate. FactCheck.org reports this claim is based on a security notice required of car dealers who access a secure area of the website."— NigeltheMastiff
- Presidents always have a tough time keep their staff people-from "unnamed sources" (whoever they may be) - up to their VP & cabinet secretaries - in line & on message. This one has had more trouble with some of them, who don't do him favors by undermining him. Me, if I were in that position, would lay down the law-you go off message once-that may be OK. But keep doing it, and you're fired.— Paul B
So basically what the WH is saying , run stories we like or else , hmm sounds very close to censorship to me . So much for open government .— PAEnglish- Mr Polman--I don't agree that the Nixon/Agnew strategy of demonizing the liberal media was ineffective. To the contrary, it was very effective in creating a baseless, paranoid, reflexive distrust of the media among the ill-informed public that continues to the present day, with seriously bad effects on both the media and the quality of information that the public believe. But this doesn't mean that it's a good idea for Obama to attack Fox--the situations are different.— liberal
- Retired General Paul Eaton: "The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were INCOMPETENT WAR FIGHTERS. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11. The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes."— the stupid does burn
- Retired General Paul Eaton: "The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were INCOMPETENT WAR FIGHTERS. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11. The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes."— the stupid does burn
- nigel, O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity are conservative opinion journalists, just like our favorite blogger Mr. Polman only liberal. To quote someone that uses their shows as a reference to what Fox reports wrongly is like me fact checking Mr. Polman's blogs or that guy Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC:) It is disingenuous at best.— NEPhilly
- stupid, if the repubs fight wars so terribly, then why did President Obama keep the whole GOP team over at the Defense Dept. when he was elected?— NEPhilly
- eh( sigh)....... I don't disagree much with Polman today. Except that all news has an ideology. Most of the them skew to the left so naturally it seems Fox is scewed far right. There news reporting is separte from their opinion commentators. Their actual coverage over major events is very good. Their opinion commentators are very good and they get good ratings. Since we're dishing out cliche's, remember that " dogs don't bark at parked cars "
- I must be feeling a bit argumentative today. Well, not really. It's just that I already know the difference between straight news and opinion. Nevertheless, it's still bad journalism to use lies in your opinion pieces. Have any opinion you want, but base it on facts and evidence. To say, for example that the Obama administration wants to sterilize people's water or perform abortions on a certain population -- when that is just not factual -- is wrong from any source. Look, we all get it wrong sometimes. But that list from Fox was just within the last few months. They should do a better job. Let them have their conservative views. But let them be truthful and factual. That's all I'm saying.— NigeltheMastiff
- Nigelthemastiff - What you referring to? Do you have actual quotes? It does appear as though you might be confusing an opinion from the actual news reported between 6 and 8 pm by Brett Baier and Sheppard Smith.
- "if the repubs fight wars so terribly, then why did President Obama keep the whole GOP team over at the Defense Dept. when he was elected?" ok, let's review the current leadership on national security........ 1) Robert Gates, Sec of Defense was nominated by Bush (only after GOP hero Rumsfeld insisted upon resigning for a second time - his resignation was rejected by Bush the 1st time); 2) William J. Lynn, Dep Sec of Defense was nominated by Obama; 3) Dennis Blair, Dir of National Intel was nominated by Obama; 4) James Jones, National Security Advisor was nominated by Obama.......... clearly, we have a GOP team running things. Yep, it burns.— the stupid does burn
- "let me in" wrote "I would also note that the majority of the country identify themselves as conservative or moderate, with less than 25% identifying themselves as liberal. - LMAO - The Stupid Truly Does Burn!!!" From Gallup, June 15, 2009 "Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s." I guess that extinguishes the burning.— tom - wilmington, de
- SMike, my post of 2:44 quotes the various people. It is from the Leonard Pitts column I referenced several days ago. Even when I hear opinions I'd like them to be based on factual information, not inaccuracies, don't you? How can I form my own opinion about which I feel comfortable if my thoughts are based on information that just isn't true?— NigeltheMastiff
- stupid, Robert Gates, the Sectry. of Defense is a republican. Even a newly elected dem president knew he couldn't run a war correctly:) No shame in admitting that. In fact I admire it:)— NEPhilly
- Nigel...O'Reilly, when saying "Tiller the Baby Killer" was using a phrase from other sources. He has many times shown clips of when he used that statement and several other times noted the name did not come from him. One such time was when he stated in his opening "The doctor, known as “Tiller the baby Killer” among some people who objected to his practice,". You can go to this site and see clips of O'Reilly saying "Known as" and other references. This is not mentioned by Pitts, but I would not expect it to be. I am surprised you did not factcheck Leonard before posting from his article. Here is the link..http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7192— tom - wilmington, de
- Nigel, the Holdren book did not reject the statements you mention. Forced sterilization, for example, it stated that it would be a difficult procedure to carry out because of political ethical, moral and other problems, but also offered a remedy to meet this challenges. It was not until being questioned by David Vitter during his confirmation that Holdren denounced those views. Never in his testimony did he state that the book refuted the idea in later passages. I am again surprised you did not factcheck this yourself before taking Pitts, who has a definite liberal slant, at his word.— tom - wilmington, de
- Tom, I did go to Politifact.com. The site says O'Reilly's statements indicate the baby killer reference was his opinion. I checked the others out as well, and Pitts seems to be correct -- if you can believe these fact checking sites. I found them pretty useful during the presidential campaign, when both sides were straying from the truth.— NigeltheMastiff
- "Robert Gates, the Sectry. of Defense is a republican." Right, that's why I distinguished him as being "nominated by Bush"........... now back to that claim about Obama keeping "the whole GOP team"........... oh, right, it burns.— the stupid does burn
- Tiller was a baby killer when you get right down to it (performing partial birth and late term abortions), so that wasn't even a lie, just distastefully verbalized.— NEPhilly
- Let me correct myself. I didn't check out Holdren. In fact, I don't really know who he is. Could you enlighten me? Whoever he is, the notion of doing such a thing is disgusting. But Pitts did seem to be right about the others.— NigeltheMastiff
- Nigel, I watched the video's of O'Reilly actually uttering the words. To me, actually hearing the words is better than taking another person's interpretation of what was being said.— tom - wilmington, de
- Dear Leader invited-get this- Olbermann, Maddow and Frank Rich among others to an off-the record pow-wow to discuss how Fox is not a news organization. Can someone please tell me the difference between Glenn Beck and Kieth Olbermann? The only difference is ideology.— tjm333126
- Calling Tiller a baby killer is a far cry from "distasteful verbalization." It was a call to murder which was successful.— mxlplk
- stup, when you keep the boss, you keep most of the team as well. As for the others you mentioned were nominated by President Obama only Lynn is a life long democrat. The other 2 are lifelong military men and probably closet repubs:) As for the 'it burns' gimmick, give it a rest, it only antagonizes people and makes it harder to have polite conversation about our differences in policy. If you can't see that, then you're right, it does burn:)— NEPhilly
- Nigel- I had to read this Leonard Pitts column that is constantly referred to as the holy grail amongst liberals that Fox News is wrong. Once again the liberals are the ones who are confused between opinion commentators and news. I have an assignment for you Nigel. Pour youself a generous helping of wine. Perhaps a nice Cabernet Savignon and I want you to just relax, open your mind, and watch Brett Bair at 6pm and Sheppard Smith at 7pm. Then tell me what you think.
- Well, Tom, you and I have very different perceptions. I was horrified by that clip. If you don't think that was hate rhetoric, then I guess it's like Pitts says -- you see the game as checkers and I see it as basketball. We just live in universes that are galaxies apart.— NigeltheMastiff
- Actually Hannity had it right. You go to the junkyard and get a clunker and get $4500 for it. Of course you have to make a stop at Acorn in there so they can write you up a phony registration but that seems to be right up their alley.
- swedesboromike : perhaps if I were on my sixth glass of Cabernet Savignon I'd have found that funny :)— still_independent
- tom: no, the Holdren book did not advocate those views. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/— still_independent
- Still Independent- We are going to convert Nigel. This is step 1 in a 10 step program
- The bullies here are the politicians in Washington. Fox is one of the few organizations willing to stand up to them. Someone needs to speak for Americans - the Republicans and Democrats bark at each other, but neither stands back to see that their partisan upmanship has Americans overtaxed and over-regulated.— Mark Glaeser
- Polls regarding the percentages of people who consider themselves liberal or conservative are not too impressive when so many posters here--who are presumably above average in political awareness and sophistication--don't know what those terms actually mean. My mother-in-law thinks that "liberals" are terrible people but almost all of her actual political views are liberal.— liberal
- SMike, I really did laugh out loud at that last one. I think you'd have to add about 48 or more steps, though.— NigeltheMastiff
- From the book Ecoscience, co-authored by White House Science "Czar" John Holdren, Page 837 "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."— tom - wilmington, de
- From the Holdren book Ecoscience, talking about controlling population growth, page 786 "One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society."— tom - wilmington, de
- More from Holdren's book Ecoscience, pages 786-787, "Involuntary fertility control ... A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. ... The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.", and pages 787-788, "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."— tom - wilmington, de
- From page 838 of Holdren's book "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection."— tom - wilmington, de
- Additionally from page 838 of Holdren's book "In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?"— tom - wilmington, de
- Nigel...just a little introduction to John Holdren for you. Still_independent, you are probably right. Quotes directly from the book are probably taken out of context, misunderstood, or otherwise. I am sure to check out the "truth o'meter" to get it straight.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom: take your 9:28 PM posting (the longest one). I agree. He discusses involuntary fertility control. He discusses that there are "difficult political, legal, and social questions". And technical issues. Please now point out where he ADVOCATES any of these techniques. Please show exactly where he (emphasis mine) "has PROPOSED forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population". That chapter was discussing various methods of population control that have been proposed. Please show me where any of the three authors (no, it wasn't only his book) actually propose implementing any of this.— still_independent
- Still Independent- Your post is shockingly oblivious to what Holdren is writing about. His only problems seems to be that no such sterlilent exists and that there would be some " pesky " legal issues that might get in the way. This is some scary writing. I am honestly shocked that you can't see that this man advocates population decline via government intervention.
- I never head of Leonard Pitts until today but I hope he has not staked his career on his accusations that Fox News opinion commentators are not reporting the truth. Pitts sites this quote as being untrue "July 22 - Beck says the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population."....... I think Pitts is counting on you not reading Holdren's book. Becks claim is absolutely reasonable. I think these pundits forget we live in an internet age where things can be quickly fact checked.
- Reading what Holdren is advocating is alarming and I think he should be as far away from making policy as possible. Perhaps I could enlighten some of you on the liberal line that "problems are caused by too many people " Countries with very low population density are amongst the poorest in the world. The country fo Niger has 9 people per square mile is ravaged by famine , miniscule when compared to wealthy countries like the USA ( 28), Japan ( 340), the Netherlands ( 484) or Hong Kong ( 6621). More than 125,000 thousand babies will be born by tommorow morning. They are not a burden, they are a blessing. They're more brains that might cure cancer, more hands to build things, and more voices to bring us music. Population decline would ravage our economy. Europe is seeing the effects of population decline, which is why they are implimenting polcies to increase their population. The anti human stategy born out of climate hysteria and enviromental militicancy is most distrubing. And Holdren is in the Obama regime? I have 3 children, politics aside I cannot imagine the government telling me that I am guilty of an enviromental crime but I fear that day will come.
- swedesboromike : again, where is he PROPOSING it? You, and tom, of course leave out the friggin' conclusion of a chapter that is discussing the various aspects (legal, tecnhical, political, and moral) of several mandatory population control methods that have been already tried or proposed. this is again with my emphasis: "Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A FAR BETTER CHOICE, IN OUR VIEW, IS TO EXPAND THE USE OF MILDER METHODS OF INFLUENCING FAMILY SIZE PREFERENCES, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time.". ... You can debate if he's unqualified for his current position based upon his earlier belief in the need for population control. You can disagree with him that abortion should be readily available to people. What you can't do is claim that he advocates or proposes mandatory sterilization or forced abortion when the conclusion of the chapter states EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Tom, I'm sure you went to politifact, read this, and chose to ignore it. "Half-truth" rides again.— still_independent
- Still Independent- I think you are defending an indefensible postion. Human beings are just as much a part of nature as the Polar Bear or the spotted owl. The hypothesis that population is a problem is wrong on so many levels and not grounded in fact. Much that is used to support these positions is routed in famine issues across the globe. All of which are caused by things like civil wars and government corruption. In Niger 2.5 million peope are starving because food production is managed by the state. The absence of property rights and implimentation of price controls is causing famine Mozambique and Swaziland. In Zimbabwe it is caused by Mugabe's kleptocracy. As for Holdren he only advocates a soft peddle approach because our pesky constitution gets in the way. Once again its the classic liberal two step. The first step is to get acceptance from those in power that population is the problem. Once that is " consensus " the anthing is possible. The punchline in all this is when Holdren writes "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."......mmmm? At that point that pretty much means anthing is possible. No?
- Still Independent- Are you blind to this man's writing? "it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."........ There is the punchline sir and it's not crazy to think that 20 years from now this would be discussion forced down our throats if liberals are in charge.
- swedesboromike : and population density is meaningless as a predictor of wealth. Many other factors are far more important. First of all, where did you get your stats from? At least compared to the 2005 stats I found, they are all wrong. In any case, Niger has 28 people/sq mi. they are one spot below Saudi Arabia (30). The US has 80 p/sq mi. Zimbabwe (85) is more dense than the US. Japan is at 870. Of course, Haiti is just above them at 880. Bangladesh sits as the 10th most densely poulated in the world at 2750, yet is one of the poorest. Canada (7.8), Iceland (7.8), Australia (7.4) and Greenland (dead last at 0.067) are all in the bottom 12 in the world. Seems to be a useless predictor to me.— still_independent
- Still Independent- Regardling population and wealth you said "Seems to be a useless predictor to me." I think you answered your own question. The whole premise of population control is fraudulent.
- swedesboromike: I'll answer both your posts. To the first one, way to change the argument once proven incorrect. I never said that population was a problem, nor did I say the Holdren didn't think that it was a problem. The argument was over whether Holdren's book proposed forced abortions and forced sterilization. IT IN FACT DID THE OPPOSITE. And I provided the only portion of the chapter that actually advocated anything as proof, rather than an academic discussion of whether or not other things were legal. .... Now to your second post. I guess the fundamental problem is that unlike you and Tom, I am not blessed with omnipotence. I can not predict the future, nor can I know what someone "really thought". I can only react to their words and actions. Perhaps there is some insideous conspiracy to bring these things about. Perhaps someday "if liberals are in charge" they will attempt this, although I thought, according to you two, that the liberals were in charge now. Yes, he discusses whether some of this would be legal. So what? I recently read a book about the legal justifications used in Germany, beginning with the Nuremberg Laws and leading up to the holocaust. I guess that author was actually an anti-semitic nazi, since he discussed the legality of what was done... Do I disagree with Holdren in general on the subject of population? Absolutely, although the Chinese government may disagree with me. Does that make the statement that he "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population" true? Absolutely not.— still_independent
- swedesboromike : I understand now why you frustrate people here. You asserted that low population density led to negative economic results, and that higher population density led to positive econimic results. I then attempted to show you that this was the case. I was apparently successful. Your response is then "Thanks, you just proved my position on a point we weren't discussing". Yet you seem to be unaware that your original contention was incorrect. I think I like you more when you're drinking.— still_independent
- swedesboromike: put differently, you wrote "I think you answered your own question. The whole premise of population control is fraudulent." I never asked a question, nor did I discuss whether population control is valid, nor was the conversation about whether or not Holdren's views on the need for population control was valid. STOP CHANGING THE DISCUSSION.... swm: "2+2=3" any poster: "no 2+2=4" swm: "thanks for proving my point. math is stupid"— still_independent
- still: Good luck getting a response that directly to point attempts to refute your charges.— yobill626
- STILL: Swede is a Conse 'Pub, which means that either you are wrong, or it's his opinion, and his every opinion is at least equal. He said it himself: it's about votes, which means you do or say anything to get a vote. Ergo, tax cuts and lower taxes for Conse 'Pubs. Nothing else matters beyond their wallets, because it's a bought-and-paid-for strategy. If they got more dollars, they would put Cheney in The WH, letting him start as many wars as he would want. The most they would offer you and I is lip service.— Talvenada
- "Republican have been anti-American and unpatriotic since Obama became President. No wonder only 20% of the public identifies themselves as such." It must be great to make up numbers out of thin air and present them as part of your weak argument, huh anti-cd?— camtheman
- ANTI-CD: Cam is right! They want THEIR country back NOW, and they don't want a foreigner in THEIR WH--not yours. They work, you don't. They pay taxes, you don't. It's THEIR money, not Obama's. Only they have rights and votes that THEY earned.— Talvenada
- Putting words in other people's mouths Tal? Come on man, I thought you were better than that. BTW...Why aren't posting more on CBS sports anymore?— camtheman
- still_independent . LOL, but I'm laughing with you.— JimR
- Still Independent- I only asserted that some of the wealthiest contries of the world have high population density. Don't assert things that I am not stating. Furthermore this discussion is about wether Holdren thinks the government should get involved in population control. I think this statement proves that Holdren absolutey feels government run population control is justified. " it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.".
- Only in the liberal lexicon could they read Holdren and believe he is against population control. This discussion is like banging my head against the wall. OK Still Indpendent. I give up. Holdren is a pro life conservative. You win.
- "tom - wilmington, de"...this guy is great!— rbpeeple
- On page 943, Holdren continued: "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits."....... This guy is one of the scariest minds on this planet. Still Independent , I cannot believe you are defending this man.
- "Every president gets unfavorable press coverage" Really?? Other than Fox News, what mainstream media outlet gives Obama unfavorable news coverage?— WWTDD
- I think there are some reading comprehension issues going on here regarding Obama's Science Czar Holren. Let me reposts this rhetoric again. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.".......... Still Indepedent, He's absolutely OK with it so long as there are no side effects. I cannot believe you can read that rhetoric and still tell us with a straight face that the man does not advocate putting a sterlinent in water at some time in the future. He outlines what would make such a sterlilent acceptable.
- I have a question. When I have time, I'll try to find this book online, or at least some information about it. In the meantime, however, might I ask under what circumstances he and the other two wrote this book? Was it for academe? Was it for some kind of public policy department? I need him put in some kind of context.— NigeltheMastiff
- Oh, and about Leonard Pitts. He has only written about Fox once. He's African American, and often writes about that experience. He's a terrific writer, one reason I like him. He can do wit, poignancy, straight news, just about everything. Do you know how difficult it is to be funny in writing? Extremely. Once he wrote a satiric piece on the rapper Fifty Cent, who apparently had criticized those who live in gated communities. Of course, it turns out that Fifty Cent lives in an exclusive gated community in Connecticut. Pitts kept referring to him as Mr. Cent. It was hilarious.— NigeltheMastiff
- Niglethemastiff- John Holdren is a former Harvard and Cal Berkley Proffessor. In 1977 he co-authored a textbook entitled Ecoscience which contains very controversial writing about population control . Holdren is Obama's Science Czar. He also had an advisorary role under Clinton.
- Niglethemastiff- I read Pitt's column. First of all he has issues with the opinion commentators not the news coverage. His accusations that Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Guilfoyle are mis-reporting are generally wrong as the matters he is referring to are subject to opinion. Which is how we got on this topic of John Holdren's writing. On a lighter side how was the glass of Cabnernet and the Fox News coverage that I prescribed for you?
- swedesboromike : for hopefully the last time. The population density thing. Ignoring the fact that your numbers were completely wrong, are you now saying that in stating that low density countries are very poor, and constrasting them to wealthy countries that are rich, you were not making the point that low pop. density is an indicator of poor economic outcomes and high density of good? That means that either a) you are lying now, that was your intent, and you can't admit you were wrong; b) you threw anecdotal information out there that implied something but you knew it didn't actually back up your point of view; or c) you cut-and-pasted something, didn't cite it, and didn't really undertstand it. None of these possibilities are particularly flattering to you.... Now to the Holdren thing in general. The point of contention was NOT whether or not Holdren believed in population control in 1977. It was NOT about whether he secretly loves the ideas of forced sterilization and abortion. The point of contention was whether or not Glen Beck was correct in saying that Holdren "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." I then referenced politifact, which was studiously ignored. Tom, being Tom, then SLECTIVELY posted excerpts from the book (none of which actually advocate doing anything). You, being you, then reposted what Tom did. You both left out the part of the book where they CLEARLY state that they support OTHER methods of population control. Ergo, Beck was wrong (I know, shocker). Finally, you write "Only in the liberal lexicon could they read Holdren and believe he is against population control. This discussion is like banging my head against the wall", to which I have two responses. The first is that Holdren is (or at least was in 1977) for population control. That wasn't the dispute. The second is instead of a wall, try the keyboard. The quality of the posts may improve.— still_independent
- A must read from Washingtonpost commetator Charles Krauthammer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102203801.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
- Why would you write a book about something you are not endorsing?— NEPhilly
- Still Independent- You are really missing the point. First of all there is no evidence that population is a problem. There are too many examples of countries with high density that are prosperous. Which is not to say that there are not examples of high denisty countries that are very poor. You cite Bangledesh. The point is there is no correlation between population and problems with famine, disease etc. In our own country the most prosperous sections are in or around major cities. The issues have more to do with education and type of government. So the very foundation of Holdren's book is flawed to begin with. And secondly he openly writes about government control of population and a planetary regime to control population where by all national sovereignty is lost to an international body. At that point a sterlient in water is plausable. For the life of me I cannot understand why you are clinging to the opinion that Holdren does not advocate compulsory sterilization.
- JimR: I get sarcastic when frustrated.— still_independent
- NEPhilly : it's a textbook. I'm sure he endorses (or did) population control in general. If he discusses various methods, endorses some, why would you suppose he endorses the others?— still_independent
- NE Philly- This one boggles my mind. I need a lifeline from you and Tom . I read what Holdren wrote. I can't understand how anyone could come to any other conclusion that Holdren advocates compulsory sterlization as a means of population control. But denial and disguise is how a radical left wing agenda will one day be reality. One day we will wake up and ask "how did this happen" It happening and will happen because we are told to ignore the writings and rhetoric from the people running the government. Everthing is " out of context, mis-understood, or mis-interpreted "
- SMike, I had already read that Krauthammer piece. See? I do read conservatives. Didn't manage the FOX with a Cab. I think it might take more than one.— NigeltheMastiff
- Still Independent- Niger is actually lower according to this site. 7.86. See the link. Many of the countries that are doing very well actually have high population densities My point being that high population is not a problem. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/geo_pop_den-geography-population-density
- gentlemen, I read up just a little on this subject and it does seem Glenn Beck was wrong, technically, when he said Holdren proposed those things. He never proposed them, he wrote a book considering them (scary enough, imho) as answers to a future overpopulation problem. This from politifact, "Some have argued that Holdren's view of the imminent and grave global dangers posed by overpopulation should provide pause, given Holdren's current view that global warming now presents imminent and grave global dangers. That's a matter for reasoned debate." I agree and I do not think this man should be the 'Science Czar' for President Obama and be able to influence govt. policy. I do believe he endorses population controls by govt., but you can't use this book to prove it. Glenn Beck will have to dig further and I wouldn't be surprised some other article or book or speech of Mr. Holdren will turn up soon. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/— NEPhilly
- Here is an exchange from Senate confirmation hearing from politifact. ***Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he "no longer thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. ... I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling 'sustainable prosperity.'" Vitter continued with his line of question, asking directly, "Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?" Said Holdren: "No, senator, I do not. ... I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we have."*** He seems to be tap dancing around the subject, but you be the judge.— NEPhilly
- Whats funny is the morons who attack fox news are the same ones who watch NBC and get a tingle up their leg when Obama talks and continuously defend the indefensible while pointing fingers at Bush. If you want to talk about "fake news" you must first look to NBC which has the likes of Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow who are both ignorant and offensive. Thats not to mention that NBC is owned by GE(who's CEO happens to be in bed with the Administratiion). NBC is nothing more than an arm of Obama's political machine since last years election and has become the most irrelevant news station on tv. The ratings say it all....fox beats them all combined and has a more balanced viewership among conservatives and liberals(not marxist/communists/socialist, NBC has that market cornered)!— cujat13
- I hope this Holden guy isn't in charge of the swine flu vaccines. Hate to see 2009 as a chapter in a future discussion of the greatly reduced labor pool leading to the rebirth of the middle class.— Joe Funk
- Hey Dick, It's called abuse of power & Libel! Can you imagine if President Bush tried to tarnish a liberal channel like CNN. Indeed, The Venezuelan White House ramped up their frontal attacks on Fox, vowing that "we're going to treat them like we treat an opponent" because they are afraid of criticism. I guess free speech is OK as long as they agree with it... But here's an even better characterization, courtesy of The token University journalism professor Quote: "The Inquirer, CNN, MSNBC & so called mainstream media are run by left wing radicals journalist who promote a left-wing political ideology."— Carlo Morelli
- cujat13- I assume you meant "MSNBC". It's rather convenient to focus on "NBC" or GE and yet skip over Murdach and his conservative (at best) interests. MSNBC's evening programming is OBVIOUSLY slanted liberal. Keith Olberman would not tell you otherwise. AGAIN, why do you care if FOX is perceived biased when they openly market their bias to a very receptive audience? The late Tim Russert and Brian Williams were far more fair towards Bush than anyone on FOX will ever be toward Obama. From a purely business perspective- this makes complete sense.— pagoda
- NEPhilly : congrats on being intellectually honest. You seem to easily get what swm refuses to. Beck was wrong. I agree with you that (at least in 1977) that Holdren was for population management. We can discuss whether or not this disqualifies him from his current position. I may even agree with you. I will even acknowledge that reasonable population growth is necessary for an economy to function. None of that was disputed. Maybe in the future some book, speech, or other documentation may indeed arise that shows otherwise. However, Beck will always be incorrect, since he based in comments solely off of the book. When swm asks "I can't understand how anyone could come to any other conclusion that Holdren advocates compulsory sterlization as a means of population control", the easy answer is "becuase he clearly states so in the book". But of course this is not acceptable.— still_independent
- still, glad to be of service. I have moved over to the next board and found some other intersting tidbits on Mr. Holdren. TGIF and go Phillies:)— NEPhilly
- CAM: I write a blog myself now @ http://isportsweb.com/ on The Phillies.— Talvenada
- I agree with Mr. Polman's points about why it's bad for Pres. Obama to attack Fox News, and it's kind of hard to believe as intelligent a guy as Obama is he wouldn't know this as well. I can see the attack on Fox news as a possible strategy to divert attention away from the other issues that have caused Obama's poll numbers to drop steadily in recent months. Since most liberals despise Fox News, attacking it could bring Obama back into the good graces of a lot of liberals that have been disappointed in him lately.— Phillysub
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: