Video: Should Obama have skipped Fox News yesterday?
posted at 4:45 pm on September 21, 2009 by Allahpundit
Sure, why not? Scarborough’s right: The more adversarial Fox gets, replete with its own activist website and news producers literally cheerleading at mass protests organized against The One’s agenda, the less unseemly it is that Obama should choose to ignore them. Once a news outlet takes an “us and them” posture towards the president, it’s hard to fault him for making them choke on it; that’s why no one knocks Obama for refusing to do Rush’s show and no one knocked Bush for refusing to do Olbermann’s. And yes, granted, Chris Wallace is more evenhanded on his worst day than Rush or Olbermann is on his best, but why give Wallace a break with an interview when the rest of the network is arrayed against you? Especially when he’s shown that he’s willing to take off the gloves too.
The best argument to do Fox from Obama’s perspective is that it deprives them of crowing that he’s afraid to face them. But (a) he’s already faced both Wallace and Bill O’Reilly in the past, so that argument won’t wash and (b) Fox is going to crow anyway that the White House fears them whether he does the show or not. Why do them a favor?
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2