Bearhawkeye
The King of Breakfast
Posts: 13,708
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Zinzinnati
Location:
|
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
(05-18-2011 04:53 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote: Guess have to agree to disagree. I just dont think its that big a deal. A true example of conflict of interest was Olbermann and Hannity making campaign contributions to specific candidates and failing to disclose it. Giving your view on an issue to a president is not tantamount to supporting him. In fact its possible that Zakaria discussed his view of a foreign policy issue and that it was completely different than what what put into practice. I am happy that President is soliciting multiple opinions. Obama previously met with several conservative columnists including Charles Krauthammer at George Will's House.
"Obama enjoys debating his ideological opponents more than his allies, an adviser said, and plans further meetings with journalists of varying stripes during his term."
"Obama's a man who has demonstrated he is interested in hearing other views," said syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...04155.html
I don't think you even understand your own arguments. Krauthammer told his readers/viewers at that time - unlike Zakaria. Neither did CNN. Which is why they are criticized in the article.
And you need to check your facts. Olbermann got into trouble not specifically for giving the donation, but for not telling his bosses per their policy - again pointing out the duty employers feel for their employees.
And since you brought up Krauthammer's old compliment, here's his update on how Obama actually governs. I put a money quote in bold for you. It gets to the heart of what I really dislike about this President and his style of government:
Quote:Demagoguery 101
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: May 12
“I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues.”
— Barack Obama, speech on immigration, El Paso, May 10
Constructive and civil debate — like the one Obama initiated just four weeks ago on deficit reduction? The speech in which he accused the Republicans of abandoning families of autistic and Down syndrome kids? The debate in which Obama’s secretary of health and human services said that the Republican Medicare plan would make old folks “die sooner”?
In this same spirit of comity and mutual respect, Obama’s most recent invitation to civil discourse — on immigration — came just 11 minutes after he accused opponents of moving the goal posts on border enforcement. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said sarcastically. “Maybe they want alligators in the moat.”
Nice touch. Looks like the Tucson truce — no demonization, no cross-hairs metaphors — is officially over. After all, the Republicans want to kill off the elderly, throw the disabled in the snow and watch alligators lunch on illegal immigrants.
The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith. “They’ll never be satisfied,” said Obama about border control. “And I understand that. That’s politics.”
How understanding. The other side plays “politics,” Obama acts in the public interest. Their eyes are on poll numbers, political power, the next election; Obama’s rest fixedly on the little children.
This impugning of motives is an Obama constant. “They” play politics with deficit reduction, with government shutdowns, with health care. And now immigration. It is ironic that such a charge should be made in a speech that is nothing but politics. There is zero chance of any immigration legislation passing Congress in the next two years. El Paso was simply an attempt to gin up the Hispanic vote as part of an openly political two-city, three-event campaign swing in preparation for 2012.
Accordingly, the El Paso speech featured two other staples: the breathtaking invention and the statistical sleight of hand.
“The [border] fence is now basically complete,” asserted the president. Complete? There are now 350 miles of pedestrian fencing along the Mexican border. The border is 1,954 miles long. That’s 18 percent. And only one-tenth of that 18 percent is the double and triple fencing that has proved so remarkably effective in, for example, the Yuma sector. Another 299 miles — 15 percent — are vehicle barriers that pedestrians can walk right through.
Obama then boasted that on his watch 31 percent more drugs have been seized, 64 percent more weapons — proof of how he has secured the border. And for more proof: Apprehension of illegal immigrants is down 40 percent. Down? Indeed, says Obama, this means that fewer people are trying to cross the border.
Interesting logic. Seizures of drugs and guns go up — proof of effective border control. Seizures of people go down — yet more proof of effective border control. Up or down, it matters not. Whatever the numbers, Obama vindicates himself.
You can believe this flimflam or you can believe the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The GAO reported in February that less than half the border is under “operational control” of the government. Which undermines the entire premise of Obama’s charge that, because the border is effectively secure, “Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement” didn’t really mean it.
I count myself among those who really do mean it. I have little doubt that most Americans would be quite willing to regularize and legalize the current millions of illegal immigrants if they were convinced that this was the last such cohort, as evidenced by, say, a GAO finding that the border is under full operational control and certification to the same effect by the governors of the four southern border states.
Americans are a generous people. Upon receipt of objective and reliable evidence that the border is secure — not Obama’s infinitely manipulable interdiction statistics — the question would be settled and the immigrants legalized.
Why doesn’t Obama put such a provision in comprehensive immigration legislation? Because for Obama, immigration reform is not about legislation, it’s about reelection. If I may quote the president: I understand that. That’s politics.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Demagoguery 101
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2011 09:04 PM by Bearhawkeye.)
|
|