White House Blog vs. Glen Beck & Fox

[Plissken]

None of this conflicts with what I've just said, Cail. FOXNews has made no secret that they'll throw anything they can (and several things they shouldn't) at Obama since the "schooled in a Madrassa"/"Terrorist Fist Bump" days.

Using FOX's single minded determination against them for a little political theater is the (to my mind) second-best option, but if the Dems getting to run against Beck and O' Reilly in 2010 (now that they don't have Dubya to kick around anymore) represents the loss of this little gambit, so be it.

[Zarathustra]

Shepard Smith's show is on 7-8, and it's not OpEd. Gretta's show isn't OpEd, either.

how much censorship does the White House refusing to take FOX's news reportage seriously represent?

Again, in order to respond, I'm forced to correct the characterization of the stakes here. No one is accusing Obama of censorship. I've said (over and over) that he is exerting editorial pressure on not only Fox, but all the other news outlets as well, by having his highest advisors publicly instruct them on how to view Fox, and to "not follow Fox's lead" (i.e. don't cover the stories that Fox breaks). That is a lot more than refusing to take Fox seriously.

How serious Obama takes Fox News is his own personal opinion. On the other hand, sending tax-payer paid high-ranking officials of our federal government to tell us and other news outlets how to treat and consider Fox News--including asking them to kick Fox out of the White House Press Corp--is a lot more than simply holding a personal opinion. It's even different from mere fact-checking.

No, this isn't censorship. But it is using the power of the federal government to pressure the free media toward content that is more favorable to the administration, and to disarm political criticism. For a man who wanted, "open and honest debate," this is exactly the opposite. What I'm doing here is not a battle for the First Amendment, but rather a critique of Obama's hypocrisy and overbearing political strategy of using the Office of the President to wage a political war against critical media.

[Edited for spelling errors and this: ". . . if the Dems getting to run against Beck and O' Reilly in 2010 (now that they don't have Dubya to kick around anymore) represents the loss of this little gambit, so be it."

Don't you think there is something decidely petty about running against members of the media? Making members of the media your enemy is merely a distraction from real problems. I don't want my government employees to seek a job for no other purpose than to fight criticism of the government. I thought they were supposed to represent us, not themselves-against-critics.]

[sindatur]

A little perspective:

FOX is piped into 90 million American homes. Of those 90 million, 3% watch FOX. Now, I'm going to assume that most of the people with basic cable who watch FOX have jobs. Checking the TV schedule in the paper, the hours when most employed people are home and awake (between 6pm and midnite), there is precisely 1/2 hour of news available to them on the FOX news channel (between 11:30 and 12am), as the rest (unless this Greta person is an actual news reporter. Anyone know?) is all OpEd.

Now, even assuming that the folks who're home during the day and watch FOX's actual news programming only get their news from that programming, and assuming that the lack of reporters on FOX who get their questions answered at White House press briefings would be considered a detriment (as opposed to some kind of proof that FOX is the only one telling them the truth about Death Camps For Gramma and whatnot) to those people (or that Bill and Glenn were incapable of forming and spewing their opinions without WH confirmation), how much censorship does the White House refusing to take FOX's news reportage seriously represent?

Obama's not doing this to censor anything - as bourne out by the predictable spike in ratings for FOX when he finally responded to them. He's doing it for the same reason Dubya elevated Osama from criminal to Warrior. I thought it was a mistake when Bush did it, I think it's a mistake now.

Still, if this blows up in his face like it did for Bush, no one'll be dead over it -- and the victorious face of the Republican Party who stands victoriously in the face of White House opposition in this media teacup tempest will be...

The Weepy, Half-Mad n' Drooling, Self-Avowed Rodeo Clown, Glenn Beck.

Not the worst way to "lose"...

You are forgetting about 5am to 7 or 8am, when it's all news, many people get their news when they wake up in the morning and drink their coffee with breakfast, before leaving for work.

[Avatar]

What's the difference between an editor acting in fear of the government...

No, the difference is whether you can print something without going to jail for it (or disappearing one night) or not.

Unless there is some sort of consequence for printing something the government disapproves of, it's not censorship. (And having the white house tell people you're not a real news source is not a consequence. Not in the sense I mean anyway.)

--A

[Cybrweez]

pliss, some responses to your Fox News lineup, any comments?

malik, good point about running against Beck/O'Reilly. That's a big problem in this country, people don't vote based on issues but on who they don't like. Lesser of 2 evils and all. Not exactly noble endeavor. If you vote for Dems b/c Beck and O'Reilly are considered conservative/Republican, though they have no power to make any changes, no wonder our politicians get away w/so much crap.

[sindatur]

Shepard Smith's show is on 7-8, and it's not OpEd. Gretta's show isn't OpEd, either.

how much censorship does the White House refusing to take FOX's news reportage seriously represent?

Again, in order to respond, I'm forced to correct the characterization of the stakes here. No one is accusing Obama of censorship. I've said (over and over) that he is exerting editorial pressure on not only Fox, but all the other news outlets as well, by having his highest advisors publicly instruct them on how to view Fox, and to "not follow Fox's lead" (i.e. don't cover the stories that Fox breaks). That is a lot more than refusing to take Fox seriously.

How serious Obama takes Fox News is his own personal opinion. On the other hand, sending tax-payer paid high-ranking officials of our federal government to tell us and other news outlets how to treat and consider Fox News--including asking them to kick Fox out of the White House Press Corp--is a lot more than simply holding a personal opinion. It's even different from mere fact-checking.

No, this isn't censorship. But it is using the power of the federal government to pressure the free media toward content that is more favorable to the administration, and to disarm political criticism. For a man who wanted, "open and honest debate," this is exactly the opposite. What I'm doing here is not a battle for the First Amendment, but rather a critique of Obama's hypocrisy and overbearing political strategy of using the Office of the President to wage a political war against critical media.

[Edited for spelling errors and this: ". . . if the Dems getting to run against Beck and O' Reilly in 2010 (now that they don't have Dubya to kick around anymore) represents the loss of this little gambit, so be it."

Don't you think there is something decidely petty about running against members of the media? Making members of the media your enemy is merely a distraction from real problems. I don't want my government employees to seek a job for no other purpose than to fight criticism of the government. I thought they were supposed to represent us, not themselves-against-critics.]

And let's not forget that the competition to Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly (And Hannity, how'd he dumped from this conversation, since he's more partisan than Bill O'Reilly) are Olbermann, Maddow, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, all talking heads shows.

[Tjol]

What's the difference between an editor acting in fear of the government...

No, the difference is whether you can print something without going to jail for it (or disappearing one night) or not.

Unless there is some sort of consequence for printing something the government disapproves of, it's not censorship. (And having the white house tell people you're not a real news source is not a consequence. Not in the sense I mean anyway.)

--A

There is a consequence. It's not jail yet, but as posted by others in this thread, there have been consequences for not worshipping the current administration.

[Tjol]

What's the difference between an editor acting in fear of the government without a bureaucrat physically present, and some government bureaucrat being physically present in an editor's office while they make decisions on what to publish and what not to publish?

In fear of what mechanism though? Obama's disappointment?

There doesn't appear to be a method to allow access to the president without being discriminatory. Period. If you're basing the "fear" component on disallowed access to the white house and such, then try leveling that argument on behalf of every information business claiming to be "news media". Otherwise, you're just cherry picking news agencies to give preference to as well, in this case, Fox.

I understand criticism of Obama's choice to spar with Fox like this, and I fully support exploiting his thin skin and apparent discomfort with detraction of any flavor, but I have yet to see a sound argument about challenges on freedom of the press or censorship.

The president can always ask for a different reporter if he feels that the individual isn't polite. But it doesn't seem that Obama feels that the reporters are impolite, it seems like Obama is trying to supress information... the same president who made giant promises of a new transparency in government.

It effects censorship in this fashion:

News entities A, B, C, and D all publish news for public consumption. News entities A, B, and C only publish news that casts the government in a positive light. News entity D publishes news that casts the government in positive and negative lights. The government moves to restrict news entity D's access to information, knowing that news entities A, B and C will only publish stories that flatter the government, and that by excluding D they can keep any information that puts the government in a negative light from ever being seen.

[Plissken]

Shepard Smith's show is on 7-8, and it's not OpEd. Gretta's show isn't OpEd, either.

how much censorship does the White House refusing to take FOX's news reportage seriously represent?

Again, in order to respond, I'm forced to correct the characterization of the stakes here. No one is accusing Obama of censorship. I've said (over and over) that he is exerting editorial pressure on not only Fox, but all the other news outlets as well, by having his highest advisors publicly instruct them on how to view Fox, and to "not follow Fox's lead" (i.e. don't cover the stories that Fox breaks). That is a lot more than refusing to take Fox seriously.

How serious Obama takes Fox News is his own personal opinion. On the other hand, sending tax-payer paid high-ranking officials of our federal government to tell us and other news outlets how to treat and consider Fox News--including asking them to kick Fox out of the White House Press Corp--is a lot more than simply holding a personal opinion. It's even different from mere fact-checking.

No, this isn't censorship. But it is using the power of the federal government to pressure the free media toward content that is more favorable to the administration, and to disarm political criticism. For a man who wanted, "open and honest debate," this is exactly the opposite. What I'm doing here is not a battle for the First Amendment, but rather a critique of Obama's hypocrisy and overbearing political strategy of using the Office of the President to wage a political war against critical media.

[Edited for spelling errors and this: ". . . if the Dems getting to run against Beck and O' Reilly in 2010 (now that they don't have Dubya to kick around anymore) represents the loss of this little gambit, so be it."

Don't you think there is something decidely petty about running against members of the media? Making members of the media your enemy is merely a distraction from real problems. I don't want my government employees to seek a job for no other purpose than to fight criticism of the government. I thought they were supposed to represent us, not themselves-against-critics.]

And let's not forget that the competition to Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly (And Hannity, how'd he dumped from this conversation, since he's more partisan than Bill O'Reilly) are Olbermann, Maddow, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, all talking heads shows.

As I said earlier, I think it's a mistake to elevate these people to the status of "opponent." And yes, I think it's petty to run against the media. (We'll just pretend I said something really, really witty referencing standard GOP operating procedure here. Something referring to the Left Wing Media always hounding them or somesuch. It's been a long day, and I'm too tired to do other than the blatantly obvious.)

However, whilst brushing my teeth this morning, I did manage to write a possible generic campaign ad for Dems in 2010...

VOICE OVER: They want you scared.

FOX NEWS CLIP PASTICHE: How much danger are American in from --pens? --cows? --madrassa? --terrorists? --environmentalists? --the Democrat Party? --terrorist fist bump? --Socialists? --Mao? [sweartogawd. It's on the YouTubes]--classroom full of rats? --shoes? --shampoo and beauty products?

VOICE OVER: And [Republican Legislator X] is scared.

REPUBLICAN LEGISLATOR X: I think people should be worried about [whatever Obama did that day]. It could be the end of America as we know it.

VOICE OVER: They wanted you angry.

FOX OP ED CLIPS: [Hey, you make up your own clip reel. I'm working 12 hour days here.]

VOICE OVER: And ['Pub Legislator X] is angry.

RLX: Well, I'll tell you, I'm just outraged at [whatever bill the Dems passed that day/whatever an Obama appointee had for lunch in '96/etc]. And I think the American people should be angry as well. And scared, too.

VOICE OVER: But now, there's work to be done. There are serious prolems to be solved. And when there's work to be done Americans have always come together, gotten serious, rolled up their sleeves, and gotten to work.

DEM CANDIDATE Y: I'm [Dem Candidate Y], and I endorsed this message because I'd be proud to do your work in Washington.

VOICE OVER: Paid for by the Committee to Elect [DCY].

GLENN BECK (SHRIEKING): Get off of my phone, you little pin-head!

VOICE OVER: It's-- it's over, Glenn. Go home.

[Cail]

OK back to reality, it appears the spoiled-child-in chief is going after another critic.

But in addition to Fox News, now The White House is going after highly-respected and influential car site Edmunds.com.

They're actually using The White House blog to dispute the site's analysis of Cash-For-Clunkers (via Detroit News).

The post is snarkily titled: "Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers"

More here.

The White House said the influential automotive news Web site Edmunds.com's harsh analysis of the impact of "cash for clunkers" was "faulty" and "implausible."

Edmunds CEO Jeremy Anwyl shot back that the White House was "shooting the messenger."

Edmunds said cash for clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.

Nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold during the $3 billion cash for clunkers program that offered up to $4,500 rebates, officially known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, but Edmunds.com analysts calculated that only 125,000 of the sales occurred as a result of the program.

Edmunds is clearly among the more pessimistic about the program's impact.

The White House, in a report in September, said it believed 440,000 were incremental sales -- though it could be as high as 560,000 under its most optimistic scenario.

Ford Motor Co. said in August it believed 30 to 40 percent of clunkers sales were "truly incremental" -- which would translate to an industry increase of 210,000 to 280,000.

Moody's said 60 percent were incremental, while General Motors estimated it about was 500,000. As observers pointed out, Edmunds has been skeptical of the program since the summer. In June, Edmunds called it a "non-event" and said cash for clunkers "will struggle to produce the estimated 250,000 vehicle sales."

In fact the program sold nearly that many vehicles in the program's first week.

Edmunds.com's "faulty analysis suggesting that the cash for clunkers program had no meaningful impact on our economy or on overall auto sales. This is the latest of several critical 'analyses' of the cash for clunkers program from Edmunds.com, which appear designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV," the White House said on its blog Thursday afternoon. "Like many of their previous attempts, this latest claim doesn't withstand even basic scrutiny."

The White House said Edmunds based its analysis on the "implausible" assumption that "the market for cars that didn't qualify for cash for clunkers was completely unaffected by this program. In other words, all the other cars were being sold on Mars, while the rest of the country was caught up in the excitement of the cash for clunkers program."

The administration also said Edmunds didn't account for the "beneficial impact" the program will have on fourth-quarter Gross National Product because automakers have ramped up their production to rebuild their depleted inventories.

"Most importantly, this program is helping boost our economy and create jobs now when we need it most. In a comprehensive report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that cash for clunkers will create 70,000 jobs in the second half of 2009," the White House said. "Edmunds.com, on the other hand, is promoting a bombastic press release without any public access to their underlying analysis."

Edmunds stands by its analysis.

"Instead of shooting the messenger, government officials should take heart from the core message of the analysis: The fundamentals of the auto marketplace are improving faster than the current sales numbers suggest," Anwyl wrote.

The central issue, Anwyl said, "is how many of these sales would have occurred anyway. Apparently, the $24,000 figure caught many by surprise. It shouldn't have. The truth is that consumer incentive programs are always hugely expensive when calculated by incremental sales -- always in the tens of thousands of dollars."

Edmunds rejected the White House suggestion that people got caught up in the excitement of the program and bought cars, even if they didn't qualify. And it discarded the notion that automakers boosted production solely because of the program.

"No manufacturer increases production, a decision with long-term consequences, based on the 30-day sales blip triggered by an event like cash for clunkers," Edmunds wrote.

The White House got a boost from Mike Jackson, chairman and CEO of AutoNation.

While Edmunds is usually highly respected within the automotive industry for its accuracy and reliability, he said, its analysis of the cash for clunkers program is "shoddy."

"Simply put, they've misrepresented the facts, and the White House is completely justified in calling them out on it," Jackson said, adding that it appears "Edmunds' political views have tainted their usual rigorous approach to research."

"I know from our sales at AutoNation just how significant the impact of the cash for clunkers promotion was in our dealerships, and our own internal figures indicate that the rate of increase was consistent with what other retailers, manufacturers and governmental agencies have been estimating," he said.

"We believe that the incremental sales are over 500,000 new vehicles. Edmunds may not want to believe Ford or General Motors or Moody's or the White House or any of the dozens of other reliable parties who saw significant sales increases as a direct and indirect result of the program, but that doesn't make the increases any less real."

And, of course, the childish White House blog post.

Busy Covering Car Sales on Mars, Edmunds.com Gets It Wrong (Again) on Cash for Clunkers
Posted by Macon Phillips on October 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM EDT

On the same day that we found out that motor vehicle output added 1.7% to economic growth in the third quarter – the largest contribution to quarterly growth in over a decade – Edmunds.com has released a faulty analysis suggesting that the Cash for Clunkers program had no meaningful impact on our economy or on overall auto sales. This is the latest of several critical “analyses” of the Cash for Clunkers program from Edmunds.com, which appear designed to grab headlines and get coverage on cable TV. Like many of their previous attempts, this latest claim doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny.

The Edmunds analysis is based on two implausible assumptions:

1. The Edmunds’ analysis rests on the assumption that the market for cars that didn’t qualify for Cash for Clunkers was completely unaffected by this program.

In other words, all the other cars were being sold on Mars, while the rest of the country was caught up in the excitement of the Cash for Clunkers program. This analysis ignores not only the price impacts that a program like Cash for Clunkers has on the rest of the vehicle market, but the reports from across the country that people were drawn into dealerships by the Cash for Clunkers program and ended up buying cars even though their old car was not eligible for the program.

This faulty assumption leads Edmunds to a conclusion that is at odds with many independent analyses: Edmunds assumption that more than 80% of the payback from Cash for Clunkers would occur in 2009 isn't how many mainstream analyses, including Moody's and IHS Global Insight approach the problem (see pages 5 and 15 of this CEA report [PDF]). In fact, Deutsche Bank recently concluded that “The important takeaway from recent sales trends is that it suggests that there has been minimal 'payback' for the U.S. government’s 'cash for clunkers' program.”

2. Edmunds also ignores the beneficial impact that the program will have on 4th Quarter GDP because automakers have ramped up their production to rebuild their depleted inventories.

Major automakers including GM, Ford, Honda and Chrysler all increased their production through the end of the year as a result of this program, which will help boost growth beyond the third quarter. The actions of private market participants, who would not increase production if they didn’t think demand for their product would be there through the end of the year, is a far better indicator of market dynamics – and one that Edmunds.com conveniently ignores.

Most importantly, this program is helping boost our economy and create jobs now when we need it most. In a comprehensive report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the Cash for Clunkers will create 70,000 jobs in the second half of 2009. The strength of recent auto sales data suggest that, if anything, this projection underestimates the actual impact of the program. CEA’s analysis is transparent and comprehensive, laying out all of its assumptions for the public to understand. Edmunds.com, on the other hand, is promoting a bombastic press release without any public access to their underlying analysis.

So put on your space suit and compare the two approaches yourself:

[Plissken]

I'm confused. Another industry analyst says Edmunds work on this was "shoddy." And the White House blog explains two points they think Edmunds missed and why they are important factors. In fact, if you take away the descriptors from the article the whole thing scans as "nothing to see here."

Next, let's all join in the mock outrage FOX tried to gin up at Obama when climate change deniers and insanely influential lobby-masters The Chamber of Commerce lost Apple, PG&E, and quite a few other big clients over recent statments about Global Warming...

[Cail]

I'm confused. Another industry analyst says Edmunds work on this was "shoddy." And the White House blog explains two points they think Edmunds missed and why they are important factors. In fact, if you take away the descriptors from the article the whole thing scans as "nothing to see here."

There's substantial evidence that the bump in 3rd quarter GDP came primarily from the C-F-C and homebuyer's tax credit. Two temporary and expensive programs. In other words, money was taken out of one pocket and placed in another. That's not growth. The two "points" that the blog brings up ignore the simple reality that the vast majority of auto sales during that period were a direct result of the handout.

And, of course, it ignores the central point of the Edmunds piece...That C-F-C cost a bundle.

[Avatar]

Y'know, it's fine if they want to respond to some criticism. But it's looking like they're setting themselves up as another source of opinion-biased comment. It's not the white houses job really, is it?

There is a consequence. It's not jail yet, but as posted by others in this thread, there have been consequences for not worshipping the current administration.

Detention without trial, torture, exile, death. Those are real consequences. Now, I might concede that denying people stuff, or prosecuting them, on the basis of published opinions counts, but having the white house be sarcstic about you isn't censorship.

--A

[Tjol]

Y'know, it's fine if they want to respond to some criticism. But it's looking like they're setting themselves up as another source of opinion-biased comment. It's not the white houses job really, is it?

There is a consequence. It's not jail yet, but as posted by others in this thread, there have been consequences for not worshipping the current administration.

Detention without trial, torture, exile, death. Those are real consequences. Now, I might concede that denying people stuff, or prosecuting them, on the basis of published opinions counts, but having the white house be sarcstic about you isn't censorship.

--A

Wow, the definition of what is ok for government to do keeps expanding,

So now, what should be tolerated is a government that intimidates it's critics and tries to obstruct their actions, so long as they don't arrest the reporters without trial?

[Avatar]

As long as those critics can still freely publish their criticism, it's not censorship. When the government says "you may not publish criticism of us," then it's censorship.

--A

[Cail]

So it's not censorship for them to attempt to marginalize or slander a news organization?

[ParanoiA]

Not any more than it's subversion to marginalize or slander an administration. It's the political fight. Each uses the tools they have and none of them seem unfair to me. As long as the government isn't using the mechanics of law to exercise their fight, it's entirely fair.

I mean really. Censorship using this logical stretch is highly suspect. Isn't this discussion an attempt to censor your beliefs? If someone shouts over you at a political rally, aren't they censoring your free speech?

[Cail]

Not at all. We're not talking about two individuals at a rally. We're talking about the power and resources of the office of the President of the United States. Fox News has the Constitution behind it when it criticizes the president (just as everyone else had it behind them when they criticized Bush). However, when an administration pinpoints an organization and attempts to have it removed from the press pool because it doesn't like what its saying, then there's a problem.

Remember, there's already a legal mechanism for dealing with lies, slander, and libel. So far, how many times has the administration taken Fox to court?

Likewise, the administration isn't targeting the other news agencies for behaving like Fox does (the "opinion reporting" and what not). Fox is being targeted because they're critical of the president, just like Edmunds has now been targeted.

It's one thing to correct the record and challenge the veracity and validity of the reporting. It's another thing entirely to use the bully pulpit of the POTUS to marginalize a news organization that says things you don't like.

[ParanoiA]

However, when an administration pinpoints an organization and attempts to have it removed from the press pool because it doesn't like what its saying, then there's a problem.

Remember, there's already a legal mechanism for dealing with lies, slander, and libel. So far, how many times has the administration taken Fox to court?

Same with Fox too. The president isn't free to slander either, so why hasn't Fox taken some form of legal action as well when the WH said they lied? Because they're playing political bullshit and they both know it. The "lies" are actually different perspectives and thus different conclusions on the same set of facts. Death panels is a perfect example of this.

Of course they don't like what each other is saying. That only speaks of their motivations and says nothing about the legitimacy of that motivation. If CNN was saying "Bush wants to sentence our youth to death by sending them to Iraq", then I really wouldn't have a problem with Bush firing back and calling that a lie and ramping that up if CNN continued the practice issue after issue. In such a case Bush's motivation would be that he doesn't like what CNN is saying, yet it's entirely reasonable to expect him to object to such a charge. (Not that he actually would, which was frustrating during his presidency. But it wouldn't have censorship then either.)

And I asked the question earlier why it is that the objection to the discrimination of Fox in the press pool is not used to object to every media entity in the country that considers itself a news agency - they don't get access either. There's only so much room. So, discrimination is already practiced, regularly, admin after admin and nobody gives a crap until Fox is threatened with that access. So, you're biased as well. It's not a stretch to conclude that you don't like what these little guy media outlets have to say, as you seem to prefer Fox over them.

We're all biased on this. We all have an opinion. The president is allowed to dislike them and vice versa. If press access is the mechanism of censorship here, then the issue should really be about how the press pool is selected and proposing that to be changed. Probably not a bad idea.

I don't understand why folks think that government agents arguing and fighting with the media is censorship or nefarious in any way. It's politics.

[Zarathustra]

I don't understand why folks think that government agents arguing and fighting with the media is censorship or nefarious in any way. It's politics.

Which is why I said this:

No, this isn't censorship. But it is using the power of the federal government to pressure the free media toward content that is more favorable to the administration, and to disarm political criticism. For a man who wanted, "open and honest debate," this is exactly the opposite. What I'm doing here is not a battle for the First Amendment, but rather a critique of Obama's hypocrisy and overbearing political strategy of using the Office of the President to wage a political war against critical media.

I know you were responding to Cail, but I wanted to make it clear that just because Obama isn't violating the 1st Amendment, doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons for criticizing his political war on people who *are* exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Bush had Dan Rather using forged documents to affect the 2004 election, and movies that claimed he was responsible for 9/11. And yet he never once criticized his critics. There is something decidedly petty and unpresidential about a President--who is sworn to uphold the Constitution--attacking people who are merely exercising their Constitutional rights. He isn't a political pundit, nor is he a candidate. He is the President, and he speaks for the country. When he give his personal opinion--whether it's calling rappers assholes or cops stupid--he is speaking as the President, and he needs to remember that.