Aren't the pot shots supposed to be above the President?

Well at least we know pot shots aren't above his pay grade.

It cracks me up, these so-called "Czars" that answer to no one except for Barack. And people used to scream to high heaven about Bush grabbing to much power.

His remarks about Fox I love, it shows that Fox really gets to him. Good!


Give it time Heidi, I do believe that the rational people that voted for Barack are slowly realizing that he isn't what they hoped for.

Can it really be labeled a "pot shot" when it was a direct response to a request to assess the situation?

I heard him say that last night, and it kind of bothered me, because while FOX is definitely conservative-based, there are stories that go out of their way to be fair. (Hannity notwithstanding...)

Hate O'Reilly or love him, when the conversation turns to bashing he manages to get it back on subject.

That doesn't sound like a pot shot.

I agree with you. I do believe Fox is "fair and balanced" for the most part. I don't like Hannity, but I adore O'Reilly most of the time. O' calls it like it is, and is not a party person. He is independent, and will call foul on both parties.

As with many things, it's not so much the size, but what you do with it. Maybe we should see how this mega-government plays out. Unfortunately, we're all resigned to pragmatism when it comes ot politics, aren't we. Otherwise, there'd be one political uber-model that works perfectly.

Seems that most of the criticism Obama gets is from him being too pro-active and hands-on with his 'governing philosophies' (which have yet to be played out to determine a success/fail ratio). The irony is that the best argument for laying off of Bush for what is widely considered a failed administration (even from GOPers) is because he was merely a puppet, and far too often didn't know crap about what was going on.

I agree, no one should be disparaging Bush at this point. But I'd bet he'd rather take the heat for making bad decisions than for making none.

Pot shots? Ooops,wrong thread. *wanders off aimlessly to search for cheetoes*

OK...I'm not sure what a "pot shot" is, so I can't really comment on whether what Obama said was one or not.

I watched the video, and it didn't seem to me that Obama was really complaining that FOX was anti-Obama. It sounded to me like he was using it as an example as "bad press" and "accountability" that the interviewer was saying that he hadn't received. I don't think he was saying it negatively against FOX...moreso negatively against the "media critics" who are saying that he's not being held accountable.

To me, he actually seemed kind of welcoming to negative press, as critics are what hold him accountable for his policies. Now, how welcoming he really is of negative press is open to interpretation...I'm speaking solely of his words during that interview.

As for the comments about the Obama family's trips, I would personally have no problem with tax payer money going to pay for security/travel for a president (or, I guess Prime Minister). Regardless of who the president is, they devote much of their lives to the country. Their role puts them at risk and makes it so that it is not exactly safe for them to travel and move around as an average civilian would be able to do. I don't think either of the two things mentioned, in isolation, constitues an "extravagant" lifestyle. Now, if it was happening every day/weekend, etc, then questions might be valid. But the Obama's shouldn't be expected to be shackled to their home for the entire time of his appointment. That would likely not be their lifestyle if Obama was not president, and they should be able to maintain the same, if not better lifestyle once he is president.

Please note that those comments come from someone who knows very little about what has happening...just my initial thoughts based on the comments in this thread.

I don't care about the trips. He's the President. He has to be protected wherever he goes. And everyone deserves a night off occasionally.

It did bother me when, with the country falling deep into a recession, he takes off to Denver for no reason other then to sign a bill. THAT is a waste.

ACORN popping up everywhere they shouldn't be bothers me.

The black panthers who were intimidating people at a polling place suddenly having charges dropped against them bothers me.

The IG being fired for going after an Obama supporter who ADMITS he misused government funds bothers me.

And it bothers me that the one network that talks about all this is complained about by our President. As if they didn't have a right to report whatever they wanted.

Some people can't stand it when the truth is said and the lies you've told are exposed.

What bothered you more, that he went to Denver or that he signed a bill there? Or was it that he had the power to sign a bill?

Whatever you may want to say about Bush, he adamantly refused to criticize the media for being unfair to him, even when given the chance in a direct question.

Obama has behaved badly toward Fox, which is NOT conservative, but rather unaligned, much like India. You will hear plenty of criticism of Republicans there.

But however much hope I had for Obama, he is turning out to be a real crybaby when he doesn't get his way.

99% of the media worship's at Barack's alter but he wants 100%. Someone needs to tell him he won't get 100%.

People never believe me when I tell them that Bill O'Reilly defends Barack on a VERY regular basis.

What bothered me was that things were going to hell in a handbasket finacially in this country and he flys to Denver for no reason other then the photo op of signing a bill. A bill that could have been signed at the White House. Do you know how much money it costs to fly Air Force One around? I don't grudge him time off, or paying for his protection. But when he did that, it was for the show. There was no reason at all that he HAD to fly to Denver to sign the bill. I can't even remember what bill it was. But I remember that he flew there just to do it.

Ahhhh, ok. What bothers you is that he went to Denver to sign a 787 billion dollar stimulus plan, that you don't remember what it was for..........Right.....

Was it the stimulus plan? I thought that was later for some reason. I remembered it had to do with the ecomony and he wasted money flying to Denver just to sign it. "We are hurting for money, so let's all load up Air Force One so I can get a photo op signing a bill in a distant city, instead of doing it right here in the White House."

That's why it bothered me.

Just as the media has the right to report whatever they want, the president has the right to voice his opinion on those reports. I don't see how his words regarding the issue can be interpretted as a supression of anybody's first amendment rights.

Of course he has the right to. It's just that as President it might look better to take the higher ground and not make a big deal about it. All Presidents have had bad press from time to time. Some of them had almost ALL the networks raking them across the coals, not just one. But as you say, it is his right, certainly.

You're right, it would look better if he just didn't acknowledge that he receives bad press, or if he didn't let it show that it bothers him. I'm not quite sure what a "pot shot" is (I can kind of guess), but when I read the dialog I thought he was just saying that he isn't loved by all the media as was implied by the interviewer. I didn't actually watch the interview, I just read the dialog, so maybe I'm totally wrong. I didn't think he was implying they should all give him good press, or that they shouldn't give him bad press. I thought it was just an observation. (Do I have it wrong?)

I'm not really familiar with which news stations are supposed to bias in which manner. (Is Fox the only conservative one?) I visit the CNN website for news, but tend to stay away from the political pieces. (I usually get angry at something or other! )

I did watch the video, and that was my interpretation as well. I'll quote what he said from http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...16181219.aspx:

To me "that one" referred to the claims that he's not receiving bad press, not to the bad press itself. He's acknowledging that FoxNews gives him bad press. I don't see him as whining. He's responding to the questions of the interviewer. He even goes on to say that he welcomes "tough questions" and expects more bad press as time goes on.

In my opinion, anyone how thinks he is whining, is putting their own spin into it, or is following suit with the sensationalized title of the article "Obama Blasts Fox News." I've watched the interview...I didn't see any blasting.

Yes, he mentioned bad press. Yes, he's joked about Fox not being supportors. But was he whiny or having a hissy fit about it? Not from what I saw.

My personal observation of the Fox critics is that they have never really watched the network for a full 8 to 12 hours to be able to speak with knowledge. They are simply rehashing what another critic has said, rather than speaking as a result of watching and giving examples of their criticism. The critics don't want to be held accountable for their own words and actions. Unlike MSNBC, Fox doesn't give an automatic pass to the administration.

[quote=valanhb;2656196Yes, this is a shameless Obama-bash, if that's what you want to call it. We've had plenty of Bush-bashing threads through the years. I think some of this does raise valid questions, though I'm sure that would be disputed. [/QUOTE]

This cracked me up. I do appreciate honestly and quite frankly you are very correct.

There is lots of press on the president good, bad and neutral. It is our responsibility to vet it. I find at the end of the day the mainstream media outlets are a business and they will cater to their audience. I watch a variety and try and get some idea of what is going on. The problem I have with this question is why do the press keep asking the President the question. They should be asking themselves. The biggest problem I have with the media is not whether it is good or bad for the president, there should be both, it is the content of what is considered front page news. I really don't care if the President killed a fly, or if he has date night, which should be in the style section. What I want to know is whether Mary Shipiro is doing something about the SEC, or Lisa Jackson at the EPA, or Ken Salazar at the Interior. We haven't heard what our government is doing since they were appointed. Unless you go on some serious searches like I do. I am not a fan of the czar idea, I think the government departments need to get their act together and function like the should and the need for a czar would not be there.

As for this particular incident, I really felt like President Obama was just answering the question. But he has mentioned Fox news quite often in his short presidency so far. Mostly in jest at news correspondence dinners, nothing you can really take him to task for. I think it is calculated to do this. I haven't seen him do much that he has not thought out so I don't think it is a coincidence. Sort of like how Rush Limbaugh is always named as the leader of the Republican. He is constantly reminding his base about Fox news being critical of him. While in watching Fox, there are some I find to partisan and some of their news is slanted but so are some of the other channels in the other direction. It all depends on their audience.