Fox No longer at War with Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/31/roger-ailes-on-this-week_n_443555.html

Roger Ailes On "This Week": Defends Glenn Beck,
Insists Fox Is No Longer At War With Obama

Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes insisted on Sunday that his network was no longer at war with the Obama White House and defended Fox's Glenn Beck over some of his more inflammatory statements.

Appearing for the first time on ABC's "This Week," Ailes said that Beck's often over-the-top rhetoric was politically legitimate, even if it ruffled a few feathers.

Reminded by HuffPost's Arianna Huffington that Beck has warned of "slaughter" and a "killing spree" for those not on board with the Obama administration's agenda, Ailes insisted that the reference wasn't to this president but rather to murderous dictators.

"Well, he was talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people, so I think he was probably accurate," he said. "I think he speaks English, I don't know. But I don't misinterpret any of his words. He did say one unfortunate thing that he apologized for. But that happens in live television."

Ailes was wrong. Beck's reference was, indeed, to Obama. Here is the "killing spree" quote from October 2009:

Spread the wealth -- hello, Mao -- that is what this is all about. And anybody not on board, look out because you too could be the next victim of the killing spree. Is it far fetched to think that [pay] Czar [Kenneth] Feinberg could go into Walmart and argue it that it is just too important to the economy if Walmart fails? I mean it's the biggest store in the world. We feel you are being reckless in your pay structure Walmart. We have to bring the unions in to control your pay. What about Rupert Murdoch? if News Corp failed would it be harmful to the economic health of America?... Obama has repeated over and over again just how dangerous, old and unworkable our economy is.

And here is Beck warning of a possible impending "slaughter" in November 2009:

I told you yesterday, buckle up your seatbelt, America. Find the exit -- there's one here, here, and here. Find the exit closest to you and prepare for a crash landing. Because this plane is coming down, because the pilot is intentionally steering it into the trees!

Most likely, it'll happen sometime after Christmas. You're gonna see this economy come up -- we're already seeing it, and now it's gonna start coming back down again. And when you see the effects of what they're doing to the economy, remember these words: We will survive. No -- we'll do better than survive, we will thrive. As long as these people are not in control. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered!

Lamenting what he felt was the "word police" nature of the questions being directed at him, Ailes tried to turn the tables by saying that he had been subjected to some ridicule on the pages of the Huffington Post. The remarks he cited, however, did not come from a Huffington Post employee, but were written by a blogger, longtime TV critic Bill Mann. What's more, Ailes misquoted what Mann had said about him. Mann did not, as Ailes claimed, describe him as "a malignant tumor." Here is what he wrote: "So, while Fox News, as the Times story stresses, may be a financial success story, it's also a malignant tumor on the body politic. For that you can thank Roger Ailes."

Earlier in the program, Ailes insisted that the animosity that had developed between the White House and Fox News over the programming and tenor of the cable news station was, for now, in the past.

"We're fine," he said. "It's not as bad as it was played. Things are not as good as they should be. But we have a good dialogue. And I saw the president and his wife at the media Christmas party. They were very gracious, very nice, both of them. And we have a dialogue every day with them."

Asked why Fox News cut away 20 minutes early from the question and answer session Obama held with House Republicans (which was largely seen as a big coup for the president), Ailes sidestepped the question, proclaiming, "We're the most trusted name in news."

Verbal fireworks also erupted between Ailes and another co-panelist over the Obama administration's health care plan, which the Fox executive painted as a big government takeover despite countervailing evidence (provided by the New York Times' Paul Krugman) that it was essentially the same plan adopted in Massachusetts by former Republican Governor Mitt Romney.

Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes insisted on Sunday that his network was no longer at war with the Obama White House

Well that's a relief :rolleyes:

How could they ever have been at war in the first place when they are fair and balanced?

Saw the Sunday program. Hyperbole must be part of the huffington post's style!

I love the part about Obama's visit with House Republicans being a big coup for the President. This is only another attempt to paint the problems we have in this country as the result of non-cooperation in Washington. This is the liberal talking point. To paraphrase Reagan, most Americans think Washington is the problem not the solution and a solid majority of us do not believe Obama when he insists that his Health Care ideas will actually decrease our federal deficit.

I think Beck is a bit dramatic. I don't watch him.

speaking of hyperbole...MSNBC did a two hour special with Matthews/Olbermann/Teixeira...uhhh Maddow on this EPIC event...they placed such historical significance on this and then went on and on about how Obama schooled everyone in the room for 2 hours...hilarious...

I think Beck is a bit dramatic. I don't watch him.
"a bit dramatic", lets like saying Rex Ryan is a bit overweight.

May I suggest you not watch him either.

Or do you want him censored?

Or do you want him censored?
You do love putting words in people's mouths. When have I ever said any of the garbage you insinuate want to I say?

He's an ahole, and I'm disgusted that people like my aunt take him as a truthsayer.

I agree with Tigger.

Unlike our beloved leader, who is an absolute bold faced liar.

Unlike our beloved leader, who is an absolute bold faced liar.
Bush is still President?

Bush is still President?
Misguided and uninformed, as usual.

Really?
Want me to list the lies my President told me between 2001-2009??
Again? Must we? It's very long and tiresome.

Or are you going to make another typical blanket statement like you just did with absolutely nothing to back it up AS USUAL.

Really?
Want me to list the lies my President told me between 2001-2009??
Again? Must we? It's very long and tiresome.

Or are you going to make another typical blanket statement like you just did with absolutely nothing to back it up AS USUAL.

States that the defecit is due to 2 wars and a presciption drug plan(of which the Dems wanted to double in size. Also says that the defecit is unsustainable and the keeps racheting up the spending.

February 2, 2010 12:46 PM EST by John Stossel

Obama's "Jobs" Plan
At the State of the Union, Obama said the federal government “should tighten its belt,” but today’s Wall Street Journal points out how unlikely that is, given that the number of federal employees has surged:

"Civilian full-time equivalent employees," as they're known in budgetese, held relatively constant before Mr. Obama came to Washington, but they surged to 1.978 million in 2009 from 1.875 million in 2008. In fiscal 2010, the Administration expects to add another 170,000 workers—a 14.5% leap in two years.

After eight years of war, it’s natural to assume the growing federal job count is a result of the military. But the real boom is in the federal agencies:

… [Up to] 1.428 million in 2010, from 1.204 million in 2008 and 1.09 million in 2001 … [T]he Agriculture Department will jump to 101,000 in 2010 from 94,000 in 2008, Justice will surge to 119,000 from 106,000, and Treasury to 114,000 from 107,000. We could go on.

Mr. Obama blames the government's all-time high deficits and other budget predicaments on his predecessor, but no one forced him to hire all these new public employees.

Wait, didn’t he need to hire more people to deal with the food crisis?! No, I guess there wasn’t one. He needs all these new employees to hand out stimulus money, police private businesses, and take care of all the new federal programs. Once federal workers are hired, it’s almost impossible to get rid of them. Worse, with promises of more Big Government on the way, these numbers will continue to grow.

No wonder more college graduates are saying they want to head to Washington, and that the Beltway metropolis has been spared the brunt of the recession. That's where all the new jobs are.



Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/02/02/obamas-jobs-plan/#ixzz0eOtORzVR

Fox business?? :lol:
Am I on candid camera?
In this thread he uses John Stossel from FOX business as a "point"?
:lol: oh this is good....

Lemme see...
Where shall we start..
Let's just put up ONE BIG one-" “Mission Accomplished” speech.
"With those attacks, the terrorist and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." President Bush

Tell me he wasn’t conflating Iraq and al Qaeda. If Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, why did the president, vice-president, cabinet officers and aides continue to intersperse these divergent entities into one amorphous enemy blob, all intent to justify their illegal and immoral invasion of a country that posed no threat to the U.S.?
http://archive.azplace.net/index.php?itemid=969

4236 Soldiers have died in Iraq since that mission was allegedly accomplished 5/1/03

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

So now try giving me a lil sumthin sumthin that doesn't contain the word "Fox" in it to back your alleged claim.

Fox business?? :lol:
Am I on candid camera?
In this thread he uses John Stossel from FOX business as a "point"?
:lol: oh this is good....

Lemme see...
Where shall we start..
Let's just put up ONE BIG one-" “Mission Accomplished” speech.

http://archive.azplace.net/index.php?itemid=969

4236 Soldiers have died in Iraq since that mission was allegedly accomplished 5/1/03

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

So now try giving me a lil sumthin sumthin that doesn't contain the word "Fox" in it to back your alleged claim.

What does this have to do with Obama lying about the economy? You are maniacally fixated on Bush, a man whose economic policies were not conservative. Now in the face of this we have the Obama spending money we don't have, and mortgaging the financial future and that of our children. What Bush did or said about the war has no bearing on Obama making our current economic situation much worse.

You do love putting words in people's mouths. When have I ever said any of the garbage you insinuate want to I say?

He's an ahole, and I'm disgusted that people like my aunt take him as a truthsayer.

Note the question mark in my post.

Fox business?? :lol:
Am I on candid camera?
So now try giving me a lil sumthin sumthin that doesn't contain the word "Fox" in it to back your alleged claim.

The Fox Business cable station does an excellent job of reporting business news. Neil Cavuto is relatively apolitical.

Out of curiosity, what is your preferred source for in depth business news?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/glenn-beck-update-the-bac_b_446275.html

Glenn Beck Update: The Backpedaling Begins

After initially insisting that he'd never used the word "slaughtered" on the air -- or, if he had, only in reference to Mao, Stalin, or Hitler -- Beck, having been presented with the video evidence, admitted today on his radio show that he'd said it... but insisted he wasn't talking about the Obama administration. And that, even if he was, he wasn't being "literal."

He started his second day on the subject by insisting once again, "I'm pretty sure I'd remember it if I'd said the administration was slaughtering people or was going to slaughter people." But he quickly pivoted to the assertion that when he said "They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered!" he was talking not about the Obama administration, but about SEIU president Andy Stern. He then said that if I wanted to "make the case that Andy Stern is part of this administration...bring it on, girlfriend!"

Two things: first of all, it's just as paranoid to say that Andy Stern is taking people to be slaughtered as it is to say it of Obama. Second, it is Beck, not I, who treated Stern as if he was part of the administration. Indeed, for a full ten minutes before making the "slaughtered" comment, in a conspiracy-laced rant, Beck tries to make that exact case, saying Andy Stern "practically lives at the White House." He repeatedly makes fevered connections between Obama, various members of his administration, Stern, George Soros, "anyone around this White House," and "progressives"... all of whom want to turn America into a "Marxist" state.

But, after offering this first explanation (that he wasn't talking about the president), Beck abruptly shifted gears and admitted that, in fact, when he warned that "this plane is coming down, because the pilot is intentionally steering it into the trees," the "pilot" in his metaphor was, in fact, Barack Obama.

Then Beck insisted that when he said that the people "in control... are taking you to a place to be slaughtered," he didn't "literally" mean that Barack Obama was going to personally kill people.

No, Beck contended again and again and again, the whole time he was just talking about "the economy." Barack Obama is going to slaughter the economy. Even though he clearly said "taking you" not "taking the economy."

So, to review the ever-changing explanations: Beck never used the word "slaughter" -- until it was proven that he did. Then he only used it in reference to Mao, Stalin, or Hitler -- until it was proven that this wasn't the case. Then, when he used it, he wasn't referring to the Obama administration, he was referring to Andy Stern. Then he was referring to Obama -- but didn't mean it literally.

Got it? You might need to use Beck's trademark chalkboard to keep track.

The crux of the matter was never whether Glenn Beck really believes Barack Obama is planning to actually slaughter Americans. It's the damage being done by the inflammatory rhetoric and imagery he constantly uses. The evoking of "slaughter" and "killing sprees" and a president who "has a deep-seated hatred for white people" is meant to play into the public's legitimate anxiety over the economy -- and fan the flames of fear.

And that brings us back to the question I originally asked Roger Ailes on This Week: "Aren't you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using -- which is, after all, inciting the American people?"

It remains unanswered.

What does this have to do with Obama lying about the economy? You are maniacally fixated on Bush, a man whose economic policies were not conservative. Now in the face of this we have the Obama spending money we don't have, and mortgaging the financial future and that of our children. What Bush did or said about the war has no bearing on Obama making our current economic situation much worse.
and you maniacally fixated on NEVER EVER admitting the shit state we are in NOW is because of Bush.
We are slowly recovering and anyone who has a shred of intelligence knows it'll be a slow recovery for what took 8 years to create but you.

The Fox Business cable station does an excellent job of reporting business news. Neil Cavuto is relatively apolitical.

Out of curiosity, what is your preferred source for in depth business news?

Well it ain't anything on Fox news channel. And I don't have a need "depth" in business news. What I need I get from any of the three major networks CBS, NBC or ABC world news. I like to switch it up every night at 6 and in the morning

Well OK but I can assure you that if you're seeking business information from the 3 old networks, you're being short changed.

Please, anyone who gets their "in depth business news" from the boob tube, on any channel, isnt just getting short changed, they are getting pick pocketed.

and you maniacally fixated on NEVER EVER admitting the shit state we are in NOW is because of Bush.
We are slowly recovering and anyone who has a shred of intelligence knows it'll be a slow recovery for what took 8 years to create but you.

I wish you could post a summary here of why you believe the Bush Administration is totally responsible for "the shit state" we're in if such a post only requires "a shred of intelligence".

I'd also like your ideas on what specifically Obama and his people are doing to promote a slow recovery? There will always be Central Bank action and business cycles but that has nothing to do with fiscal policy.

Please, anyone who gets their "in depth business news" from the boob tube, on any channel, isnt just getting short changed, they are getting pick pocketed.

I don't think I even insinuated that TV should be the ONLY source. I disagree that there is nothing to be gained by watching some of the things on CNBC, Fox Business and the Bloomberg Channel offer.

I really wasn't suggesting that The Financial Times or the WSJ be required reading of anyone. I WAS suggesting that "throwing things" at the Fox Business station because it has the name Fox attached was silly.

and you maniacally fixated on NEVER EVER admitting the shit state we are in NOW is because of Bush.
We are slowly recovering and anyone who has a shred of intelligence knows it'll be a slow recovery for what took 8 years to create but you.

You are completely wrong.Bush initiated the problems which Obama has massively compounded.We are not recovering at all, and the proposals that this administration is proposing will only make it worse. The financial speculation is that if this reckless spending continues unabated in 10 years our entire national budget will be spent on the deficit. Can you not see where this economic folly is headed? In your own home budget, would you try to save money by going out and spending recklessly? The answer is contain costs, limit spending, and try and stimulate the private sector. The O-Dog and his pals do not get it, and we will all be paying for it.