I scanned this article, usual drivel that these websites dole out and I came across this quote "Obama's big problem," a senior Democrat told me, "is that four times as many people watch Fox News as watch CNN."
There is so much fail in that statement I don't even know where to start.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7396358/The-end-of-the-road-for-Barack-Obama.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

The end of the road for Barack Obama?

Barack Obama seems unable to face up to America's problems, writes Simon Heffer in New York.

By Simon Heffer
Published: 8:16AM GMT 08 Mar 2010
Comments 725 | Comment on this article





The once mighty Detroit seems on the verge of being abandoned Photo: Jeffrey Sauger



It is a universal political truth that administrations do not begin to fragment when things are going well: it only happens when they go badly, and those who think they know better begin to attack those who manifestly do not. The descent of Barack Obama's regime, characterised now by factionalism in the Democratic Party and talk of his being set to emulate Jimmy Carter as a one-term president, has been swift and precipitate. It was just 16 months ago that weeping men and women celebrated his victory over John McCain in the American presidential election. If they weep now, a year and six weeks into his rule, it is for different reasons.

Despite the efforts of some sections of opinion to talk the place up, America is mired in unhappiness, all the worse for the height from which Obamania has fallen. The economy remains troublesome. There is growth – a good last quarter suggested an annual rate of as high as six per cent, but that figure is probably not reliable – and the latest unemployment figures, last Friday, showed a levelling off. Yet 15 million Americans, or 9.7 per cent of the workforce, have no job. Many millions more are reduced to working part-time. Whole areas of the country, notably in the north and on the eastern seaboard, are industrial wastelands. The once mighty motor city of Detroit appears slowly to be being abandoned, becoming a Jurassic Park of the mid-20th century; unemployment among black people in Mr Obama's own city of Chicago is estimated at between 20 and 25 per cent. One senior black politician – a Democrat and a supporter of the President – told me of the wrath in his community that a black president appeared to be unable to solve the economic problem among his own people. Cities in the east such as Newark and Baltimore now have drug-dealing as their principal commercial activity: The Wire is only just fictional.

Last Thursday the House of Representatives passed a jobs Bill, costing $15 billion, which would give tax breaks to firms hiring new staff and, through state sponsorship of construction projects, create thousands of jobs too. The Senate is trying to approve a Bill that would provide a further $150 billion of tax incentives to employers. Yet there is a sense of desperation in the Administration, a sense that nothing can be as efficacious at the moment as a sticking plaster. Edward B Montgomery, deputy labour secretary in the Clinton administration, now spends his time on day trips to decaying towns that used to have a car industry, not so much advising them on how to do something else as facilitating those communities' access to federal funds. For a land without a welfare state, America starts to do an effective impersonation of a country with one. This massive state spending gives rise to accusations by Republicans, and people too angry even to be Republicans, that America is now controlled by "Leftists" and being turned into a socialist state.
"Obama's big problem," a senior Democrat told me, "is that four times as many people watch Fox News as watch CNN." The Fox network is a remarkable cultural phenomenon which almost shocks those of us from a country where a technical rule of impartiality is applied in the broadcast media. With little rest, it pours out rage 24 hours a day: its message is of the construction of the socialist state, the hijacking of America by "progressives" who now dominate institutions, the indoctrination of children, the undermining of religion and the expropriation of public money for these nefarious projects. The public loves it, and it is manifestly stirring up political activism against Mr Obama, and also against those in the Republican Party who are not deemed conservatives. However, it is arguable whether the now-reorganising Right is half as effective in its assault on the President as some of Mr Obama's own party are.

Mr Obama benefited in his campaign from an idiotic level of idolatry, in which most of the media participated with an astonishing suspension of cynicism. The sound of the squealing of brakes is now audible all over the American press; but the attack is being directed not at the leader himself, but at those around him. There was much unconditional love a year or so ago of Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama's Chief of Staff; oleaginous profiles of this Chicago political hack, a veteran of that unlovely team that polluted the Clinton White House, appeared in otherwise respectable journals, praising the combination of his religious devotion, his family-man image, his ruthless operating technique and his command of the vocabulary of profanity. Now, supporters of the President are blaming Mr Emanuel for the failure of the Obama project, not least for his inability to construct a deal on health care.

This went down badly with friends of Mr Emanuel, notably with Mr Emanuel himself. His partisans, apparently taking dictation from him, have filled newspaper columns and blogs with uplifting accounts of the Wonder of Rahm: as one of them put it, "Emanuel is the only person preventing Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter". They attack other Obama "sycophants", such as David Axelrod, his campaign guru, and Valerie Jarret, a long-time friend of Mrs Obama and a fixer from the office of Mayor Daley of Chicago who now manages – or tries to manage – the President's image. These "sycophants" have, they argue, tried to keep the President above politics, letting Congress run away with the agenda, and gainsaying Mr Emanuel's advice to Mr Obama to get tough with his internal opponents. This naïve act of manipulation has brought its own counter-counterattack, with an anti-Emanuel pundit drawing a comparison with our own Prime Minister and ridiculing the idea that Mr Obama should start bullying people too.

The root of the problem seems to be the management of expectations. The magnificent campaign created the notion that Mr Obama could walk on water. Oddly enough, he can't. That was more Mr Axelrod's fault than Mr Emanuel's. And, to be fair to Mr Emanuel, any advice he has been giving the President to impose his will on Congress is probably well founded. The $783 billion stimulus package of a year ago was used to further the re-election prospects of many congressmen, not to do good for the country. America's politics remain corrupt, populated by nonentities whose main concern once elected is to stay elected; it seems to be the same the whole world over. Even this self-interested use of the stimulus package appears to have failed, however. Every day, it seems, another Democrat congressman announces that he will not be fighting the mid-term elections scheduled for November 2. The health care Bill, apparently so humane in intent, is being "scrubbed" (to use the terminology of one Republican) by its opponents, to the joy of millions of middle Americans who see it as a means to waste more public money and entrench socialism. For the moment, this is a country vibrant with anger.

A thrashing of the Democrats in the mid-terms would not necessarily be the beginning of the end for Mr Obama: Bill Clinton was re-elected two years after the Republicans swept the House and the Senate in November 1994. But Mr Clinton was an operator in a way Mr Obama patently is not. His lack of experience, his dependence on rhetoric rather than action, his disconnection from the lives of many millions of Americans all handicap him heavily. It is not about whose advice he is taking: it is about him grasping what is wrong with America, and finding the will to put it right. That wasted first year, however, is another boulder hanging from his neck: what is wrong needs time to put right. The country's multi-trillion dollar debt is barely being addressed; and a country engaged in costly foreign wars has a President who seems obsessed with anything but foreign policy – as a disregarded Britain is beginning to realise.

There are lessons from the stumbling of Mr Obama for our own country as we approach a general election. Vacuous promises of change are hostages to fortune if they cannot be delivered upon to improve the living conditions of a people. The slickness of campaigning that comes from a combination of heavy funding and public relations expertise does not inevitably translate into an ability to govern. There is no point a nation's having the audacity of hope unless it also has the sophistication and the will to turn it into action. As things stand, Barack Obama and America under his leadership do not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7396358/The-end-of-the-road-for-Barack-Obama.html

Good article, read that one yesterday.

STick a fork in him, he is done (actually was done the second he got elected)

Cliff notes:

Some British Journalist still thinks Obama should be king of the world, and that America should move forward and join the global world of social justice.  Sadly, the dumb American citizens are breathing through their mouths as they listen to Fox News right wing angry propaganda, and they are getting in the way of hope and change.

Fuck them all, this is OUR COUNTRY!!!

decent read, got it on drudge yesterday.

That article had some pretty hard hits in it. I liked the part about the idiotic levels of idolatry he had during the campaign.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Never start a 3rd string QB in the big game...

Brits and the Americans are allies. The half Kenyan hates his father's former colonial masters, even though they educated him. We can learn more from the British media from their perspective sometimes then we can from our own.

fixed



 

Obama is far from done.  It will take generations to undo the damage he is causing, if at all.

They are that out of touch with reality. They really think it is because of Fox instead of their failed policies and actions.

the fact that people report on socialists, socialism, progressives, and progressivism with quotes around them indicates to me that most people are now incapable of identifying any of those things. the western world has been sliding left for the better part of 50 years, with social programs enacted on a daily basis that would have gotten legislators killed a generation ago. reporting as though this is some kind of fanciful concotion of a right-wing scare machine is rediculous.

that said, the article has a few good nuggets in it.

That goes for the Republicans, too...which is how we got in this mess in the first place...

Yes. Right here as a matter of fact.





http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1010037





 

From the article.
"The descent of Barack Obama's regime"

QFMFT

Did we read the same article?   Had you skipped Cliff Notes to get you through school-You coulda afforded that team membership by now

fixed

Let you in on a secret…

If you actually read the article and then make a considered thought or two before venting, people won't laugh at you.

That depends on whether or not he's reelected.

He's like a cancer.  If we can excise the tumor before metastasis, we may be free of it.

If he gets a second term we'll need to be on chemo for years to be rid of him.

What he is doing as already caused it to metastasize, but if he is reelected we are most assuredly done as a productive, free country.  We will be the South Africa of the Western Hemisphere.  



 

Wow.

Other than the Fox-bashing, that is spot on.

Damn, did we read the same article. Also, U Mad?

I wonder if CNN featured that quote.

I didn't get this at all.  Actually, it seems more and more I find myself reading the British media reports when I want impartiality.  I disagreed with the author's interpretations of the FOX numbers, but there is no arguing the viewership discrepancy.  Otherwise I found it spot-on.

Gotta love the asshat that wrote this. In one paragraph he writes -

"Obama's big problem," a senior Democrat told me, "is that four times as many people watch Fox News as watch CNN." The Fox network is a remarkable cultural phenomenon which almost shocks those of us from a country where a technical rule of impartiality is applied in the broadcast media. With little rest, it pours out rage 24 hours a day: its message is of the construction of the socialist state, the hijacking of America by "progressives" who now dominate institutions, the indoctrination of children, the undermining of religion and the expropriation of public money for these nefarious projects

Then in the very next one - Mr Obama benefited in his campaign from an idiotic level of idolatry, in which most of the media participated with an astonishing suspension of cynicism.

Ignoring his fantasy that the leftist UK press is objective, I'd say he failed irony in journalism school...

Go sit in the corner.



 

Well you certainly dazzled yourself with your own brilliance there…  

DId you actually have the same election for the Obammassiah as the rest of the world witnessed,  with across the board, wall to wall media reports of adulation of 'the one' from a gulled public?

Oh shit, I'm in agreement with Vito

that's worse than agreeing with Dave, innit?



 

Maybe those who wish to criticize the author might wish to think again...









Not good to eat your own ya know.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Heffer

I'm fine with the article other than his attempt to portray Fox as an extremely biased source while telling us about how impartial the UK press is.

Actually I did. I watched the world press less Fox but including the Brits slobber all over the 0ne. Impartiality may be a "technical rule" in the UK but it's certainly not a reality. That said, the rest of the article is pretty much spot on.

I've taken to watching a fair amount of BBC America. I heard more criticism of the Chosen One from them they I've ever heard from the American media. MSNBC might as well call themselves the Obama Propaganda Channel for all of their objectivity. NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN are pretty much in lock step with them but have started to be a little tiny bit critical of this Administration. FOX just wails away on everyone. They manage to piss me off about half the time with some of the things they report, but they are certainly much more objective than the rest.



Very good article. Never thought I'd see an American city become a wasteland due to the economy and politics. He was spot on about Detroit. A buddy just came back from a business trip up there. We spent time in Mogadishu in the early 80's. He said some parts of the city reminded him of shit we saw in Mog.

They are pretty biased.



And he described the last 6mos of the Glenn Beck show to a T.



Take the blinders off. Saying Fox is unbiased is like saying Rush Limbaugh is unbiased.





 

In the Old Testament, the Hebrews insisted on having a King, someone to tell them "smooth things". . .

That didn't work out too well for them either. . .

I would pretty much agree with your observations.



Personally, I don't believe its possible to remove bias from journalism. Humans have opinions, period.



 

Ok, Ok, Not enough coffee this morning.  As for the team membership thing, I'm trying to set a record....    

FAIL



Try reading the article.



 

One and Done people................

Well there aren't a whole lot of non-opinion shows on Fox.

The shows that are, you have correspondents who show bias in their reporting.

Don't get me wrong, I like these people, but they are biased.

Not to the level of Hannity or Beck, and I'm sure they try not to be most of the time,

but sometimes it comes out. It's only natural.



Now back to the entertainment shows... you used to get Colmes at least.

 Like I say, I don't really expect it can be any different...

and I don't much want to hear libtards views on anything anyway.
 

How many people watch Fox is really irrelevent. Everyone here always complains about the "liberal media" which is probably true, so if FOx is the only conservative news outlet then it is natural that ALL the conservatives will huddle there. The liberals and independents etc. will have their viewing spread out over MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC etc. etc. Also, I don't see the GOP doing any better if they win. Our system is broken, too  many special interests, too much money to pay off politicians, and a worthless spoiled electorate.

And?



So does every other cable news network.



 

Right, but I've seen biased reporting from Brit Hume, Bret Baier, etc...

What I mean is in their commentary, quips, etc...


Steve Centanni might be the only guy I can't say that about.
I just don't think it's possible to remove your personal bias from your work.
 

What blinders? I'm not defending Fox news. Only pointing out that they aren't the only people with bias. The Brits certainly have little room to hold up their press as the model of objectivity.

His comment on Beck is interesting. Saving the obvious hyperbole he uses, what part of this "its message is of the construction of the socialist state, the hijacking of America by "progressives" who now dominate institutions, the indoctrination of children, the undermining of religion and the expropriation of public money for these nefarious projects"  isn't true?

It's very clear to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of politics that Obama is a progressive. He's said as much and has surrounded himself by people who share those views. Those people and their supporters want to see the US be more like European social democracies.  

Pointing that out isn't rage, it's a statement of fact.

Damn... It's like a feeding frenzy on here sometimes... A little blood in the water is all it takes...

^ This 100%