ThinSkin Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 by Liz Peek - FOXNews.com - October 28, 2009 Who's Pulling Obama's Strings? Is a new narrative starting to build? Is David Axelrod beginning to emerge as Geppetto to President Obama’s Pinocchio? Obama fans are in a tight spot. As the White House turns ever harsher and more divisive, supporters are scrambling to explain why President Obama sounds so very different from Campaigner Obama. There are two possible explanations, neither of which is flattering. The first is that Obama was insincere on the campaign trail. The second is that his advisors – David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel -- are in control. The latter view is bound to take hold and it will not boost the president’s flagging popularity ratings. Many who voted for President Obama feel deceived. When he said in Florida last year “we cannot afford the same political games and tactics that are being used to pit us against one another,” people believed him. When he extolled “rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose,” people believed him. When he said on election night “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree,” people believed him. Why has the president left those admirable promises behind? Why is his administration going after Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, insurance executives, AIG management, the drug industry, the Chrysler bondholders and any and all who oppose his policies? Many believe that Obama is being manipulated by his political adviser David Axelrod and his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The aura of Chicago politics drifts over the capital like a smog. Ironically, the nasty assaults may be calculated to offset a growing view that the president is not tough enough to stand up to his detractors. He already looks weak as he “dithers” on Afghanistan, repeatedly blames George Bush for his problems and kow-tows to foreign leaders while apologizing for our nation’s past. Surely, though, it will not help Obama if the country begins to suspect the president is not his own man. Being seen as a follower in his own White House will surely magnify an unhealthy aura of inconsequence. In other words, Obama risks inheriting yet another problem left behind by President George W. Bush. -- For years, those on the left portrayed Bush as the willing puppet of political advisor Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney. The image of Rove and Cheney directing traffic for an inadequate president was one of the most enduring of Bush’s presidency. Their power undermined Bush’s authority and worse, made him look simple. Nothing could be more damaging for Obama, who is assumed by his fans to be an intellectual giant when compared to George W. As the public starts to question how much time the president is spending on fund-raisers (26 events since taking office compared to only 6 for G.W. during the same term in office) or on his golf (24 rounds so far-- tying G.W.’s entire presidency), they may also ponder who’s doing the real work when the president goes AWOL. For a host of reasons, the narrative will build. A March piece in The New York Times described the Wednesday Night Meetings of the Obama varsity conducted by David Axelrod. The piece asserted that Axelrod “helps decide which fights to pick and which to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington.” The Times reported that Axelrod had “hoped to keep (the meetings) under wraps so he would not suddenly be overrun by requests from people hoping to dispense advice.” Perhaps his political antennae also anticipated that he would begin to emerge as Geppetto to Obama’s Pinocchio. Similarly, The Times has described Emanuel as “more chief than staff” and the author of Obama’s “do-everything-at-once strategy”. With his Rottweiler reputation, he is thought especially responsible for the increasingly belligerent White House sound bites. Those who see history repeating itself can draw parallels between Axelrod and Karl Rove. Like Rove, Axelrod worked on numerous political campaigns and dreamed of someday landing in the White House. He was involved in the campaigns of John Edwards, Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Rahm Emanuel and, like Rove, is well known on Capitol Hill. Both men are driven by ideology as well as the urge to win. Similarly, both Cheney and Emanuel served in Congress, occupied important positions in former White Houses and have sizeable rolodexes. A 2001 Time magazine article described Rove as “the busiest man in the White House... It was Rove who shaped the agenda, message and strategy that got Bush – the least experienced presidential nominee of modern times – into the White House.” They might want to reprise that story; Obama’s credentials set new records. Liz Peek is a financial columnist and frequent Fox Forum contributor. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/28/liz-peek-obama-pulling-strings-axelrod-cheney-bush/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 thinskin, learn to format these OPs properly if you want to keep starting threads. and the next time you post an article in the middle of a thread (like the Dover thread) post a short excerpt and the link per the rules. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 There is one true line in that dreck. For a host of reasons, the narrative will build. The host consists of Rush, Hannity, Beck, Krauthammer, and every other person in the right wing media circlejerk. They will make sure that this "narrative" builds and builds, regardless of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Fair and balanced skews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 There is one true line in that dreck.The host consists of Rush, Hannity, Beck, Krauthammer, and every other person in the right wing media circlejerk. They will make sure that this "narrative" builds and builds, regardless of reality. The Daily Show commented on this last night ... the Fox News opinion shows run a piece and then immediately following the Fox News News segments will start with "leading commentators are noting that ..." :hysterical: If they had a baseball team, their idea of a game would be have their own coaches lob softballs just like at a home run derby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 The host consists of Rush, Hannity, Beck, Krauthammer, and every other person in the right wing media circlejerk. They will make sure that this "narrative" builds and builds, regardless of reality. I know it is a popular belief, that anybody who dares to question the President, or his motives, is a disciple of your above mentioned, circlejerk. It would be wrong to hang your hat on that belief. To think there is a 0% possibility of some truth in the story, is only exceeded in ignorance, by a certainty of it being 100% correct. The truth, usually resides somewhere in the middle, while being claimed as private property, by both sides, of the political circlejerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Yeah, I see their point. Every time Obama opens his mouth he mispronounces words or mistakes what's going on. I personally think Joe Biden is the master mind behind the administration. It's obvious when they talk side by side, who really is more on the ball. Axlerod is a good pick too. I mean do you ever see Obama talk without Ax at his side feeding him lines. Remember all those Obama speaches the Ax interupted to make corrections, "What I think President Obama means is"........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 And what again EXACTLY did BO accomplish, as chief executive of anything, before becoming president?? It might be accurate who knows it's one person's OPINION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I mean do you ever see Obama talk without Ax at his side feeding him lines. Remember all those Obama speaches the Ax interupted to make corrections, "What I think President Obama means is"........ I can neither confirm, or deny, the veracity of your assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Weird strategy. Rahm is a MUCH easier target than Axelrod. Rahm has that same Rove personality of "win at all costs" that easy easy to attack and make into a boogie man. If I was the right I would push this narrative with Rahm instead of Axelrod. Make him the boogie man of the right. Axelrod is a really a hard guy to make into a devil IMO. When interviewed he comes across as nice and calm and I don't think he has that personality that rubs the public in the wrong way like Rahm and Rove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 The truth, usually resides somewhere in the middle, while being claimed as private property, by both sides, of the political circlejerk. Well of course it is in the middle. Alexrod is one of President Obama's closest and most trusted advisors. So yes, he does have a high amount of influence on the President. Hence him being an advisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 :yawnee: More weak sauce from Fox News, and people wonder why they are continually being discredited as a source, Fair and Balanced my arse. BTW, where were all these concerns from Fox News concerning Karl Rove? Oh, wait Karl works for Fox now...nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I know it is a popular belief, that anybody who dares to question the President, or his motives, is a disciple of your above mentioned, circlejerk. Actually, I don't think that. I think that there are CERTAIN figures who are in on said circlejerk. I listed a few of them. There are honest conservatives (and liberals and moderates) questioning the President and his actions all the time. I never want to see the press stop in its duty to keep the President honest and weigh the value of his policies. However, I have a lot of disdain for those who automatically attack the President, every day, day after day, who spend every day searching for a new negative attack to push. If your spin on how the President handles a particular issue is 100 percent negative, no matter what the issue, no matter what the day, then you are not really "the press." You are a hack. Those four guys I mentioned are among that group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinSkin Posted October 30, 2009 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 thinskin, learn to format these OPs properly if you want to keep starting threads. and the next time you post an article in the middle of a thread (like the Dover thread) post a short excerpt and the link per the rules. thanks. I don't think I've been admonished more kindly during all my time on this earth. I'll learn to format articles properly. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Actually, I don't think that.I think that there are CERTAIN figures who are in on said circlejerk. I listed a few of them. There are honest conservatives (and liberals and moderates) questioning the President and his actions all the time. I never want to see the press stop in its duty to keep the President honest and weigh the value of his policies. However, I have a lot of disdain for those who automatically attack the President, every day, day after day, who spend every day searching for a new negative attack to push. If your spin on how the President handles a particular issue is 100 percent negative, no matter what the issue, no matter what the day, then you are not really "the press." You are a hack. Those four guys I mentioned are among that group. Gee that kind of sounds like the past 8 years under Bush with MSNBC, CNN, et al. attacking Bush day after day with 100% negative stuff. Funny how you leave off the same folks on the left who did it durning Bush. I don't recall you speaking out against them, only now because its your guy in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I don't think I've been admonished more kindly during all my time on this earth. I'll learn to format articles properly. Thanks. wow. you musta had a tough childhood like me. i thought i came off brusque there (i am usually such a marshmallow). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 btw...per the OP...and since people are always asking me for another pic of myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Who is pulling his strings? No one IMO. He is just the basic 1960-1970 type liberal, and he is implementing policies according to that belief system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I know it is a popular belief, that anybody who dares to question the President, or his motives, is a disciple of your above mentioned, circlejerk. It would be wrong to hang your hat on that belief. To think there is a 0% possibility of some truth in the story, is only exceeded in ignorance, by a certainty of it being 100% correct. The truth, usually resides somewhere in the middle, while being claimed as private property, by both sides, of the political circlejerk. saying the truth lies certainly at the 50% mark instead of the 0% or 100% mark is equally arrogant. it could just as easily (and really, more so, given the credibility of the sources) lie in the 0.003% mark and most people like to round down at that point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 saying the truth lies certainly at the 50% mark instead of the 0% or 100% mark is equally arrogant. The truth is somewhere in the middle, man. I could be saying all kinds of crazy stuff and saying that you're biased if you don't account for it. By assuming extremist positions I have the power to move the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Yeah, I see their point. Every time Obama opens his mouth he mispronounces words or mistakes what's going on. It has been widely reported that George W Bush comes off far better one on one than he does in public speaking, and listening to him (and working in the field), I am convinced that he simply has a minor expressive language learning disability. I'll tell you what, though. I'll make you a deal. You don't judge his intelligence based on his misspeaking, and I won't judge yours based on your spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Gee that kind of sounds like the past 8 years under Bush with MSNBC, CNN, et al. attacking Bush day after day with 100% negative stuff. Funny how you leave off the same folks on the left who did it durning Bush. I don't recall you speaking out against them, only now because its your guy in office. Whatever you say, chief. I recall Bush having pretty much a 5 year honeymoon, until his relentless incompetence finally caught up to him. And I don't recall MSNBC being particularly liberal until the last couple years. As I recall, wasn't Tucker Carlson their main op-ed person for MSNBC for years, with his own daily show? And didn't Michael Savage have a show on there too? Why yes, he did. Oh well. But you go ahead and keep thinking that the Fox evening lineup of Glenn Beck, followed by Bill O'Reilly, followed by Sean Hannity, followed by Greta van Susteren, isn't "building the narrative" against Obama every single night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 By the way, I have to admit that I find the idea that a guy who is literally a Constitutional scholar is having his "strings pulled" (apparently because he's too stupid or clueless to make his own decisions) is pretty funny. Or sad. Or sadly funny, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 The truth is somewhere in the middle, man. I could be saying all kinds of crazy stuff and saying that you're biased if you don't account for it. By assuming extremist positions I have the power to move the middle. yup, example: The earth is flat! No the earth is round, dumbass! 2nd dumbass steps in: No the Earth is actually a hemisphere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Who is pulling his strings? No one IMO. He is just the basic 1960-1970 type liberal, and he is implementing policies according to that belief system. There you go. Either you agree with Obama or you don't. I don't know why people need to keep making up nefarious motives for everything. I'll tell you what, though. I'll make you a deal. You don't judge his intelligence based on his misspeaking, and I won't judge yours based on your spelling. Bush's mispronunciations always bugged me. Slight disability or no, there's no reason for the President of the United States to mispronounce 'nuclear' for eight years. However, I gotta admit your response is pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.