1. White House officials had a double-barreled message: for the NATO strategy to work -- for an infusion of U.S. troops to have the possibility of success -- the government of Afghanistan must be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the Afghan people. Either a run-off election or a coalition government would do -- though it's President Karzai's choice. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said on CBS's "Face The Nation" that the U.S. government shouldn't be seen as influencing the election.
"...what would be worse is if the Afghan people thought that the course that was chosen was done by the determination of the United States. And then it would lose the legitimacy and the credibility to the Afghan people."
2. But Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), speaking for conservatives, said that while a stable government in Afghanistan was critical, it shouldn't be the linchpin of the U.S. strategy. "I hope President Karzai understands that our national security interests don't depend entirely on his decision there whether to allow a recount. Obviously the legitimacy of that government is an important component of it. My point is it shouldn't be the lynch pin for us deciding whether we're going to protect our national security interests in that region."
On CNN's State of the Union with John King, Emanuel said it would be "reckless" for the president to make his decision without a thorough review of whether the Karzai government has the potential to be seen as legitimate.
3. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: "I don't think they are about to take over the country. Al Qaeda is not essentially here today. It is in northwest Pakistan and in some 58 or 59 other countries in the world."
4. Is the president
tough enough, asked National Journal? David Axelrod, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, answered:
I think, if the president weren't tough, we wouldn't be where we are vis-à-vis trying to deal with the economy, two wars, and some--remember what he inherited here. He walked in the door, we had the worst economy since the Great Depression. He had to take immediate steps to pull us back from what many thought might be a Great Depression. He had to sort out in Afghanistan a war where we had seven years of drift and no policy. And he passed a series of things that are going to move this country forward, from children's health care to pay equity for women, a series of things...This Congress has passed more legislation in the first term of this president than any president in our lifetime. So I think he has been plenty tough. I think people want toughness, but they also want to have thoughtful leadership. And that requires reviewing these issues, thinking them through clearly, and bringing people along, and that's what he's doing."
Axelrod was not willing to say whether President Obama would actually sign a bill getting rid of the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption.
5. Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said it was "too soon" and perhaps "premature" to say whether a second stimulus was needed. She was responding to this chart, presented by NBC's David Gregory:
Here are the videos of Rahm and Axelrod discussing the war on Fox News:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/10/rahm-and-axelrod-on-white-houses-war.html
I applaud the White House for challenging Fox News as a legitimate news organization. It's a bold and smart move. The challenge from the White House will underscore for the news consuming public that Fox is an opinion station. As for Fox, they will not be able to resist this challenge. They will blow this up in a defining on-going story for Fox News. The bad news for Fox: they have Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and many other reasons why people will side with Barack Obama over Fox News. If the White House does this correctly, it results in the further marginalization of Fox News and its personalities, and as a result, the Republican Party.
And MSNBC isn't? Just because they happen to agree with your politics doesn't make them any less so. In reality all of the networks are a combination of news and opinion. Typically the news portion is what happens during the day time hours and the opinion comes at night.
Want to know right now why Fox in #1. Because right now they are the only one representing a large portion of the American cable viewing audience. Liberals get spread between MSNBC, CNN, and the broadcast networks. Fox appeals to those from the right.
If you want to discount conservatives go ahead, because historically they have had a tough time getting organized, unlike liberals...but something is going on in this country and the more the White House demonizes Fox and the right, the more independents take a look to see what the furor is about.
R-MA? That'll be the day...
That's a powerful chart. Makes it impossible to deny that Obama's economic policies have been a disaster.
No wonder they want to spend their time attacking Fox...
That's one way to look at it. Orrrr... you could look at the fact that the only parts of Obama's economic policy that have been implemented so far are the tax cuts, and supposed quick fixes that were promoted and supported by the Republicans. Hmmm....
Jennis. Come on. This mess took 8 years to make. How was any president supposed to fix it in 9 months? This is a misleading chart attempting to push all blame for the economy onto a brand new president. It would be more effective if they showed what percentage of the current economic problems were CAUSED by Obama and what percentage of the problem was caused by the prior administration.
Also, What happened to journalistic integrity? News was supposed to be based on fact and shown with a balanced view. If it is going to be slanted either way it should not be called news. It is opinion!
The fox vs the whitehouse thing should be ignored by the white house. The white house can choose to not support or go on the station but fox should not be attacked even if they do tend to do nothing but slam the current administration. Fox should also be more honest and point out that they are primarily opinion and beck and lumbaugh are in the entertainment business not the news business.
I'm pretty dubious that you can combine journalistic integrity and news without bias. Operating under the assumption that we're all post-modernists now, it should be pretty obvious that the combination of one's life-experiences, one's family ideology and the cultural context in which one lives pretty much preclude location of the "objective truth" the modernists sought - even if it exists, we are not equipped to see it.
The larger problem is that the newspapers and networks cannot cover everything. They have to decide what's important enough to use precious column inches or airtime. Thus even if Fox News and CNN alike carried nothing but live video feeds, there would be countless opportunities for "bias," from which video feeds where shown to whether the camera panned the crown or zoomed in tight when President Obama paused to scratch his nose. Depending on your point of view, the decision you make could reveal a desire either to embarrass the president or to deny that he's only human.
If you have journalistic integrity, you're going to want people to know the things you think are important for them to know. News happens too fast and in too many places for you to do that other than through the snap judgments of the people reporting and producing news segments on television and writing and editing print publications (including those on the web). By allowing a diversity of news sources, people are free to watch one channel or more than one channel, to read one newspaper or multiple newspapers, to trust one website or to surf around. I personally think it's neat to be able to look at the news from multiple viewpoints and draw my own conclusions, imperfect as they are. It beats the hell out of hoping that whoever is in charge of the "objective truth" today has it right because that's all you're getting.
There is one thing I would add to this: The other day, I purchased a book on Amazon. It's was moderately expensive - around $50. Before I placed the order, I read all the Amazon reviews and one or two scholarly reviews on other sites. I did similar homework before deciding which iPod to get. Most people I know do this kind of research before buying a new car, new television or new computer. These things, mark you, are physical products manufactured with standard processes according to set specifications. And yet we know that we need more than one perspective to decide whether these material goods are right for us. Given the effort we invest in being intelligent consumers, isn't it just a little bit lazy to whine that you can't just dash down to the truth store and get the news you need to be an informed citizen in one stop, everything guaranteed?