२ एप्रिल, २०१०
"They want 'blow jobs' first. Then you have to be on good behavior for a bit or be willing to deal, and then you get access."
A White House reporter grouses about what one has to do to get the kind of access to that will enable you to write the book about Obama that the White House reporters are all trying to write.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
Obama's already written two hagiographies of himself. Do we really need another one written in the third person?
Of course since it's a book "White House reporters are all trying to write", I'm sure it will be a lot more flattering than Obama's two vanity publications.
"Oh dear Leader! You were just too modest to actually let loose and write how truly amazing and wonderful you are! Let me do it for you!"
oh c'mon. a reporter complaining because he wants an in so that he can make a bundle writing a hit job piece on the Obama administration. but he is denied access. good call obama comm. team. this guy is useless.
Exactly, who thinks any "White House Reporter" is going to write a truthful book about Obama? They've all got tingles up their leg.
Remember all those critical Clinton books by the White House press corps? I don't either.
I remember one member of the White House press corps stated they wanted to give Clinton a blowjob for keeping abortion legal.
It wasn't Dan Rather - surprising, no?
If tarring and feathering were on the agenda.
And good citizens found themselves at that step while checking off the chores on that agenda...
I believe politicians should be the second group to receive that vigorous attention.
The fourth estate should already resemble bedraggled chickens.
Hope is the thing with feathers.
"but he is denied access. good call obama comm. team. this guy is useless."
Well I'd agree with the "useless" part. But Obama's a pussy. George W. Bush let Bob Woodward have full access to write three books.
With regards to BJs. It is an open secret that Bark Obama doesn't reciprocate.
Details here:
http://hillbuzz.org/2009/12/08/open-secrets-and-media-darlings/
I await the eager teams of AP fact checkers who will tirelessly slog through the pages of the best selling, worshipful, soon to be here masterpiece.
There are some results that can only come from BJ's and no one knows that better than the Obama hagriographers.
"The White House needs to go back and look at the conflict-of-interest riddled Fannie Mae in which public interest and private gain got stewed together and undermined the interests of American citizens."
Journalism deserves total access to The One for burying that sorry spectacle of party greed and corruption.
Interesting. But true to form the person being quoted is not named.
I thought this administration had already blown the jobs.
There were more layoffs in the 2000-02 recession than this one, however there were far more jobs created by small business and the unemployment rate was not so bad.
This time around, in the face of a patently anti-business orientation from the top on down, businesses are holding back. Unemployment is more a function of job creation than of layoffs, and in this environment no mentally-stable entrepreneur will risk expansion and hiring.
Layoffs have returned to pre-recession levels. Hiring has not.
.
Well, it does tend to substantiate those rumors.
So giving some "blow jobs" and acting like a pathetic lower-beta submissive reporter will get you into a long-term reporting relationship with Obama?
That's so repulsively Feminist!
I think a good *SMACK* is called for. You wanna be a bitch and demand blow jobs and be wined and dined? Nah... sorry... Moby don't play dat game... but he do play da bitch-slap game!
This reminds me of Dumton, a small town in the same state as Springfield. The plumbers of that town were incompetent and corrupt and the townsfolk were up in arms about it. They'd sit around all day complaining about how their plumbers were incompetent, kneedeep in water.
Of course, the people of Dumton were relying on others to do things for them and were unwilling to do things like learn how to fix their own sinks. It was so much easier and more fun to complain.
P.S. Way, way back in Feb. 2007 I went to one of Obama's appearances and tried to ask him a question. If, at any time over the next 1.5 years, others had organized efforts to find experienced people to ask that or similar questions in the same spirit of discrediting him and had got it on video, he might not be president today.
But, it's so much more fun to just whine.
Negotiations with no pre-conditions: yet another broken campaign promise.
Nothing to see here. MSM reporters have a lot of experience doing 'blow job' to Saddam. That's why they hated Bush so much.
Hell, just make it up. We want dirt, not accuracy.
I'm no fan, but for some reason, Obama does not strike me as someone who would have sexual type scandals. He's somewhere between Clinton and Bush and closer to Bush. I'm not sure why I feel that. He's very much like we thought Tiger Woods was. Tiger's wife went after him with a golf club in his sleep. If it was Michelle, I don't think Obama would be waking up.
That would be a hell of story for history, a President assassinated by his wife. I could see her stopping just before the coup de gras when the vision of President Biden flashes in her mind. He is Obama's health care plan.
wacko,
Do you ever comment without a self-serving link. You're like an uncle that tries to sell everyone a timeshare at Thanksgiving dinner and every other holiday. Do you write "wacko.com" in mustard on everyone's hotdog bun at picnics? I feel like you only love us for our eyeballs, and it hurts me deeply.
"They want blow jobs first."
Of course - nobody wants one after.
Beta Rube,
That's a cool nom, mon.
I went to one of Obama's appearances and tried to ask him a question.
Lonewacko, it is a continual source of astonishment to me that a man of your stalwart courage and undoubted political effectiveness is not more highly sought after for advice and counsel.
It must be because Tea Partiers are dumb.
The shocking revelation here is that there are this many members of the press who haven't already written puff pieces about the Obama administration.
I mean, I figured there must be a couple, but I figured they all worked for Fox News.
If, at any time over the next 1.5 years, others had organized efforts to find experienced people to ask that or similar questions
Why, its almost as if nobody pays attention to your website or the opinions expressed therein.
Weird.
Obama's fear of press conferences is akin to the left's fear of Sarah Palin. That which can't be controlled must be avoided or destroyed. Besides, how can the teleprompter hear the questions?
One of the central themes of the Financial Times article that got the press corp reporter in the dog house is that Obama has been much more involved in foreign policy decisions than his predecessors. So much so, that decisions in lower level committees can rarely be made without first running them up the flag pole to the Oval Office, where we have an inexperienced President, who has a very good grasp of the facts, but is very SLOW in making decisions.
And then there was the part about Rahm and Axelrod always being there, and then the part about the work horses, wives and their "Chicago connections".
We've all heard this story before, maybe with a tag heading other than "Foreign Policy", but it is hardly new news. In fact, it's more like Republican talking points from before this last rush through the healthcare "debate".
This post's heading from the article, "They want 'blow jobs' first'", and then "the deals" surely caught my eye, as much as it did yours, but my takeaway from all of this is that it's more of the same divisive, party politics, spin. As such, it's like listening to ONE of the "soon to be divorced" couple.
Pretend you're the judge.
This whiny column by Steve Clemons is a joke, right? I mean, he just couldn't be serious. The White House Press corps(e) wants access so badly it is willing to go down on the Administration? And the reason the Press Corps(e) acts this way is because it is powerless to do anything about it? Like, maybe, what about publishing a string of downright nasty, critical, but truthful columns about the WH for a week or two? What about running a bunch of embarrassing stories, of which there must be many, naming names instead of using those "unnamed administration officials" as confidential sources? Or perhaps simply shutting the WH off from the front page, giving them NO coverage for a week or two so that they can't get their crappy stories out? Can Obama stand NOT being the center of news for any length of time? Let's find out!
I passed the ST0-052 Exam and JN0-303 Exam, with Ourexam material will gain the goal!
Symantec Backup Exec 12 for Windows (STS)
Juniper networks Certified internet specialist.m(jncis-m)
http://www.ourexam.com/ST0-052.html
http://www.ourexam.com/JN0-303.html
Like, maybe, what about publishing a string of downright nasty, critical, but truthful columns about the WH for a week or two?
That sounds too much like actual reporting.
On a more personal note, LoneWacko, you seem to get a bad rap here, and I'm not sure why that is exactly.
Many accuse you of being a link whore, but so was Crack Emcee, and he was clearly a crowd favorite of ours, so it's not just that.
Most of us here like Glenn Reynolds, and you've been unkind in your view of him, from our perspective. The same goes for how you see the Tea Party movement. That's confusing to us, because it contradicts with your own EXCELLENT message.
You want someone to organize well-spoken, knowledgeable people to get out there, and ask Obama the tough questions while the video recorders are rolling, and you are RIGHT!
Your central point is an excellent one, and it's often missed. On the other hand, perhaps what you may be missing is that the Tea Party movement takes your suggestion a step further. Instead of just asking the tough questions of Obama, they ask state and local politicians too! And instead of organizing a group of expert questioners to speak for us, they go out and ask the tough questions WE have! Bring enough video recorders, and someone is bound to be an "expert" questioner.
Listen, LoneWacko, you always remind us that whining here gets us no where, and many here tell you to go do what you want done.
Maybe we all need to go DO, and whine OUT THERE...too. Had to add that "too", otherwise we might miss each other.
Whores shouldn't complain about having to suck a little cock.
I mean, really, these sluts really take the cake.
They've been blowing Obama for 36 months now and he's been dissing them. And they're only now realizing he's just not that into them?
That when he sends them that text at three in the morning it doesn't mean he loves them? That it's just a booty call?
Look reporters in the media: You'll swallow, and you'll like it ... or he'll just move on to the next one.
Haven't you read about Tiger Woods? Michael Jordan? This is how the elite in their sport roll, bitch.
So suck some cock. Be a good little reporter and maybe somebody will pet you.
bagoh20 said...
...
I'm no fan, but for some reason, Obama does not strike me as someone who would have sexual type scandals.
All those bodily fluids would make it too icky for The Zero.
Which, of course, brings us to Malia and Sasha. Anybody want to go all Andy Sullivan over who their real father is?
Gibbs manipulating the press:
“The president is signing an executive order on abortion that is a pretty big national issue,” a reporter asked. “Why would that be closed press, no pictures?”
“We’ll put out a picture from Pete [Souza],” Gibbs said.
“But what about a picture from the actual national media, not from — ” the reporter started to follow up.
“On, the picture from Pete will be for the actual event,” Gibbs answered.
“Right, but what about allowing us in, for openness and transparency?”
“We’ll have a nice picture from Pete that will demonstrate that type of transparency.”
“Not the same, Robert,” the reporter said. “Never has been.”
“I know you all disagree with that,” Gibbs answered. “I think Pete takes wonderful photos.”
Gibbs’ suggestion that the press corps thinks Souza is a bad photographer set off the reporters. That’s not what they were saying; the point was that the press was not allowed in.
“Whoa, whoa, whoa,” the reporter said. “Don’t twist this — it’s not an attack on Pete.”
“Well, I don’t know why you’d want to attack Pete, Chuck,” Gibbs said, “but I’m going to stand up here and defend Pete’s — ”
“It’s not transparent and it’s a vital issue.”
“And you will have a lovely picture from Pete.”
“You really think that’s all it’s worth, is a photograph, on an issue this important?”
“No, I think you’ll be able to see the President sign the executive order.”
“Not hear anything anybody has to say?”
“You’ll have a nice picture.”
http://neoneocon.com/2010/03/26/obama-oh-whats-another-lie/
Given that he has written two autobiographies, can we assume that the president can blow himself? I heard of such an act in Tijuana, but I'm not sure if it was attributable to being well-endowed or abnormally flexible--or both. As an aside, do you suppose that he grabs himself by those ears? Do we have an childhood photos that show whether the ears were as pronounced pre-puberty?
Wait.....lonewacko has a website? Why so shy? You need to tell us things like that.
bagoh20 asks: Do you write "wacko.com" in mustard on everyone's hotdog bun at picnics?
Criticizing me isn't going to help solve your political problems, and it's only going to slightly alleviate some of your personal emotional problems. So, yours is a pretty stupid thing comment, if you actually think about it (try your best).
That said, see this.
Revenant says: Why, its almost as if nobody pays attention to your website or the opinions expressed therein.
Once again: criticizing me is just a very temporary bandaid over your personal emotional problems, and won't in any way solve your political problems. And, ignoring my site is indeed objectively incredibly stupid due to the large amount of information I have, such as in this post. Why would anyone think ignoring such a valuable resource would be a good idea? The answer of course: because those like bagoh20 and Revenant are idiots.
Another idiot, jaed, says: It must be because Tea Partiers are dumb.
Well, that's objectively true: instead of going after the Dems on their weakest area and one that has little support, they go after the Dems on their strongest area and one that most Americans support. And, the methods they use are objectively inferior to other methods that they reject. So, objectively speaking, the partiers are indeed idiots.
I encourage the reader to think about the comments here. Are my critics smart, or are they dumb? Are they helping themselves, or are they hurting themselves? Are they ultimately on your side, or something else?
Gibbs manipulating the press:
The dialogue April quoted doesn't so much show Gibbs' ability to maniupulate the press as it does his utter contempt for them. "You'll have a nice picture," isn't satisfying them, it's clearly enraging them. But Gibbs doesn't care, because at the end of the day, the WH reporters are willing to take this humiliation in hopes of gaining access to people Gibbs controls.
The book deals increase the leverage Gibbs and his staff have over those reporters. If one of the reporters with a book contract made more of a stink about being forced by Gibbs to eat shit and look like idiots, that reporter knows they might not get the interviews their publisher expects them to get.
My question in all this is: Where are the editors? They're not making money off the book deal. They should be putting the reporter into a position to choose, every day, which master to serve, aware that if the guy who pays them every two weeks doesn't come first, they're fired or at least off the beat. We, their subscribers, the people who patronize their advertisers, don't need puff pieces. We need the truth, and the editors ought to be our advocates in that, counterposed against these morally compromised reporters.
On a more personal note, LoneWacko, you seem to get a bad rap here, and I'm not sure why that is exactly.
He has a bad reputation pretty much everywhere, actually. That's why you'll occasionally see him whine about getting banned from other blogs.
"He has a bad reputation pretty much everywhere, actually. That's why you'll occasionally see him whine about getting banned from other blogs."
Bad reputation "everywhere"? Seems like a bit of an overstatement. LoneWacko aside, getting banned from a blog says more to me about the "banner" than the "banned".
Penny,
"LoneWacko aside.."
Ah, so you agree with me that in his specific case the banning is well-deserved?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा