Hugh, they'll get around to all that 'stuff' as soon as they finish paying off their friends. Only problem is, their friends keep demanding more and more. Go figure.

I have been trying to think of something, anything that is not abhorrent about this administration and it's operatives, and I simply can find nothing.

Obama is out-flanking the neoconservatives' beloved culture war meme(and its avowed principles and practitioners) by exposing the hypocrisy of the terms of debate by all sides, including his own, which being the New Guy, allows his administration to play the underdog or the misunderstood successor to Bush's mess due to the opacity of past GOP objectives in office.

Advantage: Obama

Yes Bryan, I am sure your new hero could write another book about it. "Dreams Of My Struggle" or the like.

bryanD: "..by exposing the hypocrisy of the terms of debate by all sides, including his own,..."

Show where Obama has exposed "the hypocrisy of the terms of debate" by the dems.

HughS: "Matt Drudge is being taken to task for highlighting on his website the weakness of the U S dollar while Fox has been famously slammed by the triumvirate of Robert Gibbs, Anita Dunn and Rahm Emmanuel for simply criticizing and parsing."

We are just a few months away from the Dems election year meme that "The dastardly republicans talked down the economy!!!"

As HughS and others have noted, they (the left, obama et al via Politico) are already attempting to shift blame onto Drudge for the falling dollar.

bryanD writes:
"which being the New Guy, allows his administration to play the underdog or the misunderstood successor to Bush's mess due to the opacity of past GOP objectives in office.

Advantage: Obama"

So, bryan, do you think the average American will buy into this charade forever? I think the day is fast approaching where the guy on the street is no longer going to put up with the Obama/Democratic Party's nihilism. What then?

Bryan D once again posts meaningless drivel. So many words, even less meaning.

Hugh writes, "In Drudge's example, what is the administration doing about the declining dollar? (Answer: nothing) In the Fox News polemic, what is the administration doing about the rising deficit (Answer: nothing), creating jobs (Answer: nothing), reducing the taxing burden on small business (Answer: nothing) or making good on promises to our allies in Europe and Afghanistan (Answer: nothing)."

Sorry Hugh, I love your work here but this time you're wrong on all counts.

Obama and the Democrats aren't doing 'nothing' on these issues. They're pushing the dollar further down, increasing the deficit, causing more job losses, increasing the tax burden on small business, and betraying our allies.

The people are learning this thanks to Drudge, Fox News, and other actual news sources. Thus Obama's and the Democrats' war upon these news sources.

The ability for the White House to achieve any success in the "War with FoxNews" is roughly equivalent to the "War on Team America" that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il attempted after it's creators made him look like a fool in the movie, "Team America: World Police".

It was said that Kim Jong Il had ordered that the writers, Trey Parker and Matt Stone (still alive), be assassinated, a step that I don't think Obama is ready to take, but of course like Nancy Pelosi said, the war of words could inspire terrible violence which could reflect badly on the President.

I don't think Fox or Republicans had a problem with Bush's White House calling out NBC, accusing them of deceptive editing and blurring the lines between "news" and "opinion.". Or when they said of MSNBC, "there are elements there who are clearly advocates for a candidate or a point of view, not even commentaries or commentators really or analysts."

re: 11

The Executive Branch didn't accuse them of not being a news organization,of being a wing of the Democrat Party or threaten them. Then sent a scathing public letter. OOOOOoooooh. Yeah, that's equivalent.

BTW, how's it feel to be on the other side now? Feelin' a little defensive are you?

The Executive Branch didn't accuse them of not being a news organization,of being a wing of the Democrat Party

Really? Perhaps you didn't bother reading what Gillespie wrote and said.

"NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment"

"I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines."

Q: "Why go on a venue like [NBC News] to begin with?"
A: "I don't know. It's -- you know, the - you know, there are elements there who are clearly advocates for a candidate or a point of view, not even commentaries or commentators really or analysts. So I don't know why he would.

Oh, and defensive? Not at all. It's humorous watching the right scramble to explain how their past behavior is actually evil when flipped back upon them. I'm not sure how you confuse mockery with defensiveness. I suspect it's a coping mechanism to make you feel better about yourself.

I love Politico's anonymous hack trying to imply that Drudge's focus on articles concerning the dollar somehow is helping depress the greenback. As someone who has spent time in the trading pits, the idea is laughable.

You wanna know how the dollar is doing? Just take a look at the price of gold. If it's going up, the dollar is going down. On Wall Street, that's practically an immutable law of physics... and gold is trading at all-time highs.

Oh geez, John, you do a service to my argument and further undermine yours, yet you end with a self-congratulatory pat on your back and a kick toward my groin? I think you need to come back to reality. You missed.

John, saying someone has crossed the line from reporting the news into commentary/opinion is not the same as saying they are no longer a news organization.
Do you work hard at pretzel logic, or does it just come to you?

johns quote of Gillespie "NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment"

I'd suggest you not take your talking points from "think progress" as it's painfully obvious they AND you have little understanding of the key words in the quote, those being "no longer just cover the news."

Gillespie didn't specifically say, or come close to suggesting, NBC was not a new organization. What he did say clearly was NBC in ADDITION TO NEWS they offered "analytical and editorial judgment."

I doubt you see that, "think progress" won't let you.

Do yourself a favor, start thinking for your self. If possible.