From Czars To Fox To Theodore Roosevelt

If Obama is such a radical leftist then why is he in danger of raising their ire?

Just asking.

A couple of things charged against Obama are of particular interest. One is the assertion he wants to nationalize and socialize America. I have a hard time getting a handle on this one. I thought America was already pretty much socialized. Obama is merely following that path - and building on Bush jr.

The other thing we hear about are the 'Czars.' Factcheck looked into it. Funny how it worked out, eh? Although the Van Jones appointment didn't end too well.

Just nine months into his Presidency some on the right are claiming he's on his way to becoming the worst President in history.

I know people can base this on trends and experience and it could very well turn out to be accurate but I still feel it's too early to tell.


That being said, criticism is a fact of life in politics. The White House should get used to it. It's bizarre to watch them wage war against Fox News. As if they're the only news agency with a bias. No one seems to care the New York Times leans left, right?

I've read and heard that this administration is more transparent than the previous one. I have no way to prove this otherwise but its behavior towards the press (or one organization in particular) seems pretty petty to me.

So what if Fox leans right? It's not like they try and hide it.

In any event, like czars are nothing new in American politics, bias in journalism has a long history going as far back as William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer.


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Interesting guy that Theodore "Don't call me Teddy" Roosevelt. That's why his face is chiseled into a mountain.

And TDR, a Republican, took on corporate monopolistic practices - to name but one policy during his remarkable tenure. Was he a socialist?


  1. TR was not a socialist. He was a Progressive. That's what BHO claims to be. His opposition are evenly divided between Regressives and Retro-gressives.

  2. No he wasn't. That was my larger point.

    Yeah well, the progressive tag is a little loose for my taste. Not convinced that he is. Whatever "progressive" means. Pro-gay marriage makes, in the eyes of some, people "progressive." Guess what! Obama is against it! And that's cool with me. Everyone has their opinion. So what defines "progressive?" Surely there are "progressive conservatives?"

    I think that's a meaningless label.

    And I find it interesting you divide opponents as such. Are you suggesting any opposition is wrong? To be muzzled? Some progressiveness! Remember TDR's quote!

    In my life (cue The Beatles) I've met a few pompous assholes who disguised themselves as "progressives."

    We're all upset about the Dodgers. Billingsley not starting - hm.


Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.