******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Obama's Fox News Diversion

With each passing day, I am becoming more and more convinced that the Obama administration's sustained and crude attacks on Fox News are a big diversion.

Sure, the attacks on Fox News are unprecedented in the post-Nixon era. Barack Milhous Obama may not be change we can believe in, but it is the change we are stuck with for at least several more years.

Sure, the Obama administration wants to weaken and isolate Fox News so as to intimidate and control other news outlets. This goal would explain attacks on Fox News in general, but not the fury of the attacks at this moment in time.

Sure, the Obama administration's obsessive need to find enemies was predictable, and was predicted here almost 8 months ago:
What is it with this President? Obama has an obsessive need to find enemies against whom to campaign. When Obama's presidency is over, hopefully in four years (but likely eight years) there will be two sets of psychologists: Those who provide therapy to the American population which has seen its life savings and economic system destroyed, and those who analyze the psychosis of the Demonizer-in-Chief.
Sure, the Obama administration's bully tactics against Fox News and others deserve condemnation, as even some liberal media types finally acknowledge:
Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC.
These explanations all make sense, but cannot be the full explanation.

The real game is taking place behind closed doors, not on the Sunday morning talk shows where Obama's minions whine about Fox News. While we were worrying about what the attacks on Fox News meant for our democracy, Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel and a couple of others were huddled together hatching plans to shove a monstrous health care bill down the nation's collective throat.

The attack on Fox News is a red herring meant to divert our focus away from what is taking place out of sight:
A red herring is an idiom referring to a device which intends to divert the audience from the truth or an item of significance.... It is popularly believed that the idiom originates from a technique of training of young scent hounds involving "red" herrings. The pungent fish would be dragged along a trail until a puppy learned to follow the scent. Later, when the dog was being trained to follow the faint odour of a fox or a badger, the trainer would drag a red herring (whose strong scent confuses the animal) perpendicular to the animal's trail to confuse the dog. The dog would eventually learn to follow the original scent rather than the stronger scent.
While we were following the Fox News red herring dragged by Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and Anita Dunn across the political trail, the real damage was being done in the other direction.

Organizing for America, Obama's renamed campaign machine, was flooding Capital Hill with phone calls in support of Obamacare (we received a phone call at our house yesterday asking us to call our representative in support of Democratic proposals). Harry Reid was cutting deals with doctors, various states, and anyone else who can be bought or bullied. Nancy Pelosi was playing number games to get a CBO score below $900 billion based on unrealistic cost control assumptions which never will be put into effect. All the while the Democrats were touting yet another misleading poll (based on distorted sampling) supposedly showing widespread support for a government plan, to provide cover for a sell-out by moderate Democrats.

And us? We're talking about Fox News.

Better get back on the real scent, people. The Democrats plan to destroy our health care system and personal freedoms through mandates, taxes, loss of private insurance, obsessive regulation, bloated bureaucracy and out of control costs. Trillion dollar deficits will seem like a fond memory if the Democrats get their way.

Any day now the biggest, baddest hurt is going to be put on this country. A hurt so bad future generations will curse us for what we allowed to happen.

And it will happen so quickly, we won't know what hit us.

Because we're still following the red herring.

Related Posts:
Barack Got Enemy
The Revolt of the Kulaks Has Begun
Strong-Arming Your Doctor

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. Well said.

    If the Chicago Olympics' fail and the Nobel Prize nonsense wasn't enough to distract, perhaps this will be.

    I'm not convinced that these Fox attacks were actually intended as a red herring, but instead an attempt to divide-- a common Obama campaign strategy as you have pointed out. However, the Obama Admin. is surely trying to take advantage of the developments.

  2. Red herring? Or divide and conquer? I believe the latter.

  3. After repeatedly contacting my representatives and being assured they would do this; only to have them do that, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't much matter if we call, scream, march, picket, or throw ourselves in front of the bus.

    They are going to do what the King, Prince, and Princess tell them to do and the people be damned. I never dreamed I'd live to see this country be destroyed this way.

  4. Could you address, for those of us with no legal background, the Constitutionality of the Health Care reform--especially the mandate? For example, is there any chance that a person who refuses to purchase the insurance and who is taxed (fined) under the mandate, would have standing to file a suit? I find it hard to believe that a scrutiny of the reform under the Constitution, would find it lawful. Or have we gone so far down the slippery slope of "general welfare" that we have reached the point of no return?

  5. @Sallyven, there are some links on the issue as an update to my prior post, http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/taxing-your-mere-existence.html

  6. Let's not forget who Obama's audience is. The cheeto-men love a faux "battle." Because they literally live in a cyber world... and have no experience with what real war looks like. From their mother's basements they propped up their empty suit with donations and cyber-bullying.

    It seems that, while Obama disses his cheeto-men for needing to take of the PJs and step into the sunlight ... he also knows that they will absolutely go gaga over a red herring.

    And they will. Totally.

    Cheetos and red herrings.... that is their favorite diet.

  7. Oh, BTW ....

    I first made this observation on October 16th. Here:


  8. *A hurt so bad future generations will curse us for what we allowed to happen.*

    The 18 to 30 year olds voted overwhelmingly for Obama, so they have brought this on themselves.

    I also think it is a distraction while they go after the insurance industries.

    Question: Can the Democrats use the anti-trust law to go after the health insurance companies and to create a government monopoly? There doesn't seem to be any lack of competition or predatory pricing right now. . .just criticism of government takeover of the industry.

  9. I don't know. Here's my budding concern.

    Okay, you know the case involving "Hillary the movie." there they said a documentary was so skewed to one side that it amounted to political speech and thus represented an in-kind political donation and could be restricted as corporate speech. now of course there is so much wrong with that it isn't funny. but that is how the FEC saw it and hopefully the Supreme Court will recognize what a terrible danger to the republic this represents and strike it down. from all reporting on the oral arguments it looked pretty grim for the jackboot lobby.

    But suppose you think that this is a great idea. Then isn't this equally a set up to ban fox news? if the fox channel can be declared as a matter of law to be a de facto advocacy organization for the republican party, then it can be seen as an in kind donation by a corporation and as such, banned.

    I don't THINK Obama would do something like thta, but i wish i could say that with more confidence.

  10. I agree 100% with this assessment that the FoxNews thing is a diversion. I was beginning to wonder when someone would mention this, because suddenly, few on the Right were talking about the hideous czars or the healthcare fiasco.
    Back on track!

  11. Long live Gelnn Beck then I would say. The ADD oddball himself has been proven far more right than wrong about subjects most American's can't stomach even thinking about let alone speaking of aloud.

  12. I think the whole brouhaha with Fox news is rather refreshing. Do you realize that no one in the White House seems to be lying about hating Fox News and especially its commentators? Better yet, they are not even equivocating. They just flat-out think that Fox is an extension of the Republican Party and conservatism in general.

    And, moreover, the WH thinks that others in the news media business ought to shun Fox. Imagine! All this time, I had been under the impression that was already the case. The NY Times, WaPo and the networks were already trying mightily, I thought, not just to avoid Fox News’ lead on any issue, but to simply ignore ANY news story unfavorable to the progressive movement in general and the Obama administration specifically. So, the administration is just giving voice to what every political junkie already knows well.

    Everyone wins too:
    1. If the comments of Fox News representatives are to be believed this is helping spur their ratings. In any event they are not being hurt. So, Chris Wallace doesn’t get to interview Obama or Axelrod. And? This state of affairs certainly doesn’t stop investigative reporting or secret access to administration insiders. The NY Times and WaPo’s Bob Woodward can easily confirm that reality.
    2. The White House benefits by never having to face tough questions on any issue. Poof! A new tone of civility and cooperation descends with only the sporadic nattering of racists, greedy corporate moguls and misguided (in the words of CNN’s Anderson Cooper) “teabaggers.”
    3. The real journalists at CNN, MSNBC and in the print media benefit by the tremendous endorsement of the Dear Leader sanctioning their faith in the righteous cause of the elite Liberal outlook. Certainly, bailouts for the worthy are in the immediate future.

    Health Care reform and public option plans? Cap and trade? Soaring deficits? Those are China’s problems, dude!

  13. In Obama's case, I don't think it's the herring that's red!

  14. Hi, I just wanted to thank you for being so faithful in exposing the untruth that is so rampant in our country today. God Bless and Keep you.

  15. Please, may I ask people to refrain from using the word "progressive" to describe liberals. That is their label that they use to elevate themselves into something they are not and we should not oblige. How progressive can someone be when their entire ideology was founded by a nutbar Russian a century ago and has been a failure in every nation that has implemented it? Seriously?!

    I suggest countering with "regressive" as that is more apt.

  16. Cyd

    I don’t mind using a little sarcasm or worse in my posts, but generally I try to maintain a level of civility that includes using the terms of endearment most preferred by our friends in the opposition.

    Liberals now prefer to be called Progressives. Seems the term Liberal has run its course and they need something fresher. Fine. Who really cares (besides you, perhaps)? Liberals yesterday, Progressives, today, Enlightened Ones tomorrow. It doesn’t mean anything anymore.

    After all, it doesn’t change the fact that in their mind Conservatives and Libertarians like myself were racists yesterday, are racists today and will be racists tomorrow. And, that doesn’t mean anything anymore either.

    They are not nice, but we should be. Smile!

  17. The Popular Rule of President Obama is unusually resilient and uniquely invested. A favorable media hedged its bets on the success of “their” president; to manipulate the masses that rode the wave of Obama affection to the voting booth. Hollywood adores him and the academic crowd champions his causes in scholarly papers and in the classrooms where they help mold the minds of our impressionable youth. The Popular Rule aims to silence dissent and ostracize those who attempt to disobey. The “cool crowd” has finally found their man and no one shoudl dare to challenge what they label as righteous, historic, or transcendent. Obama’s greatest weapon in his young administration was to yield this great power to manipulate the masses and he used it well with four prime time “press conferences” in his first seven months in office, behind the scenes looks into the confines of the White House, and daily interviews with mainstream media. He has now begun stage two which is to manipulate all news and all news outlets.

  18. And even Helen Thomas agrees it is not a good stance....
    Not sure if it is a red herring, but yes it has diverted attention from other very serious matters, including the WH stance on the Honduras situation - the legitimate ousting of a Marxist president who was attempting to be president for life.

  19. How sadly misinformed you are...
    Can you at least watch some of the news reports before you critize it?

  20. Listen to Alan Grayson and learn the truth, not to the right-wing lies and distortions by the Fox Noise pundits spouting the (R) failed, unregulated, greed-corrupted, capitalist propaganda.