You are talking about how busy he his taking care of matters of state.."state" meaning domestic issues, and then you end it with that he's doesn't seem busy taking care of matters of state. ?!?! What do you think he's doing by trying to reach as many Americans as possible through the media..talking about his golf game ?
You didn't expect it to last forever did you? As soon as a leader makes an unpopular decision their poll rates plummet. If they live by the pollster method of leadership, they just change their tune every time someone burbs or has gas in Oklahoma. That makes them popular at all costs. My kind of representative! The old Ted Kennedy let's stay in office forever even though we are a known yellow-belly sap sucker campaign. Love it!
I think maybe he'd rather boost his sagging popularity, than work in the Oval Office? Addendum: CNN was discussing that Obama may be "over-exposed", since taking office his TV events include 88 speeches, 16 town halls, 7 press conferences, and 2 joint sessions of Congress. This does not include fund raising events, special events with world leaders, bill signings or special press events at the White House (which all together makes it around 400 events). And not only is his popularity still plummeting, he can't get the Democrats in Congress to approve his agenda! Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't our last President prove that you don't need to be popular to succeed in your agenda??? And, I think that the deliberate decision to exclude Fox News is going to backfire big time - Fox News is so outrageously popular now that the other news outlets have fallen to insignificance. People are going to be tuning to Fox just to see what they have to say about being excluded! I think that the decision to not show up on Fox is somewhat cowardly on the White House's part.
If he wanted to reach as many Americans as possible he'd go on Fox. Why keep talking to the paltry few that still consider themselves groupies to the "Rock Star" persona? Why not go where the people actually listen rather than follow?
Same reason Bush and Cheney didn't go on MSNBC much? I'll go back and look to see how many times Bush did MSNBC when he was pushing for medical savings accounts and no child left behind. But I'm not getting my hopes up.
Maybe because MSNBC's audience is like 1/8th the size of the networks they went on? Maybe I'm wrong, just a hunch though because I know MSNBC has a very small audience. No doubt you'll still assume that's not the reason
"not very busy" ... ah... what is it? is he trying to do too much or is he "not very busy"? is he a "communist" or a "fascist"? (and no these things are not interchangeable.) The idea that a right winger could say Obama isn't very busy after 8 years of Bush is laughable. Bush took huge amounts of time off and never seemed particularly knowledgeable about what was going on while he was President. as far as his "media blitz" part of his job as President, particularly during times like these with high unemployment and many radical right wingers like Glenn Beck spreading lies designed to tear our country apart, is to speak to the American people. That's what he's doing with these interviews. it's so sad watching you guys try to demonize everything Obama does. with Bush it wasn't hard, with Obama you guys are having to make every little thing into a big deal because he's actually doing a really good job. It's pathetic. and it's not about being "afraid to go on Fox." it's about putting his foot down and saying the obvious: Fox News is not a real news channel. they are a right wing propaganda network who attempts to MAKE the "news" (see 9/12 march of the idiots) vs. actually covering it. I loved the White Houses response to Fox complaining about not getting an interview while all the real news channels did: Fox would rather show "dancing with the stars" than have a reasonable discussion about health care reform. So true. The fact is, if they aren't going to operate like a real news channel, why should they be treated like one?
Don't be a typical democrat zibblu, you'd be more believable if you didn't twist stuff in a biased fashion. Fox slants right so they're not a "real" news channel? So no other channel is biased? Don't be silly.
To the contrary, I'm willing to accept any reason if it's true. That's why I asked the question. I just need more than a "hunch" is all. I guess we could both accuse each other of bias towards the reason. For example, on your side, with all the political reasons they had for not going on MSNBC you chose to propose the audience size as a reason they chose not to go on a major news outlet.... On my side I'd be inclined to think it's probably a combination of multiple political reasons. But my core problem with your assertion that it doesn't hold water considering he didn't do any interviews on CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC either during his campaign for NCLB and health savings.
You're talking apples and oranges then. If Obama goes on 5 different networks to broadcast on the SAME DAY with a private interview and chooses to NOT go on the largest network of them all, how could anyone possibly argue and say it was random and that he just didn't have time for 6? ROFL! Chris Wallace, the Fox Sunday guy, is a straight shooter who asks questions to do a good interview, get information, and resolve people's concerns. He himself said this administration has acted like the biggest crybabies he's ever had to deal with in his many years in television. He said they contact the network to complain about guests he brings on, questions he asks them, and topics they cover like no other administration has come close to doing both D and R. He didn't appear to be attacking them by saying that, he was just sharing his observations from a lot of experience while in discussions trying to figure out why Obama avoided Fox. Personally I don't care either way because choosing to, or not to go on Fox News because you're mad at things like the above isn't what I would consider a good choice considering the size of their audience. Confronting those issues adds character, running form them just gave them more ammo to make Obama look more extreme left rather than bi-partisan. That's my honest opinion. If all aspects were reversed and it were a conservative clearly avoiding a network some people consider liberal that has the largest independent audience while choosing 5 others in the same day I would feel no different about it being a poor decision.
You believe a major news organization "never asked" for an interview with the President of The United States during NCLB? Social security overhaul? Health savings? As for the numbers, I've pointed this out before but you guys keep on blowing that whistle so I'll do it again because this is really simple math and has me concerned about your ability to grasp common sense... Do you believe that if Fox News had any competition for the conservative Republican audience they'd be beating the other news outlets individually? The other "main stream media" you guys like to demonize and lump into one share their audience across 4 networks. The next time the idea pops into your head to proclaim conservative numbers dominance in America by citing Fox prime time ratings numbers please consider that their 2 million prime time/nightly news viewers are but a fraction of the 150 million+ Americans who voted in the last election.
I'm not. Though you would seemingly like for me to be making that argument... I simply stated that he probably did it for the same reason the past administration did. And well, you just tried to make the argument that Bush didn't have time for 6.... sooo..... ROFL? You see that's my point. You seem to be pretty agitated over the President doing it but when I point out that the previous administration did it the other way around your first reaction is to defend them. I just point things out bro. Take it as you like
Where are you getting your info? You make it sound as if Fox News is by far more Repubs than Dems, take a look: 2008 Pew Study http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf CNN 51% democrats 18% republicans FoxNews 33% democrats 39% republicans
So Bush went on 5 networks the same day and avoided the largest network of all because he wasn't happy with their reporting? If so, that was stupid, but I think you're full of it and trying to compare apples to oranges. Also, if you think I'm a conservative, a republican, or even that I like Bush, you are very mistaken, I think freely. Now, Back to the topic of the thread, Obama...
Yep. Ah, its the liberal democrat audience, not the conservative audience that watches Fox in overwhelming numbers. That's why the numbers are so high, and why someone like you cannot understand the math. I'm not. I'm citing liberal dominance and viewership.
Fox "slants right" ??? HA! That's ridiculous. They don't "slant right" they are nothing more than PROPAGANDA NETWORK for the right wing of American politics. They do not cover news, they try to create it (the 9/12 thing was Glenn Beck's baby.) One of the most annoying things about right wingers is how they use something called "false equivalency." Comparing MSNBC with Fox News is a great example of that. Does MSNBC have commentators that are obviously liberal? Yes! Clearly. But that's a far cry from having the entire news agency creating and spinning the news for the Democrats the way that Fox News does for the Republicans. The problem with Fox is that it's much more than just a "bias" in how they cover the news, it's a systematic way in which they approach things. Their entire point of existence is to push right wing ideas and to try to delegitimize liberals. Fox News is NOT a news network. This is more than just about being "biased" --- nothing they do fits into the way that a real news organization operates.
Consider this. If a network talks about cheese and only cheese, are they pro cheese? What if everyone likes cheese, and every other network is also all about cheese and only cheese? If a new network comes on, and knows that there are people that like cheese, and also people that like sausage, and talks about cheese, and sausage, are they now pro sausage, pro cheese? Or are they just a little of both? The ignorance here is really a downer.