Video – Helen Thomas on Obama’s Stance on Business

By Thursday April 29, 2010

Legendary White House correspondent, Helen Thomas, talks about her latest book and Obama’s stance on business.



38 Comments
  1. bobbo, libertarianism fails when it becomes Dogma says:
    4/29/2010 at 11:13 am

    Ah Yea–”genuine admiration?” Pulease. I don’t expect them to kick her but there is no admiration at all except for her television notoriety and character fame in the DC circuit==maybe something in the hoped for boost in their ratings. “Honored to meet you” is formalistic, not evaluative. But lets say everything was right on the surface: they admired NOTHING about her political views and spent the entire reportage trying to tear her position (her!) down. A sincere thanks at the end means nothing.

    Thanks for the links. REgarding Limbaugh–using diputed material from 5 or 12 years ago is not good. Regarding the kill the gays, I don’t feel like reading it again to parse what was said and what the defense was. Too many on such issues say whatever is appropriate to the audience they are in front of and then defend an attack from one by quoting statements from another==ie, frauds.

    Put I didn’t say or imply she was perfect. How silly of you to point out lack of perfection as any response at all to being the best.

    I do respect your often used reference to links. You just need a better sense of balance.

    Reply
  2. Ah_Yea says:
    4/29/2010 at 1:05 pm

    I need more coffee…

    Reply
  3. jccalhoun says:
    4/29/2010 at 1:34 pm

    Ah_Yea said,

    Bobbo, you should watch the video till the very end. The closing moments are of genuine admiration. Something you will never see in MSNBC, the National Enquirer of cable news.

    That may be true but again this clip is from Fox BUSINESS not Fox NEWS so comparing it to MSNBC isn’t really accurate. Fox Business goes against CNBC not MSNBC.

    Reply
  4. bac says:
    4/29/2010 at 3:53 pm

    Is Obama hard on the business sector? I am not sure but it might be helpful to look at another side of the issue.

    Why did certain businesses take federal money(bail outs) if they didn’t want the federal government up in their business?

    Reply
  5. bobbo, how can a government NOT become authoritarian says:
    4/29/2010 at 4:06 pm

    bac==I’ll bite, why?

    Reply
  6. qb says:
    4/29/2010 at 4:19 pm

    She’s one tough old gal. You gotta love that.

    Reply
  7. bac says:
    4/29/2010 at 5:09 pm

    Bobbo, I might have been in a rhetorical mood when I wrote that question. I have no clue as to why a business would feel that the government was being meddling after the business took federal bail out money.

    Reply
  8. GregAllen says:
    4/29/2010 at 7:53 pm

    Conservatives hysterically claim that EVERY Democrat leader is the most liberal politician to ever walk the face of the earth.

    They said this about Clinton and Gore and Kerry and… blah blah blah. But all these guys are moderates.

    When are Americans going to wake up to the fact that conservatives have abysmal political judgment?

    Reply
  9. Red says:
    4/29/2010 at 8:19 pm

    The healthcare bill is the biggest handout the government has EVER given business. Requiring ever American to buy insurance from these curropt organizations is the real crime.

    American business needs to get the fuck out of American politics.

    Reply
  10. bobbo, how can a government NOT become authoritarian says:
    4/29/2010 at 8:30 pm

    #27–bac==its not subtle that you changed the question, rhetorical or not.

    My answer to your question is that certain banks were coerced into taking Fed Money so that there would be no taint on banks that took money if other banks weren’t. Such Banks were then as always acting in their own perceived self interest==just like always. Thats why the not so needy banks have given the money back quickly to stop the government medling although as far as I know the only real medling was the “threat” to control CEO pay. More constant corruption.

    Your actual question and your rhetorical musings are vacuous. You can choose not to post when you have nothing to say.

    Reply
  11. Cursor_ says:
    4/30/2010 at 12:55 am

    The most salient point she made was that Obama was not liberal enough.

    That is outright saying he is a centrist with only slight movement to the left. Which confounds either side of the radical swings of the pendulum.

    I find that ultra rights will jump to anti-business or anti-family or anti-religion when someone is pro-ethics or pro-compassion or pro-tolerance.

    Just as far lefts will jump to slamming anything conservative when dealing with security and profitability.

    There has to be balance or else everything runs amok.

    Cursor_

    Reply
  12. ggore says:
    4/30/2010 at 1:04 am

    Hooray for Helen Thomas! This is Fox Business, but it is still Fox, the host was spouting the Fox News line verbatim and she did an excellent job of countering every point. Fox Business, like Fox News, is ignoring the financial meltdown and the $600 derivitaves market fiasco that brought down the US economy and almost brought down the entire planet’s economy. And Fox is supporting the Republicans in their “just say no” campaign, then having the gall to call the country “divided”. Helen’s day may be almost past, but she is still the queen of fair reporting and calling a spade a spade.

    Reply
  13. Ah_Yea says:
    4/30/2010 at 6:34 am

    Oh, and Bobbo.

    The point I was making was thus, if Maddow is “is currently putting on the best “researched” opinion show” while she uses Wikipedia as her only source to take on Rush Limbaugh, and she has been caught outright lying on more than one occasion, then what does that say for her journalism?

    There is a reason why MSNBC is consistently at the bottom of the cable news ratings.

    MSNBC is the clown of cable, the National Enquirer of network news.

    Reply
  14. bobbo, we think with words says:
    4/30/2010 at 7:03 am

    Ah Yea–whaaasssup? Got a pea under your 17th mattress?

    You are starting to goose step rather than think.

    You are intelligent enough to know that being “the best” does not mean that something is perfect. Of course mistakes are made. I accept she made the two mistakes you have posted twice about now. What more do you want?

    Silly to equate ratings with anything else except ratings. Do you want me to think the best song in the world is “Achy Breaky Heart?” I agree, more retards watch Fox than MSNBC and very few intelligent people watch either. Your point?

    MSNBC is not Rachael Madow. Rachael is the only one reporting on the C Street Church, the perfidy of Corporate support for grass roots movements (forget the guys name) and so forth. The only one.

    Who on Fox provides better researched/documented reportage?

    OReally?===I don’t care what the SCt says, “I think” blah, blah, blah and thats how it goes.

    Beck==linking carved reliefs in the RCA building to Obama’s socialist plan for america==please.

    Hannity==piece of shit.

    Limbaugh==pile of shit.

    Who is your admired reporter?

    Reply
  15. Ah_Yea says:
    4/30/2010 at 2:46 pm

    The Wall Street Journal. Period. Not unbiased, but biased evenly.

    When it comes to the journalistic integrity of all cable outlets, well:
    http://contactomagazine.com/mediabias031606.htm

    And this article sums up my views on Maddow.
    http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/10/rachel_maddow_the_power_of_par.html

    Reply
  16. Bastian says:
    4/30/2010 at 4:14 pm

    I liked that reparte. She is a crack-pot but deserves her respect.

    Reply
  17. bobbo, not really concerned because I like dirty cheap oil says:
    4/30/2010 at 4:22 pm

    Ah Yea–first link says the media is on the left of the public==we all know that.

    Second link confuses news with opinion. Bad form. If that sums up your view, no wonder you can’t address the different issue I raised: best researched opinion show.

    I’ll bet you aren’t very good at “Find the Differences?” (Hint–One arm is always shorter.)

    Reply
  18. Ah_Yea says:
    4/30/2010 at 8:36 pm

    I like the second link because it is an opinion piece, as I inferred by the “sums up my views”. In particular, the quote “she takes the ideological baton from Olbermann and runs with it when his Countdown show ends at 9 p.m. This is not a woman who gives a hoot for balance, fairness, verified facts, context or any of the other things traditional journalism have demanded in the past…”

    Amen.

    I bet she would be a lot better if the DIDN’T follow Olbermann. Then she wouldn’t have to deal with following his bombastic clownishness nor the viewers which follow his antics.

    Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 24220 access attempts in the last 7 days.