Is Anita Done?

November 11th, 2009 Cheeky Redhead

Anita Dunn once proved to be one of Obama’s greatest assets; now, she is one of his greatest missteps. As a campaign consultant she boasted boldly during a Jamaican interview that “Obama’s camp controlled the media, ALL the media” and still does today…well, perhaps, aside from FOX News.

As a Democratic strategist, communications consultant, and a partner of Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, a Washington-based consulting firm, Anita Dunn has most recently been Obama/the White House’s communications chief.

Recently she quietly stepped down from her post and is attempting to tip-toe out of the administration.  No doubt, her past revelations will haunt her career in the future.

What is her future? She is no longer the White House Communications Chief; however she is still on staff as a “consultant.” How many of you are wondering if this has affected her financial status? You may also be wondering how I can say that her past “revelations” will continue to haunt her and I will happily explain by using her own words against her.

In an interview titled “The Buying of the Presidency” Anita Dunn stated the following about “who” actually makes money during presidential campaigns:

“Let’s be honest: The money goes to TV stations. The people who make a lot of money off of presidential campaigns are the television stations in targeted states. I’ll give you an example: Alaska Senate race 2004. At the beginning of the Senate race, it cost $25 a gross rating point to be on the air in Anchorage, Alaska. By October of 2004, it cost $500 a gross rating point, which is more, or comparable to the city of Philadelphia.”

So, when Anita Dunn bragged about “controlling ALL the media” during the election she also was well aware that manipulating the media was really about manipulating funds. Where does money for campaigns come from? I will let her tell you:

“A $2,300 check is a lot of money to me, but it is a drop in the bucket for a statewide competitive race. The amount of people in this country who can afford to write checks like that and who do write checks like that is relatively small, and they tend to be very wealthy. So the amount of time the candidates and elected officials have to spend talking to rich people — calling them to ask them to hold an event, calling them to ask them to raise money, to share their Rolodex, getting on the phone with 50 of their friends, calling them to ask them for money — skews their perspective. The amount of time it takes is so significant that: a) They have less time to go out and actually campaign with people who don’t have that kind of money, and b) they tend to get a skewed sense of what the issue concerns are.”

Wow. There is no confusion here about why a “consultant” is so valuable to a campaign or a candidate. They obviously need someone to remind them “why” they are actually running for office aside from begging for money. Just how much impact does a consultant have on a candidate’s platform? I will let her tell you herself:

“In terms of the role of the consultant theme, there are small races and there are big races. Most of them, at the end of the day, present you with the same fundamental challenges that I believe that any consultant in this business faces, which is working with a candidate and trying to get out of them what they want to do, why they want to hold an office, and then presenting that. And it is frustrating, as a consultant, when a candidate doesn’t know and expects that to be my job to tell them. … And I’ve worked with a lot of candidates who say, “What’s my message?”

Now I pose this question about how much our legislators, leaders, and basically all politicians really know or are able to communicate what they have determined as “their views” when they so readily pay others to build that “view or platform” for them. As voters we listen to candidates and seem to have the idea that what they say they are representing is genuine. We are being led down the proverbial path largely constructed by the ideals, agendas and special interests of those often faceless minions.

Who organizes and focuses these views for those in office? Largely it is those consultants who so recently have been named as “czars” who have very specific agendas and the ears of our leaders.

Anita Dunn has stepped down as the Communications Officer for the White House but is still on the payroll as a “consultant”. She still has the ear of our president and leaders, but without the accountability publicly demanded in an official capacity. During such financially difficult times in America you’d think that our president would be cutting excess out of the payroll instead of simply changing titles.

As Anita Dunn stepped down from her official capacity many of us thought “Good, we aren’t paying her to continue doing such a poor job of hiding the ineptness within political agendas, but that is simply a mirage. She is now a consultant again with an ear of our president so that he can continue to get his much-needed guidance.  Just how much does a consultant make? Let us look to Anita Dunn for an explanation:

“I’ll tell you, the people who by and large overpay for consultants are Senate, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns in expensive media markets that do percentage-of-the-buy [typically, a 15 percent commission of the total advertising buy]. I mean, I can totally justify percentage-of-the-buy at a pretty high rate in a cheap state, where I’m going to end up producing 35 or 40 ads, have 18 debates I’ve got to be prepared [for], and just work a huge amount of time for a relatively small amount of money because TV is inexpensive. On the other hand, if you’re doing a New Jersey Senate race, you’re going to produce five ads for a $15 million media buy; you’re not working that hard.”

Okay, so those who overpay consultants are those in the top positions in our government. I can’t help but wonder how much she is now getting paid. She is creating the platform for candidates and then making money on how well her agenda is being pushed. This is not what American voters voted for; nor what they believe their money is actually being spent on.

Ultimately we have to consider if anyone in any political office is actually genuine. It sure explains why so many seem to falter when it comes to actually representing their constituents. Suddenly, we realize why so many did not bother to read the Obamacare initiative when it was presented. They were waiting for a consultant to explain it to them and let’s face it—based upon the expertise and demonstrated acumen of Anita Dunn, they are all in a pickle.

While Dunn bragged about controlling the media, the internet, and her candidates, Americans were looking for truth that no longer could be controlled by the media minions of Obama’s truth squad. No wonder the Obama camp was so ticked off at FOX and the internet.

Since the presidential campaign, I have had my personal email address barraged with requests to donate to Obama and the truth squad. It is astounding to what extent these people will go to in order to get you to fork over some cash for their cause. It is also shocking the lies they perpetuate for their own agenda. How do they get away with asking for money while not being actually connected to a candidate? Let’s ask Anita:

“There are a lot of people who feel that the amount of money that can be raised on the Internet, which is primarily ideological money, is also problematic because of what they see as the left-wing push. Bill Bradley was the first candidate to raise over a million dollars on the Internet. He was actually the candidate who went to the FEC [Federal Election Commission] in 1999 and said, “Can Internet donations be qualified for matching funds?… “What generally happens for presidential campaigns, because you have multiple firms coming in. So, you create a separate corporation that has only one client, which is the campaign. But it’s a way to make sure that the money is made by that. Everything gets distributed. But what the Republicans do, which is more interesting, because they are much more aggressive under the law, is they actually in the past have set up for-profit companies that don’t make any money. They’re not 527s. But the Republicans take a very different attitude toward election law, because they actually don’t believe in it. By and large, our clients believe in this law.”

So you are propably thinking, “What?” Essentially all those emails from groups that are officially not connected to a candidate are raising money for who and for what? Where exactly is that money going to and what is it being spent on? Are their laws in place to somehow govern these funds or at least make them abide by any set of rules which represent any form of truth in spending? Nope. That is what we pay consultants for and we had no idea.

Are we to believe that the Democrats are not working as diligently as Anita Dunn leads us to believe that the Republicans are in that virtual gold mine of the internet? Are we to think Democrats are not as internet savvy and legally bound by law as Anita Dunn asserts merely by stating they “believe in this law” and so they are not benefiting from internet donations nearly as much as the Republicans? Well, I have yet to receive any emails from any Republican requesting a donation. I also haven’t gotten one from a Republican demanding I ignore and boycott FOX News. As a registered Independent I have gotten nothing from the Republicans in my email.

I am thinking perhaps the Democrats are as aggressive and controlling as FOX news asserts. They are not interested in truth. They are not interested in American and our needs. They are listening to the consultants whispering into their ear, “You know, I should really be paid more for doing your job.”


Rating: 3.0/5 (8 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Iran’s Latest American Hostages

November 11th, 2009 James Phillips

Iran’s list of hostages is steadily growing despite the Obama Administration’s zealous efforts to engage Iran’s brutal dictatorship. Three young American hikers who accidentally strayed across the Iranian border last summer now face charges of espionage, which is punishable by the death penalty in Iran. Yesterday an Iranian prosecutor indicated that the three hikers, Shane Bauer, 27, Sarah Shourd, 30, and Joshua Fattal, 27, were being investigated as spies after they were arrested, allegedly on the Iranian side of the poorly-marked Iraq-Iran border on July 31. Today Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad piled on by stressing Iran’s right to punish people who illegally crossed its border and suggesting that the United States was responsible for the kidnapping of an Iranian pilgrim in Saudi Arabia.

Last month an Iranian-American scholar, Kian Tajbakhsh, was sentenced to fifteen years in prison because of alleged subversive activity. Tajbakhsh was arrested during the unrest that broke out after Iran’s sham elections last June and he never received a fair trial, which is par for the course in Iran.

Iran also still has failed to satisfactorily explain the disappearance of Robert Levinson, a retired FBI investigator who disappeared in Iran in 2007 after meeting with David Belfield, an American convert to Islam who fled to Iran after he assassinated an exiled Iranian opposition leader, Ali Akbar Tabatabai, in 1980 in Bethesda, Maryland. Levinson is believed to be held in a secret prison in Iran. Clearly, President Obama’s engagement policy has done little to help hostage Americans, let alone the millions of Iranians who are being held hostage by Iran’s criminal regime.

More from the Heritage Foundation

Rating: 2.9/5 (8 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

‘By the People’: Ed Norton and Hollywood’s Mindless Obama Praise

November 10th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

Amy Rice and Alicia Sams’ documentary, “By the People,” provides a lens into Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.  A guided tour of sorts, the film delves into the Obama’s biggest milestones, while ignoring glaring contradictions and blemishes.  Perhaps two words can best describe it: snooze fest.  Teamed with the films vapidity and its lack of new, unexplored material, there are some intriguing conflicts of interest surrounding its production.

“By the People” is a praise initiative that doesn’t offer much beyond what politicos and Obama enthusiasts already know: Obama was a regular Joe who, through a series of (unfortunate for the American people) events, captured the presidency.

While Hollywood’s insane obsession with anything and anyone left of center is never a surprise, one should ardently question why HBO, after purchasing the film for seven figures, has chosen to ignore other intriguing political stories.  Why not balance the film with another special or documentary that explores the McCain-Palin campaign?  One could argue, as I’m sure HBO would, that the focus of the film is on to the winning candidate.  Fine.  Argue away, but anyone with a pulse knows we’d be hard pressed to see a similar accolade to a Republican victor.  Furthermore, Sarah Palin’s initial book sales prove that she’s a brand worth exploring.  So, why not go for it?

And then there’s the timing of the film’s release.  The network chose to air the documentary at a time when majorities oppose various elements of the president’s agenda and smack dab in the middle of some highly-contested state and local races.  Add the film’s timing to some of the more bizarre, behind-the-scenes connections and you can begin to triangulate relationships and allegiances.

First, let’s consider the film’s producer – famed actor Edward Norton.  While one should never be surprised by a Hollywood celebrity’s urge to support leftist inclinations, in this case there’s a twist.  To bring the film to fruition, Norton worked with Ari Emanuel, the brother of Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.  Last November, Gawker reported the following:

“… at one point it looked like some of film’s distribution proceeds might be headed back in the general direction of the Obama camp. As of eight months ago, Endeavor Agency’s Ari Emanuel was the agent for the film. Emanuel, of course, is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, just named Obama’s chief of staffHe was also an Obama fundraiser…”

So, Edward Norton shopped the documentary with Ari Emanuel, a man with a vested interest in Barack Obama’s campaign – and, a guy with key access to top government officials.  Unbelievable.  Perhaps most hilarious is Variety’s coverage from early 2008: “Norton said the motivation behind the film was not to glorify its subject.” Anyone out there actually believe that?  According to Rice, “When we shot the final scenes in the Oval Office, [Obama] he asked us, ‘What do you guys need?’  It was incredibly special. I got choked up.”

Is Rice sense-retardant?  She was creating a documentary that was more than favorable to the Obama camp.  Of course he was more than willing to assist!

As a professor, one of the main listening skills I work to instill in my students is the ability to determine what a speaker isn’t telling an audience.  Often times, some of the most intriguing information is embedded in omitted material.

At the beginning of the film, in footage circa 2006, Barack Obama is asked if he plans to run for the presidency.  In response, Obama says he is unsure and explains that he plans to look into how he would best serve the country.  Considering the foreknowledge that he might run, it was odd that the filmmakers chose to lead with this.  In fact, it was two years earlier, in 2004, when Obama said that he would not run in 2008, citing his inexperience.  Call it poor research on the filmmakers’ part or purposeful exclusion, but the words “Obama” and “American presidency” were uttered well before the 2006 midterm elections.

Here is Obama’s 2004 response to the question, “So, why have you ruled that out – running nationally?”:

“I am a believer in…knowing what you’re doing…when you apply for a job…”

“If I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket…I would essentially have to start now…before having served a day in the Senate. Now there might be some people who would have no problem doing that, but ah…I’m not one of them.”

We all know how good Obama is at keeping promises.

Now, let’s talk about the film’s contents.  Of particular interest and concern is the control Obama has over America’s young generation.  In the film, David Axlerod explained that one of Obama’s main motivations for running stemmed from his urge to show children that “anything is possible.”  In political terms that means, “We’ve found our voting bloc!”

When speaking about the Iowa caucus, Axlerod said, “These kids are going to win it for us…they think they’re changing the world…we need more of that.”  Robert Gibbs awkwardly intervened, saying, “The good news is, I think they are.”  The latter statement was an attempt to bridge the divide between Axlerod’s campaign analytics and the need for more audience-friendly interaction.  In the end, it’s evident that Obama and Co. were intent on exploiting young Americans, a tactic that worked wonderfully in their favor.

Race was another theme that appeared periodically throughout the film.  Interviews with citizens positioned Obama as the most unlikely of all candidates to win, with respondents stating that the nation wasn’t ready for an African-American president.  Ironically, liberals are the main culprits who railed on and on about how ill-prepared the nation was for this advancement.  As a conservative, I was more than ready, pending the individual capturing the top spot had the qualifications to perform the job.  Barack Obama did not have those needed elements.  Needless to say, the filmmakers didn’t speak with many people who thought it was, indeed, possible for a black man to win the presidency.

The entire film centered around the “emotional” impact Obama has had on America’s young generation.  As a 26-year-old young guy, I’m not feeling it.  Throughout the film, campaign workers cried fervently, chanted Obama praises and gave their all for “change they could believe in.”  While this is their right, the film itself was less than objective.  And I’m fine with that as well, but it would be an extraordinarily overdue kudos to democracy to see HBO (Honoring Barack Obama) air a similarly fair-minded film that centers on Palin’s historic run or McCain’s heroic life story.

Watching Hollywood and the Democratic elite pat each other on the back is getting old.  HBO and other media companies should consider being more fair minded and delving into the other side on a more frequent basis.  In the case of “By the People,” though, the media and entertainment cronyism will take your breath away.  No wonder Obama picks fights with the media who disagree with him.  He’s become accustomed to lapdog media and liberal Hollywood.  Let’s hope these institutions challenge him a bit more here on in. (via Big Hollywood).

Rating: 2.4/5 (11 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Ryan Dixon Delves Into Pelosi & Co.’s Insane Legislative Tyranny

November 9th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

Ryan Dixon, a correspondent for RENEWtv and the host of his own video series Young Republicans TV, delves into House Democrats’ ramming through of their proposal health care legislation.  Check it out:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Rating: 2.9/5 (8 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

URGENT: House Democrats Push Health Care Bill Through

November 7th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

In an extremely close vote (220 to 215), the Democratic Congress has passed the contentious health care bill.  As per FOX News:

In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.

Read more…

Rating: 2.6/5 (8 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!


November 5th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

While honoring the United States is a nice value to instill in children, one wonders if ultra-liberals would have encouraged praise songs when Bush was in office.  I think we all know the answer to that one:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Rating: 2.4/5 (8 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Knowing When to Say When

November 4th, 2009 Julie Spears

Remember as a child your mom would tell you to say “when” as she was refilling your glass or giving another helping of mashed potatoes? Saying “when” was used to advise when you had enough of something. Sometimes you would scream “when”, as your big brother had your arm twisted behind your back, or someone was tickling you. Well, Americans have been tickled enough, and they are saying “when” already.

When—as in will Obama ever turn off the campaign rhetoric? Every time you hear him, he still sounds like he is still campaigning. Americans understand it is basically all he has ever done, and he is comfortable in that arena, but after ten months on the job he needs to understand he is no longer campaigning. He is the president now, and while it was probably forgivable at first to blame the prior administration, he no longer has the luxury of blaming George Bush for all of his failures and indecisiveness of major issues facing this great nation. It is time for him to step up to the plate and start acting like the commander in chief, and that begins with him taking responsibility for decisions he and his people are making, and to stop saying what he is going to do, and start doing something positive for this country.

When— as in his failure to keep numerous campaign promises, such as his promise of transparency in his government. This is evident with the appointment of czars to several key positions in his administration. The people of this country do not have the benefit of these czars having to have senate confirmation, thus very little is known about them. Without people like Glenn Beck and others who have the resources to investigate the credentials of these key people, those like Van Jones and others like him, would never have been discovered.

When—as in the shell game he is playing with health care reform. The American people spoke loud and clear about their discontent of this hot button issue this past summer with tea parties and town halls that took place all across this country. It was hoped that those representatives, understanding they work for their constituents, would listen to the wishes and concerns of their people. How did they listen and address those concerns? By changing the locks on doors to keep out republicans and re-drafting the health care reform bill to the extent it nearly doubled in size with its verbose and rambling content. Content which is riddled with inequities and vagueness that leaves its interpretations wide open to whoever is reading it at the time. How does this benefit the American people, who legitimately need health care?

The American people are saying WHEN! They put their faith and trust in a man who promised change and took him at his word. The change he is proposing, and yes, has even instituted, is not what the people of this country had in mind, thus it diminishes the respect for him, as well as respect for the highest position in the country. Obama needs to start taking responsibility for his actions, and come clean with the people on his true intent. He needs to stop apologizing for this country, and start apologizing for his own failures in getting this country back on track. Blaming George W. is immature, ill-conceived and unbecoming of a man who knows better.

©Julie Spears 2009

Rating: 2.8/5 (10 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

A Very Crowder Halloween

October 31st, 2009 Billy Hallowell

HotAir covered Steven Crowder’s Halloween hilarity.  Ed wrote,

“Happy Halloween, everyone — and just remember, the scariest things aren’t found under your bed or in your basement.  They’re found on Capitol Hill and inside the Beltway.”

We couldn’t agree more!  Happy Halloween.  Check it out:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Rating: 2.5/5 (11 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!
Related Posts
  • No related posts

Urban Conservative Officially Relaunches

October 29th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

Hello, America!  I am extremely excited to be writing to you this evening, as I officially begin my journey as editor-in-chief of  My name is Billy Hallowell and I am honored to introduce myself to you all.  

I have been a contributor to this site for the past two years.  I am a journalist and commentator who has been working in media for nearly 11 years (I’m 26, so I started fairly young).  In 2003, I founded Pathufind Media and I am currently the host of RENEWtv, a web show devoted to renewing American conservatism.  And now, I’m officially a member of the Urban Conservative family!

But enough about me.  You can surely read more on my Web site, but I’m guessing you’re most interested in what will be happening here on!  Tomorrow, we will become a daily publication.  Many of you have been actively reading UC for years.  This new change will afford you even more access to valuable news and information!

You’ll notice we’ve launched a plethora of new topics.  While these subjects are of great importance to American politics, please be patient as we build our content around them (i.e. there may be a lag before all topics have streaming content).  But, we will be branching into new and uncharted news categories, as you can see.

Also, in November, my show — RENEWtv - will officially join forces with Urban Conservative.  

These are just some of the changes in store as we move forward!  Please be patient as we transition, add new blogs to the CONLIST and forge our path moving forward.  I thank you for your support and readership and I look forward to serving you!

- Billy Hallowell, Editor-in-Chief

Rating: 2.9/5 (23 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Obama’s Attacks on FOX Smell of Desperation

October 28th, 2009 Noah Johns

The White House’s recent attacks on FOX News are a good indicator of just how far off message the Obama administration has strayed. It speaks volumes to the level of hypocrisy rampant in the administration that this president, who never misses a chance to get in front of a microphone or camera, has the nerve to complain about the tone of news coverage on FOX. Obama wants other media outlets to ignore FOX and has unleashed his henchmen to paint the entire network with a broad partisan brush.

Liberals, who are usually among the first to speak up for freedom of speech and the press, should be ashamed of Obama’s actions as well as their own. Where is the self-righteous indignation that liberals felt when they asserted that George Bush was playing favorites by inviting conservative pundits to the White House and shutting out liberal acolytes? Is this some sort of leftist payback in their clouded minds?

We either have freedom of the press or we do not. There is very little middle ground. President Obama’s team  likes to claim that FOX is a “research arm” of the Republican party. The real reason the White House is seeking to demonize FOX is because their big government, deficit exploding, economic non-stimulus agenda is failing. It is failing in the polls and it’s failing in reality.

Consider in the nine months Obama has been in office he has accomplished very little. A stimulus package was passed that has produced 33,000 jobs at a cost of almost $500,000 per job. Meanwhile, nearly 7 million jobs have been lost. Health care legislation is such a mess now that whatever finally comes out of Congress is going to look nothing like Obama promised during the campaign. Obama has gone on a world apology tour that won him the Peace Prize from a bunch of European leftists who loved the fact that he has told the world the United States is to blame for much of the world’s problems. Cap and trade is a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle that has the potential to make the healthcare fight look like a yo momma war of words between a bunch of third graders.

Guantanamo is not going to close in one year as Obama promised. The war in Afghanistan is a debacle with a wishy washy president who will not commit the resources needed to win it. I almost forgot…unemployment is nearly 10%, a full 2% higher than the administration said it would go if we passed the stimulus and now they are saying the rest of the money is not likely to have much effect.

With a record like that, Obama needs a “win.” He needs an opponent that can be demonized, marginalized, isolated and destroyed…all right out of the Rules for Radicals playbook. Enter FOX news. They are an easy target because a large part of Obama’s base hates Fox and everything associated with it. The question becomes what does a “win” look like for Obama?

Fox news is easily the number one cable news network out there. In a recent ratings report, it had the top 11 shows on cable news and 13 of the top 14. It is absolutely killing CNN, MSNBC and HLN in virtually every time slot and demographic. Ratings have spiked even higher since the White House has decided to take on Fox. Their profits have to be going through the roof.

 Obama must realize that FOX is enormously popular. The president’s need for attention and adulation is only dwarfed by the size of his ego. The idea that a major segment of America watches Fox and thus rejects Obama and his policies has to be absolutely irritating the hell out of the president. He is the one who is supposed to be in the limelight. This is Obama’s moment in the sun, his chance to make history and here comes this upstart network trying to steal his thunder so he picks a fight with them.

For Obama to win this fight, FOX has to be thoroughly discredited. The network has to be seen as pure propaganda and thus eventually lose some of its appeal to the right of center people watching it. It must fall behind MSNBC, CNN and HLN in the ratings for Obama to declare an end to the era of Fox. None of this is likely to happen anytime soon.

 The more likely course of events is that Obama and his cronies will continue to attack FOX. FOX will continue to see its ratings climb and will gain even more influence in the discussion of politics in America. The president will continue to look like a cry baby. The public will continue to see through Obama’s attacks as an attempt to divert attention from the real issues facing America. The 2010 elections will see a shift in power in the House and Senate as the GOP makes major inroads in both bodies. With any luck, Obama will have overplayed his hand and underestimated the influence and power of the forces against him and lose his re-election bid in 2012.

Picking fights with members of the media is usually suicide for politicians. Ask Gary Hart. Ask Richard Nixon. You could even ask John McCain. We have a long history of freedom of the press and if you are in office that means you are going to have to accept the fact that many members of the media are not going to fawn all over you. Obama had better learn this lesson fast but it seems unlikely that he will. His honeymoon with the press is over and not just with FOX either. We can only hope he keeps repeating his same mistakes and becomes yet another failed one term president.

Rating: 3.3/5 (11 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!