Wattree's picture

    Is the President of the United States Engaged in a Covert Conspiracy Against Tavis Smiley, or Has Tavis Finally Made it to Never-Never Land?

    By Wattree on Wed, 05/29/2013 - 3:23pm |

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree


    Is the President of the United States Engaged in a Covert Conspiracy Against Tavis Smiley, or Has Tavis Finally Made it to Never-Never Land?
    . 
    It seems that Tavis Smiley believes that he’s so important that the President of the United States is engaged in a covert conspiracy against him.
    .
    Michael H. Cottman reported in his BlackAmericaWeb.com commentary, "Tom Joyner’s Opinion on Tavis Smiley’s White House Accusations," that "Smiley told the Associated Press that members of the Obama administration, whom he didn’t identify, have successfully convinced sponsors to stop funding Smiley’s ventures, including his anti-poverty initiatives."
    .
    As Cottman alluded to in his commentary, the mere fact that Tavis failed to identify exactly who in the Obama administration "convinced sponsors" to stop funding his ventures, and exactly which sponsors he’s talking about, is particularly telling. That’s not like Smiley. If he had any evidence whatsoever to support his allegation he’d be holding one of his PBS "gibfests," complete with "expert analysis" by the prince of gesticular verbosity, Dr. Cornel West, pointing his finger at the president, and condemning the people in the administration who were involved.
    .
    .
    Because the fact is, even if the corporations involved didn’t want to reveal themselves, he could have at least attributed his allegation to "a source who wants to remain anonymous."
    .
    But why would Tavis’s corporate benefactors even want to hide the fact that they were being pressured by Obama? Trying to put pressure on Walmart, Nationwide Insurance, or Exxon/Mobile would not only be extremely dumb on the part of the administration, but it would be a gift from God to Tavis’s ALEC connected corporate benefactors. Can you just imagine what Darrell Issa could do with something like that in his House Oversight Kangaroo Committee? He’d turn it into Watergate.
    .
    So it seems that yet again Tavis is being deluded by his overblown ego - the same ego that made him assume that Obama had an obligation to come on his "State of the Black Union" show to be anointed by Tavis to run for president; the same ego that made him think that he’s been slighted when Obama failed to do so; the same ego that caused him to go all over the media complaining that "For the very first time in my career I haven’t been invited to the White House;" and the very same ego that made him think that he had enough clout in the Black community to challenge the first Black president of the United States.
    .
    The fact is, President Obama hasn’t given either Tavis Smiley, or Cornel West, a second thought since he’s been in office. He hasn't had to, because he, like just about everyone else in America - at least, with good sense - could see that he didn’t have to. Tavis and West were making themselves look like perfect fools on their own accord, so the president didn’t have to say, or do a thing. All he had to do was sit back and watch them implode - and that’s exactly what he’s done.
    .
    It’s a monument to Tavis’ lack of foresight that he couldn’t see this coming. In October of last year in an open letter to Pacifica Radio I wrote the following:
    .
    "Tavis and West have become the new Amos & Andy of the Black community, and their trajectory is identical. They not only fail to represent Black interests, but they've become a major liability and embarrassment to many in the community. This will become more readily apparent as they begin to lose the major corporate sponsors currently propping them up - corporations that make it their business to know what’s going on in the community. Once these major corporations begin to see that these two have become liabilities rather than assets, they’re going to drop them like hot rivets. They probably already see it, but Tavis and West are still of marginal value - at least, until after the election." http://wattree.blogspot.com/2012/10/an-open-letter-to-pacifica-radio.html
    .
    And later on the Smiley and West website I wrote,
    .
    "The only thing that Tavis and West have to sell is the Black community, and once they lose that, which they’re currently hemorrhaging, they become a liability rather than an asset to their corporate benefactors. At that point, they become irrelevant. http://smileyandwest.ning.com/forum/topics/tavis-smiley-and-cornel-west-....

    .
    So if I could see this coming over the horizon, why couldn’t Tavis? It’s quite simple - because his all consuming and gargantuan ego blinded him to reality.
    .
    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]

    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    Tavis and Cornel have become irrelevant. He believes that Obama actually gives him a first thought, let alone a second. what challenge has Smiley presented to the President? Instead of figuring out why his message carries no weight and looking internally, Smiley says that the President is plotting against him. Smiley's rant is ridiculous. You have been pointing out how Smiley and West have become a sideshow for a long time. Now virtually every time, the duo makes a statement, they prove your point.

    on the right, there are those claiming that Obama used a super-secret hurricane machine to create Hurricane Sandy to win the election. Perhaps the super- secret machine was re-purposed to sever Smiley's corporate ties.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 05/29/2013 - 7:53pm

    hahahahahahahaha

    I think about Cosby at times.

    He turned old and went against HIP HOP or Rap or whatever.

    And he would make outrageous statements about how some Black Folks would refuse to somehow 'fit in'.

    I recall when he just talked about names!

    Now these statements look so ridiculous when you actually look at White, Black, Asian and Hispanic names.

    But when he saw, when he actually grasped that a Black Man could attain the Presidency of the USA...Bill went nuts. THIS IS MY GUY. 

    HE LIKES HIS POSITION AS A FATHER AND AS A HUSBAND AND...

    I love Bill Cosby.

    I really do.

    Can you imagine living through the 50's and the 60's along with the lies of the '70's and seeing what this success story witnessed in 2008?

    I am being much too simplistic.

    But again, the Black version of Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee really become so irrelevant to any discussion of politics today including the pure White Discussion or the pure Black Discussion or the pure Asian Discussion or the pure Hispanic Discussion....

    Oh I am droning on again. hahahahahah

    Cosby is so damnable old now. But Damn, Bill had a plan; he had hopes; he had aims; oh hell he is one of my heroes.

    Because of you, I ignore Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee every damn time they appear on the internet.

    Just a view from an old White Liberal!

    Please do not take offense.

     

     

     

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 05/29/2013 - 10:11pm

    Richard,

    There’s nothing to take offense at here, but the mere fact that you have to conclude your comment with a request that offense not be taken points out the sad conditions under which we live. How can people ever hope to come together when they have to constantly walk on eggshells around each other - and the reason we have to do that is partially due to people like Tavis and West.

    In order to place themselves in a position of influence they have to convince the people that they are constantly under attack. That allows them to promote the proposition that the people need them to act as the Black community’s envoy to the damnable White man. Then, in order to maintain their position of influence over the people, they have to convince them that nothing is the community’s fault, and there’s absolute nothing the community can do to help itself. The people need them, and only them, to fight off the barrage of injustice that’s being hoisted upon the people by the White man - and the people can’t depend on Barack, by the way, because he’s part White, and therefore, part of the problem.

    Thus, their influence is both divisive during a time when it’s essential for the poor and middle class of every race to come together as a solid front, and it sends the exact wrong message to our youth - that they might as well give up, because the cards are stacked against them.

    That’s the message that Bill Cosby is trying to counter. Bill is telling the community that we ourselves are a big part of the problem, and it’s time to take a close look at the cultural mores that we’ve developed subsequent to gaining the new freedoms that so many died to obtain.

    We’re like deprived kids given free rein in a candy store. We’ve gone hog wild. You know a kid must have been deprived of a watch when as an adult he walks around with Big Ben hanging from around his neck. We're being reckless and silly, and it's both sad, and embarrassing, to watch.  That's all Bill's saying. 


    by Wattree on Thu, 05/30/2013 - 11:59am

     

    U.S. sees highest poverty spike since the 1960s, leaving 50 million Americans poor as government cuts billions in spending... so does that mean there's no way out?

    By AP

    PUBLISHED: 19:03 GMT, 2 April 2013 | UPDATED: 19:05 GMT, 2 April 2013


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302997/U-S-sees-highest-poverty-spike-1960s-leaving-50-million-Americans-poor-government-cuts-billions-spending.html#ixzz2UzQCpdIF 

    So, here’s my advice to Tom:  Stop talking about Tavis and start talking about the issues.  You and I can agree on at least a couple of things:  Poverty, violence, black unemployment and mass incarceration are serious problems in the black community, and we also agree that President Barack Obama can help.  Finally, we hopefully agree that no president in American history has received this much support from the black community, which means that we have paid the extraordinary price to lend the Obamas an unprecedented amount of political capital that they are now investing in other special interest groups.   Some of the time he is spending catering to gay and Latino communities belongs to us, and the president knows it.

    The bottom line, without question, is that WE ARE OWED SOMETHING FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/01/2013 - 2:26pm

    You continue to post numbers about Black unemployment and poverty. This time you quote Dr. Boyce Watkins. Once again I will ask what legislation you would craft that would make it through the Republicans in the House.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 06/01/2013 - 3:00pm

    I'm not a legislator. Please contact your local or national representative to ask them to do their motherfucking jobs. Would you ask your dentist or trash collector about what legislation they would write to solve our ills, or the guy who raised some $1 billion to be president?

    Really, this is a piss poor pathetic comeback. Front page Daily Mirror story on how bad poverty's gotten in America, and the only thing you can do is ask another commenter for a solution? You're trashing Smiley & West for talking about poverty, but all you & Wattree can do over and over is "Obama's doing his best". Sometimes one's best isn't good enough.

    If you don't want criticism of Obama, maybe you should convince Wattree about writing the same column over and over attacking Obama's few detractors in the Democratic Party. Does he need 100% approval like Fearless Leader?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/01/2013 - 6:59pm

    The unemployment rate for Blacks has been twice the rate of Whites since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began collecting the data. Historically the worst unemployment rate for Whites  has been the best unemployment rates for Blacks. The unemployment problem is chronic. You repeatedly go to unemployment numbers that are well known to those who have been paying attention for the past several decades.

    You are not a legislator, but the legislature is where things are at a standstill. Food stamp programs were supported by Republicans like Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Bob Dole. Today, the GOP can't wait to cut Food Stamp programs. The reason that I mention Congress is because the legislators play a critical role in deciding which bills are likely to pass.

    I pointed out Paul Krugman's stance on the American Jobs Act as a net positive. The plan was blocked by the GOP. The obstruction by the Republicans in Congress is real. To deny the obstruction is not  rational.

    I expect you to continue to post the bad unemployment numbers for Blacks that have been present since 1972. I expect you to continue to ignore the current GOP plays in hinder progress. The only solution I see is having fewer Republican legislators.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 06/01/2013 - 9:03pm

    I mentioned poverty, not unemployment. Swing and a miss.

    Can imagine your view of MLK meeting LBJ - "we demand blacks do at least half as good as whites". Maybe push for 3/5?

    But yes, Obama should have campaigned for more Democratic legislators.

    As for that other issue, sequestration is causing either furloughs or hiring freezes for most government organizations. Guess government workers can be 10-20% poorer as the cost of holding a public service job. Exacerbate poverty? What me worry...

    Really, as long as we can blame it on the GOP, no need to get upset, life goes on.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 10:46am

    Pericles,

    .

    People like Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, and Boyce Watkins are going out of their way NOT to tell the Black community that the United States Constitution gives sole control of spending to the United States House of Representatives, which is controlled by the Republicans. So the only way that President Obama can spend any money to assist the Black community is to get the Republican House to go along with him.
    .
    That’s why it’s so important for the president to hold together a coalition of Blacks, women, gays, Hispanics, and every other segment of the American population. He needs ALL of us to place pressure on the Republicans to loosen the purse strings in order for him to get anything done. So anytime you hear Tavis, West, or Watkins pointing their finger at what President Obama is doing for any other segment of the population, they’re doing you a disservice.
    .
    Here’s how politics works - you support me when I need you, and I’ll support you when you need me. So whenever President Obama does anything for other segments of the population, he’s building up political capital so he can help you. But, he doesn’t discuss what he’s doing for the Black community for a very good reason - as Cornel says himself (when it’s convenient), "Race Matters."
    .
    These gentlemen know full well that if President Obama runs around bragging about what he’s doing for the Black community, the Republicans are going to use that as leverage to tear his coalition apart. They would tell women, gays, Hispanics, and everyone else in America that Obama doesn’t care about them, all he wants to do is help his own people, and that message hurts the Black community. Don’t these so-called intellectuals recognize that? If they don’t, they’re dumb. If they do, that means that they’re purposely trying to mislead you. The question then, is why?

    So the fact is, when people like Tavis, West, and Watkins run around telling you that the proof that President Obama is not working for you is that he refuses to throw his fist in the air, these people are working against you, not for you - and they know it. You see, their primary agenda is NOT about helping the Black community. Their agenda is about tearing President Obama down, and that hurts you.
    .

    In addition, people need to come to terms with the fact that there are some things that even the president can’t do - and signing a bill abolishing ignorance is at the very top of that list. The president can’t just wave a magic wand and instantly make everyone upwardly mobile. It doesn’t work that way. There’s an educational process that goes along with upward mobility, and that goes for whether the person is Black, or White. While there are many in the Black community who have the skills to hit the ground running, there are others who need to be trained, motivated, and refocused in order to simply maintain a job that pays wages high enough to lift them out of poverty, even if it was given to them.

    　

    　

    　


    by Wattree on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 9:55am

    Peracles likes being a verbal bomb- thrower. Actually having legislation get passed and seeing people get help is secondary. Tavis would have rather had the ACA go down if Obama could not magically get single payer passed. Instead of using how Social Security went from a very limited program to gradually providing more coverage as a template, Smiley wanted all or nothing. Health care reform would have been delayed for at least a decade.

    It is easy to be on the sidelines, argue that things are bad, and ignore the barriers to change. When the observable fact that the current Congress is the most unproductive and obstructionist in modern history the sideline critics say that stating the truth is letting Obama off the hook. Those on the sidelines are content to just scream bloody murder. They are bereft of ideas on how to deal with the wingnuts in Congress.in fact they avoid mentioning the existence of the opposition. 

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 10:23am

    Oh yeah, you're right in the middle of the change movement so you can scoff at those bystanders.

    Look, no one's asking for all or nothing. They're noting that US poverty sucks, and all the prez can talk about is austerity. 2009, he could only manage to talk about priming the economy with tax cuts, reaching across the aisle. "Don't throw me in that there briar patch," says Barry. "I'd hate to have to cut spending".  He's a deficit scold, and all you can do is defend him and blame the GOP and Tavis Smiley.

    BTW, re: ALEC et al, no need to worry about Obama putting pressure on Walmart - Michelle was just doing a promo for them. In a town where Walmart is moving into the historic district & having property rezoned to let them, as part of their new push into black neighborhoods.  As BAR noted, Hillary was shamed off the Wal-Mart board even though supposedly engaging to get more women in leadership position. But (some) ends justify the means in this year's model, and certainly won't be discussed in Wattree articles.

    [Michelle was on the board of Teatree, a Walmart subsidiary, until she resigned to avoid criticism in 2007. But still pretty good buddies, it seems, and unlikely to draw criticism from Wattree, who has no problem repeating that Walmart sponsors Smiley's PBS show]

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 11:32am

    See my response to your Hillary post below.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 1:13pm

    States are taking action on Gay marriage. It is still not clear of what will become of immigration reform.Again the bill seems to be stalled because of resistance in the Republican Party. Federal judge positions are going unfilled because of GOP obstruction. Republican appointees have ruled recess appointments Unconstitutional.The GOP is dug in. Is is folly not to pay attention to the blocks being put up by the GOP.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 10:33am

    Strawman. No one says "not to pay attention" to GOP obstructionism. Many are saying not to cede the field to them, not to stop fighting, or adopt their framing of issues, or just use that as a tail-between-legs excuse for failure. Hillary mocked the kumbaya, manna-from-heaven view of Obama bringing bi-partisanship to Washington. Wanna say you're sorry now?

     

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 11:40am

    This gets boring. Hillary and Obama took shots at each other during the campaign but went on to form a great team in foreign affairs.Obama refused to throw Clinton under the bus in Benghazi. In the end, there is no evidence that Hillary could have done a better job than Obama than Obama. Hillary called going after Osama in Pakistan crazy . It was campaign rhetoric.

    Am I sorry that Obama was elected? No.

    Regarding Walmart, the company has its claws deep in the American pocket. Hillary served on the board.Michelle Obama served on the board of a subsidiary.Are they both disqualified? The current nominee for director of OBM is the director of Walmart's philanthropy operation.She was a former director at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Prior to that the nominee served in the Clinton administration. Is the nominee an automatic reject?

    You repeated post "failures" of the Obama administration without spending equal time on successes, yet you want Wattreee to provide what you consider balance. It's a very strange position. 

    West and Smiley argue that they are above criticism.. Any critic is an Obama toady. Smiley's specific gripe is that his corporate ties are drying up.He loves the corporate donors. 


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 1:12pm

    Who claimed West & Smiley were beyond criticism?

    The issue pointed out heree is a continuing attack by Wattree re: Walmart's sponsorship for Smiley. So where's the criticism of Michelle & Hillary's ties? Crickets, chirp chirp, selective outrage against any perceived enemies of Obama.

    And you went off the rails again re: Obama & Hillary - I wasn't saying they werent'working together - I pointed out the accurate prediction that DC partisanship wouldn't be destroyed by an Obama charm offensive, and indeed it's gotten worse.

    You seem really thrilled with Obama successes, but poverty in America tends to be a really basic measure of success - you can add a whole lot of gold trim and ruffles, but if people are going hungry, I'm not really interested in what tunes the the band at the ball played. If  we're stuck in a counterproductive war that's draining resources from recovery, and still continuing the eternal war on terror of the previous administration, and the president can't even fill vacancies and enact basic legislation, well, these issues tend to override whatever good could be said.

    Why didn't Obama pin Harry Reid down to changing the rules on filibusters? Why didn't he twist the arms of 50 D- Senators to do it so he could get his legislation enacted? All I hear is pathetic excuses, and no signs of a really concerted effort to do fuck all except cut Social Security through indexing, cut spending through sequester, and put a bunch of social programs on the table for a grand bargain.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 4:07pm

    You ignore your own bias. You criticize without mention of opposition from the GOP.You demand that Wattree follow rules that you ignore. When I pointed out Krugman' stand on the American Jobs Act in a previous post, your response was that Krugman was just being "nice". You are biased. No one has to follow rules that you don't apply to yourself.

    Anyway it's a peaceful Sunday. No more time for you toady.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 4:37pm

    I've known the GOP was a bunch of jerks since about 1973, and watched them use over-the-top let's-play-chicken strategies in periods starting 1994 and 2001, and now 2009. I thought everyone knew this, except apparently Candidate Obama.

    So from your comments, we're just to accept the limitations of having a band of disruptive Republicans gumming up the works, and be happy with the crumbs from the table. So apparently we never get past this bad situation unless we elect some more Democratic legislators to give the President a sure-fire majority. What a bold agenda.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 4:58pm

    Let's try that "bias" line again.

    Tammy Baldwin came into the Senate and gave a speech on wealth & poverty - is she to be attacked?

    Should we chastise her for not recognizing the awesome power of GOP obstructionism, and focusing on how well LBTG progress is going instead?

    My bias again isn't about Obama - it's about issues I care about, and priorities. Poverty, unemployment, war, everyday health care support - those are way high on the list. Solving social security for some possible problem 30 years from now somehow isn't.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 12:41am

    The idea that the white house would be engaged in this type of activity, especially with such a light weight opponent, is ridiculous. Extraordinary accusations require extraordinary evidence to back them up. Smiley offers absolutely no evidence to back up his accusation.

    The only problem I have with this and several other articles I've read on this subject is I was unable to find the original quote. Being of a curious nature I wanted to see exactly what Smiley said. I did a quick search and all the articles I read  contained the paraphrased summery of his remark that you include here. If one is going to critique something someone said the exact quote of the offending statement should be included in the article.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 2:18pm

    Here is how it was reported by AP on May 24th.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 2:46pm

    Yes, that's one of the articles I read in my search. While I tend to believe the reporting and think Smiley probably made the claims as stated, the article does not include a direct quote of the offending statement. It does however include several other paragraphs of direct quotes from Smiley. So its hard to see how space considerations could be a factor in not including a direct quote of the offending statement most critiqued.

    This may seem like a trivial complaint but I see it as a fundamental failing of our media. Bob Somerby at the daily howler blog site does an excellent dissection of these types of  failings in our news media

    http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/

    It was most apparent and especially egregious during the Gore presidential run. Which is one of the reasons this issue is  important to me. One reporter would offer a paraphrased quote from Gore that would be picked up by a series of other reporters, editors, and bloggers. That the initial paraphrase was incorrect never got reported. Gore claims to have invented the internet. Gore claims to be the inspiration for Love Story. I could go on. All of these paraphrases were incorrect and they were used to create the false meme that Gore was a serial liar, somewhat pathological even.

    Somerby does an extremely comprehensive analysis of how this inaccurate paraphrasing and misquoting by numerous reporters was used to create this false picture of Gore and likely had a significant effect on the election.

    http://www.howhegotthere.blogspot.com/

    Again I tend to believe the AP report, but this is exactly what happened during the Gore campaign. One reporter's paraphrase has generated a slew of critical articles based on it. No one, apparently, knows exactly what Smiley said. We just have to trust the original reporter got it right and has no political bias. If people are going to engage in this type of criticism I want to see a direct quote of the offending statement.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 4:00pm

    The spokesperson quoted by the AP seems to have the same perception of WH activity. In addition, Smiley proudly posted a WaPo reference to the AP interview on Facebook onMay 29th without suggesting that he had been taken out of context in suggesting the WH was responsible for decreased corporate support.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/02/2013 - 4:32pm

    If they don't provide a direct quote (or maybe even if they do) we can safely assume they fucked it up and it's nothing like what they say, but they'll be hired onto some talkshow panel to repeat their deliberate nonsense at excellent day rates.

    Somerby notes this over and over again re: Susan Rice, how they simply chop off her words on Benghazi, where she made it very clear (paraphrased) "we don't know yet, have to research" and "started out as a peaceful video protest and got hijacked by extremists" (read: terrorists if you like).  

    Even the so-called liberal press like left-wing darling Rachel Maddow can't fucking keep to the facts or counter-spin GOP lies with some version of the truth. Teh stupid, it burns. Someone somewhere is making trillions off this, doesn't make sense otherwise, but it's not obvious why they couldn't make tons more building up a civilization rather than tearing it down, Rhett Butler aside.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 5:14am

      Yeah, but references to Al Qaeda and prior warnings were deleted from Rice's talking points, and Jay Carney said twice that they had no evidence that it was a  terrorist attack(on the day he made the second statement, a guy told the Senate that it was a terrorist attack).  I myself aren't that outraged by governments lying about things that aren't illegal; governments are always lying.


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 7:10am

    it also used to be a given that disinformation was to be expected where a CIA operation was involved...simpler times...

    by jollyroger on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 9:37am

    My favorite moment was when the head of the CIA explained to the Black community that the CIA had no role in the crack epidemic.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 10:34am

    I'm talking about where "journalists" and "news anchors" take an excerpt of Rice's quote and ignore the remainder of the sentence that proves the opposite.

    I seem to recall some White House tamping down the idea that Al Qaeda was involved simply to avoid a huge round of "you shouldn't have gone into Libya" second-guessing. (my 2nd-guessing was done real time, asking for policy, not popping up just because surprise the Mideast turns out to be dangerous). Instead you'd think Obama personally set up an ambush from the way the GOP's playing it. 


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 1:00pm

    Richard Prince noted in his column that he communicated with Lashelle V Sargeant, a Smiley spokesperson. She offered no names of officials who pressured corporate sponsors. She did not say that Smiley had been misquoted. Ms. Sargeant said that she did not want sponsors to undergo further scrutiny by mentioning names. 

    Smiley's posting the article on his Facebook page without saying that he did not suggest the WH applied pressure suggests that he stands by his words. Smiley has to be aware of the controversy and can easily address the issue in print, on Twitter or Facebook. He could have his spokesperson clarify the issue.

    The big part of Prince's article was about the tactics used by the DOJ against AP and what changes needed to be made. Holder is supposed to report back to the WH by July 12.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/03/2013 - 8:47am

    Latest Comments