Home / governmentintimidation
Showing posts with label governmentintimidation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label governmentintimidation. Show all posts
Obama administration threatens Fast and Furious whistleblowers

Obama administration threatens Fast and Furious whistleblowers

From Fox News:
The head of ATF recently warned employees that they will face "consequences" if they don't "respect the chain of command," in what Republican lawmakers are decrying as an "ominous message" meant to frighten would-be whistle-blowers in the wake of the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa., and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., fired off a letter Wednesday to Acting Director B. Todd Jones saying the message "could be interpreted as a threat" and urging him to clarify. "It was scary," Issa told Fox News on Thursday, in reference to Jones' video message to employees. In the July 9 video message, Jones touched on a topic he described as "choices and consequences." By that, Jones said, he was talking about "organizational discipline" and the need for workers to "play by the rules" -- embedded in the warning was the line about properly raising internal concerns. "Choices and consequences means simply that if you make poor choices, that if you don't abide by the rules, that if you don't respect the chain of command, if you don't find the appropriate way to raise your concerns to your leadership, there will be consequences, because we cannot tolerate -- we cannot tolerate -- an undisciplined organization," he said. Issa told Fox News it's obvious what Jones was talking about. . . .
Justice Department threatens reporter with retaliation?

Justice Department threatens reporter with retaliation?

CBS reports:
Two Louisiana congressmen are calling on the Justice Department to respond to a complaint that one of its attorneys tried to bar a newspaper reporter from quoting or recording the lawyer's comments at a public hearing in New Iberia. The Daily Iberian contends Justice Department attorney Rachel Hranitzky became "belligerent and threatening" after the reporter, Matthew Beaton, questioned why he couldn't quote her comments during a June 12 public hearing about the New Iberia Fire Department's hiring and promotion practices. The newspaper reported that Hranitzky told Beaton he would be asked to leave the City Hall hearing if he didn't comply with her directive. "Then (the Justice Department) can call your editors and publisher at the paper, and trust you don't want to get on the Department of Justice's bad side," the paper quoted Hranitzky as saying. . . .
Will DOJ punish this lawyer for these threats?
The New Russian Police State Putin Style

The New Russian Police State Putin Style

So this is some of what happens to those who speak out in Russia today.  From the New York Times:

. . . For six hours the men — a squad from the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation — tore apart the apartment, neither removing their masks nor dropping their weapons. “You know what’s going on,” one of them chided her. “If you had married a good K.G.B. man, it would be another story.” They teased her by reading love letters from an ex-beau aloud in front of Yashin. And they humiliated her by sending a man to shadow her to the bathroom. Millions of Russians had seen Sobchak in various stages of undress before, but for the first time this was not a performance of her own making. In Sobchak’s safe, the officers reportedly discovered nearly one million euros and half a million dollars in dozens of envelopes. The state, Sobchak said when she described the episode to me in late June, had found its jackpot — and made, Sobchak believes, its intentions clear. “Whether it’s prison or exile,” she said, “they’re out to silence me.”
On that same June morning, several leaders of the opposition in Russia also had their homes raided by investigators. But Sobchak stands apart: in this new time of troubles, as Putin settles back into the Kremlin for his third term as president, few Russians more closely embody the state of the country today — in both its prospects and its hazards — than Sobchak. She has money and, with more than 470,000 followers on Twitter (making hers one of the most popular private Russian accounts), a following. And she is staking both resources in the fight for, as she puts it, “a better way to live.” . . .
Why the government shouldn't own the broadcasting airwaves

Why the government shouldn't own the broadcasting airwaves

Remember Lyndon Johnson:

That federal agency soon limited licenses to restrict competition and guarantee profits for selected license holders in key markets. It made complicated regulations that required expensive lawyers and consultants. It also seemed to grant and revoke (or threaten to revoke) broadcast licenses in ways that advanced the careers of certain politicians with ties to the FCC.
One of them was Lyndon Johnson. He was broke when he was first elected to Congress in 1937. But within 12 years, he was one of the richest and most powerful members of the U.S. Senate. He got his wealth when his wife bought a cheap radio station – that quickly became the most powerful and profitable station in Texas – after getting FCC permits nobody else could get. . . .
Now under the Obama administration we have this:
 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski testified Wednesday that his agency takes calls to cancel Fox's broadcast licenses "very seriously."  Groups, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), have urged the FCC to pull Fox's licenses because of evidence that its parent company News Corp. hacked people's phones in the United Kingdom to get stories.  During a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) pressed Genachowski on whether he plans to do anything about the allegations. Genachowski said it wouldn't be appropriate to comment on a specific case, but that the commission is "certainly aware of the serious issues that have been raised in the U.K."  He noted that the law requires that the FCC only grant broadcast licenses to people of "good character." . . .
Does anyone think that the Obama administration can keep politics out of this?  Even if the licenses aren't revoked, does the threat produce a chilling effect? If people don't trust Fox, they can obviously stop watching the network.
The School lunch police force small children to eat different foods than what their parents gave them

The School lunch police force small children to eat different foods than what their parents gave them

This is a pretty scary story from North Carolina. The Pope Institute has this information:

A mother in Hoke County complains her daughter was forced to eat a school lunch because a government inspector determined her home-made lunch did not meet nutrition requirements. In fact, all of the students in the NC Pre-K program classroom at West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford had to accept a school lunch in addition to their lunches brought from home.

NC Pre-K (before this year known as More at Four) is a state-funded education program designed to “enhance school readiness” for four year-olds.

The mother, who doesn’t wish to be identified at this time, says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.

The mother says the girl was so intimidated by the inspection process that she was too scared to eat all of her homemade lunch. The girl ate only the chicken nuggets provided to her by the school, so she still didn’t eat a vegetable.

The mother says her daughter doesn’t like vegetables and – like most four year olds – will only eat them at home under close supervision.

In an interview with the Civitas Institute the mother said “I can’t put vegetables in her lunchbox. I’m not a millionaire and I’m not going to put something in there that my daughter doesn’t eat and I’ve done gone round and round with the teacher about that and I’ve told her that. I put fruit in there every day because she is a fruit eater. Vegetables, let me take care of my business at home and at night and that’s when I see she’s eating vegetables. I either have to smash it or tell her if you don’t eat your vegetables you’re going to go to bed.”

The mother added, “It’s just a headache to keep arguing and fighting. I’ve even wrote a note to her teachers and said do not give my daughter anything else unless it comes out of her lunchbox and they are still going against me and putting a milk in front of her every day. . . .
Did Ford Motor pull an ad because of pressure from the Obama Administration?

Did Ford Motor pull an ad because of pressure from the Obama Administration?

I thought that it was a good ad. The Detroit News has this discussion by Daniel Howes:

As part of a campaign featuring "real people" explaining their decision to buy the Blue Oval, a guy named "Chris" says he "wasn't going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government," according the text of the ad, launched in early September.
"I was going to buy from a manufacturer that's standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That's what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta' pick yourself up and go back to work."
That's what some of America is about, evidently. Because Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House questioned whether the copy was publicly denigrating the controversial bailout policy CEO Alan Mulally repeatedly supported in the dark days of late 2008, in early '09 and again when the ad flap arose. And more.
With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. Can't have that.
The ad, pulled in response to White House questions (and, presumably, carping from rival GM), threatened to rekindle the negative (if accurate) association just when the president wants credit for their positive results (GM and Chrysler are moving forward, making money and selling vehicles) and to distance himself from any public downside of his decision. . . .


The WP's Greg Sargent takes a denial by Ford and the Obama administration to be all that is needed to reject this story:

Apparently some right wing bloggers think they may have found their next big scandal: The White House may have pressured Ford Motor Company to yank a TV ad critical of Obama’s rescue of the auto companies! . . .

No, says the White House. “The Detroit News story is not true,” communications director Dan Pfeiffer emails.

Ford happens to agree. The company Tweeted:

we did not pull the ad due to pressure. the ad ran 4 weeks which is what the campaign called for . . .


Might a reporter with the Detroit News have a better inside line into what is happening at Ford Motor Company than a reporter who simply relies on statements from press secretaries?

UPDATE: The Detroit News doubles down on this story:

But the Obama administration didn't care for the free market message and, as my Detroit News colleague Daniel Howes reported this week, the White House contacted Ford to discuss the ad and the company has now pulled the popular spot. While Howes quoted an industry source insisting that there was no pressure to take the ad down, any such inquiries from the White House represent coercion. . . . The most obvious reason [for the White House concern] relates to the president's re-election bid. . . .
Does having private views that marriage should be between a man and a woman justify the government firing you?

Does having private views that marriage should be between a man and a woman justify the government firing you?

How is having a private view that marriage should be between a man and a woman be any of the government's business? Whether one thinks that it is a good idea to believe that isn't the issue. Obviously if someone advocated homosexual marriage, this wouldn't cause any problems. I am pretty sure that unlike private employees, government employees were supposed to be covered by the first amendment. From Fox News:



A former “Teacher of the Year” in Mount Dora, Fla. has been suspended and could lose his job after he voiced his objection to gay marriage on his personal Facebook page.

Jerry Buell, a veteran American history teacher at Mount Dora High School, was removed from his teaching duties this week as school officials in Lake County investigate allegations that what he posted was biased towards homosexuals.

“We took the allegations seriously,” said Chris Patton, a communication officer with Lake County Schools. “All teachers are bound by a code of special ethics (and) this is a code ethics violation investigation.”

Patton said the school system received a complaint on Tuesday about something Buell had written last July when New York legalized same sex unions. On Wednesday, he was temporarily suspended from the classroom and reassigned.

Patton said Buell has taught in the school system for 22 years and has a spotless record. Last year, he was selected as the high school’s “Teacher of the Year.”

But now his job is on the line because of what some have called anti-gay and homophobic comments.

Buell told Fox News Radio that he was stunned by the accusations. “It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,” he said. . . . .
Can the government be trusted to regulate companies properly?

Can the government be trusted to regulate companies properly?

It constantly seems as if the government can not separate politics from what it does. Now the government is going after S&P at least in part because it downgraded the US credit rating. The government is also going after S&P for not foreseeing a financial crisis that the government itself didn't foresee. The bottom line is this: if S&P doesn't rate bonds and other assets properly, people won't pay them very much for their ratings. The market punishes S&P for the mistakes that it makes. Apparently, politicians are telling the New York Times that they are letting S&P's downgrade of the US impact their judgments on punishing the company. That is not good. Does anyone think that will make S&P's evaluations of the US better in the future?



The Justice Department is investigating whether the nation’s largest credit ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s, improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis, according to two people interviewed by the government and another briefed on such interviews.



The investigation began before Standard & Poor’s cut the United States’ AAA credit rating this month, but it is likely to add fuel to the political firestorm that has surrounded that action. Lawmakers and some administration officials have since questioned the agency’s secretive process, its credibility and the competence of its analysts, claiming to have found an error in its debt calculations. . . .
Is this the way the government should be run?

Is this the way the government should be run?

If he does this to other commissioners, what happens to those who are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Do you really want to give people like this the power that government has? If this weren't being done by a Democrat, would it be getting more attention? From Politico:



The conflict plays out in various, often petty, ways. For example, Jaczko has developed a system of approval for commissioners requesting foreign travel. The system had simple rules, including one that required only Svinicki [a Republican] to produce a written justification for such requests.



An NRC inspector general report earlier this year noted that Jaczko “used foreign travel as an incentive for supporting him on issues.”



According to the report, Jaczko told investigators that “it was his responsibility to decide who best represented the agency and if he had colleagues who did not support him on votes, he was not likely to send them to represent him and the agency on international travel.”



The IG report also referenced several accounts from current and former NRC staff members who said Jaczko’s aggressive behavior created “an intimidating work environment,” in part because he often yelled at his colleagues on the commission.



Dale Klein, a former NRC chairman, said he believed the report presented a tamer version of accounts than what was collected by investigators.



Klein described Jaczko’s behavior as “ruling by intimidation” and by cornering his colleagues on agency issues through the media. When it came to Jaczko’s interactions with Svinicki, he said, “While I was there, he would oftentimes yell at her.” . . .
How the Obama administration intimidates opponents

How the Obama administration intimidates opponents

The federal government has tremendous power. This is just one example of government coercion of opponents.

Forest Labs entered into a federal plea agreement in September over misconduct in its marketing of antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro. The allegations were among a rash of government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs. But some companies including Forest chose to settle rather than engage in extensive litigation.

In any case, the federal complaint contained no suggestion that Mr. Solomon was involved with, or even aware of, misconduct. And the question of his continued leadership was never part of the plea deal.

Only after a federal court ratified the deal in March did HHS drop its intent-to-ban bomb. Mrs. Sebelius unearthed a dusty provision in the Social Security Act that allows officials to bar executives of health companies from doing business with the government when the firms are guilty of criminal misconduct.

The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for coercive abuse. . . .

This is a threat to every health CEO in America. If Forest wants to continue to sell its drugs to Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration—the biggest buyers of pharmaceuticals—it will have to change management. . . .

it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill. . . .
Wisconsin Public School employee uses school phones for political calls

Wisconsin Public School employee uses school phones for political calls

Apparently, the teacher didn't get into very much trouble for making this call from school because it took place at 8:15 AM "before she was on the clock."

A Sheboygan gas station owner is baffled after a mystery caller tells a clerk it's a bad idea to do business with a Sheboygan-area state senator.

It started Tuesday when a woman called Dick Hiers's Northeast Standard gas station after she thought she saw Senator Joe Leibham there. Her call was caught on the answering machine.

"I think that this whole thing has to end. It has to stop," said Hiers. "This type of stuff is totally uncalled for." . . .

"I was working back here and the answering machine went off, and I was a little surprised by that, and when I heard the message here, I was even a little more surprised."

The answering machine here in the back of the store was left on from the night before and was recording the entire conversation.

Caller: "Can you verify that was Senator Leibham at the gas station this morning?"
Gas station clerk: "Senator Leibham?"
Caller: "Yes. Do you guys support him?"
Clerk: "I have nothing to say about that, I am not politically involved."
Caller: "Alright, well you can tell Dick he's not good for business, I'll tell you that."


Shocked over the 26-second conversation, Hiers quickly traced the call -- only to get surprise number two.

"And it turned out to be coming from the Sheboygan area district school office," he said.

"Obviously our school district equipment and the facilities are for the purposes of school," Superintendent Joseph Sheehan responded. "Any type of phone call leaving any types of threats or condoning any type of intimidation is strictly prohibited." . .
.
Michael Barone: Obama's Gangster Government

Michael Barone: Obama's Gangster Government

Michael Barone doesn't mince words:

Most important, it requires the General Accounting Office to conduct an audit of the waivers from the Democrats' health care bill that are being issued in large numbers by the secretary of health and human services.
This will raise an uncomfortable question. If Obamacare is so great, why are so many trying to get out from under it? And, more specifically, why are so many Democratic groups trying to get out from under it?
The fact is that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has granted more than 1,000 waivers from Obamacare. Many have been granted to labor unions. Some have been granted to giant corporations like McDonald's. One was granted to the entire state of Maine.
By what criteria is this relief being granted? That's unclear, and the GAO audit should produce some answers. But what it looks like to an outsider is that waivers are being granted to constituencies that have coughed up money (or, in the case of Maine, four electoral votes) to the Democrats.
If so, what we're looking at is another example of gangster government in this administration. The law in its majesty applies to everyone except those who get special favors.
The GAO has also been ordered to produce audits on the effect of Obamacare on health insurance premiums. This is likely to reveal that the president did not keep his promise that you could keep your current health insurance if you want to.
And there will be an audit of the comparative effectiveness bureaucracy established in the 2009 stimulus package. Comparative effectiveness is supposedly an objective study of which medical techniques are most effective. But anyone who looks closely finds that the experts are constantly changing their minds, which suggests that this is more alchemy than science -- and maybe political favoritism, as well.
All of which tends to undercut the thrust of Obama's obviously-aimed-at-the-2012-campaign message: We can continue to fund Medicare and Medicaid indefinitely if we just tax rich people a little more. . . .
Government pressure put on insurance companies to shut up

Government pressure put on insurance companies to shut up

Here is the beginning of Michael Barone's latest piece:

"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."

That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it's actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans -- the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.

Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.

She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact ... will be minimal."

Well, that's reassuring. Er, except that if that's the conclusion of "some" industry and academic experts, it's presumably not the conclusion of all industry and academic experts, or the secretary would have said so.

Sebelius also argues that "any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law." But she's pretty vague about the numbers -- "up to $1 billion in 2013." Anyone who watches TV ads knows that "up to" can mean zero.

As Time magazine's Karen Pickert points out, Sebelius ignores the fact that individual insurance plans cover different types of populations. So that government and "some" industry and academic experts think the new law will justify increases averaging 1 percent or 2 percent, they could justify much larger increases for certain plans.

Or as Ignagni, the recipient of the letter, says, "It's a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs."

But Sebelius has "zero tolerance" for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases" (which would presumably mean all rate increases). . . .
BP Shakedown

BP Shakedown


BP is going to face some big liabilities, but go through the proper process through the courts. We have seen this administration undue protections in auto company bankruptcies. Napalitano points to VP Biden supposedly threatening BP executives by saying "give us the $20 billion or we will take it."

The NY Daily News put it this way:

Enter Vice President Biden, the designated Bad Cop.

Sources told the Daily News that Biden leaned forward and bluntly informed the Blight Brigade they had no choice: If they didn't do the right thing and put the cash in escrow, it would be done to them. . . .
FTC offers more intervention in the media as a way to save it

FTC offers more intervention in the media as a way to save it

The FTC's proposals are pretty dangerous for they will make the media more dependent on government and thus presumably less willing to criticize government. Taxing iPads will make alternative ways of doing things independently of the government. The 47 page document is here.

The Federal Trade Commis sion says it wants to save journalism. I'm not sure who asked it to.
In a just-released "staff discussion draft" of "potential policy recommendations to support the reinvention of journalism," the agency only circles its wagons around old newspapers and their fading business models.
If the FTC wants to reinvent journalism, perhaps it should align with news' disruptors. But there's none of that in this report. The word blog is used but once in 35 pages of text--and then only in a parenthetical mention of soccer blogs. Discussion of investing in technology comes on the last page in a suggestion about tools for "improved electronic note-taking."
Instead, the FTC staff declares defeat in the search for business models so it may explore many government interventions, including:
* Expanding copyright law and restricting the doctrine of fair comment to benefit legacy publishers.
* Granting antitrust exemptions to allow publishers to collude on pricing to consumers and to business partners.
* Giving news organizations tax exemptions.
* Subsidizing news organizations by increasing government funding to public broadcasting; establishing an AmeriCorps to pay reporters; giving news companies tax credits for employing journalists; creating a national fund for local news, and giving the press an increased postal subsidy.
To its credit, the FTC does ask how to pay for all this. So the staffers speculated about what I'll dub the iPad tax -- a 5 percent surcharge on consumer electronics to raise $4 billion for news. They also consider a tax on broadcast spectrum and even on advertising. . . .


Fox News summarizes the study here.
Does the US have a conflict of interest in going after Toyota since it owns GM?

Does the US have a conflict of interest in going after Toyota since it owns GM?

It isn't obvious that the government's behavior is "consistent" with how the government handles similar cases.

The US transportation chief's public rebukes of Toyota's handling of a massive safety recall have raised eyebrows, given the US government's major stake in rivals General Motors and Chrysler.
"The optics are terrible because -- and this is what happens when a government owns a company - the two companies that are going to gain the most out of this are General Motors and Chrysler," said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland's business school.
"But their behavior is consistent with the general policy of the US government, whether it's dealing with coffeemakers or cars."
Safety officials understand that product design mistakes are inevitable and will work to help companies correct the problem and alert consumers. But they will not tolerate a slow or weak response, Morici told AFP.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood sat down with reporters Wednesday to lay out a timeline of how US officials had "pushed Toyota to take corrective actions" on its pedal problems since 2007.
The meeting came a day after he issued a statement accusing the Japanese automaker of dragging its feet on recalling vehicles in danger of sudden, unintended acceleration due to pedals which could get trapped under floor mats or become "sticky." . . .
So much for unprecedented transparency: "EPA Employees Silenced for Criticizing Cap and Trade"

So much for unprecedented transparency: "EPA Employees Silenced for Criticizing Cap and Trade"

What would the reaction be if the Bush administration had tried to silence critics this way? This is not the first time that the Obama administration has tried to silence experts in government who disagreed with their global warming decisions. From Fox News:

Laurie Williams and husband Alan Zabel worked as lawyers for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in its San Francisco office for more than 20 years, and they know more about climate change than most politicians. But when the couple released a video on the Internet expressing their concerns over the Obama administration’s plans to use cap-and-trade legislation to fight climate change, they were told to keep it to themselves.

Williams and Zabel oppose cap and trade -- a controversial government allowance program in which companies are issued emissions limits, or caps, which they can then trade -- as a means to fight climate change.

On their own time, Williams and Zabel made a video expressing these opinions.

VIDEO: EPA Employees Speak Out Against Cap and Trade

"Cap-and-trade with offsets provides a false sense of progress and puts money in the pockets of investors," Zabel said in the video. "We think that these restrictions might not be constitutional," he said.

Their bosses in San Francisco approved the effort by Williams and Zabel to release the tape, but after an editorial they wrote appeared in the Washington Post, EPA Director Lisa Jackson ordered the pair to remove the video or face disciplinary action. . . .
Obama administration tries to keep all Democrats off of Fox to make the channel appear more partisan

Obama administration tries to keep all Democrats off of Fox to make the channel appear more partisan

From the LA Times:

At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

Political consultants are a staple of cable television talk shows, analyzing current events based on their own experiences working on campaigns or in government.

One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, " 'We better not see you on again,' " said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

In urging Democratic consultants to spurn Fox, White House officials might be trying to isolate the network and make it appear more partisan. . . . .

But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and a former pollster for President Carter, said he has spoken to Democratic consultants who have been told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names.

Caddell said he had not gotten that message himself from the White House. "They know better than to tell me anything like that," he said.

Caddell added: "I have heard that they've done that to others in not-too-subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself." . . .
Industry groups timidly speak out against Obama Administration Attacks on Critics

Industry groups timidly speak out against Obama Administration Attacks on Critics

More on administration attacks on critics is here. A video from Fox News Sunday can be seen here.

President Obama is not living up to his pledge to hold an open debate over health care reform and is engaged in a "public relations campaign" to penalize critics, representatives from two industry groups in the administration's cross hairs said Sunday.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Vice President Bruce Josten and America's Health Insurance Plans Vice President Mike Tuffin told "Fox News Sunday" that they will continue to raise questions about the health care reforms plans working their way through Congress. But they decried the "name-calling" they said was coming out of the White House.

"There shouldn't be a penalty for speaking out and introducing data into the public domain," Tuffin said. "There's been a political, public relations campaign run against people who put data out that says specific provisions are going to increase cost."

Tuffin's group absorbed sharp criticism earlier in the month when it released a report criticizing health care reform ahead of a key vote on the Senate Finance Committee. The group claims efforts to weaken penalties for not getting insurance will encourage people to wait until they fall sick to get covered.

Meanwhile, administration officials have tried to do an end-run around the Chamber of Commerce, which has also opposed health care reform proposals, by dealing directly with members and publicly criticizing the group.

Josten said the administration was keeping a tight grip on debate.

"Being invited to auditoriums with 130 to 150 people where the president comes and gives prepared remarks, calls on a couple people in the audience, is not a consultative outreach," he said. "That's not an exchange of ideas." . . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)