We’ll never know what Ronald Reagan would have done with WhiteHouse.gov, the official website of the White House. But I know my father wouldn’t be abusing it the way Barack Obama is.
WhiteHouse.gov is owned and operated by the federal government, but the incumbent gets to run it and design it to his own political tastes.
Like nearly anything the federal government touches, the White House website is a decent idea gone bad.
It should be a handy place where the average over-taxed citizen or liberal newsman can find the latest news and information about the outrageous doings of the current president and his administration. But it’s become just another political tool — a permanent campaign ad for the incumbent.
You know how newly elected mayors rush out and get their names painted on all the city benches and trash cans? WhiteHouse.gov is the same principle on a federal level, done virtually.
The Obama regime’s WhiteHouse.gov contains all the basic stuff — the president’s schedule, recent photo ops, proclamations, executive orders, his latest appearance on “The View,” plus his detailed positions on dozens of domestic and international issues.
Give it credit. The site is a slick, partisan and effective propaganda weapon. President Obama’s name and photo are plastered on every page.
And it’s riddled with Obama-aggrandizing whoppers like “The President overcame furious lobbying by big banks to pass the most far reaching reform of Wall Street in history, which will prevent the excessive risk-taking that led to the financial crisis....”
Though it’s all politics and spin, WhiteHouse.gov is impressively comprehensive. The only thing missing, besides the transcripts of what the president whispers to his donors on Wall Street, is his list of favorite golf courses. It must be somewhere. Maybe under “Lavish Vacations.”
But let’s get serious. Presidents have had their own White House websites to puff themselves up since 1994. But under the stewardship of the Narcissist in Chief, WhiteHouse.gov has reached a new low.
It has stooped to misrepresenting history to make it look like some previous presidents, including Ronald Reagan, would support President Obama’s big-government ideas or policies.
On the website, under “The White House” menu, are brief, non-partisan biographies of every president. Tagged on to the end of almost every bio since Coolidge is a little feature called “Did you know?”
For instance, the tag for FDR reads, “Did you know? On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Today the Obama Administration continues to protect seniors and ensure Social Security will be there for future generations.”
Fair enough, considering Obama’s New New Deal policies.
But here’s part of the “Did you know?” at the end of my father’s bio: “In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffet Rule.”
Is Obama kidding? The Buffet Rule is an act of class warfare designed to punish successful people with higher taxes in the name of fairness.
My father’s tax policy — which simplified the tax code and lowered top marginal rates from 70 percent to 28 percent — had nothing in common with the Buffet Rule. It was about lowering everyone’s taxes and providing incentives for all, not punishing the already successful few.
Ronald Reagan wouldn’t agree with any part of Obamanomics. The Obama regime has already proved it can’t be trusted with the economy. By trying to make it seem that my father was the founding father of the Buffet Rule, it proves it can’t even be trusted with history.
Mr. Obama, if you would like to debate this I am available 24/7.
Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of “The New Reagan Revolution” (St. Martin’s Press, 2011). Visit his website at www.reagan.com, or e-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com. Copyright 2012 Mike Reagan. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate.
IceCat posted at 9:34 am on Sat, May 26, 2012.
So Mr. Reagan the not so quite son of the former President, is resorting to bashing the White House web site?
When President Reagan was Governor of California, he thought the studying of the concept of bringing the Kaiser type health plan to all residents of the state was something worth looking at.
mnjcpa posted at 10:45 am on Sat, May 26, 2012.
When Obama spoke of "Hope & Change" I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He was what the country wanted at the time and his words of unity sounded great with the wounds of the Bush years. But it didn't take 3 months to see what this guy was about. Very little is known even now about Obama and what we do know is how his thinking was influenced and it's nothing most of us want to see America become. I haven't watched a major TV network news in 4 years because it's clear there's an agenda being pushed - just like in our schools. He's the most radical, free enterprise destroying, big government politician in our lifetime.
There has to be painful reform to entitlements (Medicare/Social Security) and tax reform. I believe the tax system should be scrapped altogether and start over where EVERYONE pays taxes - not just a small section of the population. Yes, remove the oil subsidies, but also the farm subsidies, earned income credit and other redistribution f wealth concepts. But until we put people throughout Congress and the Presidency that understand and follow through with what needs to be done, we'll prolong the problem.
November can't come fast enough for me and the hundreds of small businesses I serve.
Arizona Willie posted at 1:40 pm on Sat, May 26, 2012.
When you control information == you control everything.
ALL the news sources are now owned by 6 mega corporations.
That includes Fox News and the places where ultra right wing radio personalities conduct their seances.
Despite the cries about " liberal media " from the ultra right wing ... all media is owned by right wing corporations and their philosophy is preached night and day.
They may not be right wing enough for some but the media certainly is NOT liberal.
mnjcpa posted at 8:23 am on Sun, May 27, 2012.
The Catholic diocese filed 43 lawsuits against the Obama administration last week, and the only mention was a 19 second spot on CBS. ABC and NBC didn't even report it. Seriously? This should be blockbuster news that the Obama administration is being sued by a group representing 60 million people over the blatant act to FORCE religious institutions to provide birth control.
And the mainstream press ignores it. That's about as clear as it gets for me - there's an AGENDA being pushed.
Arizona Willie posted at 3:32 pm on Sun, May 27, 2012.
mnjcpa --- OF COURSE there's an agenda being pushed. There's ALWAYS an agenda being pushed.
The only problem, for you, is that it isn't YOUR agenda.
mnjcpa posted at 6:21 pm on Sun, May 27, 2012.
Okay I'm confused. First AzWillie says the media isn't liberal. Then I point out a glaringly obvious case of journalistic malpractice just this week that totally blows his argument about the main channels (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN). So now Willie says indeed they DO have an agenda.
That's the trouble with liberals. They get skunked on debate.
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:06 pm on Sun, May 27, 2012.
mnjcpa has made some very valid points.
fae4now posted at 9:39 am on Mon, May 28, 2012.
Entertaining thread, guys.
Mnjcpa, I doubt we'll hear much about the multitude of lawsuits unless or until they amount to something of substance. Personally, I rather doubt they will. Typically when anyone files that many suits for any reason there's a publicity motive. The word frivolous comes to mind. These stunts dilute any valid purpose they may have had.
Really? 43?
Now, as to the notion that religious institutions are being forced to provide birth control. I say HOGWASH!
Employers, including those who happen to be religious institutions, may provide health care INSURANCE in their benefit package.
On widespread scale the employee also contributes to the cost of this benefit.
The employer purchases or at least administers this benefit through a third party insurance company. It's a simple financial arrangement.
For patient privacy reasons there is a curtain of separation between insurance administrator and employer. The employer is not given specifics as to how or if the employee is utilizing the benefit.
At NO TIME does the employer provide any direct medical procedure, pharma etc.
Willie is correct - there's always an agenda. It is up to us NOT to take the bait at face value but rather to chew it up, pick it apart, think critically on it and then form your own opinion.
mnjcpa posted at 7:15 pm on Mon, May 28, 2012.
The issue that AZ Willie and I were debating was whether or not the media was really just a mouthpiece for the Obama administration. I very accurately pointed out an issue - that impacts 60 million people - was basically ignored by the mainstream media. It's hardly a frivolous issue and has NOTHING to do with the details of health insurance coverage. It's the government telling a religious organization what they must do - even if it's against their faith.
So say I follow your advice and listen to the media anyway, pick it apart, and think critically. Great advice - with a seismic problem. You don't get objective information - not even close. I would love to chew on objective information from main news channels, but they won't throw me a bone!
fae4now posted at 12:38 am on Tue, May 29, 2012.
You are absolutely correct mnjcpa - we don't get objective or sometimes even factual information. And more to AZWillies point - with the media being owned by 6 mega-corps the chances of that improving any time soon are slim and dwindling. Any chance of a truly independent, unbiased media start-up surviving in competition with mega-media? Sadly, no. Might one call it capitalism run amok?
Remember the ethnic slaughter in Bosnia that went on far too long? When the US finally stepped in, saving countless lives, it barely blipped the screen. But you couldn't escape the endless saga of Monica's blue dress!
Maybe it's more about ratings, 'entertainment' value or hype du jour.
I don't have a solution. Wish I did. I feel your frustration but I don't find the agenda to be one-sided. Just depends on who you listen to.
I meant no disrespect on the insurance issue. But 43 - really?
mnjcpa posted at 12:05 pm on Tue, May 29, 2012.
It's a dying medium that hasn't been put to rest hanging on no matter what to a liberal agenda despite record poor viewership and losses. When they start reporting objectively and I don't have to listen to messianic worship of Obama then it might be different.
43 lawsuits yes indeed. Obama and his abortion loving sidekick Kathleen Sebelius are trying their best to cram down the Catholic church's throat what is decidedly against their teaching and doctrine. If there were 200 lawsuits, it wouldn't be enough. I say good for them standing up to this radical administration.
fae4now posted at 12:18 pm on Wed, May 30, 2012.
Perhaps you've nailed it right there- attempts to recoup viewership causes the media to opt for sensationalism over objective reporting? To be fair even in the best circumstances a media outlet would be forced to pick and choose news stories to report on due to time and space constraints.
But with the 24 hour news channels like Fox, CNN and MSNBC one would expect they could be more thorough. Instead they pick up what they consider some 'juicy morsel' and hammer away at it ad nauseum. ALL of them do it, though I hardly consider FOX a mouthpiece for the Obama administration.
I just read an intriguing Vent stating that Mormons oppose the use of caffeine and asking whether Romney, if elected, would advocate for it's criminalization? Something to ponder - the dangers of mixing your politics with your religion.
I still contend that the Catholic church as an employer is providing only insurance, not medical care. I really don't want to set the precedent of allowing my employer to choose what they do/ don't care to include. Next it'll be "we'll cover brain surgery but we don't believe in heart transplants etc".
For purposes of transparency I think I should confess that I am a registered Independent with Dem leanings and a Catholic, though perhaps not a very good one.
I sincerely wish to thank you, mnjcpa, for sharing in this very civil discussion. Though we may not agree, I appreciate the opportunity to look at it through another's eyes.
mnjcpa posted at 8:21 am on Thu, May 31, 2012.
You're right - it's sensationalism but mainstream news channels have had a "hands off", bizarre messianic worship of Obama. EVERYTHING reported casts him in a positive light. My gripe is your journalists guys - report it objectively not just as a mouthpiece for liberalism.
And Fae.....the government shouldn't even be in the business of telling businesses what they can and cannot do. The Catholic doctrine is clear on this subject. Obama knows it, Sandra Fluke knew it and went there anyway. Understand the Catholic doctrine and you'll understand why there are 43 lawsuits.