Peter Bronson Implies that Hanukkah is Inferior to Christmas

In case you missed it, former Cincinnati Enquirer columnist Peter Bronson has started a new blog. You may remember Bronson for posting a fake picture of Al Franken in a diaper on his (Enquirer) blog and pretending that the photo was real. This was despite the fact that the photo had been debunked years before by many other sources, including his own paper.

When my fellow writer, Jason Haap, at the Cincinnati Beacon called him on it (gaining national exposure), Bronson first tried to justify it and then deleted the entire post from the web shortly before losing his job at the Enquirer.

Bronson resurfacing on his own website means that he is no longer is bound by any constraints and is now free to spout his Conservative views to his heart's content.

Take this piece from just the other day in which Bronson expresses anger over "the most despicable 'holiday' ad this year...so far". What commercial you may ask? This one:



Can you guess why Bronson awards this commercial the most despicable yet? (Hint: it is not because the commercial is super annoying) Here is why:

The American Family Association threatened a boycott over the ad, and the Gap people apparently got the message. The AFA announced:

“Gap’s Vice-President of Corporate Communications, Bill Chandler, informed the AFA via email that Old Navy’s new commercial “has a very strong Christmas theme.” … ”We firmly believe that Gap is responding to an enormous amount of pressure from the AFA network. It looks like Gap has finally decided that a recession is a bad time to take a principled stand on secularism and alienate a huge percentage of their customer base. We’re happy that they’re apparently keeping Christ and Christmas in the Christmas season.”

Liberals in the press had seizures defending GAP and ripping AFA for its boycott threat. I guess there is no insult to Christians that is too tacky for “tolerant” liberals to support.

That's right, Bronson thinks that this ad is "insulting" to Christians because it mentions Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and Solstice and that it is evidence of how PC our culture has become. In case you missed it, the ad didn't insult Christmas or neglect to mention Christmas, it just mentioned other celebrations that take place during the holiday season.

Bronson again:

Christmas is a holy day. Christians respect Hanukkah and even Kwanzaa. (Solstice? Please.) So is it really too much to ask for a little respect in return, even from the retailers who exploit Christmas to make their biggest profits?

It is unclear in Bronson's post how he feels that the holiday of "Christmas" and "Christians" in general were insulted (aside from over-commercialization). Since Christmas was mentioned in the commercial, one can only assume that he is angry that other holidays were included. Bronson claims that "Christians" respect other holidays (except for the one that he thinks is really nuts), but if he views that Christmas was insulted simply by mere mention of other holidays in the commercial, then one would have right mind to question whether he really does "respect" these other holidays.

Well, it's a good thing that we don't have to guess any longer. One reader that commented on Bronson's post pointed out that there are multiple holidays that are celebrated during that time of year and it looks like GAP was just trying to appeal to their young, hip and diverse audience. Here was Bronson's response (emphasis mine):

Hannukah is a pretty minor holiday on the Jewish calendar, Kwanzaa was just made up and solstice is strictly from the outskirts of Green Town. Equating those with Christmas denigrates the meaning. I guess that was already done long ago by the commercialization of Christmas, but it doesn’t help to accelerate it in the name of more commercialization. I think you’re right that the younger generation is more PC. And it’s a pity.

That's right, equating other holidays, like Hanukkah, with Christmas "denigrates" the meaning of Christmas. So the way that Christmas is insulted in the GAP ad according to Peter Bronson, is because the other holidays are merely mentioned in the same breath as Christmas. Doesn't sound very respectful to me. Seems like the problem is not with the so-called "PC culture", but with Bronson's view that inferior holiday celebrations somehow cheapen the holiday that he celebrates.


This piece is also posted here.

Peter Bronson has been Fired from the Cincinnati Enquirer

In a turn of events that is all too indicative of the state of newspapers in 2009, the conservative columnist for the Cincinnati Enquirer, Peter Bronson, has been fired.

I have written pieces in the past that are critical of items that Bronson has written and more recently I have highlighted Bronson's posting of a known fake image of newly elected Senator Al Franken (initially covered by my fellow writers at the Cincinnati Beacon). There is no indication that Bronson's departure has anything to do with this most recent issue.

While I often disagreed with Bronson's right-wing political column and feel that his approach did not advance the level of political discussion, it is sad to see the Enquirer continue to bleed more jobs - especially at a time when newspaper jobs have been cut all over the country and news coverage has inevitably suffered.

The concerns about our nation's newspapers are real and hopefully there can continue to be a productive discussion about the emergence of new media and the transitioning of traditional media into this new world. It is a time where we need honest discussions that will benefit the public interest and help advance voices that promote honesty, truth, and making decisions that are based on facts.

Bronson's departure ends a rocky week for the right-wing columnist but speak to the larger issue at hand about which there needs to be a continued discussion.

Peter Bronson Gets Busted for Posting a Photoshopped Picture of Al Franken...and Then Deletes the Entire Post

I have written criticisms of Cincinnati Enquirer columnist and blogger, Peter Bronson, in the past but this time will highlight an item that was posted by The Dean of Cincinnati over at The Cincinnati Beacon. (Full disclosure: I also contribute to the Cincinnati Beacon.)

Last week, Bronson posted a blog entry on July 1 saying that the joke was actually on Minnesota for electing Al Franken as their Senator. (I will address why I am not linking directly to his original entry in a moment). In his post Bronson wrote:

The new Franken-Senate may not be as congenial as his old cast and crew on Saturday Night Live. There will be defections, rejections, betrayals and walk-outs. And if they let Franken be Franken, he might embarrass his party and become a kick-me sign on the back of Democrats at election time. Meanwhile, Democrats are now running the federal Titanic and can no longer blame the icebergs on Republicans.

Or Franken might surprise us and become a pretty good Senator. (Cue the canned laughter.)

For now, if Republicans can find their misplaced sense of humor, there must be some great ads to be made from Franken’s clips and quips. Such as:

Is this who you want making decisions about your health care?

and then posted this picture:



As the Cincinnati Beacon pointed out, the only problem is that the photo was photoshopped (not by Bronson) and was debunked in 2006 by Think Progress. Ironically, a reporter for the Cincinnati Enquirer also posted a piece debunking this photo in 2006. The Dean of Cincinnati wrote to Bronson and the Enquirer the following:

Dear Mr. Bronson,

I am writing to inform you that your recent blog item, “Minnesota - the joke is on you,” includes information that has been thoroughly debunked in 2006—and interestingly the information was debunked by Jon Craig on the Politics Extra blog. I would like to request formally, therefore, a correction and an apology on your blog for misleading your readers.

You included a photo of Al Franken where he appeared to be holding a stuffed animal and wearing diapers. However, that is a doctored photo. Here’s the proof from your own news organization: http://tinyurl.com/p2oftv

You introduced this doctored photo without making any indication of its status as a fake. In fact, you suggested otherwise: “For now, if Republicans can find their misplaced sense of humor, there must be some great ads to be made from Franken’s clips and quips.” The phrase “Franken’s clips and quips” indicates that Franken owns the “clip” you provided, namely the doctored photo. But that is not true. The picture is a fake, and your item totally misleads your readers—unacceptable even for a columnist.

Please advise what steps you intend to take to remedy the situation, and I look forward to reading your reply.

Respectfully,

[The Dean of Cincinnati]

So in the comment section of the original post, Bronson then posted:

PeterBronson wrote:

Yes, the photo of Franken in a diaper was apparently altered. But it’s not exactly a big reach to believe it could have come from one of his SNL skits. It resonates because people find it easy to see Franken that way.

7/6/2009 10:46 AM EDT

Interesting response that seems to justify Bronson's posting of the fake image in the first place..."It resonates because people find it easy to see Franken that way." That argument can be made to justify the posting of all sorts of inappropriate items, but I digress.

After this story was picked up by numerous other blogs, Bronson posted another entry entitled "Changing Al Franken's Diaper" in which he wrote:

Last week I posted a blog about comedian Al Franken joining the Senate (here), including a picture of Franken wearing bunny ears and a diaper.

Franken did many things on Saturday Night Live that could be embarrassing to a Senator. But apparently, that was not one of them. It turns out the picture was photoshopped.

We don't knowingly run false pictures, so I took it down and replaced it with another goofy picture of Sen. Franken.

So he replaced the one image in his original post with a new image. Apparently what Bronson meant by this, is that he would delete all evidence of the original posting by deleting that blog entry, which is what Bronson did. He actually links back to his original entry within the text of his corrected entry, but it jumps to this page.

So to recap, Peter Bronson posted a photoshopped picture (that was debunked in 2006)of Al Franken in order to make fun of his election to the Senate. Bronson gets caught by The Dean of Cincinnati who writes about the issue and writes a letter to Bronson asking for a correction. Bronson posts a comment in the original thread that admits that the picture was photoshopped, but justifies that it "resonates" with people because many can see Franken in that manner. After the item gets reposted and linked to at other blogs, Bronson posts another entry as a half-apology for posting a fake image and completely deletes the original entry from the record.

and this is the same guy who just posted an entry about the so-called "liberal media" unfairly attacking Sarah Palin.

Bronson Complains about "Planted" Question at Obama's Press Conference and Ignores the 2005 "Jeff Gannon" Fiasco

Yesterday I wrote about the outrage of Dana Milbank at the Washington Post exposed after Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post asked a question from an Iranian during the last Presidential news conference.

Today, I noticed that Peter Bronson of the Cincinnati Enquirer also jumped on this topic a few days ago in this post to his blog. Bronson says:

The media would still be in seizures if President Bush had planted questions by friendly media at his White House press conferences.

A conservative blogger was once invited to a Bush press conference and the media pitched a fit. But that was nothing like what happened last week, when President Obama set up a scripted question from his friends at the far-left Huffington Post. He even offered a sort of chicken-dinner speaker introduction, setting up the question by announcing who would ask it and what they would ask.

I was going to write about this embarrasing and amatuerish charade, but my friend at the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Kevin O'Brien beat me to it and did a fine job.

This is the type of one-sided posting for which Bronson can always be relied upon. Bronson seems to think that the White House contacting Pitney the night before the press conference (to let him know that he may be called on) and planting a specific question, are the same thing. Nevermind that Pitney and the White House both have denied that the question was scripted or agreed on in advance.

But it is the first part of Bronson's post is perhaps the most amazing. It looks like the late folk singer Utah Phillips was right when he said that the "most radical thing in America is a long-term memory." Bronson claims that the media would still be "in seizures" if President Bush had planted questions at press conferences and that the media "pitched a fit" when Bush once invited a conservative blogger to a press conference.

This "conservative blogger" that Bronson refers to is most likely Jeff Gannon, who in 2005 lobbed softball questions to Bush Administration officials as a member of "Talon News". From Salon back in 2005:

When President Bush bypassed dozens of eager reporters from nationally and internationally recognized news outlets and selected Jeff Gannon to pose a question at his Jan. 26 news conference, Bush's recognition bestowed instant credibility on the apparently novice reporter, as well as the little-known conservative organization he worked for at the time, called Talon News. That attention only intensified when Gannon used his nationally televised press conference time to ask Bush a loaded, partisan question -- featuring a manufactured quote that mocked Democrats for being "divorced from reality."

and then came the revelations that "Jeff Gannon" was actually James Guckert, who months before being granted access to the White House briefing room, was working as a $200/hour male escort. That and the revelation that "Talon News" wasn't even a legitimate news organization. From another Salon piece in 2005:

James Guckert's mysterious career as a White House correspondent for Talon News just took another strange twist. And once again, the newest revelation raises the central question: Who broke the rules on Guckert's behalf to give him access to the White House? Despite administration claims that Guckert simply followed established protocol in order to routinely slip inside the White House briefing room, it now appears clear that Guckert, who just months before his 2003 debut as a cub reporter was offering himself up online as a $200 an hour male escort, benefited from extraordinarily preferential treatment, likely granted by someone inside the White House press office.

[...]

Thanks to the continued digging by online sleuths, there's now documented evidence that Guckert attended White House briefings as early as February 2003. Guckert, using his alias "Jeff Gannon," once boasted online about asking then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer a question at the Feb. 28, 2003, briefing. The date is significant because in order to receive a White House press pass, Guckert would have needed to prove that he worked for a news organization that, in the words of White House press secretary Scott McClellan, "published regularly," in itself an extraordinarily low threshold. Critics have charged that while Talon News may publish regularly, it boasts a nearly all-volunteer news team that includes not a single person with actual journalism experience. (The team does, though, have quite a bit of experience working on Republican campaigns.) In other words, the outfit is not legitimate or independent, two criteria often used in Washington to receive press credentials.

But what's significant about the February 2003 date is that Talon did not even exist then. The organization was created in late March 2003, and began publishing online in early April 2003.

and why would the White House have wanted Gannon, I'm sorry, Guckert in the briefings? From the Guardian in 2005:

The fact that someone using a fake name and working for a fake news organisation can gain regular access to White House briefings has astonished many media pundits. Yet 'Gannon' has been a regular in the White House since 2003. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that - as Media Matters for America chronicled in excruciating detail - Gannon was used as a source for favourable questions by White House officials. Whenever White House spokesman Scott McLellan was under fire from aggressive journalists, he could call on Gannon and invariably be lobbed a 'softball' question.

So in one scenario we have the Bush Administration giving access to the White House to someone with no journalism credentials, a background that includes being a male escort, and who doesn't even work for a legitimate news organization, for close to two years. He is called on by the Press Secretary (and even once by the President himself) and continually asks softball questions during times when Administration officials are getting grilled.

In the other scenario we have an actual reporter for the Huffington Post who has been covering the unrest in Iran in real-time for the past few weeks and who is responsible for conveying many of the videos and images from out of Iran. Because of this the White House contacts him the night before a press conference and tells him that he may get an opportunity to ask a question the following night. Pitney transparently posts about this on his blog and solicits questions from Iranians. He is called on the following night and asks a tough and relevant question of the President that he selected from those that he received from Iranians.

The Jeff Gannon fiasco was a little more than simply the media "pitching a fit" over President Bush inviting a "conservative blogger" to the White House. In fact, Bronson seems to forget that this happened at all as evidenced by his comment that: "The media would still be in seizures if President Bush had planted questions by friendly media at his White House press conferences."

Bronson is right about one thing, these two scenarios are nothing like each other. It seems as though his selective memory of these events only works toward achieving his continued goal of defending the actions of the previous Administration while mischaracterizing events in order to criticize the current administration.

Obama's Decision to Pray Privately Not Good Enough for Some

Cincinnati Enquirer columnist Peter Bronson is not that happy with President Obama in his latest blog post. Bronson's criticisms center around Obama's decision to "not take a White House role" in the National Day of Prayer. Instead, Obama decided that he would rather pray privately.

Why does this irk Bronson?:

Outside of attending the offensively radical church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, there was little evidence of Obama's faith, except what he told us. But since being elected, he broke with tradition by skipping church after his innauguration in favor of a workout; he still has not found a church home after attending a D.C. church on Easter; and he decided not to take a White House role in the National Day of Prayer, saying that instead he would pray privately.

It looks like Obama spent more time in church campaigning than he has since he was elected.

Bronson readily admits that for many, this topic is meaningless and rightly so. After all, Obama was not elected to give us spiritual guidance, that is up to our own individual beliefs and how we wish to express them. Bronson however, disagrees that this topic lacks importance. He says that for people like him, faith is an important part of life and should be a "bedrock foundation for our leaders too".

Bronson goes on to claim that because our nation was founded by Christians, because the majority of those who are asked about religious preference prefer Christianity, and because most people choose Christianity, that we are a Christian nation. While this paragraph is apparently used to show us that he believes that Christianity is number one in his eyes, he mentions that Obama did not just insult Christians, but all people of faith.

Here are the reasons why Bronson believes that Obama made a mistake in not taking a more public role in the National Day of Prayer:

1.) He passed up an opportunity to reassure us all that he respects and shares our faith. Unfortunately, his decision will add fuel to criticism and suspicions that he's a merely political Christian, such as the comments by Rush Limbaugh to his radio audience.

By "our faith" I assume that Bronson means Christianity. If this is a day that celebrates all faiths, then why does Bronson feel that it is important for Obama to express that he shares a specific faith? It has been well-established that Obama is of the Christian faith (except to those who still think he is a closet Muslim), so why would anyone think Obama doesn't respect the religion to which he is a member? It seems as though the only people who are adding fuel to this fire are people like Bronson who continue to advance these claims.

2.) Obama missed the point. He said he would rather pray privately. Many Christians agree and do that every day. But this was not about him. It was about the office of the presidency and using that national pulpit for a few minutes to show respect for all people of faith.

Bronson admits what his real criticism is about in this very point. This isn't about Obama's own relationship with his God, this is about Bronson and others being upset that he did not use his office to advocate for the religious. Obama, like many Presidents before, issued a proclamation in support of the National Day of Prayer which Bronson does mention, but this is apparently not enough. Isn't issuing a Presidential Proclamation "using the national pulpit to show respect for all people of faith"?

3.) Obama turned a non-partisan, ecumenical event into a political jab, by once again going out of his way to show us he is not like President Bush. By now, we all get that. We also know that being the anti-Bush is not always an improvement. Bush's celebrations of the Day of Prayer were classy, considerate and inspirational -- a refreshing respite from the partisan hair-pulling of D.C.

Bronson interprets Obama's actions as a calculated political decision to do the opposite of what President Bush did. This is a baseless claim. Just because Obama's actions were not the same as President Bush's actions does not automatically mean that this was the prime motivator in this decision. Rewind time to 2002 and you can make the same ridiculous argument by replacing Obama's name with "Bush" and Bush's name with "Bush Sr." or "Reagan" since they were not in the habit of holding White House events on the National Day of Prayer.

Bronson's implication is that Obama's decisions were either "classy", "considerate", or "inspirational". It seems like the only person turning this into a "political jab" is Peter Bronson.

4.) Extremists like the Freedom From Religion Foundation want to outlaw observances -- even proclamations -- by claiming they violate separation of church and state. But Congress is opened by prayers; they are written on our courthouses, our currency and our common ideals. Efforts to eradicate religion from our public life would be shocking to the Founders. Such as:

John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

George Washington: "Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

Obama's faith is between him and God. But the way he treats faith as our president is a fair topic for criticism.

I don't think that "extremist" groups who advocate the separation of church and state would be quite as shocking to the founders as Bronson suggests. Here is a clip from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions"

[...]

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Bronson's blog entry is nothing more than the right's continued attempt to attack Obama for anything and everything. How else can you explain Bronson stating in one breath: "It looks like Obama spent more time in church campaigning than he has since he was elected." and then in the next breath state: "Obama's faith is between him and God." If Obama's faith (or lack thereof according to Bronson) is truly between him and his God, then why on Earth does it matter how many times Obama has been to church? The only reason that it matters is to further this baseless and pointless attack.

Below is the proclamation that President Obama signed for this year's National Day of Prayer. It is actions like these that have led those like Bronson to claim that Obama is not showing respect for people of all faiths. (Emphasis mine)

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, 2009

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Throughout our Nation's history, Americans have come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer. In 1775, as the Continental Congress began the task of forging a new Nation, colonists were asked to observe a day of quiet humiliation and prayer. Almost a century later, as the flames of the Civil War burned from north to south, President Lincoln and the Congress once again asked the American people to pray as the fate of their Nation hung in the balance.

It is in that spirit of unity and reflection that we once again designate the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer. Let us remember those who came before us, and let us each give thanks for the courage and compassion shown by so many in this country and around the world.

On this day of unity and prayer, let us also honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. We celebrate their commitment to uphold our highest ideals, and we recognize that it is because of them that we continue to live in a Nation where people of all faiths can worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience.

Let us also use this day to come together in a moment of peace and goodwill. Our world grows smaller by the day, and our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife; and to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. As we observe this day of prayer, we remember the one law that binds all great religions together: the Golden Rule, and its call to love one another; to understand one another; and to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a "National Day of Prayer."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 7, 2009, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

This piece is also posted at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

The Trivial Obsession with Obama's Use of a Teleprompter

Apparently it has been come the latest fad to criticize President Obama for his reliance on a teleprompter when he gives prepared remarks. I don't get why this is an insult. Many Presidents have relied on a script when giving not only speeches, but remarks prior to taking questions as a press conference. Some Presidents have preferred to have their script on the podium so that they can occasionally look down for reference and some, like Obama, prefer to have the remarks on a screen.

This has led to some on the right to think that this means that Obama is useless and completely inept when you take him off of the teleprompter. Perhaps we are supposed to ignore that during his press conferences he responded at great length to questions...without a teleprompter, that during the campaign he debated John McCain three times...without a teleprompter, and that he has been interviewed a countless number of times...without a teleprompter. Is there any criticism of Obama that is more ridiculous right now?

Here is just a small collection of this latest talking point from:

Glenn Beck:

Is it bothering anybody else about the TelePrompTer? The TelePrompTer is really, really, really bothering me only because I have never seen -- I mean, we're looking for a guy who's real, who's himself, who's just like -- well, I got news for you, gang. I do three hours a day without a TelePrompTer. You know, the president is worried about, you know, well, one word can, you know, trip him up. Well, you don't think people like me or Rush or Sean are worried about that as well? You don't think people in talk radio know that there are people that have been hired to transcribe every word I say to be able to distort it, to take it out of context and use it against me.

Michelle Malkin:

Fun with TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States)...The Teleprompter of the United States has its own seal! Hey, why not? TOTUS has its own blog and its own Twitter accounts.

Glenn Beck...again:

...it really bothers me, this TelePrompTer thing. Last night I said -- I was watching it and in the middle I said, because I know a little bit about TelePrompTers because on television I do use a TelePrompTer from time to time and I'm watching, I'm watching his eyes. Did anyone notice that he wasn't looking at the camera? And I said, "They put the TelePrompTer down on the ground." And somebody who was with me said, "What are you talking about?" And I said, that TelePrompTer is not a regular TelePrompTer because he's not looking at the camera. I believe -- and this is -- I put it on pause for a second and looked at his eyes. He wasn't even looking at the camera.

Sean Hannity:

“It's sad, the reason he stayed on message throughout the campaign is 'cause he had the teleprompter following him everywhere.”

Ron Fournier of the AP:

It was a carefully modulated statement, and Obama — relying on a familiar crutch — read it off a flat-screen monitor perched at the back of the East Room.

The teleprompter was no help during the question-and-answer session (reporters don't signal their intentions), but Obama was no less careful during that give and take.

Even more Glenn Beck:

...this man is always on prompter. You want to talk about a Manchurian candidate — that’s it! Who’s writing every word for this man? […]

Is it bothering anyone else but me? We have a fraud in office, at least that’s the way it feels to me.

Peter Bronson of the Cincinnati Enquirer:

We can cut him enough yards of slack to raise a circus tent -- tough problems, still early, yada, yada -- and still there's that bothersome impression of someone not ready for prime time without his security prompter.

John Gizzi of Human Events:

From his opening statement (read from the now-famous teleprompter, which I glimpsed for the first time)...

The Right Perspective:

Obama’s over-reliance on teleprompters developed during the last presidential campaign, as it became quite apparent that the then-US Senator had difficulty in putting together coherent sentences together on-the-fly

and Glenn Beck one more time:

I swear, why doesn't he just -- he should have like a belt around him with, like, little bars that come off of his hips with TelePrompTers so he can just walk around. He can be in the kitchen: Well, I'd like a cheese sandwich, please. And then look to the other TelePrompTer: And a glass of milk because you're just like the average American.

With all the substantive items to discuss, this "smear" is just flat-out absurd. Other Presidents have used scripts and Obama has answered questions and given interviews without a teleprompter countless times in the past. Those who have been critical and ignore this point simply show how ridiculous their obsession with trivial talking points can be.

Slow Day for Bronson at the Enquirer?

The Cincinnati Enquirer's Peter Bronson must be having a slow blogging day. His entry today is entitled "A president who never stops running can't stand for anything".

In this entry he criticizes President Obama for traveling to various cities throughout the country instead of staying at his office in Washington D.C. because Bronson somehow thinks that Obama's travels reflect poorly on Obama's management skills:

So when does our new president ever show up at the office? Is he so thrilled with Air Force One that he just can't resist taking it for a spin every day? (How do those chastised auto executives feel about that, as they drive electric cars to D.C. to panhandle for bailouts because they were spanked for using jets?) Or is Obama still hooked on the campaign jones, the adoring crowds, the adulation and cheers, the fainting fans who laugh uproariously if he dents a dimple?

Bronson makes it sound like Obama is on vacation or giving stump speeches instead of visiting some of the areas that have been hit hardest by the economic crisis. Are not Presidents supposed to be in touch with the citizens of the country? I have no problem with a President who wants to visit different areas of the country to get a snapshot of how the economy is taking its toll on hardworking citizens.

Bronson then quotes Tony Blankly's latest piece in the Washington Times which criticizes Obama for apparently not knowing what would happen to the inmates at Guantanamo once he ordered the base closed. This stems from Obama asking his White House council if the executive order had been written in regard to the disposal of the detainees. Bronson uses both of these examples as indication that Obama has no management skills. Nevermind that Obama's order to close Guantanamo within one year includes a period of review so the Administration can decide what they should do with the detainees.

Using these examples to make Obama sound like some dunce who is gallivanting around the country on his jet while unable to grasp issues that need to be addressed for the policies that he is implementing is just a pathetic partisan attempt to make an issue out of no issue at all. A President who is always running can't stand for anything.....what?