Thomas Frank’s weird defense of Obama’s attack on Fox News *UPDATED*

As far as I can tell, Frank’s primary defense of Obama’s attack on Fox News is that Obama isn’t as bad as Nixon’s attacks on the press were.  Given the low esteem in which liberals hold Nixon, I think we can safely call that damning with faint praise.  (Or, perhaps, praising with faint damns would be more accurate.)

UPDATE:  Showing that history didn’t end with Richard Nixon, Steven Crowder gives a few more reminders about the Obami’s attacks on free speech they find offensive.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    They never mention what Nixon did about the people on his “Enemies List” vis a vis what obama does. Nor did they mention their hero in the FBI was a direct product of the corruption and illegal search, seizure, and surveillance history of the FBI’s most notorious director.

    These true facts of history would conflict with the liberal narration of American guilt. In circumstances where they lack war atrocities to trumpet, they will make them up as they go along. This is no different.

  • Danny Lemieux

    At first, I thought the WSJ began publishing Thomas Franks as a token liberal /Left columnist, much like the roles that William Safire or Bill Kristol played for the NYT.

    More and more though I am beginning to think that the WSJ publication of Franks’ column is a satirical jab at Alinksy, as in…freeze your opponent (fit the Liberal/Left template), personalize your opponent (pick an anti-war Liberal/Lefty with the same name as one of America’s most famous modern-era generals), mock your opponent and use their own rules against them (publish Frank’s columns as a parody of critical thinking).

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » “I know you are, but what am I”()