Ron Fournier Cheerled For Bush While Covering Him, Now Tells Press To Attack Obama

You shouldn’t take National Journal‘s Ron Fournier as a serious character. He’s a creature of the perverse D.C. media culture and now basically exists to write trollish articles attacking President Obama in the hopes that Matt Drudge will pick them up and give the insular D.C. publication a little juice at regular intervals (I verified this a while back with a source familiar with the publication’s inner workings).

His piece yesterday is exactly in this genre, and of course it has been picked up by the conspiracy-minded Drudge.


In yet another round of his faux outrage at the Obama administration, Fournier claims that he’s offering journalists “a better way to cover the White House.” This is of course part of the ongoing media butthurt that the administration doesn’t accept Republican talking points as facts and actually pushes back against them when the press reliably regurgitates what mama bird gave them.

Of all the people in the world to push for a more adversarial press interface with a White House, it would be hard to pick someone worse than Fournier.

In 2008 an email surfaced between Fournier – who was then the AP’s White House correspondent – and Bush consigliere Karl Rove. In the email, Fournier told Rove — who was busy referring to Democrats as terrorist appeasers and worse — to “keep up the fight.”

He might as well have put on pom-poms or wore a GOP elephant mascot costume.

At the time he wrote that mash note, Fournier was busy writing piece after piece assailing Democratic candidates running for office while supposedly being an objective reporter for the world’s major news wire.

Last year, Fournier continued on this theme, declaring at NJ that President Bush is “a good man,” and that people should give the man whose failed leadership sent thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to an early grave the benefit of the doubt.

And now he wants to lecture the press corps on how to better push the right’s latest phony scandal.

What liberal media?

  • condew

    “… the man whose failed leadership sent thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to an early grave …”

    Don’t forget the American civilians Bush let get killed because his administration would not listen to the Clinton administration when it tried to warn of the terrorism threat, or I’m sure, thousands sent to an early grave due to the stresses of the Bush depression.

    • dbtheonly

      We might also add those killed by the botched response to Hurricane Katrina; but the “what ifs” just get too depressing.

  • WiscoJoe

    Here’s how the game is played. When a Democrat is in the White House, whip the press up into a constant series of nothingburger ‘scandals’ all in the name of ‘providing balance’ and ‘asking questions.’ Use these ‘scandals’ to allow a Republican to run for President on the platform of “Returning Honor to the White House” and “Moving Beyond Divisive Scandal-Raking.” Then when the new Republican President is involved with legitimate scandals (like starting an illegal war based on phony intelligence), just say that because of the last administration the public now has scandal fatigue and it’s time to stop questioning the President in the name of unity and patriotism. Seems to be quite effective.

  • tjuarez

    “Cheerleaded”? Really? Not “Cheered” or “was a cheerleader for Bush but now…” Ok. Great piece otherwise.

  • Otto66

    Thanks for a straight forward piece I could understand, Mr. Willis. That one the other day went well over my pumpkin head.