Welcome! Follow me on twitter at @johnrlottjr or at https://crimeresearch.org. Please e-mail questions to johnrlott@crimeresearch.org.
11/17/2013
Even Obama's allies in the press have a hard time with Obama's apologies
Despite apologizing seven times at his press conference on Thursday, Obama still had to shift some of the blame to others. From Dan Milbank at the Washington post:
Obama lashes out at decisions made by his campaign, Joe Biden, and WH coordination with Chicago HQ
Politico has a new book out that the Obama campaign may have wished came out later. Could one imagine the response if Romney had referred to Obama in a discussion as "your boy"?
Obama is sometimes portrayed as a reluctant warrior, sorry to see 2012 marked by so much partisan warfare but forced by circumstance to go along. But this perception is by most evidence untrue. In the interviews with current and former Obama aides, not one said he expressed any reservations about the negativity. He views it as a necessary part of campaigning, as a natural — if unpleasant — rotation of the cyclical political wheel. Obama’s trash-talking competitiveness, a trait that has defined him since his days on the court as a basketball-obsessed teenager in Hawaii, was on display one night last February, when the president spotted a woman he knew was close to Sen. Marco Rubio in a Florida hotel lobby. “Is your boy going to go for [vice president]?” the president asked her. Maybe, she replied. “Well,” he said, chuckling, according to a person who witnessed the encounter. “Tell your boy to watch it. He might get his ass kicked.” . . .
How many times has the Obama administration been claiming that the recovery is just around the corner.
I also thought that Obama was saying that things weren't going to be getting better because the House Republicans weren't passing the big government spending bills that Obama wants.
Apparently Obama turns his back on others that he talks to as well
It looks as if Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is getting the type of treatment that I have experienced from Barack Obama (see links to interviews with Mark Levin here and here and Teri O'Brien here), though it appears as if they had a more aggressive discussion than Obama and I had.
Mr. Obama stepped off the plane and was greeted by Ms. Brewer, who handed him a handwritten letter in an envelope that she later said was an invitation to discuss the “Arizona comeback.” The two had an intense exchange for several minutes; at one point Ms. Brewer pointed her finger at Mr. Obama.
Afterward, she told reporters that Mr. Obama “was a little disturbed about my book.”
“I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president,” she said. “The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So.”
At one point, the two seemed to be talking at the same time, seemingly over each other. Mr. Obama appeared to walk away from Ms. Brewer while she was still talking.
Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Ms. Brewer said: “That he didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn’t get my sentence finished. Anyway, we’re glad he’s here. I’ll regroup.” . . .
I will stick with Brewer's version of their discussion.
Yet, another example of Obama walking out on people is available here.
There is a controversy now developing over a dinner that was attended by President Obama, George H. W. Bush and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. President Obama and Jeb Bush were featured as speakers at the Alfalfa Dinner, which was attended by a number of Washington elite.
Jeb Bush’s speech was expected to follow the president’s, but before it even started, President Obama had already walked out. Now, Al Hunt wrote a Bloomberg News article labeling this action an example of the Obama administration’s “cockiness.”
Earlier, Michael Reagan shared his reaction to this article on America Live, saying, “[Al Hunt] is taken back by the arrogance of this president.” Reagan went on to say that there would have been a severe backlash in the media if George W. Bush had walked out on Hillary Clinton’s speech with Bill Clinton sitting in the audience. . . .
I was expecting words of concern about the oil spill, worry about the pending ecological disaster, and words of confidence about how the federal government was here to help. Or perhaps he was going to vent about BP’s slow response. But no, the president was upset about something else. And he wanted to talk about, well, food stamps. Actually, he wanted to talk about a letter that my administration had sent to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack a day earlier.
The letter was rudimentary, bureaucratic, and ordinary. . . . We were simply asking the federal government to authorize food stamps for those who were now unemployed because of the oil spill. Governors regularly make these sorts of requests to the federal government when facing disaster.
But somehow, for some reason, President Obama had personalized this. And he was upset.
There was not a word about the oil spill. He was concerned about looking bad because of the letter. “Careful,” he said to me, “this is going to get bad for everyone.”
The very liberal NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds that the Obamas' self pity even is too much for her. Of course, she simply can't go after Obama so she includes a swipe at Newt.
The portrait of the first couple in Jodi Kantor’s new book, “The Obamas,” bristles with aggrievement and the rational president’s disdain for the irrational nature of politics, the press and Republicans. Despite what his rivals say, the president and the first lady do believe in American exceptionalism — their own, and they feel overassaulted and underappreciated.
We disappointed them.
As Michelle said to Oprah in an interview she did with the president last May: “I always told the voters, the question isn’t whether Barack Obama is ready to be president. The question is whether we’re ready. And that continues to be the question we have to ask ourselves.”
They still believed, as their friend Valerie Jarrett once said, that Obama was “just too talented to do what ordinary people do.” . . .
Kantor writes that the Obamas, feeling misunderstood, burrowed into “self-imposed exile” — a “bubble within the bubble” — with their small circle of Chicago friends, who reinforced the idea that “the American public just did not appreciate their exceptional leader.” . . .
The Obamas, especially Michelle, have radiated the sense that Americans do not appreciate what they sacrifice by living in a gilded cage. . . . .
The Obama administration seems to be digging in deeper here. From Politico:
The White House is under fire for reportedly trying to downplay the role that two Hollywood stars played at a 2009 Halloween party, with press secretary Jay Carney today calling the media's reporting on the incident "irresponsible" and denying reports of an attempted cover-up. But no record of the two stars, Johnny Depp and Tim Burton, appears in the official White House visitors logs.
An administration source said that entertainers are generally not recorded in the visitors logs. "Entertainers and production crews who are working events are generally not WAVED in since they are not guests visiting the White House, they are working," the official said.
The initial revelations about the 2009 party come from New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor's new book "The Obamas." Kantor reports that staffers were concerned about the White House hosting a Hollywood-style, 'Alice in Wonderland'-themed Halloween party in the midst of an economic downturn. As a result, Kantor charges, the White House did not publicize the role that director Tim Burton and actor Johnny Depp played at the event. Burton helped decorate and choreograph the party, while Depp attended in costume as the Mad Hatter.
Other stars — even when they are the entertainment — have appeared in the logs. A May 11th poetry reading by the rapper Common, for example, was logged. So were musicians Herbie Hancock and Stevie Wonder when they played at President Obama's 50th birthday. Singer Beyonce Knowles, however, does not appear in the visitor logs when she performed at a 2010 state dinner. . . .
The Obama that I knew was not someone who enjoyed talking to those with whom he disagreed, but it appears as if he might not agree with talking to others either. Is part of this an attempt by the New York Times and others to make it look like he is an outsider at a time when people are upset with Washington? That is my guess. But the other way of looking at this is that Obama just likes to talk with his inner circle.
Mr. Obama, in general, does not go out of his way to play the glad-handing, ego-stroking presidential role. While he does sometimes offer a ride on Air Force One to a senator or member of Congress, more often than not, he keeps Congress and official Washington at arm’s length, spending his down time with a small — and shrinking — inner circle of aides and old friends.
He typically golfs with a trio of mid- to low-level staff members little known outside the West Wing. He does not spend much time at Camp David, the retreat other presidents have used to woo Washington. His social life runs toward evenings playing Taboo with old friends and their families, Wii video games with his wife and daughters or basketball with Robert Wolf, a banker and the rare new best friend Mr. Obama has acquired since entering politics. He vacations with friends from Chicago on Martha’s Vineyard in August and in Hawaii at Christmas.
This week, for example, Mr. Obama is ensconced in the protective bubble of the Secret Service. With him are his closest outside-the-Beltway-friends, including Eric Whitaker, a Chicago doctor, and two of Mr. Obama’s Hawaii friends from Punahou School: Mike Ramos, a businessman, and Robert Titcomb, a commercial fisherman whom Mr. Obama has stuck by despite his arrest in April on suspicion of soliciting a prostitute. Mr. Obama bolted from Washington last Friday barely an hour after he had signed legislation extending the payroll tax cut after a grinding fight with House Republicans whose result is widely viewed as a big win for him. His relationship with Washington insiders is described by members of both parties as “remote,” “distant” and “perfunctory.” . . .
Obama claims that he is the fourth most successful president?
I don't think that this is true about the amount of legislation passed, but let's say it is. Does it matter if what was done was beneficial? How has our economic recovery compared to that in other countries? Hint: not very well. Does it matter that he is willing to brag so much about what he has done?
In the president’s first year in office, his administration suffered from what I call “idea disease.” Every week, and sometimes almost every day, the administration rolled out a new program for the country. There was no obvious prioritization and, after the rollout, very little effort to actually pass the latest idea/imperative/plan/edict. . . .
Early in his administration, President/Professor Obama repeatedly referred to “teaching moments.” He would admonish staff, members of Congress and the public, in speeches and in private, about what they could learn from him. Rather than the ideological or corrupt “I’m above the law” attitudes of some past administrations, President Obama projected an arrogant “I’m right, you’re wrong” demeanor that alienated many potential allies. Furthermore, the president concentrated power within the White House, leaving Cabinet members with no other option but to dutifully carry out policies with which they had limited input in crafting and might very well disagree. From my experience, this was especially true in the environmental, resources, housing and employment areas. . . .
The president’s disinterest in input from those outside his inner circle is costing him many wasted opportunities. Recently, a senator told me Obama went to his/her state, but issued an invitation for the senator to attend the event only the day before. . . .
Obama: "Pass this bill," "Pass this bill right now"
UPDATE for September 8, 2011. The president demands that the bill be passed when he doesn't even yet know what is in it. Valerie Jarrett: No Jobs Bill Yet; "The President Is Going To Draft The Legislation"
Back to post. No discussion about where the money comes from and what jobs are lost because of that. A copy of Obama's speech is available here. From Michael Barone:
He called for further cuts in the payroll tax (which if continued indefinitely would undermine the case of Social Security as something people have earned rather than a form of welfare) and for a further extension of unemployment insurance (perhaps justifiable on humanitarian grounds, but sure to at least marginally raise the unemployment rate over what it would otherwise be). He called for a tax credit for hiring the long-term unemployed (unfortunately, these things can be gamed). He gave a veiled plug for his pet project of high-speed rail (a real dud) and for infrastructure spending generally (but didn’t he learn that there aren’t really any shovel-ready projects?). He called for a school modernization program (will it result in more jobs than the Seattle weatherization program that cost $22 million and produced 14 jobs?) and for funding more teacher jobs (a political payoff to the teacher unions which together with other unions gave Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle). “We’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it would do for the country.” Yeah, sure. Like the screening process that produced that $535,000,000 loan guarantee to now-bankrupt Solyndra. And Congress should pass the free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea. Except that Congress can’t, because Obama hasn’t sent them up there yet in his 961 days as president. . . .
If the administration was serious about paying for the debt, they wouldn't put off the budget cuts for so many years after Obama will no longer be in office. From Politico:
. . . “Is it at the cost of our deficit? Is this another stimulus?” Gene Sperling, one of Obama’s top advisers, was asked on Fox News Friday morning.
“As we said, this is going to be paid for, every single penny,” Sperling answered. “Those of us who work on the president’s economic team have worked at the same time and are working on the details right now on how exactly we will pay for this and still have the additional deficit reduction to hit the commitment of Congress, the congressional bipartisan agreement, and, most importantly, to get our debt stabilized.”
He also added that while Obama’s plan includes asking the rich to pay more, this is “not out of class warfare,” but rather “just to make sure we have a shared sacrifice.” . . .
Dems still pushing for increased taxes. A week from this coming Monday Obama will explain how he is going to raise taxes to pay for his programs.
Temporary tax cuts may cause people to temporarily work harder, but they don’t lead to much investment and the claim is that it doesn't do much for job creation. Government spending doesn't create new wealth. But even if you believe that this creates new spending and jobs, the long lead times involved, infrastructure spending is an odd way to combat a double dip that might be starting right now. Much of the job subsidies often go to companies that would have hired the people anyway. The plurality of the people hired under the last stimulus package already had jobs and, as I have predicted since February 2009, they were just switching from one to another.
Obama administration floods reporters' inboxes after Obama's jobs speech (available here).
Obama blames everyone else but himself for everything that goes wrong
How can Obama blame Bush for the deficits when the deficits are now four times higher than the highest that they ever got under his administration? Then again, Obama seems to blame everyone else for everything. Nothing is Obama's responsibility. This is from Rush Limbaugh:
Obama Blames Arab Spring and Japan's Earthquake on Struggling Economy and Job Situation, August 5th, 2011. Obama Blames Messy Democracy for His Failed Policies, August 3rd, 2011; remarks by the president at a DNC event. Obama Blames Congress for US Debt Mess; Obama news conference, June 29th, 2011. Obama Blames Republicans for Slow Pace on Immigration Reform, July 25th, 2011. (This was page one.) Page two: Obama Blames Media for Lack of Compromise in Washington; remarks by Obama at a town hall meeting July 22nd, 2011. Obama Blames Technology for Struggling Economy; June 14th, 2011, NBC Today interview. Obama Blames Oil Spectators for High Oil Prices; April 19th, 2011, remarks by Obama at a town hall meeting.
Obama Blames Reagan for America's Out of Control Debt and Spending; remarks by President Obama April 13th, 2011, Federal News Service. Obama Blames Bush and Congress for Lack of Fiscal Discipline, April 13th, 2011; remarks by Obama, Federal News Service. Obama Blames Bush-Congress for Putting Off Tough Decisions, August 17th, 2010; remarks at a fundraiser for Patty Murray. Obama Blames Bush for Tax Cuts, Deficits; Obama town hall meeting on the economy in Racine, Wisconsin, June 30th, 2010. Obama Blames Bush for Deficits, June 8th, 2010; remarks by Obama at a second fundraising reception for Senator Barbara Boxer.
Obama Blames GOP for Events that Led to Gulf Oil Spill; remarks by President Obama June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service. Obama Blames Republicans for America Not Being Able to Solve Problems; remarks by President Obama June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service. Obama Blames Corporations for Everybody's Problems, June 3rd, 2010, Federal News Service. He said, "If you're a Wall Street Journal bank or an insurance company or oil company, you pretty much get to play by your own rules regardless of the consequences for everybody else." Blames corporations for everybody's problems. Obama Blames Bush for Overall Standing of American Economy, April 19th, 2010, at a fundraising reception for Senator Boxer. Obama Blames Bush, Congress for Deficits, February 1, 2010, delivering remarks on the budget. Obama Blames Bush for Regulatory Policies; January 17th, 2010, remarks by the president at an event with attorney general Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.
I'm only on page three, and I have to take a break. . . . By the way, folks, do a Google search on it. "Obama blames" as a Google search term returns more than 490,000 hits. "Obama blames," no quotes -- just "Obama blames" -- returns 6,920,000 results on Google. Obama blames, Obama blames...everybody but himself. . . .
Obama Blames Bush and Congress for Deficits, February 1st, 2010, in remarks delivered on the budget. Obama Blames Bush for Regulatory Policies, January 17th, 2010, remarks by the president at an event with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Obama Blames Wall Street Fat Cats for Economic Disaster, December 13th, 2009, CBS News' 60 Minutes. Obama Blames Bush for Overall Economy, September 27th, 2009, remarks by the president at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual dinner. Obama Blames Bush for Stifling Unions, September 7th, 2009; remarks by the president at the AFL-CIO Labor Day picnic.
Obama Blames Bush for Prescription Drug Bill; remarks by the president, health insurance reform town hall, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, August 11th, 2009. Obama Blames Bush for Jobs, July 22nd, 2009; news conferences by the president. Obama Blames Bush for Failure to Recognize Europe's Leading Role in the World, April 3rd, 2009; remarks by President Obama at a Strasbourg town hall, and in those remarks he said this: "So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship.
"In America there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world, instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive of you." That's Barack Obama, speaking in Europe at Strasbourg, blaming Bush for a failure to recognize Europe's leading role in the world, April 3rd, 2009. Obama Blames Bush for Deficits, February 23rd, 2009; Obama delivering opening remarks at fiscal responsibility summit. Candidate Obama Blames Fox News for his Elitist Label, New York Times, October 2008.
Candidate Obama Blames Fox News for Likely Loss in Kentucky Primary, May 2008. Candidate Obama Blames Washington for High Gas Prices, April 25th, 2008; remarks of Senator Barack Obama, press availability on energy plan, 25 April 2008. There you have six pages of "Obama blames." . . .
"I think I'm a better speech writer than my speech writers," he reportedly told an aide in 2008. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I'll tell you right now that I'm . . . a better political director than my political director."
On another occasion—at the 2004 Democratic convention—Mr. Obama explained to a Chicago Tribune reporter that "I'm LeBron, baby. I can play at this level. I got game." . . . Mr. Obama, by contrast, appears to consider himself immune from error. . . . .
Stephens' piece than goes through each of those points to show that they are completely wrong.
Krauthammer says president playing economic blame game.
President Obama insists that our sluggish recovery would've been even worse without his $830 billion "stimulus." Last Friday, the White House released a report purportedly showing that passage of the "stimulus" created up to 3.6 million jobs (even though the economy actually lost 1.8 million jobs since then).
But if Obama's program -- including a 28 percent hike in spending since 2008 and more than $4 trillion in deficits -- worked so well, why has our unemployment rate risen more since those policies were adopted than have the rates of the European Union, South America, Japan, Australia or New Zealand?
Just look north: The recession hit Canada hard. Because its economy and ours are connected, our unemployment rates moved similarly from July 2008 until the "stimulus" passed; both countries' rates were 6.1 percent in August 2008 and rose in lockstep through February 2009, to around 8 percent. . . .
Kal Penn, who served as a liaison to Asian- American groups in the Obama administration, makes the argument about how things would have been even worse without Obama's policies. Note that this doesn't deal with how Obama's promises about the economy didn't work out. Note that it doesn't explain all the broken promises. Note that it doesn't explain why the US has done so much worse than other countries, including Canada.
“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Plouffe said, according to Bloomberg. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’ ” . . .
JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS: "Lastly, comments by Senior Adviser David Plouffe were criticized today. Earlier this week, he said, quote, “The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers. People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate, they’re going to vote based on how do I feel about my own situation: Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?” And Republican front runner Mitt Romney said that those comments were — he suggested they were out of touch, and he said that if Plouffe worked for him, he would fire him."
JAY CARNEY: "Well, I understand that we’re engaged in the – or rather, the Republicans are engaged in a primary campaign, trying to get some media attention. I don’t know where, you know, the voters that some other folks might be talking to — but — or — but most people do not sit around their kitchen table and analyze GDP and unemployment numbers. They talk about how they feel their own economic situation is. And they measure it by whether they have a job, whether they have job security; whether their house – whether they’re meeting their house payment, whether their mortgage is underwater; whether they have the money to pay for their children’s education or they don’t; whether they’re dealing with a sick parent and can afford that, or whether they can’t. They do not sit around analyzing The Wall Street Journal or other — or Bloomberg to look at the — you know, analyze the numbers. Now, maybe some folks do, but not most Americans. I think that’s the point David Plouffe was making; that’s the point the president was making just moments ago in his statement in the Rose Garden."
A copy of Obama's remarks from today is available here. Can't Obama say something new once and a while? Meanwhile the Obama administration has "new talking points" and is blaming Congress for the slow recovery.
"This jobs report and the last one should be calls to action, let's stop with the bickering, let's do at least those things we can agree on," White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said on MSNBC.
When President Obama appeared in the Rose Garden Friday to address the latest jobs report, he was a little more circumspect and lighter on the blame.
To get serious on jobs, Obama said Congress should create an infrastructure bank, pass three trade agreements, pass patent reform and extend the payroll tax cut.
"I urge Congress not to wait," Obama said.
Goolsbee, sounding way more exasperated, echoed the same points on cable later but took it further, blaming "bickering" by "folks in Washington."
"My point is, if we get numbers like the ones we've seen, which reiterate how important it's going to be that we get the growth rate back up to what it was for the previous 15 months so we can add millions of jobs, we need to stop with the bickering," he said. . . .
Just take the trade agreements. Obama could get these passed by just forwarding them to Congress, but OBAMA HASN'T FORWARDED them. He wants to have a side piece of legislation that would give money to those who might lose their jobs from foreign competition. But Obama failed to mention his role in not getting this passed.
The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned." While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression "the validity of the public debt" as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations. . . .
In a recent post on his Washington Post blog, Chris Cillizza provided the likeliest answer Mr. Obama would give to the "Are you better off?" question. According to Mr. Cillizza, President Obama's argument on the economy will boil down to 10 words: "You should have seen how bad it would have been."
So, we have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. But even though we've answered these concerns, I suspect there will be those who will try to move the goal posts one more time. They'll say we need to triple the border patrol. Or quadruple the border patrol. They'll say we need a higher fence to support reform.
Maybe they'll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat.
They'll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That's politics. . . .
Discussions about Obama bringing civility into politics can be found here and here.
Obama faces the widest partisan job approval gap in modern polling history. Yet, this could be either because he is particularly partisan or that Republican voters just aren't giving him a chance.
“The [border] fence is now basically complete,” asserted the president. Complete? There are now 350 miles of pedestrian fencing along the Mexican border. The border is 1,954 miles long. That’s 18 percent. And only one-tenth of that 18 percent is the double and triple fencing that has proved so remarkably effective in, for example, the Yuma sector. Another 299 miles — 15 percent — are vehicle barriers that pedestrians can walk right through.
Obama then boasted that on his watch 31 percent more drugs have been seized, 64 percent more weapons — proof of how he has secured the border. And for more proof: Apprehension of illegal immigrants is down 40 percent. Down? Indeed, says Obama, this means that fewer people are trying to cross the border.
Interesting logic. Seizures of drugs and guns go up — proof of effective border control. Seizures of people go down — yet more proof of effective border control. Up or down, it matters not. Whatever the numbers, Obama vindicates himself.
You can believe this flimflam or you can believe the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The GAO reported in February that less than half the border is under “operational control” of the government. Which undermines the entire premise of Obama’s charge that, because the border is effectively secure, “Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement” didn’t really mean it. . . .
Someone seeking to build bridges wouldn’t ridicule the other side as Obama did in mocking Republicans as maybe wanting “alligators in the moat” along the U.S. border. That kind of derision certainly wasn’t in keeping with his 2008 campaign pledge to walk the nation back from the divisive politics of the past.
No, Obama was out to paint the GOP as a foe to immigration reform because of its stance that border security must come before a plan to resolve the status of 11 million illegal immigrants, a position not foreign to millions of voters of both parties.
Self-interest might inspire Hispanic voters to wonder why Obama squandered nearly two years of a 60-vote, filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate in failing to push reform if this were such a vital interest to the administration. Could it be that immigration reform works better for Democrats as a campaign issue than it would as a legislative accomplishment? . . .
President Obama has troubles with voters in Texas, and, apparently, with interviewers from the Lone Star State as well.
"Let me finish my answers the next time we do an interview, all right?" Obama told reporter Brad Watson after an interview with WFAA-TV of Dallas, one of four interviews with local television stations at the White House on Monday.
The exchange is toward the end of the video.
At one point, Watson asked the president: "Why do you think you're so unpopular in Texas?"
After some jousting about the size of his loss in Texas in 2008 -- the president said it was "a few percentage points," but it was more like 11.8% -- Obama told his interviewer: "If what you're telling me is that Texas is a conservative state, you're absolutely right." . . .
When the even-keeled and cool President Obama gets prickly in public, it never goes unnoticed.
For Obama, who has carefully cultivated a reputation of easily managing confrontations with people who disagree with him, these moments are as rare as they are revealing of the person behind the presidency.
So it’s no surprise that Washington took notice when after a tense interview with a Texas TV reporter on Monday, Obama unclipped his microphone with no smile in sight, and tersely warned, “Let me finish my answers next time we do an interview, all right?”
The president of the United States was not happy. Obama had been corrected (he lost Texas by 12 points, not “a few,” in 2008), he was accused of punishing the state for political reasons (he denied that the White House had any part in the decision not to award a space shuttle to Houston), and he was challenged with the most basic of political questions: Why are you so unpopular in Texas? . . .
The problem: The reporter’s questions weren’t particularly difficult, but they were clearly not what Obama was expecting. The result was a viral video that depicted Obama as angry when faced with tough questioning. And it unveiled some of the degree to which the White House would like to control its message. . . .
Pfeiffer was asked by Time reporter Michael Scherer, “So will WFAA's Brad Watson get another interview one day?”
Instead of quickly taking the high road, Pfeiffer suggested that Watson may truly be out in the cold after irritating the president. And he did it by revealing yet another trick of Washington communications: playing one news outlet against its rival. . . .
This isn't the only problem that Obama has had with local reporters going off the approved script.
I never thought that Obama was a nice guy when I knew him at the University of Chicago Law School. Possibly other Americans are beginning to see the same person that I knew. Some points:
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin accepted Obama's offer to attend Obama's budget speech at George Washington University last Wednesday. With Ryan in the audience, Obama made "false claims [that will] poison the debate and make serious budget cutting very difficult to accomplish." Obama attacked George Bush, congressional Republicans, and businesses and taxpayers. On Thursday, Obama attacked Ryan personally this way: "When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure he's just being America's accountant, that he's being responsible, I mean this is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for. So it's not on the level." Of course, all of Obama's claims here were false. The deficit during 2007, the last year that Republicans had control of the Congress and the presidency was less than $170 billion. The prescription drug plan Ryan supported cost half as much as the Democratic alternative then on the table. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars under President Bush were regularly funded by Congress.
The Obama administration's statement that this law simply isn't binding on them is pretty shocking.
House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is continuing to press the White House to take on entitlements, this time accusing President Obama of failing to follow a provision of a Medicare law.
Ryan claims the White House owes Congress a plan for shoring up Medicare funding because the federal government is covering more than its targeted share of the program. Ryan points to a provision of the 2003 Medicare law that requires the president to act.
“The president has failed to lead, again, on entitlement reform. By ignoring their legal requirement to submit a plan that would rectify Medicare’s funding imbalance, the Obama administration threatens the sustainability of this critical program for current and future Medicare beneficiaries,” Ryan said Tuesday.
A spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget brushed off Ryan’s latest criticism, dismissing the law’s requirement as a misleading framework for determining whether Medicare is solvent. She also raised constitutional questions about whether Congress can make such a demand of the executive branch. . . .
