Last night’s news conference gave the media a chance to regain their backbone ,and they came out swinging for the fence. The president kept them at bay all night with some well rehearsed jabs. The president got the chance to explain his reasoning for some of the decisions he has made. The news conference did not have any questions about Iraq or Afghanistan.
The question of the night came from CNN’s Ed Henry, when he asked the president why he waited days to express outrage on the AIG bonuses. "It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak," he said…I guess Mr. Henry thought the president had a sinister reason for not responding sooner. I liked the president’s response because after all, 9 of the 10 top recipients of the AIG bonuses gave them back. We had knee-jerk solutions and answers for 8 years. The president addressed the Washington Times reporter’s question ,about his thoughts for funding the discarded embryonic stem cells. Obama said science would not be the only standard used, when it comes to decisions about stem cells. He said ethics and the science would be considered, and if we prove that adult stem cells have a greater benefit, then he does not want to engage in a controversy, so his choice would be for adult stem cell usage.
Most of the questions centered on Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected would generate a $749 billion deficit or 4.3% of the economy in 2014. Naturally the republicans are against his budget, a and they projected even more gloom and doom….The president accused them of having selective memories, with no real alternatives. Senator Grassley(R-IA) suggested the government cut spending for three years…That’s a winner, the economy completely collapses with deflation, and the GOP walks in as the default party. Of course they have that “make the Bush tax cuts for the rich, permanent” battle cry.
The alternative solution comes from 15 conservative Democratic Senators; who vow to slow down the president’s aggressive and costly agenda. The only question remaining is whether they will use a scalpel, Swiss-knife, or a chain saw on the $3.6 trillion budget. Unlike the republicans the democrats are not monolithic group, who will rubber stamp this president’s proposals. Checks and balance is alive and well. Today ,the president will meet with that group, to remind them that he still has the bully pulpit, the budget reconciliation process, a veto, and a 63% approval rating to contend with. I don’t think the president will budge on the middle-class tax cut, health care or education reform. He was wavering a little bit on cap-and-trade last night, and he might be persuaded to forgo that legislation for something less costly, but he is serious about a green energy alternative source.
Health care cost last year was $2.2 trillion, so if we completely ignore that figure, then forget about solutions for Medicare and Social Security or our trade imbalance. They are all interconnected. If not this year, when?
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
5 Comments
- •
-
Flag
-
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Close
-
- •
Follow Mike
Comments
I think the people of the United States have a trusting nature, and we believe in our leaders and principals...How many dictators have we propped up,then had to remove them.?....We might be grooming the next Saddam's in Iraq,who knows.
March 26, 2009 at 10:32 a.m.I think we got into this mess because of deregulation,no oversight, and good old fashion greed...True the investors never questioned the ten years of a 11% return ,but we trust our doctors.our law enforcement,our military and sometimes they disappoint...Married people trust their spouse and their children,only to be disappointed.
The fact is - as I said to my Rita this very morning - I like Barak Obama. I don't agree at all with his manner of handling matters, but I like the guy's manner, the way he answers questions, and - even if it's faux - I like the appearance of openness. My comment here was simply meant to suggest a way with which to assess things the president - or anyone else, for that matter - says.
March 26, 2009 at 10:21 a.m.In my view, we have come to be in this mess because of a "dumbed-down" public being so gullible. You don't get swindled by a Bernard Madoff because you asked too many questions - or because you knew so much about investing. You don't get swindled by the pack of pork-barrellers we have in Congress and everywhere else in government, either.
Ditto Spock, I prefer BS over I have to think about it, any day. At least we can recognize BS. I don't think President Obama and the actions of this Congress will even be understood until his masses look at the bottom line of their incomes 2 years from now as compared to last year. Middle income is going to take the brunt of this current legislation. The rich will stay rich. It is just math.
March 26, 2009 at 9:44 a.m.Spock
March 26, 2009 at 9:43 a.m.In trying to follow your anologies, I assume the president should be questioned, like you would a cheating husband or a common criminal. The journalist should ask questions like a prosecutor and the defended must answer the question.
The general public went ballistic when they heard the news about the AIG bonuses ,and congress tried to accommodate by passing a knee-jerk 90% tax on a single group of indivuals.It was correct for the president to stay above the fray, then after seeing what his administration knew and when did they know it, either assume blame(he did) or give your side of the story backed up with a actual facts……In the era of a 24/7 news cycle and right-wing blogs ready to parse every word to feed the frenzy, I don’t blame the president for choosing his words carefully….
Check the Victoria blogs, erroneousness material is never retracted.
So let's assume for a minute that the reporter is Michelle, and the question is who was that woman I say you with in the hallway? And Barak says . . . well, you know. What do we, the collective Michelle where the question is concerned, think?
March 25, 2009 at 5:58 p.m.Barak, Mr. President, a witness on the witness stand in a murder trial doesn't get to say he wants a couple of days to think about it - his answer. Not even when he's "POTUS" - President of the United States.
Trust me for this once, folks, when I tell you as a guy who infiltrated their offices and listened to them when they were what they thought was in private that they aren't like you and me. Political, and media "newspeak" (Orwell, in case you're the typical "read a book once in high school" citizen of the "dumbed-down" U.S.A) people live in an entirely different reality. "Reality" is what it needs to be in order to be the most expedient, not what everyone else lives with or in from day to day.
Imagine being stopped by a parent and asked where you were last night (all night), then saying you need time to think about it. Folks, when I say - as I have through three presidents now - that this is ridiculous, I'm not just wielding words and diction.
Often, a skilled observer can determine more from what you won't say than from what you do.