“issues related to what he called “that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it” are not high priorities for him.

Instead, I want to address the very beginning of the President’s answer: “Okay. No, I — I think it’s a — I think it’s a legitimate question.”

Obama does this a lot — instinctively, and in response to questions or comments directed to him that contain any hint of criticism. He has been so immune from media scrutiny, and his supporters have been so thuggish in shouting down critics (recall, for example, the efforts to stop Stanley Kurtz’s appearance on Milt Rosenberg’s radio show in Chicago), that a disturbing presumption has taken hold — at least in Obama’s own mind. Namely, questions that imply even mild dissent from or disfavor of Obama are not legitimate unless he personally decides they are within the ambit of proper inquiry. The questioner has to get over the legitimacy hurdle before he or she gets an answer — so better be careful about your topic and your tone.”

Not only do they have to control the message….they have to control questions about the message.

Sometimes I get the feeling that their whole insane moronic philosophy is such a colossal house of cards that one tiny pin prick can bring it all down. That’s why they defend even the most inane aspects of it with murderous vengence.

How long before your investments are collected in taxes and invested for you? Based on last night’s comments justifying the reduction in charitable contributions, I would say that both will be funneled from the American Taxpayers’ payroll withholdings in the foreseeable future if these new leader’s of economic reform have anything to do with it.

Oh, the number of nested replies is unlimited. But I think it would be visually confusing. And it’s pretty much unnecessary, as my reply to you shows.

We don’t want to get too carried away.

The other thing that stuck out at me, is that AP, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, Politico, and the Washington Times reporters all asked “tough questions” of Obama, with AP asking why should Americans trust the government with the power Obama wants, ABC asking Obama if he’s reversing himself on budget priorities, CBS and CNN asking Obama if he’s hypocritical about “passing on problems to the next generation”, FOX asking if it’s odd that the Chicoms are losing faith in the dollar, and the European Socialists think we’re spending too much, Politico asking that if you reduce the charitable donation deduction, won’t that reduce charitable giving, and the Washington Times asking why we’re letting scientific concensus run our lives, and why are we going ahead with embryonic stem cell research when adult stem cell research actually works much better.
All the mainstream media seemed to really be all over Obama, asking questions that if worded differently you could have found on here, whereas he then chose to take softball questions from Univision, Stars and Stripes, the Denver Examiner, Agence France Presse, and of course Ann Compton from ABC. Interesting.

And, more broadly, I just want to follow up on Chip and Jake. You’ve been very critical of President Bush doubling the national debt. And, to be fair, it’s not just Republicans hitting you. Democrat Kent Conrad, as you know, said, quote, When I look at this budget, I see the debt doubling again.

You keep saying that you’ve inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?

OBAMA: Of course I do, Ed, which is why we’re doing everything we can to reduce that deficit.

Look, if this were easy, then, you know, we would have already had it done, and the budget would have been voted on, and everybody could go home. This is hard.

And the reason it’s hard is because we’ve accumulated a structural deficit that’s going to take a long time, and we’re not going to be able to do it next year or the year after or three years from now. What we have to do is bend the curve on these deficit projections.

OK, Chip Reid?

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, I didn’t run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation.

But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history.

OBAMA: Yes.

Q: Isn’t that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said passing on our problems to the next generation?

OBAMA: First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because, as I recall, I’m inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them. That would be point number one.

Point number two. Both under our estimates and under the CBO estimates, both — the most conservative estimates out there, we drive down the deficit over the first five years of our budget. The deficit is cut in half. And folks aren’t disputing that.

Where the dispute comes in is what happens in a whole bunch of out-years. And the main difference between the budget that we presented and the budget that came out of the Congressional Budget Office is assumptions about growth.

They’re assuming a growth rate of 2.2 percent; we’re assuming a growth rate of 2.6 percent. Those small differences end up adding up to a lot of money. Our assumptions are perfectly consistent with what blue chip forecasters out there are saying…

It went on from there for about another 5 minutes, and suffice it to say that he never really did answer the question.

I refused to watch this president on television. One reason is that he interrupted my prime-time favorite show watching under the premise, I suppose, that what he said would be far more important than an episode of HOUSE. And, for the record, I like HOUSE far more than I like Obama.

However, consider the following: Did Obama intentionally take prime time viewing hours so as to absorb the heaviest TV watching audience, thinking that “Well, their in front of the tube anyhow so I have a caprive audience”? Or was it to check his Nielsen ratings and if they were high, he and his minions would publish them as a “resounding popularity”?

Of course, not considering for one moment that some people tune in just to hear what insane crap comes out of his mouth THIS time.

Also consider that if most either didn’t tune in or turned their TV’s off altogether and the message that would send via the ratings measurement system. I’m not in a Nielsen home so my watching habits have no effect on the ratings. But boy, I would love to see what the ratings are for his cobbled-together “Ain’t I great” fests.

Just a point to ponder. .

Obama seems less at ease
Subdued tone at news conference
WASHINGTON — A lectern, a presidential seal, the red-carpeted hallway leading to the East Room of the White House. The familiar scene conveys to Americans that the presidency is the ultimate center of power — and serves as a favorite backdrop for news conferences in which presidents reach masses of viewers.



But when President Barack Obama took his place Tuesday in that traditional tableau for his second prime-time news conference, he looked as though he would have preferred to be someplace else, perhaps back on Jay Leno’s couch, or talking college basketball on ESPN.



The president’s subdued tone seemed a far cry from his vivacious appearance last week on Leno’s “Tonight Show,” when Obama’s explanations of the causes of the economic crisis were simple and sharply drawn. It marked a departure even from his Sunday interview on ” 60 Minutes,” when he indulged Steve Kroft with a tour of his daughters’ new swing set on the White House grounds and laughed at the political peril of pursuing unpopular ideas such as bailouts for car companies and banks.



There were no smiles on Tuesday night, no memorable moments, no attempt by the president to capture the sense of drama or anticipation that has surrounded prime-time news conferences by prior White House occupants…

He passed over reporters from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, opting instead to call on correspondents from Univision, Ebony magazine and Stars and Stripes.



He did call on some of the traditional networks, but he did not seem to bring any special energy to answering their questions.

Asked if he would call on Americans to sacrifice, he said, “Folks are sacrificing left and right.” He had used other appearances over the past week to lay groundwork so the public would see him as more than a Washington insider…

There was last week’s ESPN interview in which the president filled out his NCAA basketball tournament brackets and spoke with authority. (He correctly picked 14 of the Sweet 16 teams.)

Then he hit the Leno show and compared Washington to “American Idol”—but with everyone being a harsh judge. And even during a more somber interview on “60 Minutes,” he took the time to show off the swing set. Standing on the South Lawn, he pointed to his new residence as if he were part of a tour group. “Pretty nice digs,” he said.



Obama seemed to suggest that while he lived in Washington, he still was something of an outsider.



The president is turning to a range of media outlets while grappling with public anger at the government. He is seeking ways to retain his popularity as he pursues programs that often are unpopular, such as bailouts of financial firms.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....3169.story

This just makes me sick. Peter Wallstein (the writer of this piece), why not just get the balls to say that TCO can’t talk about anything of substance without his earpiece or teleprompter or his puppetmasters telling him what his opinion is …

My clicker thumb is now trained to bypass brain interaction when The Moron takes the first bounce down a stairway or carpet shaking his hands from the wrist. I get enough of that when basketball teams are introduced.