Media still bored by Obama press conferences
SUMMARY: Following President Obama's April 29 press conference, media figures on all three major cable news channels and elsewhere asserted that the press conference was "boring." Several commentators had similarly concluded that Obama's March 24 press conference was insufficiently entertaining, echoing Matt Drudge.
Following President Obama's April 29 press conference, media figures on all three major cable news channels and elsewhere stated that the press conference was "boring." As Media Matters for America noted, several commentators echoed Internet gossip Matt Drudge by similarly concluding that Obama's March 24 press conference was insufficiently entertaining.
Here's what the following media figures and outlets had to say about Obama's April 29 press conference:
- During the April 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity, contributor Karl Rove said that the press conference "was boring," "flat" and "dull." He later stated: "There were a couple of very important moments in it -- I don't deny that -- but it was a boring, boring news conference."
- During CNN's coverage of the press conference, contributor Ed Rollins stated: "I thought his opening statement was perfect. You know, what bothers me a little bit about it: As it goes on, it gets a little bit more boring. And, you know, you need to hold that attention span a good half-hour, a good 45 minutes. The answers are a little long. He doesn't know how to turn and pivot off of them. But nothing incorrect that I heard, it just -- it gets a little boring."
- On MSNBC's Hardball Late Night, host Chris Matthews asked political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell: "Why, Lawrence, are these press conferences that this guy holds so frighteningly boring?" He added: "Why does everybody act like they're in a sepulchre of some kind? They're so dutiful, it's boring beyond death."
- During the April 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson stated, "I suddenly woke up from nodding off" when Obama was asked by a New York Times reporter "what had 'enchanted' him."
- In an April 30 Politico article headlined, "Obama works to avoid being exciting," editor-in-chief John Harris and senior political writer Jonathan Martin wrote that Obama's answers were "not usually all that newsy, and, let's face it, occasionally long-winded." They added: "Far from electric, this was a tranquilizing performance. So much so that it was impossible not to conclude that a president who certainly knows how to be exciting was making a calculated effort not to be."
- In an April 30 entry titled, "Another boring press conference," posted on its Democracy in America blog, Economist.com asserted that Obama "still didn't say much that surprised anyone who has been alive since November. I'm starting to feel suckered into watching an hour-long campaign advertisement."
From the April 29 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
SEAN HANNITY (host): Karl, let's start general and broad. His first 100 days: How is he doing? How do you think he's doing? What did you think of tonight's press conference? You know, because it was such an enchanting time.
ROVE: Yeah. Well, first, the news conference was boring. And this -- you know, in 1962, an American sociologist named Daniel Boorstin wrote a book called the Pseudo-event, in which he said in American politics were things that were not spontaneous but planned for media coverage that had a certain ambiguity that caused people to sort of be interested in finding out what went on and were really not important except that somebody said they were important.
And tonight, we had a news conference that was not important except that they said it was important because it was the 100th day. They called it at the White House a hallmark day, but -- which they said in a jocular tone -- but they clearly prepared for tonight's event. But it was flat; it was dull. There were a couple of very important moments in it -- I don't deny that -- but it was a boring, boring news conference.
From CNN's April 29 coverage of the press conference:
ANDERSON COOPER (host): Ed Rollins, you've worked with President Reagan, a master of these sorts of things.
ROLLINS: Yeah. He had a very strong start. I thought his opening statement was perfect. You know, what bothers me a little bit about it: As it goes on, it gets a little bit more boring. And, you know, you need to hold that attention span a good half-hour, a good 45 minutes. The answers are a little long. He doesn't know how to turn and pivot off of them. But nothing incorrect that I heard, it just -- it gets a little boring.
From the April 29 broadcast of MSNBC's Hardball Late Night:
MATTHEWS: Why, Lawrence, are these press conferences that this guy holds so frighteningly boring? Why does everybody act like they're in a sepulchre of some kind? They're so dutiful, it's boring beyond death. Have you noticed the way reporters behave in his presence? I've never seen anything like it.
There's no animation. There's no facial expressions. No one has the slightest expression on their face of anything. Look at them. They're dead people.
O'DONNELL: Well, I'm not sure --
MATTHEWS: What is that about?
O'DONNELL: I'm not sure how they're supposed to react other than listen and take notes, which are --
MATTHEWS: Animate human beings who are alive at the moment we watch them. That's what I'd like to see. Never mind, that's my thought.
From the April 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: So what were your assessments, Lanny? I'm assuming that you thought that the president did a good job, but let me ask you this: Was the questioning tough enough? Because that New York Times reporter, when he asked what had "enchanted" him, I suddenly woke up from nodding off.
LANNY DAVIS (Fox News contributor): I thought the enchantment answer would have been bold, but I don't know whether that was a real tough question. But I thought the question on torture was quite pointed.
From the April 30 Politico article:
The television networks have given President Barack Obama airtime for three prime-time news conferences in three months for an obvious reason: He is an exciting politician governing in a too-exciting-for-comfort time.
But this was sometimes hard to remember during Obama's hour-long outing before White House reporters Tuesday night.
The questions were greeted by slow nods and thoughtful pauses. When the answers came, they were precise, considered, sometimes academic, always articulate, not usually all that newsy, and, let's face it, occasionally long-winded.
Far from electric, this was a tranquilizing performance. So much so that it was impossible not to conclude that a president who certainly knows how to be exciting was making a calculated effort not to be.
Polls show Obama is more popular for his personal qualities than the specifics of his historically far-reaching agenda. And he has a need to frame that agenda to make it seem more a matter of hard, practical necessity than a reflection of his own ideological ambitions.
This logic, as it appeared on display in the East Room, dictates that Obama be perceived as cool, not hot; deliberate, not rushed; a leader reluctantly playing a difficult hand rather than one eagerly grasping at the opportunity for bold action presented by a crisis.
I noticed the same thing last night...how there is seemingly an expectation of grand entertainment from a Presidential news conference. I'm looking for competence and candor instead. It all goes back to television being first and foremost an entertainment medium. Nonetheless, it is entertaining to listen to the hypocricy of Karl Rove...
This story proves the point I have made here many time. There was no miss info in this story. There was really nothing negative in this story. But because it did not give people a chill in their leg like Matthews had before, and because they did not all line up to kiss Obama’s ring, MMFA has to cry about it.
“What do you Americans did not love it, what do you mean it was not the best new conference ever ever ever…until the next one”. Liberals are so thin skinned it is amazing. So some thought it was boring. Who cares? Yet MMFA must call out the thought police.
POV, here's the problem. I'm sure that yourself, and many of your right wing friends, during the campaign kept complaining that OBama wasn't putting out enough detail, he was just giving rousing speeches, he was an empty suit. Remember those types of comments?
And now, he's going into detail, giving good answers to the questions that are posed, and now it's all of a sudden boring. This is yet another example of how Obama cannot win really.
Nobody is saying, or implying that anyone has to "kiss the ring". This is only in the minds of right wingers. You guys, are the ones that keep bringing this. Keep bringing up the Messiah label. Not us. We hold him accountable, and I've seen plenty of left wingers on here who have criticized some of the things that he's done so far.
Nobody is calling out the thought police. You just made that up, and that's OK.
Exactly...it's like calling the signing of a peace treaty boring because there are no exploding bombs.
I understand what you are saying, but in the same regard, now MMFA feels it necessary to go after those who simply say it was boring. Some of the comments they listed clearly said Obama got nothing wrong. Others said he had a great opening. The simple fact that some found the main thrust of the conference boring is nothing new for political speeches, and certainly not new worthy in any way. Yet MMFA feels it necessary to go after those who said what they honestly felt. Where is the miss info? Can MMFA provide a link Proving it was not boring (as so many posters here always demand?) Of course not. The entire story is absurd.
POV - You don't get it. This site is not here to kiss Obama's a--. It is pointing out horrible journalism, the sad state of our 4th estate today and the right-wing biases in the media.
They don't have to kiss anyone's butt. However, how can you defend pundits focusing on style over substance by fixating on teleprompters & how "boring" a press conference was by a President?
It's ridiculous and I find it quite humorous.
If you wish to find political motives behind everything, then go to Politico.com. You will have much more fun there.
The entire story is absurd.
No, it is not. The entire story is revealing, particularly with respect to how shallow some members of the media are with respect to subjectively categorizing Obama's press conferences as boring. Whether Obama's press conferences are not sufficiently entertaining for the tastes of some should be a non-issue insofar as legitmate journalism is concerned.
you're dead on pointofview. Some find them boring, so what, most of them are. the information revealed in them is normally nothing new or some breaking news, just more repetition and stating policy positions. Obamas are no worse or better than his predecessors, but to be so thinskinned that mmfa feels the need to chronicle how many in the media are not jumping out of their skin praising these press conferences is silly.
thats exactly it. Some in the media did not praise him, and they cant stand it.
it's pretty neat. mmfa goes to the few usual suspects to cherry pick this "boredom" criticism and then headlines it "Media", as if the entire media is ganging up on Obama. overblown much.
Misunderstand more?
Oooo, a tommy/pointy tag team, bobbleheading in agreement with one another. Nothin' to see here....we're so bored with this boring commentary, we're boring right into it as long as we possibly can....
"Media still bored by Obama press conference" does not imply that ALL the media was bored. Just like if they said "Fans riot after team's loss" does not mean that all the team's fans rioted.
It's too bad your misunderstanding of the English language had to be put on such public display here, but your accusation against MMfA is groundless.
Not only did some not praise him, and the issue isn't really whether they praise him or not. It's the charge that they are saying he was boring in an effort to diminish his efforts and his impact. That's the offensive thing here.
Apparently, Obama didn't give the Fox news team any red meat, so boring is all they can think of. When politics works, it's not suppoesed to be professional wrestling.
Magnolialover,
You know, by now, POV's mind (?) set. I fully understand your need to slap him down from time to time, but don't pay too much attention. I don't, at ALL.
Could someone please tranlate this? "Coherence as a second language" classes are not helping this guy.
aw, POinty, did you flag my post? I go to work for a few hours, and when I check back,it's gone.
Funny that you know what day the welfare checks come and have plenty of time to scrub your embarrassing posts.
Hey Col
I never like your posts, but have never flaged one either. Dont know what happened..
Reading all these wingnuts' "concerns" about teleprompters and about how boring facts and competence are, is like listening to a group of Miss California's fans whine that the other competitors wore makeup.
Anyone of importance uses a teleprompter nowadays when they are giving a speech. It's a ridiculous charge.
Seems some of these adults have ADD
Adoring Democrat Disorder? Indeed. ;-)
No Another Dumb Dittobot
Did they ever comment about how incomprehensible or snarky the BushieCo pressers were (when he had them)? Nope, because they would have gotten a call from some VP in charge of making sure the Repubs look good.
"Lemme write that down. ... OK... OK... mmmhmm... OK..."
Is it common for cameras to film from behind the president, out over the journalists? The reason I'm wondering is because it seems they did it in order to specifically make sure everyone saw the teleprompter (during the little speech part in the beginning).
Since the whole teleprompter meme is pushed hard from the right, as if Obama is the only one using a teleprompter when speaking, I might be overly sensitive to it. I just don't remember that kind of camera angle from before.
Has Obama ever made a speech since becoming POTUS without his trusty teleprompter? He seems lost without one. He reminds of a movie about automons... I can just see it now, "The Bradford Wives sequel - The Teleprompt President". :-)
No modern higher level politician does a prepared speech without a teleprompter or notes. However, it's just plain ignorant to suggest he's lost without it. He's done enough townhall type speeches, press conferences and, of course, the debates in which he beat McCain for us to see how he does on an improptu basis. We've seen that he does very well. He has great command of his facts and expresses them very well. He had a habit of doing too many "uh"s and "um"s in the past when he was framing an answer in his head, but he's mostly conquered even that habit.
So clearly he is not lost without his teleprompter. You, however, would be completely lost without your baseless talking points.
May I direct your attention to the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxxxGUeZtno
It seems to me this pretty much effectively refutes you contention and your gratuitiousand mean spirited little snark.
Oh, wow, you found a one-minute segment of one speech in which he stumbles. Yeah, that sure shoots down all of the hours of impromptu speeches and answers to questions where he spoke extremely well and knowledgeably on a wide variety of topics.
Do you honestly believe that that segment refutes what I stated? Face it, he speaks very well without a teleprompter very frequently. You WERE simply regurgitating a nonsense talking point.
Thanks. Yes it does refute what you you stated.
My original question asked if Obama every makes a speech without his teleprompter. So far you have not backed up your point with any specifics.
I'll answer your question -
WHO CARES?
Did he answer questions from the press or townhalls with a teleprompter?
Of course not. And why exactly would you care?
Your boy George W was a terrible speaker and you just cannot stand the Dems have an eloquent thoughtful leader.
Too bad. Get over it. You lost.
That was not my question.
Yes. GW was a terrible speaker. Nice attempt at deflection.
Another of the greatest hits from What Rush told us to think. The Limborg bible. All politicians use teleprompters. Obama WRITES some of his own speeches at least he wrote his acceptance speech. This is so silly only by being comitted to brainwashing could anyone seriously spew out such garbage.
I simply asked the question.
I did not know Rush had laid down this edict. Thanks for listening and keeping me informed.
Sure you just came up with the same Limborg talking point that Rush did and seem to come up with the same talking points he does quite often independently and usually using the same phrasing. I dont care if you got it DIRECTLY from Rush or second hand bottom line you are regurgitating BS propaganda that doesnt even make sense that Rush has been telling YOU and those like you to think. You are a propaganda parrot and your posts are worthless for furthering a discussion
He never goes to rightwing sites or listens to rightwing venom, He just knows all the talking points by snatching them out of the nebulous ether quite by accident. It's all very serendipitous.
The main stream media are complete idiots. If they're looking for entertainment, they should watch American Idol or Dancing with the Stars. I found Obama's comments regarding the military to be very substantive but I haven't seen one word about it. It also annoyed me that that idiot Jake Tapper would even ask Obama if he thought that the Bush Administration sanctioned torture. If there is going to be an investigation it would be wise for Obama not to make too many statements about it. A defense attorney would likely try to drag Obama to the witness stand and scrutinize his remarks for their crooked clients. The person to ask this stupid question to is Eric Holder, not the President or perhaps he should have asked this question to Bush. I think today's reporters would be better suited for HARD COPY. COMPLETE MORONS!
rox,
The part you are missing, is that this was a staged media event by the White House and forced the networks to give up $20+ million in advertising revenue so our NOTUS could continue campaigning.
They had planned a flyover by Air Force One but cancelled it for some reason...
I'm sure you have some cheesy alternative explanation for what "NOTUS" stands for, right Barney? ONe that lets you vent while projecting your anger onto those who know what you really meant.?
I kind of like the veiled reference to the "NOT US" apology tour the President has embarked these past 100 days with foreign leaders. But you could also replace the word "President" in POTUS with "Narcisissist" and that would work equally as well. By all means - take your pick.
Oh and you are wrong again. There is no anger on my part. I do believe you are projecting again.
I was just basing my post on the countless thinly- diguised racist remarks you've made in the past at this site. I assumed that was the N word you were too cowardly to say straight out.
You know what AA? You're just not very classy. That term has been used on other wingnut sites to mean precisely what you say it didn't mean when you used it. So instead of trying to dissesmble it's meaning and trying to cleverly cover your tracks, just quit using it. Nobody thinks it's funny.
julia,
Since I don't ever go to whatever you mean by wingnut sites, I had no idea that anyone used that acronym in a racist connotation. Why it doesn't even make any sense in that context. This is the first time I ever heard any reference to it.
I can see why some would take offense. However the offense rests completely upon your interpretation.
You seem intent on continuing that misinterpretation when I explained what I meant when I used it. Am I going to have to add you to the list of people here who mistakenly think they have mind reading ability? It seems rather contagious... See Solon's post above.
For me to believe your "explanation", I would have to assume you've never heard n****r be referred to as the n-word before.
If you had wanted to use Not Us, you would have used it. But you didn't. You used the word with no space in between.
And I have no mind reading ability nor ever claimed to. But I suggested correctly that you not use this term again, which I find prudent. It's not funny. It never will be funny and the sooner you get that, the better for everyone.
Dude, if you want to be funny, use humor that's 1. Funny 2. Relatable and has universal truth 3. Funny.
And you can dissemble all you want, but no sale. I don't have to have mind reading ability to have an opinion based on your other rantings and insults of our POTUS.
Perhaps the Limborg has taken to communicating with telepathy
It didnt take long for AA to contract Obama Derangement Syndrome.
No need to make this all about me. :-)
It ISNT all about you. There are many brainwashed hiveminders out there. You are just one among many
The part you are missing, is that this was a staged media event by the White House and forced the networks to give up $20+ million in advertising revenue so our NOTUS could continue campaigning. aa
Really? They were forced? Why didn't fox carry it the?
OB,
You are correct, they weren't forced. My poor choice of words.
We OWN the airwaves. The networks have an OBLIGATION to perform public service it is the deal we made with them to allow them to make obscene piles of cash FROM our resource without paying royalties. If they dont like it they can open a dry cleaning business but they KNEW the deal going in. You Ebenezer Scrooge worshippers dont care at all about the public only about the sacred money making.
AA and others on the right were conditioned by the very rare Bush press conferences where many of the questions were fed to Bush before hand, where Bush only called on people he could trust to ask friendly or neutral questions, and where if they lasted 30 minutes, they were long.
Obama, on the other hand, spreads out the wealth throughout the room, covering the 3 major news networks, other major news outlets, and a few fringe group news journalists. He takes about an hour, and there's clearly no questions fed to him ahead of time.
I had to laugh when I heard Miss California had to answer tougher questions than those lobbed at Obama.
She didnt. You just arent bright enough to know what you are talking about and say worthless and stupid things like that.
The sad reality is that most people these days would rather be entertained than informed.
Rabbit,
You speak the truth. That's why Obama was elected!
No he was elected DESPITE those like YOU allergic to facts and reality that flee from being informed the way vampires flee from sunlight.
Man, that was poetry and right to the heart dude!
That is, so last century. Does the poor, bored, and often slanted media need a hug?
Leadership is seldom entertaining. What is next for the media, fashion week? They would fail, at that also. We do not need a puppet-chimp, Bush-baby, shoulder-shrug, and giggle-goofy, president. Does the hapless media need a dolt-jolt? I remember what came with that, not pretty. Who owns the fools? They are pawns of the newtworks, doomed to toil, for feed of employ.
President Obama's Press Conferences are a breath of "fresh air" filled with information on various topics. The Right-Winged Media calling them "boring" was mainly to steer off those who did "NOT" watch so they would "NOT" see President Obama give "real answers" off the cuff without the teleprompter.
Btw, last night Bill O'Reilly was "upset" that FoxNews' was called out by President Obama at the Town Hall Meeting yesterday. Bill admitted that FoxNews had constantly reported "negatively" about President Obama by several of FoxNews' Hosts, and cried over and over of how President Obama called out FoxNews' for their Right-Winged Bias reporting. Bill appeared "upset" because of this, but maybe it was really due to "NO" White House Staff from President Obama's Administration came on his show (like they were on CNN & MSNBC). Poor Bill had to deal with people from the former White House i.e. Karl Rove to give their political views of President Obama's Press Conference. And well, same old blah, blah from the Republicans on FoxNews. Too funny.
The rightwing knows they must steer clear of issues at ALL COSTS. So we will hear a whole lot more of this boging meme as real issues are discussed. Facts and reality are not kind to wingnuts.
I was flipping the channels during the Obama press conference last night and noticed FoxNoise did not cover it...
I thought Fox was a 'news' channel... Fair and Balanced and what not...
Add to that, that many people say those that don't vote lose their right to speak out when things go wrong politically, so if Fox decided to not cover the press conference... would not logic dictate that they have no right to talk about it now?
As for the excitement or the conference being boring... I did not realize that that was necessary... I thought the whole point was for the president to discuss the issues of the day... boring or not?
Why would Fox cover an Obama news conference in its entirety? That might innoculate some of their viewers (there might be a few who can digest facts rather than propotainment) against the spin they would later put on everything the President said.
Capt... They did not want everyone turning the channel. ;-)
You're right. If legitimate news organizations and FOX are covering the same event, I'll definitely skip past FOX to find out what is really happening.
I guess it's official. Our new president has become a burden on the media's mandate to produce "Sexy Action News" for today's 24-hour news cycle.
The bottom line is the media has too much airtime and too little material. When the pundits aren't yelling at each other, they're giving us filler like this.
that's a decent point, I will say that. but to call those to the carpet for this benign criticism of Obama isn't really worth it either. But you make a good point, and I am sure they would rather have kept hyping and amping up panic about the swine flu 24/7 than cover this anyway.
Pete,
I agree.
Heat = Ratings = Money
Light = Informed Public = Boooring!
Or he could plant a gay escort in the group and call on him whenever he needs to answer a fluffer.
Wow....what a homophobic comment. I am glad that everyone here has been able to see your true colors. When all else fails, pull out the gay jokes, eh? I thought that was reserved for inbred republicans.
Homophobic?
Where the hell have you been for the last 8 years? Didn't the Bush administration allow a gay escort to get press credentials and sit in at Presidential press conferences? Didn't Bush also call on the gay escort, posing as a member of the press, whenever he wanted to answer a softball question?
Don't think peagle got the joke. Or he's pretending outrage 'cause he's boring.
He must be boring, because he's certainly not entertaining.
"Didn't the Bush administration allow a gay escort to get press credentials and sit in at Presidential press conferences? Didn't Bush also call on the gay escort, posing as a member of the press, whenever he wanted to answer a softball question?"
Um.....no. These are conspiracy thories that most of you seem to embrace (although there is a lack of significant evidence) whenever they are pointed at the Bush administration, but immediately shoot down when they are pointed at democrats. Lucky for Obama, he doesn't have to "plant" any reporters to throw softball questions, because they already do (enchanted anyone?).
My point was that you are using the "gay" description of this reporter as some sort of bigoted attempt at sarcastic humor. Like him being gay makes it all that more relevent and embarrasing for President Bush. Was he jewish too? Why don't you throw that in for some extra kick.
Ummm.... yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
Jeff Gannon was a gay escort. He was given White House press credentials he never should have gotten based upon the sham online newsgroup he 'worked' for, and Bush called on him in a press conference, and Gannon asked a softball question.
There were pictures of Gannon as a gay escort on Gannon's own website! To deny that is to deny reality!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
Nice faux outrage, really.
Facts continue to have a liberal bias.
No, it's not a conspiracy theory. Jeff Gannon, aka James Guckert, received a very large number of one-day press passes (avoiding background checks) with no real press credentials. He hadn't worked for print or broadcast media and could only cite a website that was a shell just to give him something to represent. He seemed to easily gain press passes that reporters representing real print and broadcast media would wait weeks for and often never get. He was a paid male escort who had had nude pictures posted on the escort website. His questions for WPE Bush & his press secretary were well known for being extreme softball questions. There were multiple times that he signed in on the White House log but didn't log out. Many of those times there was no press briefing for him to have been attending.
Those are all facts. Mentioning it doesn't have any homophobic connotations. It's simply a bizarre aspect of the previous administration.
Just who was Gannon "visiting" in the White House? Inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks Mary and Billy. You are so kind, but I know who Jeff Gannon is. But, until you can prove that someone from the Bush administration intentionally "let" him in for the purpose of asking "softball" questions than it is exactly what I called it.......a conspiracy theory. It is funny how you are soon to cast blame on the Bush administration before you blame Gannon (the con-artist himself).
Regardless, the homophobic undertones persist. Gannon was white. He was also bald, if I remember correctly. Did WK mention those things? Nah, he chose to mention the gay thing. Nice.
how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?
Well, we do know that the above was a softball question. And he didn't work for a "real" news agency. But wait. There's more.
Journalists have said that it can take weeks to get the kind of clearance Guckert received. He was issued one-day press passes for nearly two years, avoiding the extensive background checks required for permanent passes, and sidestepping his inability to gain the necessary Congressional press pass.
"how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality? Well, we do know that the above was a softball question. And he didn't work for a "real" news agency."
Here is a better one: "What has enchanted you about the being president these last 100 days?" This question from the "real" news agency.....the NYT.
No disagreement here. Lame question indeed. But I'm sure the NYT reporter is an ACTUAL reporter with credentials. Gannon/Guckert was not.
I'm only presenting the evidence. James Dale Gucker posed as White House reporter, Jeff Gannon for a few years. He had acess granted by the Bush White House. Please explain how actual events can be described as "conspiracy theories".
Maybe he was a Mexican. We're allowed to beat them up this week, right?
"I'm only presenting the evidence. James Dale Gucker posed as White House reporter, Jeff Gannon for a few years. He had acess granted by the Bush White House. Please explain how actual events can be described as "conspiracy theories"."
While I appreciate your efforts to try to duck the fact that you mentioned Gannon was gay as a way to somehow shame him and the Bush Administration, you are not addressing either of my points. You haven't "presented any evidence" thus far. How does the fact that Gannon used bogus credentials to get into press conferences somehow equate to the Bush administration smuggling him in to ask "softball" questions? Or, as you put it "the Bush administration allowing a gay escort to get press credentials and sit in at Presidential press conferences and Bush calling on the gay escort, posing as a member of the press, whenever he wanted to answer a softball question."
The more I read it, the worse it sounds. I think you owe the gay people on this web site an apology.
Do you believe that being gay is shameful? That's the only reason you would post something like that. I believe the word used was "male escort," which is how Guckert advertised himself.
The fact is, a male escort who was not a reporter, had no job history as a reporter, and did not work for a legitimate news organization, was given passes without background checking to attend White House press conferences, and was called on to ask inane questions.
"I believe the word used was "male escort," which is how Guckert advertised himself."
No, actually I know what word was used and it was "gay escort."
If they think I should apologize, they'll let me know, I'm sure. And I'll apologize. Until then, my post stands.
It was not a swipe at gay people. It was against a segment of our society that vilifies gay rights at the same time they make allowances for a gay escort. Are you telling me that they give press credentials out to anyone who wants them with no investigation?
And with all of the money spent on Homeland Security, why aren't you teabaggers questoning why White House security didn't catch this guy.
Who's living in a pre 9/11 world now?
"It was not a swipe at gay people. It was against a segment of our society that vilifies gay rights at the same time they make allowances for a gay escort."
Sure, that's what it was. I can't believe I couldn't see that. You're a stand-up guy.
Finally, we're getting somewhere. You speak truth despite yourself.
So in other words you just flat out have no idea what you are talking about.
Your post is ludicrous. Nothing homophobic about worrierkings post. He mentioned the guys REAL profession which was NOT journalist, yet he was given press credentials and planted to toss softballs to Bush. Yout even a good try.
"He mentioned the guys REAL profession which was NOT journalist, yet he was given press credentials and planted to toss softballs to Bush."
Right......and Obama had the kick-off party for his presidential campaign in the living room of someone he knew was a domestic terrorist. Wait a minute....which one is the conspiracy theory?
Neither is a conspiricy theory. Whatever you think of Ayers the man is a respected educater in Chicago. He IS a part of the Democratic machine. He is not in prison and has NEVER been convicted of ANYTHING. Obama DID attend a fundraiser at the guys apartment. Ayers is a citizen if you think he should be treated like a leper that is your business. Gannon was NOT a journalist. He WAS given press credentials to one of the hardest to get press conferences in the WORLD and HE WAS NOT A JOURNALIST. He DID throw Bush softball questions, none of this is in dispute. Someone with some serious HEFT got him in the room and got him press credentials since he was NOT A JOURNALIST perhaps YOU can give us some OTHER reason for WHY he got those credentials other than to do what NO ONE DISPUTES he did, toss softballs to Bush. It was in fact his propensity to do exactly that which got a journalist curious about him and got him to investigate the man which is how the story broke. I will wait and see your explanation IF you can come up with a reasonable alternative rationale for why a man NOT A JOURNALIST got those credentials other than to do WHAT HE WAS DOING, I will take it into consideration until then it seems pretty obvious to me.
Since many your side seem to be talking secession and on the verge of revolution, I think it's time you drop the domestic terrorists angle.
julia.. the boring part came from the media. Were there any real hardball questions?
The other problem is that Obama pontificates to the point of boredom. His answers are mini-speeches. He only answered 17 questions from 13 reporterss.
And he answered them completely and factually (and without a teleprompter, which you seem to think he needs constantly), something W couldn't ever dream of doing, because he had neither the knowledge nor the ability to speak in coherent sentences.
So what? It doesn't matter he does, you won't be satisfied.
Obummer is a master at stretching out answers to an nauseating level. Of course, he does this so he won't have to answer as many questions. Hey, it was boring.....so what? The best was watching the NYT reporter ask him what enchanted him most. I felt like I was watching that blind date game show - "Bachelorette number 1.....what enchants you most?" Great question for a press conference.
Obummer is a master at stretching out answers to an nauseating level. Of course, he does this so he won't have to answer as many questions.
Of course, you know this for a fact. If Barack Obama failed to give complete, thorough and comprehensive answers to questions you would criticize him for ducking questions...as though it were fact.
Well I for one was glad to know what surprised, troubled, enchanted & humbled him ;-)...ok I'm gonna blame the media for these kind of questions. But still...
If the country was humming along nicely, as in strong economy, no war still going on etc, those type of softball questions would be ok. But not now.
Obama does tend to sometimes seem long-winded with his answers, but I strongly doubt it's to stall so he won't get as many. I agree the guy simply wants to give thoughtful, thorough replies.
But it was boring....they have a point. And while I didn't expect it to be filled with fireworks and car crashes, I was hoping that BO would explain how he was going to pay off the 3.7t that he spent. He didn't.
Obama's plans to restore fiscal responsibility:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fiscal/
And I'm sure he's open to any constructive suggestions.
Did I miss the reporter asking him that question? In his opening remarks, he said "We’ll continue scouring the federal budget for savings and target more programs for elimination."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/04/30/transcript-of-obamas-100th-day-press-conference/?mod=washwire
He was asked about the H1N1 flu and Mexico, Chrysler and GM, waterboarding and torture, torture memos that Cheney wants released, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, violence in Iraq, Arlen Spector and 1 party rule, Abortion and Notre Dame, the NY Times' reporters questions, immigration reform and campaign promises about it, black unemployment, states secrets privilege and court cases, and government ownership of banks and car makers.
So, he wasn't asked a question about how he was going to pay off the debt, but he was supposed to answer a question about it?
fish,
Don't you believe Obama when he says..".I think those issues are all critical, and I’ve said so before. I wrestle with it on stem cell; I wrestle with it on issues like abortion."?
Obama apparently thinks he can fool most of the people all of the time.
So if someone has a different position than you, it can't be because he carefully considered the issue and came to a different conclusion. He has to be lying if he says that.
How arrogant can you get?
His 100% voting record for abortion, including partial birth speaks to his lack of nuance. Even pro-abortion Daniel Moynihan called Partial Birth abortion, "too close to infanticide."
If Obama wrestles with these problems, he should go back to bowling.
I am not arrogant, it is simply that Obama's voting record speaks for itself.
His position lacks nuance. That's rich.
You're assigning motives to Obama's votes that are not his stated motives (i.e., calling him a liar) because you don't understand how anyone could think differently from you. Again, height of arrogance.
There is no such thing as "partial birth abortion."
Carry on.
And I mean that in every sense of the phrase.
Well said. Abortion is a very difficult issue that many wrestle with. Many people strongly believe in the right of a woman to choose, while others hold the opposite view. Both should be respected. Just because you are pro choice doesn't mean it hasn't been carefully considered, and is still a difficult issue for all of us.
West,
While I do believe people of good will can form different opinions regarding abortion, Obama's record shows he does not wrestle with the issue. He has voted 100% for abortion throughout his legislative career.
Even foghornleghorn's misplaced link below shows Obama voted against the "infant born alive act" in both subcomitte and full comittee while ginning up excuses that turned out later, to kindly put, be false.
AA,
Just because you vote pro choice every time does not mean you do not wrestle with the issue. It is a deeply personal and difficult choice for everyone. How can you say for certain that Obama has some casual attitude towards abortion simply because he has voted pro choice? Voting decisions on issues such as abortion come after much thought and seriousness. It appears that just because you disagree with his stance that you assume he came to that decision lightly? I don't think so. I believe what he says, he has given me no reason to believe otherwise.
He has never "voted for abortion," and I defy you to find a bill that specifically states "voting for this bill is voting for abortion."
Voting for a woman's right to decide for herself (with advice from her doctor, and even her clergy, if she feels it helpful) whether to carry a fetus to term is in no stretch of the English language equal to "voting for abortion." She should have the right to do so without people screaming lies and insults at her, and with privacy.
I see why you claim Obama lacks nuance. You dont understand the concept. If you think the fact he doesnt change his mind periodically means he has no misgivings or that he doesnt think the issue is complex then you just lack the capacit to understand what nuance IS.
the infant born alive act which he was against
Another talking point swallowed, digested, and regurgitated. He voted against it because there was already a federal law in place.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Score one for "fooled all the time."
Next you'll believe Obama is going to cut the deficit by increasing the deficit more than every other President combined.
ps. If I recall then, voting for the ban would not have changed anything? No, he is simply lying because he is in favor of abortion including even for his daughters.
See Barney, these are the sort of posts that make it hard to believe youre just a simple brainwashed Republican imbecile. Too over the top, you've got to be a performance artist satirizing a simple brainwashed Republican imbecile.
I sat and thought for minute about replying try to AA, but then I refreshed the page and you nailed it for me - how can you rebut performance art? Thanks.
I've heard of those kinds of performance artists.
But In Barney's Act he rubs Republican BS all over himself. Is that what you meant?
Hey AA,
If you are against abortion, then don't have one.
I don't think anyone is trying to force you to have one, are they?
I don't believe that arguments makes your case at all.
Huh? What argument am I making?
What I'm saying is no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion.
Is that something you don't understand?
Obama isnt lying just because YOU arent bright enough to understand, well, pretty much anything
ps.
Obviously you did not read your own link to that fact check. It says nothing about your argument.
You my friend have done the swallowing...
AA,
I fully support your right to not have an abortion.
As I said to AA Fishy,
If you don't want to have a third trimester abortion, then don't have one.
Is someone trying to force you to have one?
Fishergirlusmc, If Republicans (Conservatives) believe in Individual Rights with no meddling from Federal or State Agencies for "ALL" Americans, than how is it that a Woman's Right to "CHOOSE" is "NOT" a conflict? Pro-Choice allows Women their right to "CHOOSE", and keep the Government away from stating what these Women should do. Pro-Choice does "NOT" break the Law (criminally or morally) in America, but Torture does (both criminally and morally). Please don't reach for victim scenarios to prove a point when one action (torture) breaks the law, and the other one (pro-choice) does not.
This is the point on which those Republicans who support a right to choose abortion base their stance. The government should not be able to dictate to anyone what they can do regarding something happening within their own body.
The counter-position is that fetal human life is still human life and it is the responsibility of government to respect and protect all human life. (Yes, the same philosophy accepts exceptions as in war, self defense and the execution of criminals). When Negros and Indians were classified as less than fully qualified to claim this respect and protection that was a morally and politically bad decision. They believe it is also a bad decision to deny that protection to fetuses. In their weighing of the issue, this is an exceptional condition that trumps the woman's right to control her own body.
Torture is advocated as a means of forcing information from enemies who have attempted to harm America or its people. I know of no one who does not embrace the Geneva Convention's guidelines on torture, however those guidlines do not cover any of the current combatants on the other side. Even if they did, these and other treaties are agreements to use restraint. There is no moral or legal obligation to abide by them if it can be shown that the otherside is not doing so. Al Quiada has provided us with ample evidence that they are not doing so. So if the treaties applied they would still have no effect if Congress granted the President permission to ignore them. Congress had granted the President war-time powers. And they continued to authorize the intelligence operations carried out at Guantanimo and other places. Therefore, unless it can be shown that Congress did not know about the "enhanced questioning techniques" being employed by our government, there is no grounds to assume that these practices were not authorized. Then we come to the issue of whether the techniques employed costitute torture under the definitions of the specific treaties. The answer the Bush Administration came up with was "no." The techniques were screened to rule-out qualification under the physical harm specifications and under the prolonged psychological duress specification. Therefore your claim and Barak Obama's claim that this was torture is without foundation in law under the "innocent until proven guilty" standard.
Moral determination requires a moral foundation and that foundation must be of greater weight than the opinions of individual human beings, (what one finds moral another may find immoral). God is the traditional source of that authority, but we live in a society in which the state is not supposed to consider that source. As an individual, you may find it immoral, but others think it would be immoral not to use torture if necessary, to extract information that would save Americans. So the only remaining grounds of greater weight would be a concensus of the citizenry. Dick Cheney has called for the release of the full memos so that the citizenry can judge this based, not only on whether to define what was done as torture or not, but also whether or not what was done is something they should be gateful for or not. Until thenm, there is insufficient grounds to claim moral superiority as it applies to the nation.
Being an apologist for torture against ANYONE is quite un-American. Please stop.
How come you believe that the logical fallacy of "false choice" is a valid debating tactic?
If a terrorist wants an abortion, then they should have one.
You are not wrong. You are exactly right.
No she isnt. The two of you SHARING a delusion does not magically transform reality itself
He voted against the infant born alive act.
That's right. Prez Obama is pro-baby killing. We get it. But you don't get that there was already established law against baby killing, and the new law was an end-around Roe v. Wade and Obama saw that and voted against it.
No babies died because he voted no. Make a note of it. And please stop comparing torture to abortion.
So you should be working very hard to have everyone that is a participant in "Partial Birth Abortions" sent to prison.
Are you doing that?
There WAS no reasoning in your post whatsoever. No the HINT of any reasoning. Late term abortions are done ONLY for the health of the mother. No other reason is ALLOWED. Since it is already a federal law there were going to BE no infants dying after a botched abortion. If you had been paying attention you already would have known this it has been mentioned a couple of time. So do you have anything that resembles, REALITY?
Finally, the voice of unreason.
Randy
People, let's get down to it . . .
Of COURSE anotherantiamerikkkan, povuptherear, and jamesb, along with the "librul" media, find Obama's pressers "boring" . . .
For the past eight years, they've been treated to the spectacle of an illiterate, smirking Chimp who gave evasive non-answers . . . when he bothered to have pressers at all.
For them, the thought of a Chief Executive who actually THINKS before he speaks, rather than toss out sound bites as policy {"Bring it on"}, is simply too much for them to comprehend . . . the fact that that Chief Exec happens to have a tan is just salt on the wound . . .
Thus, the constant inane harping on a non-issue: the use of a teleprompter - which, as BillJ pointed out, is used by every modern politician, including Dubya . . . the difference being, of course, that the presence of a teleprompter did not prevent Dubya from making up his own words {"misunderestimated".}
My advice: if you seek entertainment, watch American Idol . . . I did not vote for Obama because I expected entertainment from him; I voted for him for the same reason I suspect the 66+ million did: we feel he was better suited to straighten out the cock-ups his predecessor made.
.
Very well said, MJH, and I couldn't agree more. The audience for presidents who repeat Dirty Harry lines and need flight suits and MIssion Accomplished banners to communicate is baffled. Our current president is just not clownish enough to appeal to the average Republican voter.
BTW, my post won't sjhow up right away, or maybe at all, as I've been reported by one of the freedom'loving conservative posters, and am on double-secret probation. Apparently, it's ok to repeat the same bs that's debunked at this site, and it's ok to post clumsily-disguised racial slurs, but calling those that do the above "imbeciles" hurts their feelings to the point that they tell the MMFA nannies to silence the offender.
Probably one of those censorship w*nkers. Who will no doubt consider lecturing us on ethical behavior, their strong suit.
i guess after 8 years of entertaining press conferences from george bush making an idiot out of himself, the media tends to keep that expectation. thats pretty sad.
Of course the press conference was boring. The president didn't once come across as ill-informed, incoherent, mentally unbalanced, or possibly inebriated. What kind of president is that?
Oh, that's right, the one we elected.:p
Nothing bores me more than a man who can conjoin more than three words without a malapropism or making up a new word that, even to dumb people, sounds completely moronic. Damn you, Obama, and your high falootin' diction and understanding of the English language!
Randy
Let's see ... Chris (the tingling leg) Mathews and other Liberals agree with the Conservatives that the President's press conferences are boring. H-m-m-m-m ... ? What could that mean?
Face it. Whatever skills he has with a teleprompter, Barak Obama is no Bill Clinton. When he speaks off prompter or memorized lines he's halting, (at times almost stuttering), slow, imprecise and obviously struggling. Like his predecessor, he can deliver a prepared speach well, but falls apart and makes frequent gaffs when speaking off-the-cuff, (like his Joe the Plumber - redistributing the wealth -faux pas or having visited all fifty-seven states). However, like his predecessor, people didn't vote for him because he was a great entertainer.
They voted for him because they wanted a change from the direction of the previous administration on various issues, because he was African-American and they felt it was exciting to be part of that landmark of progress, for a variety of less significant reasons and because, despite what many of you believe, with the exceptions of FOX, a minority of radio stations and a minority of newspapers and journals he received a pass on the many controversial elements of his history and associations while his opponents received unusually negative treatment, (I'm almost 60 and I've never seen an election except 2000 in which being the governor of a state was not the best possible qualification for being President). He's well on the way to delivering on both of those main items though whether the changes he's bringing will be liked and whether his performance will be one that actually lends credibility to African-American political candidates in the future has yet to be determined.
Throughout my <60 years every President has enjoyed what is called "the honeymoon period", usually lasting a few months. Then the press has started applying the other meaning of their title by pressing the President on any failures, inconsistencies, controversies or whatever. The other reason this President is a bore is that the role of 'booster-for-the-novel-candidate' is still in play in most of the media and critical analysis is still on vacation, (a behavior that lends credibility to the Conservative claim that the mainstream-media is mostly Left-wing.)
The "enchantment" question was a waste of time and poorly handled by the President, (classic good answers would have been "... enchanted by the beauty of this nation as I visit parts I had not seen before and inspired by the dedication and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed services ... etc.), but it is significant only in symbolizing the honeymoon-like questions he is still being not challenged by. The unasked questions scream out almost audibly in the midst of these exercises in harmony ... "in lieu of the fact that some of the so-called experts that testified that torture doesn't work have been exposed as frauds are you willing to reconsider your" ... "your claim that virtually all significant economists agree that federal stimulus is needed has been shown to be untrue are you" ... "associations of doctors and healthcare workers in England and Canada have been speaking out against your proposals for a national health insurance system have you" ... "while in fact a growing number of climatologists are speaking out against the theory of man-made-global-warming. Are you now willing to" ...
It is in the silence of debate on the topics that shape administrative policies that the other great foundation for the boring quality of his press conferences lies.
"...... "in lieu of the fact that some of the so-called experts that testified that torture doesn't work have been exposed as frauds are you willing to reconsider your" ... "your claim that virtually all significant economists agree that federal stimulus is needed has been shown to be untrue are you" ... "associations of doctors and healthcare workers in England and Canada have been speaking out against your proposals for a national health insurance system have you" ... "while in fact a growing number of climatologists are speaking out against the theory of man-made-global-warming. Are you now willing to..."
So you watch Faux News read Drudge and listen to Rush :-) . In the past i would give you a lenghty answerto the outright lies you posed as questions but the superficiality of thought given in posing them doesn't justify a detailed reasoned response. They have been debunked tooo many times to believe a person still regurgitating them will listen to the facts. You lost the election, we rejected your course with our eyes wide open, and we think for ourselves, you should try it sometime.
Face it you are brainwashed and regurgitating the propaganda you have been told to think and its too cliched and silly to even bother with. Feel free to fill your mind with this inane crapola. Reality is not effected by your inability to recognize it
he received a pass on the many controversial elements of his history and associations while his opponents received unusually negative treatment
You're insane. I could go on and on about the made-up "controversies" concerning Obama and reported on ad nauseum by ALL the major media, but I'd rather just say that you're quite insane (or uninformed) if you believe that.
"They voted for him because . . . despite what many of you believe, with the exceptions of FOX, a minority of radio stations and a minority of newspapers and journals he received a pass on the many controversial elements of his history and associations while his opponents received unusually negative treatment, . . ." - ewl94232
"A pass on the many controversial elements of his history"
Yeah -- that MUST be why they spent the better part of a YEAR talking about his birth certificate, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres, his Madrassa education, etc.
.