The President and The Press

Executive Summary: He told the truth.

He even bemoaned the revelation that slugger Alex Rodriguez had used steroids.
.
No, some idiot from the Washington Post raised the issue, and Obama had the courtesy to humor him with a perfunctory answer. He wasn't "bemoaning" anything.

He even bemoaned the revelation that slugger Alex Rodriguez had used steroids.
.
We're lucky nobody asked about Jessica Simpson's weight battle.

We're lucky nobody asked about Jessica Simpson's weight battle.
.
In all seriousness, right before the press conference, Chris Matthews said he expected Obama would be asked about Andy Card's criticism that he was disrespecting the Oval Office by not wearing a suit jacket at all times.
.
No, seriously. He even opened the pressing issue up to his guests for discussion.
.
These are the four-year-olds who are directing our national discourse at this time of crisis. Get out of the way, media. You're not helping, you're only hurting.

OK,
If WordPress hadn't made me re-log in, I would have already typed something comepletely rude here without even finishing the article.
.
In a nutshell, I find you're use of the phrase 'golden boy' in this context highly offensive. You continue to find remarkable and astounding things that are completely unsurprising to those of us who don't inhabit your bubble. And the fact that you personally hate the guy and have no clue as to why no one else shares your disdain comes through every word you write - even the ones that try to be positive.
.
The main impression I got from reading the presser transcript is that contrary to everyone else's interpretaion of bi-partisanship, Obama's comes from recognition that the Republicans have some notions about government spending that are essentially correct. Over the long haul, deficits matter, and will eventually have to be dealt with. But he makes it clear that if the Republicans are not acting in good faith, then he will continue to ignore them and not allow them to drive the Country deeper down the spiral for solely selfish reasons.
.
Bipartisanship isn't about kowtowing to people, it's about incorporating ideas when they happen to be correct.
.
You and your colleagues seem to be unable to even fathom the difference.

Excellent article. The MSM has been off base on much of the coverage of the stimulus package. My early morning humor is supplied by Morning Joe. Today, Joe, Mika, Willie and a reporter from CNBC were engaged in their usual inane blather about why they thought the stimulus plan was problematic. No actual economists were quoted. They did take note of a Gallup poll showing the 67% support that the public had for the way Obama was handling the stimulus compared to 31% approval for the GOP stimulus approach.

Joe prattled on about the lack of bipartisanship (because of the Democrats) only to be reminded by Democratic VA Governor Tom Kaine that GOP Rep Sessions had called for the Republicans to behave like the Taliban in resisting the Democrats.

Chuck Todd came on to wonder why Obama used the presser last night to press for passage of the stimulus bill, since the Senate had passed the initial version already. Todd was sensing trouble for Obama. Mika then had the 67% approval for the Obama approach put on screen. Todd then said those numbers represented a problem for Boehner and the GOP. He did not note his own doublespeak.

As during the election, there is a script written by MSM that has nothing to do with what the pubic is actually feeling or actual events. The democrats have to give in to the GOP for bipartisanship to occur.

People are reassured by a President who can actually say "I screwed up", and will take questions from people who don't agree with him. A refreshing change fron King George.

Bipartisanship does not mean that Democrats give in to the GOP Taliban. Balanced reporting does not mean that talking points from the GOP go unchallenged. The hopeful thing about the Gallup poll results, if it is borne out, is that much of the public has tuned out the inept on air news analysts who don't have a clue about what the public is sensing or basic economics.

DC politics may be static, but the MSM impact is dwindling.

Did anybody see Rachel Maddow's interview with Ben Nelson? She was tough with him but I thought she missed asking some variation of one central question. "Are you more concerned with how many jobs the bill creates or with how much the bill costs?" Still all in all it was a good look and he didn't have any good answers. It basically came down to "we had to do it to get the votes" and the truth is in this particular instance he is probably right but it still sucks.

For those who prefer things unfiltered:
.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/02/press_conference_by_the_president.php

As during the election, there is a script written by MSM that has nothing to do with what the pubic is actually feeling or actual events.
.
. . . or the actual press conference. I thought Obama did an admirable job. Once again, he demonstrated that he gets that the problem is not "Who wins the mid-terms?" but "How on earth are we going to get 4 million people back to work?"

The question about A-Rod was mind-bendingly stoopid, BTW. This is no time for the class clown to be drawing attention to himself/herself/itself (I have mercifully forgotten who asked the question.)

"He skirted around questions about his fitful attempts, thus far, to build true bipartisan support in Congress for his measures, claiming that it will take Washington a while to break its 'bad habits'."

What is he supposed to do, Scherer? He bent over backwards to placate these idiots and they act the same way they have for the last 8 years. And to hear you tell it, it is his fault that these guys are acting like a$$holes?!

Maybe this is why HuffPo got the question and Time didn't. Idiot.

After being pilloried by pundits for losing control of the stimulus fight inside the beltway, a Gallup poll conducted late last week found that twice as many Americans approved of Obama's handling of the stimulus package than of his Republican congressional foes' work on the issue.
_
these are separate and distinct issues, Michael. Obama's popularity, and the GOP's unpopularity, are the source of the numbers you cite. But when it comes to the question of "losing control of the stimulus fight", a Pew Center poll tells us what is really going on.
_
According to the poll, only 51% of Americans approve of the package - (despite the fact that nobody really knows what it is). This is more a question of "action" vs "inaction" -- people sense a crisis, and want something done about it.
_
But that same poll makes it clear that the GOP's talking points are winning. When asked "What do you think will do more right now to stimulate the economy and create jobs: tax cuts to individuals and businesses, or spending on programs and infrastructure projects?", 48% said tax cuts, and only 39% said "spending".
_
Indeed, what we may be looking at is the inversion of the Reagan presidency; people consistently supported the policies being advocated by the Democrats over Reagan's ideas, yet Reagan remained popular as a leader. Reagan used that popularity to accomplish his agenda despite the fact that it was at odds with what the American people wanted. Unfortunately, Obama does not seem willing to pursue the same course of action, and is instead allowing the GOP to ride roughshod over his agenda in order to preserve his "Lightbringer" image.
****_
And since you are in "media critic" mode here, how about a discussion about the real problem with "the way that Washington works". It has nothing to do with partisanship and how the two parties relate to each other. Rather, its how the media relies on simplicity and dichotomy to explain everything. The media's obsession with reducing everything to opposing talking points, and its insistence that "balance" is more important than facts, literally creates the atmosphere of "partisanship" in DC. Get the media to do a better job of explaining/discussing issues (and debunking BS) and you can "change how Washington works", allow the status quo to continue and Washington can't change.

In the final years of his second term, it was not unusual to find George W. Bush's motorcade routes lined with protesters, chanting their objections or spelling them out on handmade signs.
.
Funny. I don't remember seeing those pictures.
.
Very savvy piece MS.
.

I know pluk just said this, but it needs to be said again: And since you are in "media critic" mode here, how about a discussion about the real problem with "the way that Washington works". It has nothing to do with partisanship and how the two parties relate to each other. Rather, its how the media relies on simplicity and dichotomy to explain everything. The media's obsession with reducing everything to opposing talking points, and its insistence that "balance" is more important than facts, literally creates the atmosphere of "partisanship" in DC. Get the media to do a better job of explaining/discussing issues (and debunking BS) and you can "change how Washington works", allow the status quo to continue and Washington can't change.
.
Which reflects Rachel's call the other night for the media to privilege correct information over incorrect information. Ottoman had a great rundown of the recent press stupidity here:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/02/10/sanity/#comment-42062

The A Rod question came from the dude from the Washington Post.
.
I thought you did an excellent job of connecting the presser with what happened earlier in the day in Indiana, and drawing the contrast between Obama and Bush.
.
As far as the "golden boy" term, it didn't bother me tremendously. Maybe I am getting tone-deaf to the "messiah" rhetoric, used by people across the Obama support spectrum. It may be that thinking of him that way taps into our mythical psyche -- the president-as-hero. It's been a while since we had a POTUS who could play that role in the popular imagination. Frankly, the idea of a constant stream of heroic presidents seems impossible and not necessarily good. (And certainly is not supported by history.)
.
It certainly makes me wonder how the story of David and Goliath would read if the press corps had been following it.

It certainly makes me wonder how the story of David and Goliath would read if the press corps had been following it.
_
probably pretty much the way its reported in the Bible -- its not like the press doesn't deify Israel and demonize Palestinians (aka Philistines).

Yes, but would they be second-guessing David for two weeks before the battle and interviewing the Philistines about his weaknesses?

@wvng: (laughing) Great post to Ottoman's comments the other day. Sheesh! Give the MSM their underoos and tell them to play elsewhere.
.
The most telling moment of the presser for me was when Obama admitted it may have been a mistake (politically) to put tax cuts into his initial proposal without giving the GOP the opportunity to claim that they had insisted upon their inclusion...
.
The babies are mad, now, and it's going to take a week of re-writes and 3-card Monty to get us back to the original proposal, which should have passed in the first place. (rolls eyes)

This is not to say that he was always willing to answer reporters' questions. He declined to say whether he supported a "truth commission" to review possible law breaking by the Bush Administration, saying he needed more time to study the matter.

.
How is this not an answer? Should a reporter (or the reporter's self-absorbed colleague) expect him to make up a position just to satisfy the reporter? Scherer's characterization is… cómo se dice… false, illustrative of the notion that people in government have jobs only to give reporters something to write about.

kbang--
.
I don't know that it was a mistake. It means this bill is worse than it could have been, but by putting the compromise in, in advance, he was able to make the case that he tried, but they didn't.
.
This would have worked better in a less hostile, less stoopid media environment, but he was able to bash the Republicans pretty well, in part because he did it the way he did.

@joyomama: Nice Bible story reference!
.
Actually, my thoughts these past weeks turned to the more obvious sports reference due to the Super Bowl. I imagine that it's 2nd down and long on the first drive of the first 5 minutes of the first quarter of the game, and a scrum of reporters has encircled Quarterback/Coach Obama badgering him about how the game is lost, honeymoon over, the opposing team thinks he ought to punt...yada, yada, yada...

Wow. Very well written. It was exciting to read, thank you!

My time spent in vacation bible school was time well spent. Between that an being raised by a Lutheran preacher's kid, I have Jeopardy-worthy Bible story skilz.

Howard Fineman on a local NPR show saying that Obama did fine with the press conference except when he got into long answers and came off like that nerdy person in the class filling up the blue book with an answer - probably even writing on the back blue page. Jeebus!
.
They are going to have to get their brains wrapped around the fact that we have a president who can actually think and not simply recite learned sound bites.

Yes, but would they be second-guessing David for two weeks before the battle and interviewing the Philistines about his weaknesses?
_
nah, they'd put David (without a shirt) on the cover of every scroll... until he got photographed at a party being a little too affectionate with Jonathan, at which point David would lose his endorsement deal for Kelloggs Manna Krispies!