I was contacted a few days ago by the White House and told that the President wanted to meet with some progressive bloggers -- including me. So, as Dave noted below, five of us -- Barb in MD from DailyKos, Atrios, Joe Sudbay, Oliver Willis and I-- got together for a chat. I don't often write about my travels, but obviously this is a little different. So after I was asked, I put my health issues aside and went to DC.
The President started by saying that he understood and welcomed the criticism that had been going on inside the Liberal blogosphere and that they welcomed our words and understand that our readers make up the base of the party.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, listen, I know we’ve got limited time, so I’m not going to give a long speech on the front end. I thank you guys for coming in. Obviously a huge part of my base reads you guys, cares about what you do. The staff does as well. I think that what the blogosphere has done is to create a conversation that encourages activism across our citizenry, and I think that’s absolutely crucial. We benefit from the constructive feedback and criticism that we get, and it helps hold us accountable. But you guys obviously have also done a great job holding the mainstream press accountable, and that’s really important to us. So I’m glad that I’ve got time to sit down with you guys...
I did want to get the President on the record about the horrific incident that happened on Rand Paul's watch because I hadn't seen a quote from him yet and I happened to be first one up. I asked how he felt about the vicious attack by the Paul supporter on the female MoveOn activist. He had a saddened look on his face when he started talking about what transpired and said it was disturbing:
THE PRESIDENT: Sounds good? All right. John, we’ll start with you.
Q Thanks for having us here, Mr. President. Just to start off, because the news of the day is obviously what just happened in Kentucky. What’s your feelings on the thought of a Rand Paul supporter actually stepping on the neck of a female MoveOn supporter?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I think that one of the things that I’ve always tried to promote is civility in politics. I think we can disagree vigorously without being disagreeable. And what we saw on the video was an example of people’s passions just getting out of hand in ways that are disturbing. In fairness, I don’t expect every candidate to be responsible for every single supporter’s actions, but I do think that all of us have an obligation to set a tone where we say the other side is -- may be wrong but it’s not evil, because when you start going down that path of demonizing folks, then these kinds of incidents are more likely to occur. And my expectation in the remainder of this campaign is that all candidates out there are a little more careful about making sure that they’re framing the debate around issues and sending a clear message to their supporters that our democracy works when we disagree, we debate, we argue, it gets contentious, but that there are certain lines we don’t cross.
.
I believe President Obama's call for civility is in line with how he operates, but there are lines that Conservatives do cross and have been crossing for a while now.
I'll have more on the meeting tomorrow,,,,
Full transcript below:
THE PRESIDENT: Well, listen, I know we’ve got limited time, so I’m not going to give a long speech on the front end.
I thank you guys for coming in. Obviously a huge part of my base reads you guys, cares about what you do. The staff does as well. I think that what the blogosphere has done is to create a conversation that encourages activism across our citizenry, and I think that’s absolutely crucial.
We benefit from the constructive feedback and criticism that we get, and it helps hold us accountable. But you guys obviously have also done a great job holding the mainstream press accountable, and that’s really important to us.
So I’m glad that I’ve got time to sit down with you guys. This is completely open, so you guys can take it wherever you want. And what I’ll do is I’ll just go down the line, everybody gets a question, and then we can just mix it up. How does that sound?
Q Sounds great.
THE PRESIDENT: Sounds good? All right. John, we’ll start with you.
Q Thanks for having us here, Mr. President. Just to start off, because the news of the day is obviously what just happened in Kentucky. What’s your feelings on the thought of a Rand Paul supporter actually stepping on the neck of a female MoveOn supporter?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I think that one of the things that I’ve always tried to promote is civility in politics. I think we can disagree vigorously without being disagreeable. And what we saw on the video was an example of people’s passions just getting out of hand in ways that are disturbing.
In fairness, I don’t expect every candidate to be responsible for every single supporter’s actions, but I do think that all of us have an obligation to set a tone where we say the other side is -- may be wrong but it’s not evil, because when you start going down that path of demonizing folks, then these kinds of incidents are more likely to occur. And my expectation in the remainder of this campaign is that all candidates out there are a little more careful about making sure that they’re framing the debate around issues and sending a clear message to their supporters that our democracy works when we disagree, we debate, we argue, it gets contentious, but that there are certain lines we don’t cross.
Q Mr. President, you’ve said that you want to work with Republicans after the election, but there’s probably a pretty good chance that they’re not going to advance with you. Is there sort of a breaking point you have of where you try to work with them and they just refuse to budge, which they’ve indicated so far? Is there a
breaking point for you just like you’re going to have to go off on your own and find a way around them?
THE PRESIDENT: Look, the -- I’m a pretty stubborn guy when it comes to, on the one hand, trying to get cooperation. I don’t give up just because I didn’t get cooperation on this issue; I’ll try the next issue. If the Republicans don’t agree with me on fiscal policy, maybe they’ll agree with me on infrastructure. If they don’t agree with me on infrastructure, I’ll try to see if they agree with me on education.
So I’m just going to keep on trying to see where they want to move the country forward. In that sense, there’s not a breaking point for me. There are some core principles that I think are important for not just me to stick with but for the country to stick with. So if the Republicans say we need to cut our investments in education, at a time when we know that our success as a nation is largely going to depend on how well trained our workforce is, I’m going to say no. And there are going to be areas where, after working very hard, we just can’t find compromise and I’m going to be standing my ground, then essentially we debate it before the American people.
But I don’t go into the next two years assuming that there’s just going to be gridlock. We’re going to keep on working to make sure that we can get as much done as possible because folks are hurting out there. What they’re looking for is help on jobs, help on keeping their homes, help on sending their kids to college. And if I can find ways for us to work with Republicans to advance those issues, then that’s going to be my priority.
Q Along those lines, Mr. President, on the economy, we do have 9.6 unemployment; economic projections aren’t looking very positive from anybody, with the ongoing foreclosure crisis, as you suggested. Can we expect further initiatives coming out of the administration and maybe Congress post-election?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. We can’t stop. A concern I have right now is that the main economic idea that the Republicans seem to have is continuing the tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and then a vague statement about cutting spending without identifying what those spending cuts might actually be. And I don’t know any economists who would say that’s a recipe for more job creation.
We have to deal with our debt and we have to deal with our deficits in a responsible way. As you know, most of the problem with our debt and deficits is structural and has to do with the medium and long term. So my hope is, is that we can find a sensible way to deal with it that doesn’t squelch economic growth, because a single-point increase in economic growth actually has as much impact on the debt and deficits
as all of the Bush tax cuts. I mean, it’s trillions of dollars over the life of the economy. And so we’ve got to emphasize economic growth.
Now, we were successful in reversing our descent into a depression. The Recovery Act worked in stopping the freefall. We followed up with that with everything from a package to cut taxes for small businesses to providing additional assistance to states so that they could keep teachers and firefighters and police officers on the job.
I’ve already put forward proposals for infrastructure, which I think can have a huge long-term ramification -- putting people back to work right now, doing the work that America needs done, laying the foundation for long-term competitiveness.
I think that there may be additional ideas that traditionally have garnered some bipartisan support that we can move forward on. But the point that you’re making I think is really important. Yes, people are concerned about debt and deficit. But the single thing people are most concerned about are jobs. And those jobs are going to come from the private sector. We’re not going to be able to fill the hole of 8 million jobs that were lost as a consequence of the economic crisis just through government spending, but we can strategically help jumpstart industries. We can make a difference on clean energy. We can make a difference on getting businesses to invest in 2011 as opposed to deferring until 2012 or ‘13 or ‘14.
And there should be ways that we can come to some agreement with Republicans if their focus is in fact on improving the lives of the American people as opposed to just positioning for the next election.
Q Mine is an easy question. Will you rule out raising the retirement age to 70?
THE PRESIDENT: We are awaiting a report from the deficit commission, or deficit reduction commission, so I have been adamant about not prejudging their work until we get it. But I think you can look at the statements that I’ve made in the past, including when I was campaigning for the presidency, that Social Security is something that can be fixed with some modest modifications that don’t impose hardships on beneficiaries who are counting on it.
And so the example that I used during the campaign was an increase in the payroll tax, not an increase -- let me scratch that. Not an increase in the payroll tax but an increase in the income level at
which it is excluded. And so what I’ve been clear about is, is that I’ve got a set of preferences, but I want the commission to go ahead and do its work.
When it issues its report, I’m not automatically going to assume that it’s the right way to do things. I’ll study it and examine it and see what makes sense. But I’ve said in the past, I’ll say here now, it doesn’t strike me that a steep hike in the retirement age is in fact the best way to fix Social Security.
Q Thank you.
Q I was glad to hear that you and your staff appreciate constructive feedback.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that’s something we enjoy. (Laughter.)
Q We’ve been more than willing to offer that. We’ve certainly been more than willing to offer than from AMERICAblog, particularly on issues related to the LGBT community, which, you know, there is a certain amount of disillusionment and disappointment in our community right now. And one of the things I’d like to ask you -- and I think it’s a simple yes or no question too -- is do you think that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is
unconstitutional?
THE PRESIDENT: It’s not a simple yes or no question, because I’m not sitting on the Supreme Court. And I’ve got to be careful, as President of the United States, to make sure that when I’m making pronouncements about laws that Congress passed I don’t do so just off the top of my head.
I think that -- but here’s what I can say. I think “don’t ask, don’t tell” is wrong. I think it doesn’t serve our national security, which is why I want it overturned. I think that the best way to overturn it is for Congress to act. In theory, we should be able to get 60 votes out of the Senate. The House has already passed it. And I’ve gotten the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say that they think this policy needs to be overturned -- something that’s unprecedented. And so my hope and expectation is, is that we get this law passed.
It is not just harmful to the brave men and women who are serving, and in some cases have been discharged unjustly, but it doesn’t serve our interests -- and I speak as Commander-in-Chief on that issue.
Let me go to the larger issue, though, Joe, about disillusionment and disappointment. I guess my attitude is that we have been as vocal, as supportive of the LGBT community as any President in history. I’ve appointed more openly gay people to more positions in this government than any President in history. We have moved forward on a whole range of issues that were directly under my control, including, for example, hospital visitation.
On “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I have been as systematic and methodical in trying to move that agenda forward as I could be given my legal constraints, given that Congress had explicitly passed a law designed to tie my hands on the issue.
And so, I’ll be honest with you, I don’t think that the disillusionmentis justified.
Now, I say that as somebody who appreciates that the LGBT community very legitimately feels these issues in very personal terms.
So it’s not my place to counsel patience. One of my favorite pieces of literature is “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” and Dr. King had to battle people counseling patience and time. And he rightly said that time is neutral. And things don’t automatically get better unless people push to try to get things better. So I don’t begrudge the LGBT community pushing, but the flip side of it is that this notion somehow that this administration has been a source of disappointment to the LGBT community, as opposed to a stalwart ally of the LGBT community, I think is wrong.
All right, now, at this point we can just open it up. I just wanted to make sure everybody got at least one question, and then you guys can --
Q I have one. Crooks and Liars, we’re very proactive for the Latino community and rights, for immigration reform. And you’ve just gone on Spanish radio and said how we need comprehensive immigration reform. I guess I have two points. One is, will you -- how far will you go on helping to get the DREAM Act passed? Because it’s very important. And also -- and it’s been mentioned in these questions -- with the conservative movement not governing to us appears -- as far as helping the American people more on ideology -- how do you expect or hope to get conservatives onboard with truly doing immigration reform?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, this is a challenge. I mean, right now, I’ll be honest, we are closer to getting the votes for “don’t ask, don’t tell” than we are for getting the votes for comprehensive immigration reform. That’s a reversal from four years ago when you had John McCain and Ted Kennedy cosponsoring comprehensive immigration reform.
The center of gravity within the Republican Party has shifted. And so out of the 11 Republicans who are still in the Senate who voted for comprehensive immigration reform, I don’t know that any of them came out in favor publicly of comprehensive immigration reform during the course of the last couple of years. And that’s a problem, because unfortunately we now have essentially a 60-vote requirement on every single issue, including trying to get judges confirmed who’ve passed through the Judiciary Committee on a unanimous basis.
Having said that, I think the logic behind comprehensive immigration reform is sufficiently compelling that if we are making the case forcefully -- that we’ve increased border security, we have more Border Patrols down on the border than we’ve ever had before, we’ve got more resources being devoted to enforcement than before -- and yet the problem continues, that means that we’ve got to try something different.
And that involves, on the one hand, being serious about border security, but it also involves being serious about employers and making sure that they’re not exploiting undocumented workers, and it means getting the 10 to 12 million people who are in the shadows out of the shadows and giving them an opportunity to get right by the law so that we can create an orderly process in which this is still a nation of immigrants and it’s a nation of laws.
So I’m going to keep pushing for comprehensive immigration reform. It is going to continue to be a priority of my administration. I’m going to try to make the case to Republicans and to the American people that it’s the right thing to do. The DREAM Act is one component of it that I’ve been a strong supporter of. I was a sponsor -- a cosponsor of the DREAM Act when I was in the Senate, and what I told Piolin when I was on his radio show, and what I’ve said repeatedly, is that my strong preference is to do a comprehensive piece of legislation. But I’m going to consult with immigrants’ rights groups and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. If they see an opportunity for us to get the DREAM Act and they think this is something we should go ahead and do now and that it doesn’t endanger the possibilities of getting comprehensive immigration reform, the other components of it, down the road, then that’s something I’ll consider. But my goal right now is to do a broader approach that allows everybody to get out of the shadows, paying their taxes, and
contributing to our society.
Q Mr. President, you’re often pressured from both the left and right on one issue or another, and then even within the Democratic Party you get pressured from the more conservative, more progressive side of the party. So I’m curious, you sort of govern as a -- sort of as a pragmatist, and I’m wondering if you view yourself as a progressive.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I mean, the problem with labels is everybody thinks they mean different things. So I would define myself as a strong progressive in the sense that I believe in that essential American Dream that everybody gets a chance to make it if they’re willing to work hard, that government has a role to play in ensuring opportunity by making sure kids get a decent education and can afford to go to college; that workers are able to train and retrain for the jobs of the future; that we’re building strong infrastructure; that we are using our diplomacy alongside our military to protect our national security; that we believe in the Bill of Rights and we actually act on it, even when it’s inconvenient; that we are promoting the equal treatment of citizens under the law.
Those core beliefs that America prospers not just when a few people do well but when everybody has the chance to do well, when we’ve got a growing middle class, where we -- people are able to live out their dreams without the barriers of race or gender or sexual orientation, those are things I deeply believe in.
In that sense, though, I think Abraham Lincoln was a progressive.
He was a Republican. He was the first Republican President. And that just gives you a sense of how these categories change so much.
It used to be that the values I just described had a home in the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. I think it’s only been in recent years that you can’t find that articulation of some of these values in the Republican Party, and that in fact if you champion them that you’re considered some wild-eyed radical. That’s a shift, and not a good shift, in terms of our public debate.
Q I was wondering if you’re happy with the federal response to the foreclosure crisis or if you think there’s more that either should have been or could be in the future done either through HAMP or Fannie and Freddie or various mechanisms?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think I’m happy with millions of foreclosures or millions of houses being underwater. This is -- this was both a powerful symptom as well as a cause of the economic crisis that we’re in. So we’ve got to do as much as we can to stabilize the housing market. I do think that the steps that we’ve taken helped stabilize the housing market. The HAMP program has gotten a lot of criticism, but the fact of the matter is, is that you’ve got half a million people who have gone through permanent loan modifications that are saving 500 bucks a month. And I get letters every day from people whose homes
were saved as a consequence of it.
I think that the broader steps we took to stabilize the economy mean that housing prices are not plummeting the way they were. But this is a multitrillion-dollar market and a multitrillion-dollar problem. And the challenge that we’ve had is we’ve got only so much gravel and we’ve got a really big pothole. We can’t magically sort of fix a decline in home values that’s so severe in some markets that people are $100,000 to $150,000 underwater.
What we can do is to try to create sort of essentially bridge programs that help people stabilize, refinance where they can, and in some cases not just get pummeled if they decide that they want to move.
I think that we have tinkered with the HAMP program as we get more information to figure out can we do this better, can we do this smarter with the resources that we have. The biggest challenge is how do you make sure that you are helping those who really deserve help and if they get some temporary help can
get back on their feet, make their payments and move forward and stay in their home, versus either people who are speculators, own second homes that they really couldn’t afford because they’d gotten a subprime loan, and people who through no fault of their own just can’t afford their house anymore because of the change in housing values or their incomes don’t support it.
And we’re always trying to find that sweet spot to use as much of the money that we have available to us to help those who can be helped, without wasting that money on folks who don’t deserve help. And that’s a tough balance to strike.
I had a meeting with Warren Buffett in my office and his basic point was there was a lot of over-building for a long period of time. Now there’s under-building because all that backlog of inventory is being absorbed. Some of that is just going to take time. And we can do as much as we can to help ease that transition, but we’re not going to be able to eliminate all the pain because we just don’t have the resources to do it. The market is just too big.
The other aspect of the housing market that is worth bearing in mind is that whereas initially a lot of the problems on the foreclosure front had to do with balloon payments people didn’t see coming, adjustable rate mortgages that people didn’t clearly understand, predatory lending scams that were taking place -- now the biggest driver of foreclosure is unemployment. And so the single most important thing I can do for the housing market is actually improve economic growth as a whole. If we can get the economy moving stronger, if we can drive the unemployment rate down, that will have probably the biggest impact on foreclosures, as well as housing prices, as just about anything.
Q I want to go back to the idea of working with Republicans. And given the comments from McConnell and -- well, all of them -- I think that what a lot of people find frustrating is that our side compromises and continues to compromise just to get that one Republican on. We’re going to get one of the Maine twins -- whatever. And it doesn’t happen, and then by the time health care or whatever goes through we’ve compromised; we still don’t get any Republicans.
I don’t anticipate this changing in the next two years. I think it’s going to get worse. How are you going to get Democrats to understand that compromise means the other side has to give something sometimes, one day?
THE PRESIDENT: Look, obviously I share your frustrations. I’ve got to deal with this every day.
Q Well, I don’t expect you to talk like a blogger. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: But I guess I’d make two points. The first is, I’m President and not king. And so I’ve got to get a majority in the House and I’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate to move any legislative initiative forward.
Now, during the course -- the 21 months of my presidency so far, I think we had 60 votes in the Senate for seven months, six? I mean, it was after Franken finally got seated and Arlen had flipped, but before Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. So that’s a fairly narrow window. So we’re right at the number, and that presumes that there is uniformity within the Democratic caucus in the Senate -- which, Barbara, you’ve been around a while. You know that not every Democrat in the Democratic caucus agrees with me or agrees with each other in terms of complicated issues like health care.
So it is important for me, then, to work every angle I can to get as much done as I can. If we had a parliamentary system, then this critique would make sense to me because you do as much as you can to negotiate with the other side, but at a certain point you’ve got your platform and you move it forward and your party votes for it.
But that’s not the system of government we have. We’ve got a different system. I will say that the damage that the filibuster I think has done to the workings of our democracy are at this point pretty profound. The rate at which it’s used just to delay and obstruct is unprecedented. But that’s the reality right now.
So I guess my answer is that there has not been, I think, any issue that we’ve worked in which I have been willing to sign on to a compromise that I didn’t feel was a strong improvement over the status quo and was not the best that we could do, given the political alignments that we’ve got.
And, yes, it leaves some folks dissatisfied. I understand that. But let’s take the health care bill. As frustrated and angry and dispirited as the base might have been -- we didn’t have a public option, and it just
dragged on for such a long time, and you’re having conversations with Grassley, even though it turns out Grassley has no interest in actually getting something done -- all the complaints which I was obviously very
familiar with, the fact of the matter is, is that we got a piece of legislation through that we’ve been waiting a hundred years to get through; that in the aggregate sets up a system in which 30 million people are going to get health insurance; in which we’ve got an exchange that forces insurance companies to compete with a pool of millions and will be policed so that they can’t jack up prices; that pool has purchasing power that they’ve never had before; that you’ve got a patient’s bill of rights that was the hallmark, sort of the high-water mark of what progressives thought we could do in the health care field -- we got that whole thing basically just as part of the bill.
You’ve got investments in community health centers and preventive medicine and research that’s going to help improve our health care delivery systems as a whole. And we can build on that. And I know this analogy has been used before, but when Social Security was passed, it was for widows and orphans. And a whole bunch of folks were not included in it. But that building block, the foundation stone, ended up creating one of the most important safety nets that we have. And I think the same thing is going to happen with
health care.
I think when you look at financial regulatory reform, there’s been a whole bunch of debates about where that could have gone and how it could have gone. And there are folks in the progressive community who complain we should have broken up the banks, or the derivatives law should have been structured this way rather than that way.
But the truth of the matter is, is that this is an incredibly powerful tool. You’ve got a Consumer Finance Protection Agency that that can save consumers billions of dollars -- is already saving folks billions of dollars just by having it passed. Already you’re starting to see negotiations in terms of how mortgage folks operate, in terms of how credit card companies operate. You’ve got capital requirements that are being imposed on banks and other financial institutions that are much higher than they were before, which creates a cushion against the kind of too-big-to-fail that we’ve seen in the past. You’ve got derivatives markets that are now being forced into open clearinghouses and markets so people know exactly what’s going on. You’ve got Volcker rule that some people didn’t think it was strong enough, but basically prohibits some of the proprietary trading that helped to create this market in securitized subprime loans that helped
to trigger this disaster.
So in each of these cases, this glass isn’t full, but it’s got a lot of water in it. And so I guess my point is that on all these debates, my constant calculation has been, are we better off going ahead and getting this done? Or are we -- is it better for us to have a fight that may end up being symbolically satisfying but means that we lose because we just don’t have enough votes.
And I’ll give you one last example because I know this is a famous example in the blogosphere, is the stimulus. I mean, if folks think that we could have gotten Ben Nelson, Arlen Specter and Susan Collins to
vote for additional stimulus beyond the $700 billion that we got, then I would just suggest you weren’t in the meetings.
This notion that somehow I could have gone and made the case around the country for a far bigger stimulus because of the magnitude of the crisis, well, we understood the magnitude of the crisis. We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.
And getting 60 votes for what was an unprecedented stimulus was really hard. And we didn’t have the luxury of saying -- first of all, we didn’t have 60 votes at the time. We had 58. And we didn’t have the luxury to say to the Senate, our way or the highway on this one. So we did what we could in an emergency situation, anticipating that we were going to have to do more and hoping that we could continue to do more as time went on.
Q So I have another gay question. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: It’s okay, man. (Laughter.)
Q And this one is on the issue of marriage. Since you’ve become President, a lot has changed. More states have passed marriage equality laws. This summer a federal judge declared DOMA unconstitutional in two different cases. A judge in San Francisco declared Prop 8 was unconstitutional. And I know during the campaign you often said you thought marriage was the union between a man and a woman, and there -- like I said, when you look at public opinion polling, it’s heading in the right direction. We’ve actually got Republicans like Ted Olson and even Ken Mehlman on our side now. So I just really want to know what is your position on same-sex marriage?
THE PRESIDENT: Joe, I do not intend to make big news sitting here with the five of you, as wonderful as you guys are. (Laughter.) But I’ll say this --
Q I just want to say, I would be remiss if I didn’t ask you this question.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course.
Q People in our community are really desperate to know.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s a fair question to ask. I think that -- I am a strong supporter of civil unions. As you say, I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.
And I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents. And I care about them deeply. And so while I’m not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it’s fair to say that it’s something that I think a lot about. That’s probably the best you’ll do out of me today. (Laughter.)
Q It is an important issue, and I think that --
THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s an entirely fair question to ask.
Q And part of it is that you can’t be equal in this country if the very core of who you are as a person and the love -- the person you love is not -- if that relationship isn’t the same as everybody else’s, then we’re not equal. And I think that a lot of -- particularly in the wake of the California election on Prop 8, a lot of gay people realized we’re not equal. And I think that that’s -- that’s been part of the change in the --
THE PRESIDENT: Prop 8, which I opposed.
Q Right. I remember you did. You sent the letter and that was great. I think that the level of intensity in the LGBT community changed after we lost rights in that election. And I think that’s a lot of where the community is right now.
THE PRESIDENT: The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going.
Q The arc of history.
THE PRESIDENT: The arc of history. Anything else?
Q Well, can I ask you just about “don’t ask, don’t tell,” just following up? (Laughter.) I just want to follow up. Because you mentioned it -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sure. Go ahead.
Q Is there a strategy for the lame-duck session to --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q -- and you’re going to be involved?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q Will Secretary Gates be involved?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not going to tip my hand now. But there is a strategy.
Q Okay.
THE PRESIDENT: And, look, as I said --
Q Can we call it a secret plan? (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I was very deliberate in working with the Pentagon so that I’ve got the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs being very clear about the need to end this policy. That is part of a strategy that I have been pursuing since I came into office. And my hope is that will culminate in getting this thing overturned before the end of the year.
Now, as usual, I need 60 votes. So I think that, Joe, the folks that you need to be having a really good conversation with -- and I had that conversation with them directly yesterday, but you may have more influence than I do -- is making sure that all those Log Cabin Republicans who helped to finance this lawsuit and who feel about this issue so passionately are working the handful of Republicans that we need to get this thing done.
Q Yes, I don’t have that relationship with them. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: But, I mean, it’s just -- I don’t understand the logic of it.
Q Nor do I.
THE PRESIDENT: You’re financing a very successful, very effective legal strategy, and yet the only really thing you need to do is make sure that we get two to five Republican votes in the Senate. And I said directly to the Log Cabin Republican who was here yesterday, I said, that can’t be that hard. Get me those votes. Because what I do anticipate is that John McCain and maybe some others will filibuster this issue, and we’re going to have to have a cloture vote. If we can get through that cloture vote, this is done.
Q On that same issue, because a lot of progressives -- and you said you’re not the king -- well, a lot of progressives feel that senators, especially in the minority they think -- we call them the House of Lords. And are you in favor of any form of filibuster reform? Because there are several bills being talked about. And there is a unique time that -- by the way, we’re also very happy that Vice President Biden went down to do a fundraiser for Alan Grayson. He’s the type of Democrat that speaks out and fights. And that’s what the progressive community really likes.
But he also might have the opportunity in January to be -- to help out. And can we get -- or are you for any of the bills that are out there to support -- to change this rule that is paralyzing the administration?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ve got to be careful about not looking like I’m big-footing Congress. We’ve got separate branches of government. The House and the Senate have their own rules. And they are very protective of those prerogatives. I will say that as just an observer of our political process that if we do not fix how the filibuster is used in the Senate, then it is going to be very difficult for us over the long term to compete in a very fast moving global environment.
What keeps me up at night is China, Germany, India, Brazil -- they’re moving. They make decisions, we’re going to pursue clean energy, and the next thing you know they’ve cornered half the clean energy market; we’re going to develop high-speed rail in the span of five years -- suddenly they’ve got high-speed rail lines going; we’re going to promote exports, here’s what we’re going to do -- boom, they get going. And if we can’t sort of execute on key issues that will determine our competitiveness over the long term, we’re going to fall behind -- we are going to fall behind.
And the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. The filibuster, if you look at the history of it, may have arisen purely by accident because somebody didn’t properly apply Robert’s Rules of Procedure and forgot
to get a provision in there about what was required to close debate. And folks figured out very early, this could be a powerful tool. It was used as a limited tool throughout its history. Sadly, the primary way it was used was to prevent African Americans from achieving civil rights.
But setting aside that sordid aspect of its history, it was used in a very limited fashion. The big debates, the big changes that we had historically around everything from establishing public schools to the moon launch to Social Security, they weren’t subject to the filibuster. And I’m sympathetic to why the minority wants to keep it. And in fairness, Democrats, when we were in the minority, used it on occasion to blunt actions that we didn’t think were appropriate by the Bush administration.
Q On occasion.
THE PRESIDENT: And in fairness, there were a whole bunch of folks here who were already writing blogs at the time who were saying, filibuster, block them, do anything you can to stop them. And so if we’re going to call for reform, it’s got to be with open eyes and an understanding that that also means that if Republicans are in power, it’s easier for them to move their agendas forward. But my general view is, what that does at least is it opens it up to serious public debate. Things don’t get bogged down in the kinds of procedural nonsense that makes it just hard for us to do business. I mean, during the financial crisis, half my Treasury slots weren’t filled -- couldn’t get them filled. And this is a time when we were worried that the entire financial system was melting down. So that’s -- I believe it’s something that we’ve got to take seriously. All right?
MR. PFEIFFER: We need to get you to your next event, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, guys. I enjoyed it.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Appreciate it. We’ll do it again.
Q Thanks a lot.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Thank you.
Q How about the game tonight?
THE PRESIDENT: Which one? Oh, the Series?
Q The Series.
THE PRESIDENT: You know, let me not wade into this one. (Laughter.) I think it’s fun. But my White Sox aren’t in it, so I just want a seven game. But I’ve got to say, Lee looks like a pretty tough pitcher. (Applause.)
on to Robert Gibbs
I belong to no organized political party -- I am a Democrat.
--Will Rogers
Thank You for asking the questions we want the answers to! Right on!
Congrats, John. That must have been so exciting.
...the news of the day is obviously what just happened in Kentucky. What’s your feelings on the thought of a Rand Paul supporter actually stepping on the neck of a female MoveOn supporter?
Really?
And was it President Bush or Obama who gave that nonsensical, incoherent, unresponsive answer to Duncan's question about HAMP and the nationwide mortgage FRAUD scandal?
who's counting?
Okay 45 minutes with the President and that was the first question you asked?
Wow! Big difference.
And to my knowledge, it was the first time Obama was put on the record for the issue - not a bad coup for C&L.
Of course the questions could have been tougher; you or I could type a dozen right now without batting an eye. But we weren't in the Roosevelt Room with the President of the United States not only representing progressive websites for the first time (that I'm aware of) in such a setting, but also laying the groundwork for some similar encounters in the future.
I get how how the desire for access and acceptance has gutted what parts of the MSM corporate profits didn't destroy, and I get how the power and prestige of the White House combined with the force of Obamas personality could easily turn many into lap dogs.
But the transcript didn't read that way to me. No, it wasn't flame throwing (though I think Obama should have a bit of that too), but it wasn't just a bunch of soft balls either.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
He'll spend hours with the villager MS Whore Media though. I doubt that we will be taken any more seriously after this meeting than before.
The truth is Old World Media will naturally enough ignore this, they have to, they know new world media and broadband is the death of their control of public consciousness.
The hardest thing for politicians to get used to with new world media is, it pursues policies not politicians. It seeks to elect those that will support publicly defined policies and remove those that override the public to favour vested interests.
So a public that can support elements of Ron Paul's platform while decrying Rand Paul and, a public that supports the intellect of Al Franken and Barrack Obama whilst opposing some elements of democratic policy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l7KbMVdN7E
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
...of when is he gonna get his attack dogs to quit hounding his base, and the "professional left", and turn them on the people who deserve to be bitten?
I kinda wish John had asked Barry about whether or not he and Michelle would be hiring Caesar Milan to train Bo??? (Caesar pointed out that Bo is in charge when he "walks" his master....).
That would have been a funny question.....
I was kind of surprised to see Obama announce to a major fundraising dinner crowd that he was going to have to leave before the lobster ravioli was being served because he had to get back to The White House to walk Bo and to "scoop the poop".
At $7500 a pop that would tick me off....not to mention that I don't believe for a nanosecond that he scoops his own poop.
Whatever!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
But, yea, the anger in this country is omnipresent, the economy drives this discontent everywhere.
Of course, we are now electing crazies to Congress in numbers not seen like this before, instead of one offs, bumper crops like this year are bringing us candidates like this guy who shot an unarmed man 60 friggn times in Fallujah. The Tea Party ponied up a cool million for the campaign. The inmates will be running the asylum . I hope someone asked him how much he likes gridlock.
Radix Omnium Malorum Avaritia
How cool is that!
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
Congratulations!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrdjxj3lMD0
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
man john that is so cool! good for you!
john, liberal/progressive blogtopia (and yes, i coined that phrase) has no bigger friend than you and the gang here at c&l. on behalf of everyone who reads and writes blogs, congratulations and thank you!
if we do not fix how the filibuster is used in the Senate, then it is going to be very difficult for us over the long term to compete in a very fast moving global environment.
So true, and the baggers are so ignorant. Baggers, please vote Democrat on this one. Then end the filibustering and obstruction.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
. . . but I thought the questions were pretty nicely done. Good job all the way around - especially by Joe Sudbay on gay rights. That had to be a pretty intimidating scene to be in.
Well done.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
He did answer John's 2nd? question though - about how to get republicans to give ground or compromise . Looks like they won't. They are not even capable of admitting to a mistake. They won't. So they have to fix how the filibuster is used in the Senate. Not satisfying but true.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
I thought it was parsed to examining the problem issue by issue. Whatever happened to horse-trading? The Republicans put up their roadblocks (which are called filibusters even though no actual filibuster seems to take place), and then the Senate just moves on and passed the legislation Republicans love. Where's the trade? You stop us on this - you don't get that. You give a little - you get a little.
I truly can't think of many, if any, conservative priorities that haven't been fulfilled. Record military budgets, the destruction of ACORN, pork for individual districts, The Patriot Act, etc. The Republican priorities have been addressed; they've paid no price for their alleged obstruction. That leads me to believe that these priorities are also Democratic priorities, and that the obstruction is little more than an excuse.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
should be the norm for everyone, if someone then wants to get married in a church that is their affair. the important thing is to get this thing done, so that we can have equal rights in this country. marriage is a freighted term, and the government should only be involved in civil affairs anyway, nice pivot from bam-bam.
once again, the HAMP program gives to them that has, and caters to voting blocs; what about the poor schmoe who rents? what is in it for those poor losers? no, the entire deal was done in order to preserve an unsustainable status quo to protect the bankers.
we will probably wind up with single payer because businesses will start dumping coverage, and the pool will grow so large that costs will become unbearable, whether that was the plan all along, who knows? bet a dollar to a donut that the wealthy will still be able to opt out when it comes?
clean energy? high speed rail? depends on private investment, and we have seen how much caoital has been willing to invest here lately, better returns overseas, the fly in the ointment of the american capitalist system. same for the derivatives markets that should never have been allowed in the first place, you get your money for nothing, and your chicks for free, as they say.
Great stuff. Disappointed he brought out the "move forward" meme that was originally used to avoid accountability for war criminals who started an illegal war the whole world is upset about, and for proven torture. Other than that some good info and some pretty good answers. Congrats, hope he keeps taking blogs seriously after the election.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
What makes you think he takes blgs seriously now? I think he takes Beck and Limpballs much more seriously than progressive bloggers. Because he is afraid of them. Maybe he would be more useful if he wasafraid of bloggers. I think he thinks he just threw a bone to bloggers and they'll shut up for a while. I didn't find the whole transcript that impressive. More tough questions could (should) have been asked, like why is he continuing the war criminal's policies.
Ok, Where were the questions about Guantanamo, the war crimes, the drone strikes, the secret prisons, the targeted killings of even American citizens, the ongoing violation of fundamental rights, the losing fiasco in Afghanistan. What were you guys doing there? Massaging his ego? People are being murdered every day by US forces with impunity and no remorse. Are you guys incapable of asking the tough questions? We might as well have W back in the White House if you're not willing to call out these war criminals.
Honestly, I don't care about that stuff right now. It does not matter one iota how he feels or what positions he's going to take on anything if he catagorically refuses to stand up and call out the Republicans, and from what I see here, he's not likely to do that in anything but the most cursory, superficial manner. He must have some serious kind of bubble going on around him if he honestly thinks he can get the Reps and baggers (one in the same or not) to actually work with him. They've built thier image on doing everything opposite of him, and until he aknowledges and moves forward from that fact, we won't see any progress on anything. Until he is willing to tell the Republicans to sit down, shut up, and do it his way at least occasionally, nothing else really matters. Until that happens, he's just a rarely used veto pen if/when the conservatives take majorities.
...was that he was responding directly and straight on to the Republican threat about slogging everything up in order to end his Presidency in 2012.
if they got all medieval on him, aight??!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
to all the writers, staff, and contributing posters here. It's got to feel good to get the time and recognition.
BTW, does the President have a firm grip in his handshake?
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
I realize you only had a limited amount of time, but two glaring omissions were in the areas of wars in the Middle East and constitutional/human rights (Guantanamo, imprisonment and assassination without charge, the Wikileaks document release, etc.).
Were these topics in any way off-limits?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Surprised that there was no question regarding Afghanistan, but maybe that's because the answer would have been canned - "we wait until July 2011 and see what happens then."
But congrats to John for getting in the door, good to see that the White House respects the impact of this (and other) liberal blog(s).
to all the writers, staff, and contributing posters here. It's got to feel good to get the time and recognition.
BTW, does the President have a firm grip in his handshake?
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Are you still surfing on a smart-phone fastfeat? Get a keyboard ;~)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Well, it's not like people didn't keep track at the time. But what would I know? it's not like people didn't keep track at the time... ">I'm a racist!
Maybe the door will finally be open to progressives...
Yeah, still on the damn Mobile device. Did my duplicate posts ten minutes apart (refreshing after losing signal mid-post) give me away? ;)
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
~
Corruption favors the wealthy.
"News reports have indicated that Netanyahu, Rep. Anthony Weiner, Rep. Barney Frank and other members of Congress have asked you to give the traitor Jonathan Pollard clemency in order to move the "Peace Process" forward (since he is a national hero in Israel), between Israel and the Palestinians. Clinton tried this in 1999 and faced mutiny from the CIA. Can you tell us where you are on this please?"
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
bwd wouldn't have let President Bush get away with some of that jive he was shoveling you guys.
Pick a winner in the World Series already.
And where were the Charlie Sheen questions? Didn't you hear he was busted with hookers and coke yesterday?
Juan Williams?
The View controversies?
Snooki?
Talk about wasting a golden opportunity.
He's the most powerful man in the world, yet the Log KKKabin Republicans have to deliver him five votes?
What blew me away was that not ONE of you called him on his complete change of opinion on gay marriage. Were you really THAT impressed/intimidated by the wallpaper and fancy furnishings? He's not Jesus Christ - he's only the President!
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77120/...
You do realize that you'll never be invited back - right? This was a one-time thing. Epic fail!
Dimwits!!! If only Joe McCarthy had been President, imagine the "good" he could have done with a compliant press like you! You're no different than the MSM you bitch about.
Good with words, bad with actions.
The Dems are apparently going down because they could not/did not have the balls to step up to the plate and swing hard. Their base is angry and frustrated and many will choose to stay home next Tuesday.
This means that Obama will move more to the "center" (read "right") for the next two years and, like Clinton, become a bored, restless, ineffective President. The whole thing is just pathetic. The first black President after the most disastrous 8-year Republican reign in history - squandered.
that line is enough to send a shiver down the spines of the reichwing lol
They will be muttering about 'four boxes' and doubling up on their beans and ammo purchases.
Good to sort of talk to the president about some of the topics of the day, But it would have good to have bring up the more unpalatable hot topics that are close to the heart of the more progressive left.
And it's a strong one. It's also why the DOJ has continued the forward press on the appeals...as long as there's doubt the courts will end it, Congress (the Senate in particular) has pressure to end it. All they need is a few Republicans who don't have elections in front of them and aren't Bob Bennett.
I thought it was interesting that he thinks odds are better for DADT repeal than immigration reform or the DREAM act.
............just going to be gridlock.
Because the last two years were so productive, right?
For all his intelligence and charm, he's missing something, and that is that the Rethugs are hateful, rascist bastards, and the sooner he acknowledges that fact, the more effective he will be as a president.
And I hope that his staff DOES read the blogs--especially the comments sections.
Mine too?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Very respectful and informative. It didn't sound like softballs to me though particularly on the DOMA and LGBT issues. I think I sensed the President beginning to seriously grapple with his position on same sex marriage. I also got a much better perspective on DADT and his description of how the law was basically designed to tie his hands. I also thought his point about the Log Cabin Republicans was spot on. All along they've been more willing to blame the President for not behaving like a dictator than in simply getting a few votes from their own damn party. Of course we all know it's because they're party finds them all repulsive. Which begs the question why are they in that party? Anyway, nice job guys!
unemployment is in the high teens per gov't's U6 or, more likely, in the low twenties. Shadowstats.com says its closer to 22.5% or slightly above (based on chart).
And Obama immediately sequed to talking about cutting the deficit! Really, Mr. President? Now is really the time to make cuts? And let people tread water for how many years? Or go under? Really?
Good on you John. But the timing of this meeting is annoying. After repeatedly dissing the most solid part of the Dems' base Obama does a Rolling Stone interview, goes on Jon Stewart's show and meets with liberal bloggers all in the same week. It's a bit too reminiscent of the way we're always suddenly flooded with campaign literature right before every election.
Keith's Special Comment on the teabaggers? If not now, when? After we've gotten our ass kicked at the polls?
had to say about the filibuster. I for one hope they do change the rules in January.
The Reich wing / Repugs are not about to go along with changing the rules , in fact the blue dogs aren't likely to either.
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
I don't call em the Reich wing for no reason . Can't believe the brown shirts actually defending the " tough guys " who did to this girl , making her out to be the evil one and the " bad guy " . Talk about pathetic people . They are going to push some of us a wee bit too far one of these days , stand by .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
After two years of s**ting on everything liberal, he now comes to the liberals asking for support?
Why doesn't he go to those DLC republican wannabees he loves so much, and have them get out the vote?
President Obama is no friend of working people, or liberals. Actions speak volumes, as well as the actual words of corporatist flunkies like Rahm and Gibbs. Mr. President, you are about to find out that DLC republican-lite has been, and always will be a loser for democrats; and your decision to choose that path over Howard Dean and the people may lead to the complete destruction of this country.
How could you have possibly been so tone deaf?
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
Latest FaBlog: And Softly Murmured “Someday Soon.”
A few observations,
1) There was absolutely no mention of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan (or the covert strikes in Somalia and Yemen). The so-called "war on terrorism" was not touched upon. Domestic surveillance and civil liberties abuses were not brought up. Of torture, rendition, Wikileaks, etc., not a word was uttered.
The only mention of the military was tangential; don't ask, don't tell. Now, I realize time is limited and that every issue cannot be discussed, but what sort of person asks the president about the Rand Paul supporter incident (i.e., catnip for those with a religious devotion to party politics and political races) and not our vicious overseas imperial wars? You know, the wars and "national security establishment" that we spend roughly $1 trillion on each year?
Amato, I'm sorry, but to ask the Rand Paul question right out of the gate was absolutely disgraceful.
2) It was amusing to read about Obama's squirming at the gay marriage question. There can be almost no doubt that Obama, personally, has no opposition to gay marriage. But he can't admit it. It's clear that he and his advisors have concluded that such an admission (truthful as it may be) would be a net negative to his political aspirations/agenda. So he is forced to grit his teeth, give a wink and a nod, and recite the same old talking points about "evolving viewpoints." Whether Obama is trapped by an archaic political system, regressive Republican opposition, and "heartland American values," or, instead, by his own advisors' fundamental political miscalculation on the gay marriage issue is still a matter of debate.
3) More generally, I think it is clear that Barack Obama was in full campaign mode during this discussion. The cordial, face-to-face atmosphere did not change the fact that this was, essentially, a Q&A session with the president. The questioners were not the typical array of MSM journalists, the questions were of a slightly different bent, but this was very clearly NOT an open discussion with the president. Liberal bloggers were not hauled to DC in order to advise the president on the nuanced positions of their readership, or to present their own strategies on electoral politics, or even to explain why much of the left-wing is dismayed at Obama's performance thus far, but merely to "involve" liberal bloggers and, in turn, to rally the troops. Hurrah!
"See, everyone, he's a reasonable guy, after all! And he's so polite! And he really seemed to care about the issues we discussed. If only it weren't for those dastardly Republicans (whom we shall dutifully defeat next week), our country would be in a much, much better place."
Honestly. Look at the man's responses. Read them closely. There is practically nothing new. Each response by the president amounted to a standard, by-the-book talking point. "We did A, B, and C. We believe A, B, and C will be good for America because of X, Y, and Z. We could have gotten D, but the opposition was too fierce. And that's just politics. Our compromise was the absolute best we could have done given the parameters we have to work within. Next question." Rinse and repeat.
I'm sure it was a great honor to have a sit-down conversation with the president, but I can't help but conclude that this was a wasted opportunity. You have to step into the Roosevelt Room KNOWING that you will be subjected to the standard talking points, equivocations, and salesman-like pitches, all in the face of a GQ-worthy smile. You have to ask carefully worded, prying questions. To ask the president for his position on gay marriage (for example) is a wasted question. Pure and simple. We already know the man's position on gay marriage. He has stated it clearly and concisely on countless prior occasions. What was the questioner expecting? That the presence of a liberal blogger in the Roosevelt Room (and all the "political pressure" that entails) would lead the president to revise his position on the spot?
Questioners need to make the president step outside of his comfort zone. Now, that doesn't mean you ask about his personal life with Michelle, but that you do your best to limit the president's ability to fall back on a standard, by-the-book talking point. That will, undoubtedly, be a difficult task, but it must be attempted. The alternative is the discussion you just had; a recitation and transcription of Official White House Talking Points.
He doesn't understand gay issuesat all. He thinks that he "knows" 9very idstantly) a few gays and lesbians is enough.
Of course he's not the only straight person so clueless.
John, this was a totally WASTED opportunity.
You asked about the Rand Paul supporter curb-stomping? Really?!??!!!!
One week ago, nobody knew about the curb-stomping. A month from now, nobody will care. And really, as far as Obama is concerned, why should he? It's a pathetic softball question that he has ZERO control over.
WHEREAS, America has WAR CRIMINALS. We knew this 5 years ago; historians will be writing as much in 50 and 100 years from now.
This past weekend we saw the Wikileaks dump that proved again, that Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were LYING to the American people and aiding and abetting war criminality.
Yet you chose to highlight a dumbass curb-stomp instead of asking the President about ACCOUNTABILITY and asking the simple question why he is coddling and protecting war criminals.
And why didn't you ask him about the international legality - to say nothing of morality - about Obama's increasing use of drone attacks that kill innocent civilians in a war zone where America NEVER declared war, and creates more terrorists bent on revenge for their cruel losses??
Good God, man! What is it about people who turn to spineless jellyfish asskissers in the face of power?
You made sure your questions could be identified with you and this site, but others did not. And the WH didn't include names.
Could you please ID questioners, at least those you recall?
Thnx much.
here are a few observations:
1. First he says "you weren't in those meetings". Yeah because he did them behind closed doors, opposite of what he said he would.
2. Why didn't we have a public option? Because Obama made closed door deals with the hospitals way before the whole Congressional negotiations started. He can blame Grassley or Nelson all day. But it was Obama who came running when at the 11th hour Bart Stupid started crying because a few minorities might get abortions under the health care legislation.
3. Obama keeps saying "it was Congress's fault, it's Congress's deal." "We have to tread lightly to not upset people". That's amazing because Bush's ppl stepped all over everyone to get their agenda thru. They never cried once about having to compromise.
4. This still sounds like he's telling progressives "look you need to give in to the rich elites because if you don't they won't do anything for you and will make life even worse for you." Maybe this meeting should have been a $30,000 a plate gathering then maybe he wouldn't have so "shut up and be happy".
5. Lincoln. Yeah he was so great. He only freed the slaves after it became apparent that the South could win the war and so he "freed" the slaves (most were already declaring their freedom and most didn't even know he freed them when he did, it was kind of a back page announcement) to help the North win the war.
These are the same lies used on The Daily Show.
So Amato, what kind of deal were you given to be nice? Did they threaten to tear down your website if you asked any tough questions?
We the little people need to face up. The rich realized the baby boomers were a political threat due to their numbers. So they were allowed to grow into a middle class until they got older and started dying. So once they start going away, pieces are put in place to take back that wealth from the boomers' children by denying them the lifestyle the parents had but by feeding them that mentality that "oh yes you will have a better life than your parents, this is America". But it ain't gonna happen. Wages are down, pensions are gone, the dismantling of SS and Medicare has begun. Part of this is macro. This planet cannot support 7 billion people living like Americans. So America has been converted into the world's consumer to draw all that boomer wealth out of our pockets and safely deposit it in the hands of the rich elite.
if the president likes puppies.
Some were acceptable, like why the President and Dems keep compromising when Repubs never do, and he gave the same naive and wishful thinking answer he always does, which offers some insight to how foolish he is still being. But asking him about the Rand Paul supporter was completely useless. What did you think he was going to say? Yes he supports violent behavior? Of course he's going to denounce it.
I really hoped someone would press him on all those issues he claim to support but then turned around and became worse than Bush--Guantanamo, torture, warrantless wiretapping, email and internet monitoring, rendition, etc. What about his obviously calculated decision to bring in former wall street execs to handle the economic crisis and how NOTHING has changed? Was there some stipulation on what could and couldn't be asked? Did he hypnotize you all with his charm and nice smile?
All the questions regarding gay issues were also wasted. Why didn't you guys bring up the arguments law professors and lawyers have made, that there were other options Obama could have taken regarding his appeal of the DADT ruling? Why didn't anyone ask him plainly, "How can you claim to support equality for gays when you don't believe in equality (i.e. gay marriage) ?
Obama's excuses on just about all the issues are bizarre. He seems to care more about protocol and the legislative process than about winning victories when the opportunities are presented to him. He might go down in history as the most bipartisan president and most respectful of the 3 branches of government that we've ever had. But what's the point if you don't accomplish anything?? Sorry I've lost hope in him.
...as being both weak and consistent with his presidential persona. Of course every candidate is not responsible for the behavior of every supporter. But every candidate has an obligation to condemn violent and dishonest behavior especially when it is committed by her or his supporters, and the condemnations should be offered in unambiguous language that leaves no doubt who is right and who is wrong -- something Obama's utterances routinely lack.
Last night, a few mates and I discussed this impromptu Obama presser with bloggers. We are all fans of C&L, yet to a person we were all stupified how Amato blew it - Big Time.
The general consensus was that focusing on an "Outrage Du Jour," as Amato did with the wholly irrelevant and meaningless "Rand Paul supporter curb-stomp" -- being wholly irrelevant and meaningless 'cos the White House is utterly powerless to control such things, and yet completely has the power to, y'know, make REAL decisions about peoples lives and whether, y'know, $10 billion dollars could be used to build a city's failing infrastructure or five new Stealth bombers, etc. -- C&L isn't much better than a left-side-o-the-aisle version of "Hot Air." Stupid non-stories are your priority, while unemployment, foreclosures, bank fraud and militarism are rampant.
Nero is playing his fiddle here, and John Amato is dancing to it. Utterly embarrassing.
And one wonders whether the White House knew this all along, that rather than invite a genuinely tough progressive voice like Glenn Greenwald, they'd instead invite tools like C&L and play them for the chumps they are. Straight outta the GW Bush/Karl Rove playbook: Invite the milquetoast patsies, smile and make them feel special, do it on the eve of the mid-terms, and roll them with tickles. Again - utterly embarrassing.
If the "Rand Paul curb-stomp" question had ANY relevancy, rather than it's shelf-life of maybe a 24-hour news cycle, then surely you could have couched it such: Mr. President, isn't thuggish brown-shirted curb-stomping of Move On supporters basically an inevitability when war criminals like Ilario Pantano are permitted to run for Congress rather than facing War Crimes Tribunals?
Seriously - if murderers like Pantano are permitted to kill and boast about it, without any revulsion from the White House, then shouldn't we expect jack-booted militarist supporters to be kicking the asses and heads of war protesters as a birthright?
I know, I know... healing thy nation means looking ahead, not behind. Know Hope, whatever.
Comments are closed on this entry