A blog . . . in spite of how pathetic blogging actually is.

Monday, February 9, 2009

The Obama Press Conference Was Calculated Genius

He's not as polished as when he's giving a speech.



I agree.

But the stilted, often hesitatnt nature of his speaking style in a press conference scenario is intentional. He turns it on and off. It makes him look more deliberative, like an intellectual.

Remember intellectuals?

Here's the bottom line: Seven minutes into the press conference he attached all GOP hesitancy on the stimulus plan to the wing-nut section of the party's economic philosophy that beleives the New Deal was wrong. So if you're in the GOP and you don't like the stimulus bill, you're de facto an extremist who believes that Hoover was right.


And by the way, it doesn't have to be fair.

I predict the conference committee will replace about 50% of the cuts to states and the bill will sail (still with predominant GOP opposition, but choreographed to give the appearance of being against it while making sure the Senate filibuster remains staunchly clotured).

If you think he did poorly in this press conference, you need to keep up. This is chess, not checkers. I'm putting this post up while he's still taking questions.

The substance . . . the purpose of this night . . . has already been achieved. What I'm watching now is gravy. (The point was to make Republicans look insane. These are dangerous words to attach to a President but I'll do it anyway: Mission accomplished)


John Jacobson said...

Slate's take on the press conference is perfect. Not sure if this is supposed to ultimately be a criticism, but I stand by the assertion that the stylistic approach (professorial as it might have been) was calculated.

Anonymous said...

Shortly put, I find it highly hypocritical of the mass media to accept that when Obama says the economy is on the verge of collapse, we should all kowtow and quickly pass the largest spending bill, far and away, without allowing both sides legitimate input. When Bush did the same thing (criticize the economy) he was shot down by the mass media as a fear mongerer.

And if spending truly is the answer, why should we stop at 1 trillion? Why not double the good, make it 2 trillion? Or 5 trillion? I know that as soon as this passes, I'm going to be paying for the quick, hopeful fix for the rest of my life.

Sorry, JDJ, but I think we disagree on this one...

I'll admit Obama played his cards nicely. If it works, democrats gets the credit (and 3 RINO Senators), and if it fails the GOP takes the blame for stalling...

Although with some senators getting 99:1 feedback against this, I'm still hopeful that they might shoot it down... Hopeful, but not counting my chickens...


John Jacobson said...

A few things:

1--Whoever's telling you that some senators are taking 99:1 against calls is lying to you. This isn't TARP. This is three months later. That's a lifetime ago . . and the whole game's changed. That's what I've been saying. You're using the old script that will, I pretty much guarantee you, ensure your party's demise (which I don't want) if you keep sticking to it. I could have lifted the basics of your post from 6 years ago (applied to the notion of any type of spending) and it would have fit here (save for a few numbers adjustments).

2--The GOP started this run for the hills spendathon, not the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party GOT TO this point because of the horrifyingly inept discipline (on various levels) of the GOP . . . which is why most "real Republicans" I know have left the party. Former President Bush took over 6 years before he issued his first veto. I beg you . . . look at the spending that was approved during that window (only 31% of which the CBO has quantified as 9-11 related, by the way). You all went on a feeding frenzy. 57% of voters in 2006 who flipped from the GOP to the Democratic Party did so because they viewed the Democratic Party as (gulp) 'the party of fiscal discipline.' If you're conservative, then you're into a full blown identity crisis now because you only think you know what you've been standing for for the past 6-7 years.

3--From Katrina on . . . everything you said about Bush is true. It's true because he lost public confidence (which can be backed with any reasonable polling data) . . . which you never get back. So the double standard is most certainly the case, but you'd be hard pressed to find an example (Republican or Democrat) of a new President who wasn't getting the benefit of the doubt from the press. That's the way it works and, dare I say, the way it SHOULD work. It's a honeymoon and . . .

4-- . . . you've simply have lost the right to complain about media bias in the wake of the worst economic crisis in 75 years. It doens't work . . . and again, serves only to make you sound like what I fear you're all going to start sounding like: A large group of individuals who are collectively unable to process what's happening to you right now.

5--Please, for the love of God, snap out of it. Write something to me that I have't read before. Spark in me an "Oh yeah" moment. Do it. You can. You HAVE to find a way. I'm totally serious. What I read from you (and others) now is, to be quite candid, eye rolling. THAT was what the President was winking and nodding at last night. You're stuck in another dimension.

Anonymous said...

So I think that the most reasonable way to do this is to address your comments in order.

1) I think that the reason people have greatly opposed spending bills (for a long time, not just recently) is that they are tired of funding "special projects" that do little to improve the overall shape of the country. Really, millions of dollars spent on condom usage as part of the "stimulus" bill? Unless Obama is trying to stimulate more than jobs, I don't see how this is *near* worth the price. The laundry list goes on, and I'd hate to bother you with it. I'm sure that you know what's in that bill.

2) I haven't considered Bush a Republican for a long time. He tried to spend his way out of problems. That didn't work. Now Obama is trying it on a larger scale. You can't spend your way out of every problem that comes your way! Bush did the wrong thing, and Obama is taking it to a further extreme instead of looking back at history and reversing course.

3) Obama won with 53% of the popular vote. This means that he didn't get 47% of the votes. Let's assume that people who didn't vote are split similarly to make things simpler. This means that 47% of the people were critical enough of Obama to vote for anyone else before him. Logically, you'd think that the media would try to cover for the people, and not everyone is falling for nice speeches and 2 years of Senate work as "qualifications" to be president.

4) I said it before: it's so bad because Bush tried to spend his way out of a problem. Obama is doing the *exact* same thing, but on a larger scale, and screaming that if we don't act quickly, we're going into a depression again. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. To me, this plan looks logically insane...

5) I'm sure that you've heard more than I have, and I'm simply astounded that you haven't realized that these are tried and true, failed policies. They didn't help to bring us out of the Depression, they mortgage the future of our country by throwing the burden on the young. The United States used to be one of the leading creditor nations in the world. It used to be the fastest growing place that people couldn't resist flocking to. In droves! Then people started to vote themselves pork. The government became a slave to special interests, unions, and other groups.

I mean this in the nicest way: If the government cut spending, what would happen to your job as a teacher? Your livelihood? I can imagine that your salary would go down, maybe a delayed retirement age, maybe even getting fired. Thus, you need a larger government to sustain your own well being because teachers have become a government agency, with a most noble purpose, I might add.

I'm not trying to look down on teachers, but it's an example you can relate to. The same applies to the post office, military, and any other public servants (senators, congressmen, DPW workers, the lsit goes on...). While the efforts might be noble, it's costing our society in a time when we need to try to reach back to our roots when more than Mexicans were trying to get into our country. To when we were a fiscally conservative nation that encouraged growth and personal responsibility. Where pride and respect were commonplace, and government handouts weren't offered (or needed) because people found their own jobs. They took care of themselves and each other.

We're not that far gone that we can't go back. But spending our way out of problems won't work. It's a failed policy with no one looking critically at the *why*. It never has worked, and it never will. I love my country, and sometimes tough love is the best thing that we can do.


Anonymous said...


Obama knows that as soon as people start realizing this, his "honeymoon" is over. That's why he wants to jam almost a trillion dollars in spending down our throats before anyone brings the truth to light.

debra said...

Hold up a mite there bucko,

You don't consider Bush a Republican? So when you've messed up by standing a bad candidate you just redefine yourselves out of any responsibility for him? Whoa, that's choice.

And the running about with one's hair on fire objections to the stimulus package looks, shall we say contrived? Yes, I believe that's the word, after the way that the ship of state has been sailed into these waters by the freewheeling spenders of the last administration....Republicans, all.

Anytime one segment of the economy gets too much influence and control it throws the system out of balance. And we've had the financial markets run wild for their own enrichment with the cynical attitude that whatever they could harvest for their own benefit, and at the expense of the rest of us was within the range of acceptable behavior. So how do you figure that it's not the responsibility of the ruling party (both houses and the executive) to have been on top of this? Your party cannot abdicate responsibility for this crisis by defining away your relationship with YOUR president.

John Jacobson said...

Yeah, DKong . . . you're simply making too many references to what you know about me . . . and that's not longer a comfortable relationship.

Tell me who you are: Male? Female? 50? 15? I have nothing. Since you post by making specific references to me, that introduces a power relationship into this that makes the whole thing a bad scene (for me). You're right. I'm a teacher. So how I do I know that I'm not about to respond (and I do have responses . . . . as several of your comments were, again, serving only to make the point I've been trying to make to you) that you're not someone who sits in my class right now? I have a right to know that information.

I won't proceed until I do.
Who are you?
Answer me that, and I'll proceed. But I have a right to that information so that I can know how.

Santera said...

"While the efforts might be noble, it's costing our society in a time when we need to try to reach back to our roots... where pride and respect were commonplace, and government handouts weren't offered (or needed) because people found their own jobs. They took care of themselves and each other."
-What times are you referring to? Last I checked, we were still working to achieve this.