Badgered: Obama Acts, but Republicans Not Satisfied

[Dusty]

AP story!!!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130516/DA6AKR4O0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama, seeking to regain his footing amid controversies hammering the White House, named a temporary chief for the scandal-marred Internal Revenue Service Thursday and pressed Congress to approve new security money to prevent another Benghazi-style terrorist attack.

The efforts did little to satisfy Republicans, who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda. House Speaker John Boehner suggested the White House had violated the public's trust, and he promised to "stop at nothing" to hold the administration accountable.

"Nothing dissolves the bonds between the people and their government like the arrogance of power here in Washington," Boehner said. "And that's what the American people are seeing today from the Obama administration - remarkable arrogance."

The targeting of conservative political groups by the IRS and new questions about the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year - along with the Justice Department's seizure of journalists' phone records - have consumed the White House for nearly a week. Of the three controversies, the president's advisers see the IRS matter as the most likely to linger. At least three congressional committees are planning investigations into the agency that touches the lives of nearly every American.

Obama, who was criticized by both opponents and allies for his measured initial response to the IRS targeting, vowed to ensure the agency acts "scrupulously and without even a hint of bias."

"I think we're going to be able to fix it," he declared during a joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Soon afterward, Obama appointed senior budget official Danny Werfel to temporarily run the IRS, one day after Acting Commissioner Steven Miller's forced resignation. The White House is expected to nominate a permanent commissioner later this year.

However, the president knocked down the prospect of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, saying the congressional investigations and a separate Justice Department probe should be enough to nail down who was responsible for improperly targeting tea party groups when they applied for tax-exempt status.

Obama and Erdogan were questioned during a light but steady rain during Thursday's outdoor event. As the rain picked up, the president summoned a pair of Marine guards to provide umbrellas for Erdogan and himself, joking, "I've got a change of suits, but I don't know about our prime minister."

The news conference marked Obama's first comments on the government's widely criticized seizure of telephone records of reporters and editors of The Associated Press in an investigation of news leaks. The president spoke of the importance of striking a balance between "secrecy and the right to know" but said he would make no apologies for trying to protect classified information that could put Americans at risk.

"I've still got 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan, and I've still got a whole bunch of intelligence officers around the world who are in risky situations," he said. "Part of my job is to make sure that we're protecting what they do, while still accommodating for the need for information."

The president said he continues to have confidence in Attorney General Eric Holder, who has been the target of intense criticism from lawmakers after the phone record subpoenas were made public.

The IRS and Justice Department controversies have coincided with a revival in the GOP-led investigations into the September attacks in Benghazi, which claimed the lives of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

Obama, who angrily cast the investigations as a "sideshow" earlier this week, tried to turn the focus Thursday to Congress. He urged lawmakers to provide more money to strengthen security at U.S. diplomatic missions around the world.

"We need to come together and truly honor the sacrifice of those four courageous Americans and better secure our diplomatic posts around the world," Obama said. "That's how we learn the lessons of Benghazi. That's how we keep faith with the men and women who we send overseas to represent America

Snip

[Trapper John]

Blah, ba blah, blah, blah! O's rhetoric and responses are becoming soooo predictable!

Cue response #24

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Blah, ba blah, blah, blah! O's rhetoric and responses are becoming soooo predictable!

Cue response #24

This link's premise is that Obama has proven himself to be transparent and Presidential. The organization he bugged is rallying around him.

It's the responses and rhetoric of the msm that has become predictable.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Dusty

It's the responses and rhetoric of the msm that has become predictable.

Not so sure about that anymore. There is a palpable change in the media and the way they are handling this. And, Oh BTW, we have not heard the last from Bob Woodward, IMO. Remember how everyone mocked him when he complained about being threatened? I doubt that he has just been sitting on his hands.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Not so sure about that anymore. There is a palpable change in the media and the way they are handling this. And, Oh BTW, we have not heard the last from Bob Woodward, IMO. Remember how everyone mocked him when he complained about being threatened? I doubt that he has just been sitting on his hands.

TJ, did you read the story? This is written by the very news agency that was bugged, yet they're circling the wagons around Obama, regardless. That's predictable.

Woodward has been ostracized by the msm, incidentally. They threw him under Bus One months ago.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Dusty

TJ, did you read the story? This is written by the very news agency that was bugged, yet they're circling the wagons around Obama, regardless. That's predictable.

Woodward has been ostracized by the msm, incidentally. They threw him under Bus One months ago.

Yeah I read it and I just don't see this as a one-sided op-ed piece. More just reporting of the news as it should be. Seemed fairly balanced to me and certainly not supportive of O.

I was replying to the responses of O as reported in this piece. They are very, very predictable as are the Republican responses.

As to Woodward, no one is going to marginalize him, IMO.

I think the genie is out of the bottle and a tipping point of sorts may have been reached. This is not going to go away and the truth is going to come out on all of it.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Yeah I read it and I just don't see this as a one-sided op-ed piece. More just reporting of the news as it should be. Seemed fairly balanced to me and certainly not supportive of O.

In that case, these are indeed not the 'droids you're looking for.

[orion5]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Yeah I read it and I just don't see this as a one-sided op-ed piece. More just reporting of the news as it should be. Seemed fairly balanced to me and certainly not supportive of O.

I was replying to the responses of O as reported in this piece. They are very, very predictable as are the Republican responses.

Balanced? Not supportive of O?

The article Dusty posted said this:

"The efforts did little to satisfy Republicans, who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda. House Speaker John Boehner suggested the White House had violated the public's trust, and he promised to "stop at nothing" to hold the administration accountable."

If this was balanced reporting, and the emphasis was on "doing what's right for Americans" vs "partisan gotcha", wouldn't Julie Pace's article omit the part I highlighted in orange? Are you certain that all Republicans are trying to derail Obama's second-term agenda vs doing what's right, i.e. standing up for the American people who don't want their trust violated?

Or if this was balanced reporting, where was the mention of the Dems using these controversies as an opportunity to paint all Repubs as bitter and crazy? I only see a slam on the Repubs in Julie Pace's article.

It's true that responses by both sides often seem "predictable", but what do you suggest? That if you see something that is wrong you shouldn't speak up lest someone view you as predictable?

Bottom line, AP has circled the wagons (or at least Julie Pace has) and is back on message, which is that Republicans care not for anything but destroying Obama, progress, and America itself. Tired, tired old message. But when all of the msm trots that out consistently, it's effective.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by orion5

Balanced? Not supportive of O?

The article Dusty posted said this:

"The efforts did little to satisfy Republicans, who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda. House Speaker John Boehner suggested the White House had violated the public's trust, and he promised to "stop at nothing" to hold the administration accountable."

If this was balanced reporting, and the emphasis was on "doing what's right for Americans" vs "partisan gotcha", wouldn't Julie Pace's article omit the part I highlighted in orange? Are you certain that all Republicans are trying to derail Obama's second-term agenda vs doing what's right, i.e. standing up for the American people who don't want their trust violated?

Or if this was balanced reporting, where was the mention of the Dems using these controversies as an opportunity to paint all Repubs as bitter and crazy? I only see a slam on the Repubs in Julie Pace's article.

It's true that responses by both sides often seem "predictable", but what do you suggest? That if you see something that is wrong you shouldn't speak up lest someone view you as predictable?

Bottom line, AP has circled the wagons (or at least Julie Pace has) and is back on message, which is that Republicans care not for anything but destroying Obama, progress, and America itself. Tired, tired old message. But when all of the msm trots that out consistently, it's effective.

Somebody gets it.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by orion5

Balanced? Not supportive of O?

The article Dusty posted said this:

"The efforts did little to satisfy Republicans, who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda. House Speaker John Boehner suggested the White House had violated the public's trust, and he promised to "stop at nothing" to hold the administration accountable."

If this was balanced reporting, and the emphasis was on "doing what's right for Americans" vs "partisan gotcha", wouldn't Julie Pace's article omit the part I highlighted in orange? Are you certain that all Republicans are trying to derail Obama's second-term agenda vs doing what's right, i.e. standing up for the American people who don't want their trust violated?

Or if this was balanced reporting, where was the mention of the Dems using these controversies as an opportunity to paint all Repubs as bitter and crazy? I only see a slam on the Repubs in Julie Pace's article.

It's true that responses by both sides often seem "predictable", but what do you suggest? That if you see something that is wrong you shouldn't speak up lest someone view you as predictable?

Bottom line, AP has circled the wagons (or at least Julie Pace has) and is back on message, which is that Republicans care not for anything but destroying Obama, progress, and America itself. Tired, tired old message. But when all of the msm trots that out consistently, it's effective.

One sentence who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda does not make this an op-ed piece. And I submit - of course they do! Our elected representatives are POLITICIANS and that's what they do on both sides of the aisle. Like it or not, politics is the modus operandi in DC.

As I have said before in other posts, the genie is out of the bottle and this will not go away. Bob Woodward was the first to leave the reservation months ago, even Chris Mathews is turning. The scrum politics is in full swing and I am watching to see where Leadership is going to emerge.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

As I have said before in other posts, the genie is out of the bottle and this will not go away. Bob Woodward was the first to leave the reservation months ago, even Chris Mathews is turning.

I'm all for it.

Precedent says the msm kisses, makes up and rallies around the POTUS, though.

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Dusty

I'm all for it.

Precedent says the msm kisses, makes up and rallies around the POTUS, though.

You may be correct. But, the gut is telling me this isn't going away. Care to make a small wager?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

You may be correct. But, the gut is telling me this isn't going away. Care to make a small wager?

I don't know...do you drink Carling Black Label?

[orion5]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

One sentence who see the controversies as an opportunity to derail Obama's second-term agenda does not make this an op-ed piece. And I submit - of course they do! Our elected representatives are POLITICIANS and that's what they do on both sides of the aisle. Like it or not, politics is the modus operandi in DC.

It's not one sentence that's important, it's the location of that sentence. Professional journos call the first 2 paragraphs the "lead-in", used to get and keep reader attention. It was obviously vital to this writer and her management that she write something salacious and anti-Repub in the lead-in.

You will notice in her lead-in there is nothing anti-Dem, no use of words like "failures"...just the implication that the Repubs are all riled up, simply for political reasons.

Her entire piece was full of unbalanced reporting....sorry, not going to go line by line and spell it out.

[Sigaba]

Does analysis of one article establish, one way or another, a reporter's bias?

Interested parties might profit from looking at Ms. Pace's Twitter feed. One Tweet leads to an article available here.

There is also the president's press conference of 13 May 2013 during which Ms. Pace posed the following questions:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask about the IRS and Benghazi. When did you first learn that the IRS was targeting conservative political groups? Do you feel that the IRS has betrayed the public’s trust? And what do you think the repercussions for these actions should be? And on Benghazi, newly public emails show that the White House and the State Department appear to have been more closely involved with the crafting of the talking points on the attack than first acknowledged. Do you think the White House misled the public about its role in shaping the talking points? And do you stand by your administration’s assertions that the talking points were not purposely changed to downplay the prospects of terrorism? And, Prime Minister Cameron, on Syria, if the EU arms embargo that you mentioned is amended or lapses, is it your intention to send the Syrian opposition forces weapons? And are you encouraging President Obama to take the same step? Thank you.

Ms. Pace actively sparred with the president during a news conference on 1 March 2013. (Video of the exchange is available there.)

Ms. Pace's "page" at Salon dot com yonder over there offers additional examples of her reporting on the current administration.