Neil Munro of the Daily Caller was attacked by journalists for asking President Obama a question out of turn -- because Obama wasn't offering a turn. He expects to speak without taking questions. On Thursday, Munro once again found himself surrounded by amateur Obama advisers thinly disguised as objective journalists after Obama lost the debate in Denver.
Munro noted several reporters on the 11:15 a.m. phone conference promptly offered questions that bordered on advice. "Axe, I'm not sure you can hear me, David," said NBC's Andrea Mitchell, "I'm wondering whether the president, whether you have rethought the strategy of not bringing up either women's issues, or the 47 percent or some of the other issues that have worked so well for you in your campaign advertising and in your stump speech?" Other transcripts without the reporter names identified seconded that emotion:
"Do you think that the President missed an opportunity to make the points he made today in Denver, and presumably will in Wisconsin, on that stage in front of a much wider audience?" said a reporter during the event, which took place at 1:15 p.m. MDT, aboard Air Force One...
"Is the president going to be tougher next time? Are we going to see a different -- Axe talked about sort of a shift and looking at strategies. Is he going to be a little bit tougher next time?"
"Was the decision not to mention either Bain or 47 percent a deliberate one? Or was it just a case where time ran out and he might well have raised it had there been another 10 minutes?"
"You said some weeks ago that one of Mitt Romney's strengths as a debater was his willingness to lie with ease. Was the President adequately prepared to call him out on that last night?"
"But did [Obama] go too far, the steadiness, his not being aggressive? Was that an over-compensation perhaps?"
Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal,
timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has
a reputation for being extremely liberal. So the fact that its editor
saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper
makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At
last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda
are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him by our liberal media.
I too have become disillusioned.
By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack
Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a
baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the
Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of
professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could
manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades
and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community
organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative
achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did
he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the
United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations:
the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as
Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served
as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a
future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a
man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be
sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken
hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist
like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama
was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have
hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard -
because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance
to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the
Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of
course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily
to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many
have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told
he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was
good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
issued from his mouth
- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and
over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing
to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own
incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never
been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither
the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you
understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current
erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone
otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
Please pass after you read this one. Suddenly people are getting wise
to this enemy of our USA !