You can read the transcript of the speech here. You can also surf youtube to pull up the videos if you like.
The conference started with his monologue. It was much as you might expect. "We need to work together to solve our pressing issues, both sides need to reach across the aisle, blah, blah, blah." He's spoken with both party leaders and wants them to work together to solve our pressing issues. He believes that "No party has a monopoly on wisdom."
He finished by saying that the GOP had driven the economy into the ditch, and that they were welcome to come along for the ride but they had to "sit in the back".
Oops, sorry. That last one was from a week beforehand.
Anyhow, on to the questions. The following is a paraphrased exchange.
Q: Do you, Mr. President, believe that the election was a fundamental rejection of your policies?
O: People are worried about the economy. I think I need to do a lot of reflecting and a better job.
Q: Yes. So, do you think it was a rejection of your policies?
O: We need to find common ground.
Q: Yup, got that part. So, back to the rejection of policies thing?
O: Don't mess with Texas. Next question.
Obama eventually said that the "tough decisions" he'd made were the right ones because it was an emergency situation...Which implies that he wouldn't have done those things if stuff wasn't as bad...So, if the economy recovers, I'm sure he'll remove all supports for failing companies, repeal Obamacare, and lower taxes on the rich. Ya know, cause that would be consistent.
He also said, finally, that (this bears a full quote):
"I think that what I think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. If right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices. The fact is, is that for most folks, proof of whether they work or not is has the economy gotten back to where it needs to be. And it hasn't."In other words, the only reason people are rejecting his policies is not because of the policies themselves, but because the policies don't work, and if the policies worked better, people would like them more.
Gee, you're right, Mr. President! How silly of me to judge your policies by their effects! Man, I am an ignorant moron after all! Here, why don't I just hand the reins right back over then.
He also said that because these decisions came "fast and furious" it "felt" like government was getting more intrusive...Which implies that government was actually not becoming more intrusive. It's just that stuff was happening too fast for our pretty little heads to really understand it. Phew. That's a relief.
"And I, in the rush to get things done, had to sign a bunch of bills that had earmarks in them, which was contrary to what I had talked about. And I think folks look at that and they said, gosh, this feels like the same partisan squabbling, this seems like the same ways of doing business as happened before."You're right. Gosh, it does feel like this is exactly the same way of business that got us in to this mess. I wonder if it feels exactly the same because it was exactly the same? Probably not.
When told that according to some exit polls, 1 out of 2 voters thought that Obamacare ought to be overturned and repealed, here was his response: "...that means one out of two voters think it was the right thing to do...but let's talk specifics. Does this particular provision -- when it comes to preexisting conditions, is this something you're for or you're against? Helping seniors get their prescription drugs -- does that make sense or not?"
Let's talk specifics, then. How about the specifics of massive government intrusion into private industry? Or the specific that turns healthcare from a service into a right? Or how about the specific that mandates to insurance companies, which are in essence structured gamblers, that they have to wager on a bet they know is lost (AKA pre-existing conditions)? What about the specific that the bill was 2,000+ pages and that there was not physically enough time given for anyone to read or comprehend the full effects of said bill, even armed with hordes of staff members? Oh, what's that? We don't want to talk specifics anymore? Cool. Next question.
I missed a portion of the conference, here, but read the transcript later. Not a whole lot stuck out, and I did get to see the ending which was more of the same. So, I'll end with this question:
"Q: President Bush when he went through a similar thing came out and he said this was a "thumpin'." You talked about how it was humbling, or you alluded to it perhaps being humbling. And I'm wondering, when you call your friends, like Congressman Perriello or Governor Strickland, and you see 19 state legislatures go to the other side, governorships in swing states, the Democratic Party set back, what does it feel like?
THE PRESIDENT: It feels bad. (Laughter.) You know, the toughest thing over the last couple of days is seeing really terrific public servants not have the opportunity to serve anymore, at least in the short term."
I dunno, Mr. President...Maybe they're not being allowed to serve anymore because they were lousy public servants. Just a stab in the dark.
No comments:
Post a Comment