My, but aren't we "Special"????

[Pathfinder]

"I came down here to visit. I didn't come down here -- this is what happens. I can't end up visiting you guys and shaking hands if I am going to grilled every time I come down here," the president said.

Here's the link to the complete article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/22/obama-suprises-white-house-press-corps-visit-briefing-room/

[Dakotaranger]

How dare a reporter ask a question.  Don't they know that they are supposed to worship the messiah?

[Rastus]

Something that should have been done by the past president.  Getting to know the press corp and mostly establishing a dominance and a position of authority.  The focus of the story may not have been that...but "I'm the big dog who are you" is a subtle thing that I think will work in BHO's favor.

I am not saying BHO did it for the right reason (to maintain presidential integrity as opposed to being a hot tempered "bully" or jerk)...but we may find out they won't "dis" him over this and like future things because he is making that personal contact establishing dominance.

The smart ass reporters I've known have always seemed to be unchecked yapping dogs that will bow up initially but will cower to the alpha.....I could be wrong but I suspect the White House Press Corp is the same thing.

I'm agreeing with you guys, but I'm looking at this a bit differently adding some outlook to try to gauge the future.  Just my 2 pennies.

[MikeBjerum]

At some point everyone gets the message from the President that he is the President and they are not, that he is in charge and they are not.  This was the press getting notice.  I've got an idea that it was an eye opener that they did not expect.  After the way President Bush was blasted for exercising his power, and President Obama's promise of "change," how are his worshipers going to react when he exercises his power?

[Thanos]

He doesn't get all his freinds evaporated when he took the oath...except his wife...and that may come.

[Sponsor]

[ericire12]

Here is the video:

3:20 mark
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/22/video-obama-meets-white-house-press-corps-gets-annoyed/

[tt11758]

You can hardly blame His Graciousness for being surprised that the press asked him questions.  Afterall, that was the first time they've ever questioned him on anything!!  There were sure as hell no real questions from the media during the campaign!

[alfsauve]

Well of course "we" are special.    "We" can talk about ethics and being transparent and accountable, in fact "we" can even post an ethics contract on the White House web site.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrder-EthicsCommitments/

WAIT WAIT.  Let's not just "post" it.  No! No! Let "us" make it "our" second Executive Order!!   

But words don't mean anything to liberals.   The End Justifies the Means.   So while ethics are good, if they get in the way then we can just "waive" them.   For the better good, you understand. 

First "we" have Treasury Secretary Geithner who wouldn't qualify to apply for a job in the Treasury, because he "forgot" to pay his taxes.  But that's okay, cause "we" really want him to be Treasury Secretary.

Then "we" have William Lynn, Deputy Defense Secretary - designate.   He was a lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon just last summer.    And according "our" Executive Order dated 1/21, he is ineligible, because he's taking a job where he will "participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;"

OH BUT NEVER MIND.   Section 3  of the Exec Order allows all those ethics to be waive, if they prove inconvenient.  And not only that, but if you get caught breaking the Ethics pledge AFTER you're appointed, AFTER you have signed the ethics contract, "we" can wave that too.   It has a built in pardon.   How convenient.

"Sec. 3.  Waiver.
(a)  ...may grant to any current or former (emphasis mine) appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee "

SO Rule of Law.....yeah "we" believe in that.......it's whatever "we" say the law is.

[deamonpi]

the messiah can perform all the "miracles" he wants, making a lobbyest not a lobbyer, making tax evasioner ethical.

[ericire12]

Well of course "we" are special.    "We" can talk about ethics and being transparent and accountable, in fact "we" can even post an ethics contract on the White House web site.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrder-EthicsCommitments/

WAIT WAIT.  Let's not just "post" it.  No! No! Let "us" make it "our" second Executive Order!!   

But words don't mean anything to liberals.   The End Justifies the Means.   So while ethics are good, if they get in the way then we can just "waive" them.   For the better good, you understand. 

First "we" have Treasury Secretary Geithner who wouldn't qualify to apply for a job in the Treasury, because he "forgot" to pay his taxes.  But that's okay, cause "we" really want him to be Treasury Secretary.

Then "we" have William Lynn, Deputy Defense Secretary - designate.   He was a lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon just last summer.    And according "our" Executive Order dated 1/21, he is ineligible, because he's taking a job where he will "participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;"

OH BUT NEVER MIND.   Section 3  of the Exec Order allows all those ethics to be waive, if they prove inconvenient.  And not only that, but if you get caught breaking the Ethics pledge AFTER you're appointed, AFTER you have signed the ethics contract, "we" can wave that too.   It has a built in pardon.   How convenient.

"Sec. 3.  Waiver.
(a)  ...may grant to any current or former (emphasis mine) appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee "

SO Rule of Law.....yeah "we" believe in that.......it's whatever "we" say the law is.

Its also unconstitutional for Hillary to serve as Secretary of State.... but why would we let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of "change".

http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=4140.msg48818#msg48818




*BTW: That was the best I have heard anyone put it about Geithner.... well done!