Saturday, March 2, 2013

Not the brightest bulbs

Greg Sargent has been relentlessly trying to make the case that the media's obsession with the idea that President Obama could have done something to convince Republican leadership to compromise on the sequester is absurd.

Yesterday at President Obama's news conference any questions about why this kind of nonsense persists were put to rest...these folks are not the brightest bulbs. CNN's White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin asked this question.
...couldn’t you just have them down here and refuse to let them leave the room until you have a deal?
Seriously. This question was asked at news conference with the President of the United States.

Perhaps she was busy and missed Speaker Boehner's remarks earlier in the day (even though they've been saying this for weeks).
The discussion about revenue, in my view, is over.
The only reason to talk about a deal would be to discuss whether the "cuts only" sequester would be balanced with some revenue. And the Speaker of the House had just affirmed that discussion was over.

The only question remaining for Ms. Yellin (and all the rest of these pearl clutchers) is whether or not she has a basic understanding of how our government works. President Obama graciously explained it to her.
I mean, Jessica, I am not a dictator. I’m the President. So, ultimately, if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say, we need to go to catch a plane, I can't have Secret Service block the doorway, right?
Geez...do these people really need a Sesame Street primer?

17 comments:

  1. Okay, so I kept reading for the last year or more that the sequester was going to bring the Republicans to their senses and they'd cave. That didn't happen. Now what? I'm missing something here. They seem completely fine with the cuts to the military as long as they can go on the Sunday shows and blame it on the President. Are people going to have to experience real pain before they apply pressure to Congress to do something? I just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is it "real pain" when we will still be spending more in 2013 than we did in 2012? And it's only a couple percentage points of the overall budget.

      Delete
    2. I keep hearing that 750,000 jobs will be lost as a result of this. Seems like real pain to me.

      Delete
    3. It would be 2% if the cuts fell on all divisions of government. However big parts of the military, Congress, and other areas that are exempt from the sequester. So that means that other areas are going to have to sustain 9% to 19% which is not small. It also means supervisors and managers do not have a choice about what to cut. They will have to cut all of their programs equally. This will mean that some things will have to close because they can't function half time. Airports and airlines can function when they are under guidelines about how long traffic controllers and pilots can work. They can't keep changing their schedules around to accommodate changing employee availability, so small airports will need to close. This is a very good breakdown of the whole mess.
      http://www.stonekettle.com/2013/02/sequestration-and-self-inflicted-wounds.html

      Delete
    4. If we are spendimg more than last year, how could we have to fire many people? Outside of defense, of course, which will see cuts but thats because we are stopping unnecessary wars.

      Delete
  2. It's the same basic comprehension fail that we heard over and over again from the emoprogs during the sausage making part of the ACA. They kept attacking the president and shouting "bully pulpit" when he was unable to kidnap convservative democrats and replace them with clones that would vote for a public option.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I saw that question,and my respect, as little as it was already, dropped even more. Seriously, do we need to start a "civics for reporters" class? Either that, or have media executives stop hiring their buddies' idiot children for the job.

    What they've all missed (Bob? This is for you.) is that it's not the amount of cuts, it's the method. Which is why the President called them "dumb."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the amount isnt so bad, then why is the President painting such a gloomy picture of how bad things will be if the cuts are made?

      Delete
    2. (sigh)http://cendax.wordpress.com/2013/03/02/the-sequester-its-not-the-amount-its-the-method/

      Delete
    3. If its not the amount then Obama wouldn't be saying the sky is falling.

      Delete
    4. Excuse me? Did you miss this statement from the President? "This is not going to be an apocalypse, I think, as some people have said. "

      He's not saying the sky is falling. What he's saying is the cuts at this time are stupid, they're going to impact the recovery, and that they're going to hurt a lot of people. All of which are true.

      Delete
    5. He said the cuts will jeopardize our military readiness, for example. He's trying to scare people.

      Delete
    6. You should be scared. Really, did you read my posting about the sequester? It's not a "smart cut" it's an axe. There is no option in how those cuts are applied. Everything, every single line item, gets a 9% cut. That means the aircraft carrier Truman doesn't deploy, needed parts aren't acquired, training budgets get cuts, people who do maintenance and services get furloughed. If you think that doesn't hurt "readiness," then you're living in a dream world, or just listening to Fox News.

      Delete
    7. Ah the old Fox News crutch. It is not clearly spelled out what constitutes a budget account and what is a PPA. There's more discretion than you think

      Delete
    8. Right, um, you do know who wrote a big op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the sequester was going to seriously harm the economy and our national defense? You know, spreading fear and panic that it was going to be a horrible terrible thing? That was John Boehner.

      You also seem to miss the point, that the legislation does not allow for "discretion." But you know what I do enjoy about this? The states that are going to get absolutely hammered by it are the Republican-controlled states. The ones who get a lot more money in federal spending than they pay in taxes. Mostly in the South, come to think of it.

      Delete
  4. Seriously, indeed.

    And, it was like she was frustrated with HIM because he hadn't done this. So, I'm wondering as, as Norbrook has pointed out, the civics lesson was given, will the press FInally start heavily nailing the Republicans for their determination to, as they've lost aGAIN, ruin the country out of spite?

    Indeed, Tien Le. This pain, it would appear, really does have to ramp up.

    And, it will.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Press conferences are painful to watch.

    ReplyDelete