.jpg)
After one week in office, the new president has sketched out a picture of things to come. He lambasted House Republicans for listening to conservative talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, for advice. He issued executive orders without debate or consultation.
Then grew visibly irritated when asked about his choice of a lobbyist for undersecretary of Defense.
His most sophomoric move: responding to critical remarks by a Republican congressman on his stimulus plan, he said bluntly, “I won.”
Let’s remember, the critics of the previous president often pointed out his dictatorial methods when it came to the very same issues which Obama addressed in his executive orders.
This is after one week in office.
Openness, transparency, the end of partisanship appears to mean to President Obama, ‘if you agree with me we’ll put an end to partisanship. We really don’t need lengthy debate, since I won (and you lost).
As I commented previously, since the Republican representatives and party are essentially leaderless, it will members of his own party that will become his problem. And the press.
It won’t be conservative talk radio that Obama needs to worry about (more about that in another post). It will be the White House press corps that will pounce on him, if he continues his current behavior. They, the WH press corps, expected more, and wanted more which is why they were so easy on him during the campaign.
What we’ve learned this week, the first week, is that Barack Obama is easily rattled and doesn’t handle criticism. He’s thin- skinned. Unless he changes, he can expect a very unproductive relation with the press. That only gets worse with every incident.
Mistreat the press, and like a herd of wolves, they’ll pounce on you. There’s this unwritten rule in journalism, much like gang warfare on our streets, ‘an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.’
Comments
You seem to disregard all the criticism he received on the campaign trail and in prior public office. He actually took a higher road than McCain. Do you think McCain would have met with Obama if the presidential race was different?
Two alleged examples?
1) He actually meet with Republicans three days into his term werethey brought *17* pages of complaints about the draft stimulus plan. Also he allegedly said "I'll trump you on that, I won" That is entirely reasonable he didn't even have to meet with them.
2) He was irritated by the reporter question because it was not a press conference - he said questions could be entertained later - he was just casually saying hello to the press and seeing their White House accomodations.
There is s big difference between press/journalism and columnists, OpEd's and advocacy like Limbaugh.
Certainly you don't consider yourself a journalist?
Maybe you should read the full transcript of the meeting in which he said "I won!" It might have a different, perhaps more lighthearted spin. Consider finding a sense of humor if you are going to report on politics.
It's about time Democrats had some backbone! Good for them! I've had enough of this "we'll be bi-partisan and work together just as long as you keep your mouth shut and do everything our way" like we had for 8 years under the Bush administration. And now that the shoe is on the other foot, Republicans are crying that doing things this way is not fair!?!? I'm stunned. And what is this complaining that Obama is issuing "executive orders without debate or consultation"! Holy Hell!!! Are you drunk!? What has Georgie boy been doing for the past 8 years -- NONE of George's executive orders (including those allowing torture, those allowing the NSA to spy on all Americans, and those allowing the Justice Department to open people's mail indiscriminately) were made with any debate or consultation. So, Republicans can just shut up about that. Republicans are corrupt and dishonest -- and they are going to have to learn to suck it, because we (Democrats) are doing things our way now; we're appointing liberal judges, increasing the corporate taxes, relaxing restrictions on abortion, increasing regulation, eliminating such assinine policies as abstinence only sex education, and (eventually) prosecuting everyone involved in the domestic spying and torture. Sure, we're going to tell the ignorant American people (who get their news from sound bites on the CBS News) that we are above differences, and are intent on looking forward and all that nonsense (the same way George I and George II both claimed that they had no "litmus test" for federal or supreme court justices). But, it's all a lie, and we're going to simply do what we want, and if you don't like it, tough luck.
I agree with you completely Arthur.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!