Language You Likely Won’t Hear Today from President Obama in Canada

Grain of salt time, I think. Should anyone be a literalist these days? Don’t we all hate when someone does that in an argument? “But you said you’d never leave me”! I think it’s enough to report on what people say now without parsing it over the last several months or years — unless it’s perjury, of course!
The journo’s “flip-flop” meme is one of the most tiresome ones in the business. Only cover it when it really matters, otherwise it’s a distraction. What matters is what goes down in Ottawa now, and leave the historical context to the historians.

Jake, I’ve heard it is racist to point out previous quotes that don’t match today’s rhetoric.

Jake
How come you never call the Republicans out on their Lies Misquotes, Fair reporting Jake?

Campaign: Budget deficits are bad.
Now: Budget deficits will save our economy.

It’s fine to discuss, Jake. However, I have an issue when you did not do the same thing for then President Bush during his first term and his second term. We could write the great american novel with the things he said during the campaigns, and then went and did the EXACT opposite of during his time in office. Huge double standard, and how you have chosen to cover both presidents.

Jake:
How about a third possibility for ‘today’s discussion point’:
Politicians’ positions may sometimes need to evolve due to a change in circumstances or understanding of a problem.
It would be reasonable to suggest that Obama was either ignorant or grandstanding in his prior comments, but to suggest that he’s never allowed to adapt his position is pretty shallow.

You only ignore what Obama said on the campaign trail if he gives you a tingle up your leg.
If not then you report the facts–Obama has broken many campaign promises and will probably break many more.
Thanks for reporting the facts Jake.

As a wise person once said–everything Obama says has an expiration date.
This has been his pattern and now this is how he governs.
He didn’t bring a change to Washington just a typical politician.

“As a wise person once said–everything Obama says has an expiration date.”
FYI- it was JIm Geraghty

I don’;t know who said it first-twarn’t me, but I believe it:
“I’m sorry, what you are doing speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you are saying”.
Obama does seem to have perfected the art of getting the sheeple to fall into line when he contradicts himself, sometimes within the confines of a single sentence.

Campaign: transparency
Now: A Politico review of Federal Register issuances since Obama took office found three executive orders, one presidential memorandum, one presidential notice, and one proclamation that went unannounced by the White House.

What are you people smoking? You think that Mr. Tapper and the media in general gave Bush a free ride, did not report on his inconsistencies and misstatments? Really? You cannot be serious. Former President Bush could not make the most innocent remark without being pounced upon. Mr. Tapper was not the White House reporter for ABC for the entire 8 year period, but he certainly covered Bush with the same tough objectivity he displays here each day. Sorry, gang, but sometimes it really is all about the perspective you bring to the table. I see Obama boot-licking a lot of places where others probably see sober journalism and you see gotcha journalism where I see a sensible question. Different strokes, you know.

Admirable reporting.Not much of that in the MSM. However demonstrating that Obama tells lies and is inconsistent won’t pry his flock away from him.That will require a crowbar like a major catastrophe.Unfortunately for the country, Obama and the Clinton retreads he has assembled are probably better than even money to provide the catastrophe

moderate –
If the press had done their job, we might have avoided invading Iraq based on “bad intelligence” and political ambition. It will take us a long time to pay for their lapse; I figure we can stop reminding them about time the war is paid for.

Did anyone treat these statements as accurate and indicative of Obama’s agenda during the campaign?
My recollection is nobody really believed them then, either. Why would we self-induce a collective amnesia and pretend we believe it now.

You asked us to discuss, so I shall. I do not think you are supposed to come down with group amnesia. I think campaign promises and statements do matter and candidates should be held accountable for them once elected. As someone mentioned below, of course people can and should evolve in their thinking, adapt to changing circumstances, even just plain change their minds. However, that does not negate the past and past statements cannot simply be swept under the rug. If you change your position, admit as much and explain if necessary. But it irritates me no end when any politician acts as if s/he never said what we all know s/he did indeed say. We are supposed to realize that people say things they don’t mean to get elected, I suppose? That is not an adequate answer. How are we to know which statements we can continue to believe and which we can anticipate becoming inoperative as soon as they are inconvenient?

mad –
Wish I could just link to the whole story, but you know the High Sheriffs at ABC don’t allow it.
Here’s the rest.
(from Politico, which broke the original story)
—
There was no apparent rhyme or reason to the omissions. A proclamation Obama issued on February 2 for African-American History Month was e-mailed to the press and posted on the White House web site. But another presidential proclamation the same day for American Heart Month slipped by.
Such notices were routinely released by the White House press office during prior administrations — making their omission all the more unusual given Obama’s oft-repeated pledges of openness.
Most of the documents were posted to the White House web site Tuesday night, after Politico inquired about their absence. “It was a simple oversight,” a spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said.
One order Obama signed Feb. 5 expanded the National Economic Council to 25 people by adding the Secretary of Health and Human Services; Secretary of Education Arne Duncan; senior adviser Valerie Jarrett; “climate czar” Carol Browner and two other officials.
Another order the president signed the same day added two slots to the Domestic Policy Council, bringing it to a total of 26 people. Some slots were reassigned. The chief technology officer was among those added to the panel, while “AIDS Policy Coordinator” was removed. It was unclear if that was a substantive change, simply reflected plans to keep the AIDS czar post at the State Department, or perhaps both.
Another Obama executive order, signed January 30, canceled two Bush-era executive orders relating to regulatory review. The White House did release chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s memo halting regulations in the works at federal agencies, but didn’t release another Obama memo setting a 100-day deadline for agency heads to recommend a new regulatory review process. The memo indicates that Obama may want to do some things differently on the regulatory front than the last Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton.
Also waylaid was a notice Obama signed February 4 extending sanctions against some nationals of Cote D’Ivoire because of what he termed “the massacre of large numbers of civilians, widespread human rights abuses, significant political violence and unrest, and attacks against international peacekeeping forces leading to fatalities.
—
So apparently there are scads of proclamations and notices that come out of the White House on a daily basis, and they might not all show up on the web site right away. It’s good that Politico and other watchdogs are checking, that’s accountability. But if the blogosphere is going to be getting the vapors over the small stuff, will any one pay attention when something big happens?

“Today’s discussion point: Are we supposed to act as if things politicians say during primaries are irrelevant and meaningless? Are we supposed to just accept as fact that politicians say things in the heat of the moment that they don’t mean and thus we should should just collectively self-induce amnesia?”
Both.
I think Obama should be held accountable for campaign promises and statements.
In this case you are asking if his campaign rhetoric will be the same as it was to the union household as it will be to the Canadian PM.
Very simply the answer to that will be no.
But that does not mean that Obama will not pursue a policy to renegotiate NAFTA.

amber –
I don’t want refreshing perspective from journalists. I want fact-based news and analysis. Olberman, O’Reilly, etc are not journalists, so they are entitled to slant their shows to please their audiences. Jake can keep his leanings to himself, if he wants to be credible.

amber:”It looks like some of you who are smart enough to see that Jakes got some Republican leanings”
Not to familiar with his work while he was cutting his teeth at the turn of the millennial I take it… He doesn’t seem partisan, although like all media he is itching for conflict to make interesting stories.

Moderate: “Former President Bush could not make the most innocent remark without being pounced upon.”
========================================
so, how widely known do you think it was that FP Bush campaigned on Free Trade yet imposed imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products just two years later?
Sorry but the press was extremely compliant during the Bush years. It took WEEKS for the US press to finally report on the Downing Street Memo’s for instance. It was frontpage news for weeks in the international press.

Yes, we should take all campaign rhetoric with a grain of salt. We should also apply that rule to much of what the press reports. What good is gotcha journalism in a world where there are so many higher priorities.?

“lol…Jake Tapper reports what Obama said and then asks legitimate questions resulting in “shoot the messenger” comments. Tapper is a reporter. That’s what he does. That’s what he’s supposed top do. Get it? lol”
Jake gets it from both sides.
And while I agree with other posters that Jake seems to prefer and aggressive style, he does not seem all that partisan.

jhw, believe it or not, I was not taking a shot at President Obama when I asked rhetorically if we are supposed to just accept that politicians dissemble. I was seriously musing about the general political atmosphere. I’m not sure if your question, “But what are you expecting? A resignation? A tearful apology?” was directed at me, but I assume so since you go on to suggest I have a tone of “personal grievance.” In this particular post (not to say everything I’ve ever posted, to be sure), I was making an observation about politicians at all levels, a general observation about holding all politicians accountable. I was not singling out Democrats, Republicans, presidents, or fruit bats. Honestly! Since you asked, what I expect of any politician is an honest response when confronted with changing positions. I did not intend to imply that in the example cited in Mr. Tapper’s post that we got anything other than that from President Obama.

I expect journalists to hold politicians accountable for the positions they take. If a politician changes their mind then they should indicate why. Most of the time politicians don’t change their mind, they just change who they are talking to. They lie to get elected and this is not acceptable. We should know if politicians are going to do what they say, or of they just lied about it. When I vote for a politician I want to know the truth about their positions. If you are going to vote for lies, then you should just stay home. But in reality you are voting for them because you believe they are only lying about the policies you don’t want anyway. You would rather have someone that lies to get elected than tells the truth and gets elected. That would be real scary and would force the discussion of issues into the public domain.

Just another quick question – a reporter asks a serious question and the President rebuffs it, implying that the journalist is “having fun… nothing wrong with that.”
If that doesn’t directly imply that Obama expects the media to just “go along to get along”, backing off at his request, then I suppose the only other read is that he thinks journalists are cute little puppets who only go off his message when they’re bored and giving him a “razzing” – a bit of a hard time – wink wink, nudge nudge…
Or maybe he thought Jon Stewart was asking him a question – that’s how it would appear, no?
Do we have another example of a President brushing off a question in this manner? Does it not imply an almost frightening “coziness” with a reporter from the New York Times?
Or is the NY Times now the Daily Show? Stop having fun and get back on my message now, you silly journalist, you… C’mon… hahaha… cute, cute… But seriously, do you REALLY want another GW – cuz that’s what you’re gonna get!
Seems pretty scary to me.

Another example of the completely different treatment the Obama Administration is receiving compared with the Bush Amdin.
Politico’s Glenn Thrush, seeing a news report that Hillary Clinton said she likes the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, “decided to fact-check.”
What relevance does this even have, besides engaging in “gotcha journalism”?
The press finally found their true calling again: fact-checking. And that’s good. But it is extremely that it took them 8 years to rediscover that. And that is only applies to Democrats.
Has any of these “journalists” fact-checked the Pelosi Mouse lie? The LA-Vegas Highspeed rail lie? Money for Acorn lie?
None of that is found in the Stimulus Bill, yet Republicans were free to spout these lies without any journalist calling them out on it.
And let alone the other job of journalism accurately: informing the public. Has any journalist called Republicans out on their “Spending is not Stimulus” nonsense?

New Cronkite: “Do we have another example of a President brushing off a question in this manner?”
==========================================
Do you mean a president not answering a question? Yes.
Do you even realize that Bush preempted this type of questioning by not allowing journalists inside his bubble? His contacts with the press were in (arranged) interviews and during very few press conferences. Obama already has conducted more press conferences in a month, than Bush did in an entire year.

he press finally found their true calling again: fact-checking. And that’s good. But it is extremely that it took them 8 years to rediscover that. And that is only applies to Democrats.
****************************************************
The press is till responding to the same masters by scrupulous fact checking after neglect for eight long years. They’re still pouring out the same wine for them, it’s just in a different cask this time.

He should just say ‘Aye’ or ‘Eh’ a whole lot — and act like Ontario is just the 51st state…
I think after the Nafta/Schmafta Primary debate .. his henchmen ran to the other North Americans and told them that Canada was safe — regardless of the Hillary/Obama debate rantings.

Willem, I think you’re missing my point.
Is the NY Times the Daily Show? If not, then isn’t Obama’s response a bit creepy?
A reporters asks a tough question, and his response is to laugh it off? Treat the reporter like they’re old high school chums – okay, enough teasing, let’s get back to delivering my message to the American people…
That’s pretty messed up.
For Letterman, Leno, Ferguson, Stewart, etc. – that might be a plausible response.
Now the NY Times is just “having fun” with the President – teasing him with hard questions?
Ignoring the press or denying them access is one thing – implying that they’re “jokesters” for daring to go off message is unique here.
Yeah, for the most part, I think Americans understand that the MSM is a joke. But Obama should have a little more couth, no?
Maybe next time, rather than ask him questions, the Grey Lady can just dress their reporters up as Court Jesters at the next press conference – so that they might better prepared to entertain his Highness with their silly antics?
But look at me – having fun with Obama… I should stop now. Or GW might come back and get me – scary…

“Are we supposed to act as if things politicians say during primaries are irrelevant and meaningless?”
How about an example? That might help the discussion a bit…

One week ago: Corporate jets are wasteful and elitest.
Two days ago: Corporate jet manufactures receive tax breaks in the stimulus bill.

Jake,
Refreshing to see one of the few in the MSM actually look objectively at the issues. I doubt that ever in our history has a President so polarized the country in his first month in office.

“Even reporters know that spending is not stimulus – you can’t spend your way out of debt.”
A stimulus bill is a spending bill.
Why would anyone listen to Republicans?
During the Bush years they claimed deficit spending as okey dokey and that people worrying about the national debt were silly.

How about the GOP Gov,s I’m not taking that stimulus to I am taking that Stimulus. How about the GOP voting against the Stimulus and now some are saying they inserted this or that and taking credit for it.

Refreshing to see one of the few in the MSM actually look objectively at the issues
***************************************************
Really, Ralph, this reports hisses a bit in its cattiness. It’s lacking some higher ground in objectivity, which trees can adequately provide. I can’t help but ponder how reporting might change if reporters took their laptops atop the trees.

“How about the GOP voting against the Stimulus and now some are saying they inserted this or that and taking credit for it.”
They’re the same idiots who claim credit for Obama’s tax cuts targeted to towards the middle & working class.

Oregon, May 2008, Yahoo News:
Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times…”
———————-
May 2008 was during the primary campaign.

“Govern: Oval office warm enough to grow orchids in,”
Which was a joke.
“$100/lb beef at social event”
A $100 a lb if you’re buying steaks online maybe. But these were hors d’œuvres and its doubtful they need more than a few pounds of beef anyway.
“bailouts to manufacturers of SUVs,”
Encouraging them to build more fuel efficient cars and assistance to retool for that effort.
“flights to Colorado for photo-op bill signing”
Obama is currently touring the country to talk to the American people about his plan for getting us back on track.
Its called leading.
These little games are fun!

Ryan, just wondering, is there anything Obama can possibly do that you will not insist on spinning as a positive?

Yes, we are supposed to have self-induced amnesia. There will probably be a governmental mandate against asking the new president a substantive question and it will be inforced by White House Brown Shirts.

The President is quite correct to recognize that opening up a can of trade worms during the most serious economic crisis since the ’30s would be counter-productive. He made his crticisms of NAFTA in a very different world than what we have today.
There hasn’t been a “leader of the free world” in 6 years, and the position desperately needs to be filled. That is what he was doing in Ottawa today. Bravo to America for electing such an intelligent, articulate, and engaging President.

I like the one nobama stated about giving the american people 5 days to look over bills before he would sign them to show transparency…well he didn’t even read the stimulus bill before he signed it so at least he is consistant.

JPT:
In this case, it was not just a “heat of the moment” position. Team Obama publicly humiliated the estimable Austan Goolsbee, one of his most significant advisers, for implying that Obama would actually take the very position he now appears to be assuming. This is not your usual empty promise! It’s political fraud.

Thank you sincerely for having the courage to ask these questions, and for being one of the very few journalists with the integrity to challenge this President with hard questions. In the environment Jake Tapper works it must take monumental courage to risk the potentially career killing scorn of the legion of Obama cultists.
Some campaign slips or changes of mind are forgivable. Obama’s entire campaign was built on equivocation and lies. His first month is a list of broken promises to the American People. He should absolutely be held accountable, as it will get worse not better if left unchecked.
It is a shame his followers are so self-deceptive they can’t face these facts.