Obama addresses Annual GOP Issues Conference

GuanYin

Did anyone watch this?

Obama was invited to the GOP retreat in Baltimore in what I can only imagine was a publicity stunt, but he accepted their invitation (to their surprise I'm sure) and insisted it was televised live.

This was covered on MSNBC and CNN but FOX didn't air the debate audio, instead showing images while talking over the speakers (mainly Obama) and offering running commentary on what they were saying (rather than just letting viewers hear themselves). And of course... Obama was "defensive", "combative" "emotional" :rolleyes:

In reality, it was a refreshing session. Obama was pretty straight forward, it didn't seem as prepared as many other Q&A sessions and both sides came out pretty good, while both highlighting that the bipartisan problems lie on both sides.

Overall, Obama scored some points for this I think, he had facts, numbers and details on most issues covered and it looked like he surprised a few of the GOP with that. Very presidential and hopefully it will result in a positive move.

Full Session after the jump.

rightwingdub

Was Obama speaking to a group of moderate Republicans or was it the entire GOP leadership?

Overheal

I just saw the Jon Stewart Response - he practically creamed himself in his seat.

Stephen Colbert reacted as if someone had tried to Exorcise a demon from him.

GuanYin

rightwingdub wrote: »

Was Obama speaking to a group of moderate Republicans or was it the entire GOP leadership?

It was the House GOP annual retreat.

You can look up the attendee list

Overheal

Fox news cut their broadcast of the conference when it was made clear the GOP was on the receiving end of Obama's counter arguments.

Every other Network managed to carry the full length of the piece.

Manic Moran

As one blogger put it, Obama won for being great at talking, even if there is little substance.

This little Q&A was all talk, no substance. The result was pretty much pre-ordained that Obama would come out pretty well for it.

Every other Network managed to carry the full length of the piece.

Win some, lose some.



NTM

Overheal

I know. We all know. We just hate thinking our News Sources can't just be impartial. Any of them.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

As one blogger put it, Obama won for being great at talking, even if there is little substance.

Would "substance" have REALLY mattered to the particular audience he was addressing? What would you expect from the Party of No?

Does anyone see the craic in the Democratic party labeling of the current minority Republican party in the US House and Senate as the "Party of No?" I seem to recall reading about when the Democrats were in the minority in both the US House and Senate during GW Bush's first presidential term. Back then the Dems were called the "Party of No" by the Republicans?

So the only difference between the review that GW Bush would have received back then (had the Dems invited him to address them when they were the minority Party of No), and the GOP inviting Obama to chat with them recently, is that Bush would not have been praised for "being great at talking?"

Overheal wrote: »

I know. We all know. We just hate thinking our News Sources can't just be impartial. Any of them.

Max Weber in Economy & Society stated that no one is value free; i.e., all are biased.

dave2pvd

I was very impressed by his in-depth knowledge of EVERY SINGLE ISSUE that came from the floor. I couldn't help but think how W would have flubbed if asked similar questions. The 'no substance' argument doesn't wash with me: it's clear the guy is highly motivated and putting in the work. His biggest problem is the ineptitude of his own party.

I was surprised by the relative civility of his audience. Respect was demonstrated by both both sides.

Have to say though, the finest moment was when Obama tore strips off the hack that built in a load of talking points into his 'question'. IIRC, Obama told him it sounded like he was trying to start a reelection campaign.

Overheal

Well the civility stems from the GOP running on a platform in the last 12 months of being Shut Out of the real decision making process and thats the narrative that has been run by FOX also.

To that end though, the Obama Administration rather publicly (how much more public could you get than the State of the Union?) invited [well, kinda insisted] the GOP do Monthly talks with Obama. It simply wasn't an option for the GOP to refuse this gesture or make a mockery of it. To do so would have been political suicide.

ascanbe

Manic Moran wrote: »

As one blogger put it, Obama won for being great at talking, even if there is little substance.

This little Q&A was all talk, no substance. The result was pretty much pre-ordained that Obama would come out pretty well for it.



Win some, lose some.



NTM

Haven't checked out how this little graph was put together; would be easily manipulated but perhaps it's true. Must check it out. It relates to a senatorial race, though, if it genuinely points to bias on behalf of CNN and MSNBC, that's disgraceful.
It is a different scenario, however, to live coverage of a sitting president directly debating with political opponents on the major issues. What concievable reason could Fox have for cutting away from this? What news that day was more important?
No need to answer. Everyone knows and no-one could possibly be surprised.
The fact that your immeadiate response to this was to search out other examples of media bias, rather than condemn yet another blatant example of it by Fox, shows you've already picked sides.
Media bias is a huge problem in America and can be detected in many sources that claim to be impartial.
Fox, however, have long since stopped being part of that debate; it's a propaganda channel, plain and simple.
If you can't see that, regardless of your political inclinations, then you're willfully blind.

ascanbe

Just to follow on the other point you made.
If 'this little Q and A' was already 'pre-ordained to make Obama look good', do you mean the Republicans involved signed up to a pre-ordained debate meant to reflect well on Obama? Did they agree to act as stooges? Perhaps they went through it with Obama first and helpfully pointed out ways in which he could refute their arguments?
Are they that stupid?

ascanbe

Overheal wrote: »

Well the civility stems from the GOP running on a platform in the last 12 months of being Shut Out of the real decision making process and thats the narrative that has been run by FOX also.

To that end though, the Obama Administration rather publicly (how much more public could you get than the State of the Union?) invited [well, kinda insisted] the GOP do Monthly talks with Obama. It simply wasn't an option for the GOP to refuse this gesture or make a mockery of it. To do so would have been political suicide.

Yeah, right. I mean the GOP would have no history when it comes to 'mocking' their opponents proposals.
And they always bellyache over how refusing a gesture will come across; they're nothing, if not gracious.

JohnMc1

ascanbe wrote: »

Haven't checked out how this little graph was put together; would be easily manipulated but perhaps it's true. Must check it out. It relates to a senatorial race, though, if it genuinely points to bias on behalf of CNN and MSNBC, that's disgraceful.
It is a different scenario, however, to live coverage of a sitting president directly debating with political opponents on the major issues. What concievable reason could Fox have for cutting away from this? What news that day was more important?
No need to answer. Everyone knows and no-one could possibly be surprised.
The fact that your immeadiate response to this was to search out other examples of media bias, rather than condemn yet another blatant example of it by Fox, shows you've already picked sides.
Media bias is a huge problem in America and can be detected in many sources that claim to be impartial.
Fox, however, have long since stopped being part of that debate; it's a propaganda channel, plain and simple.
If you can't see that, regardless of your political inclinations, then you're willfully blind.

They refused to air Scott Brown's victory speech so that graph should come across as no surprise to anybody.

Manic Moran

ascanbe wrote: »

Are they that stupid?

The thought had occurred. Not pre-ordained by agreement, but pre-ordained by fate. As they say, only a fool would try to out-con a con man.

NTM