Politico‘s Johnathan Martin and Carrie Budoff Brown report,
President Barack Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a deputy defense secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.”Ahh, see,” he said, “I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can’t end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I’m going to get grilled every time I come down here.”Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter’s shoulder and staring him in the eye.”Alright, come on” he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. “We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys—that’s all I was trying to do.”
Candidate Obama got away with treating the media like that; President Obama, though, is going to find that that sort of behavior isn’t going to wear well. If he doesn’t want to make enemies of the media, he’d best get used to answering their questions.HT: The Weekly Standard
I don’t know. The overwhelming impression of the last sixteen years is that unless you have sex in the Oval Office, there will be precious few in the media who are interested in pressing for real answers. Its scary, but I think Obama will skate past. He’ll be able to dodge answering about minor inconsistencies in the most strict ethical standards ever put in place for lobbyists, just like Dubya got to dodge answering questions about torturing detainees without any due process or lying about Iraq.
I’m still very happy with the trade, but I guess we’ll see.
I don’t know where on earth you got that impression, but I don’t share it. I rather have the impression that President Bush was deluged with questions and assertions about statements which were declared to be lies about Iraq even though they weren’t, along with about a thousand other subjects. In any case, whether it’s appropriate or not, the media aren’t at all likely to stand for having their questions ignored and dismissed.
Also, if those “strict ethical standards” are only for show, to be formally waived whenever inconvenient (as just happened with William Lynn), is that a “minor inconsistency” or a troubling precedent? How about when the administration loudly announces they’re forbidding torture, but leaves a loophole so that they aren’t actually forbidding it if they really need to allow it? It’s early days, but I think there’s a pattern here.