Megyn Kelly at Fox News prefaced coverage of President Barack Obama’s first presser in more than 8 months by saying there would surely be “robust exchange” between the president and media.
Wishful thinking. The presser moved along much like a stump speech, with Obama doubling down on his campaign theme of taxing the wealthy even more. Obama repeatedly referenced that goal just as he has since taking office the first time.
He also repeated the theme of the Great Recession. Obama has successfully wielded what he inherited as a political weapon—that is his greatest consistency other than enthusiasm for tax hikes and constituent handouts.
There was a telling moment in the presser that most media missed.
Obama noted a concern—“How can we make the federal government more customer friendly?”
The Obama administration has used the “customer” motif in a number of government endeavors, especially on government websites related to immigration. Messaging on those sites casts visitors as “customers.”
That media failed to note the incongruity in that characterization probably won’t surprise anyone.
Americans are not “customers,” at least those who pay taxes aren’t. Taxes aren’t a voluntary exchange of money for services; taxes are confiscated by law. Furthermore, we “customers” don’t all get the same treatment. Those at the bottom of the income ranges—basically the welfare class—get everything from cell phones to Pell grants. Most at the top receive a lesser share of taxpayer money. Exceptions are corporate cronies who get sweetheart deals in the form of loans, grants and political appointments.
American taxpayers are more akin to shareholders, not customers, in a government that increasingly decides who gets the dividends. The Obama administration favors paying those dividends to those at rock bottom and those at the very top—a recent article on the Dept. of Energy's sweetheart loan to Tesla is a good example of that policy.
There was a small “robust” moment when Obama fired on Fox News’ Ed Henry, telling him Republican senators shouldn’t “besmirch” the reputation of UN ambassador Susan Rice.
In my opinion, Rice, complicit in the Clinton administration's handling of Osama bin Laden, has no “reputation.” She repeatedly misled Americans about what happened in Benghazi, taking to the Sunday talk shows like a fly to a dung heap.
Furthermore, Rice has not looked after U.S. interests when it comes to the United Nations. Both Rice and Obama have capitulated, throwing the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on that dung heap, thereby encouraging Islamists to commit violence when they perceive an insult to one of their prophets.
Not a single reporter asked about the hobbyist filmmaker sitting in a U.S. prison. Obama’s Dept. of Justice claimed the filmmaker violated his probation. That may well be the case but most of us who haven’t experienced a Democrat lobotomy know why this man is in prison. He dared to exercise his rights to free speech.
The filmmaker is the equivalent of a political prisoner in Cuba or Russia. Both those countries’ leaders are Obama fans, by the way.
No one stateside even knew about the film until the Obama team made it famous. As the Benghazi coverup ensued, alphabet TV networks ignored it to avoid damaging Obama’s reelection bid.
The Obama presser told Americans nothing new, although it appears the president definitely has a groupie at The Chicago Tribune. The female “reporter” gushed over the president on a highly unprofessional level that probably raised at least one person’s eyebrows—the First Lady’s.
The National Enquirer, the tabloid that broke the story on former Dem star John Edwards’ adultery, claimed in a recent issue that the First Couple’s picture perfect marriage is a sham.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Nov. 15, 2012)