[HT: Michelle Malkin]
The starry-eyed Obamabots in the American media embarassed themselves yet again last night, fawning all over our empty-suit President during his Chicken Little press conference. I am sorry, but you are lying Mr President. If you were serious about this crisis and the need for real action you would not have let the other two-thirds of your collectivist trifecta (Reid and Pelosi) craft a huge leftist-pork-laden [non] stimulus package. If this bill would actually stimulate more then Democrat causes then perhaps I could take you and your warning shrieks seriously. This is akin to a mechanic telling you that he needs to do extensive work on your vehicle before you can take a trip, but then all he does is give it a paint job and some new mag wheels. This bill proves that the President and his party are inherently unserious about this financial crisis.
Legal Insurrection had a good write up on it here. Jacobson noticed one slanted question, posed by fawning fake journalist Chip Reid of CBS, that got me ranting at the tv as well:
Question: Thank you, Mr. President. You have often said that bipartisanship is extraordinarily important, overall and in this stimulus package, but now, when we ask your advisers about the lack of bipartisanship so far — zero votes in the House, three in the Senate — they say, “Well, it’s not the number of votes that matters; it’s the number of jobs that will be created.” Is that a sign that you are moving away — your White House is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship? And what went wrong? Did you underestimate how hard it would be to change the way Washington works? [emphasis mine]
No mention of the possibility that this hard-left spending package could be to blame. No mention of philosophical differences. No, the new definition of bi-partisanship is that the Republicans need to do what Obama wants and if they choose not to for whatever reason, it is just proof to the Obamedia of how hard it is for The One to change Washington with those evil Republicans in the way. Disgusting pseudo-journalism.
Jacobson nails it at the end, and also embarasses NPR’s Obama cheerleader Mara Liason:
Mara Liason, a columnist for Fortune magazine who proved that she is not a reporter, characterized the stimulus plans as the “easy” part — what could be easier than cutting taxes and spending money:
“Question: Thank you, Mr. President. If it’s this hard to get more than a handful of Republican votes on what is relatively easy — spending tons of money and cutting people’s taxes — when you look down the road at health care, and entitlement reform, and energy reform, those are really tough choices. You’re going to be asking some people to get less and some people to pay more. What do you think you’re going to have to do to get more bipartisanship? Are you going to need a new legislative model, bringing in Republicans from the very beginning, getting more involved in the details yourself from the beginning, or using bipartisan commissions? What has this experience with the stimulus led you to think about when you think about these future challenges?”
Huh? How about selling out the future, burdening our children with massive debt, destroying the dollar, and causing long term financial damage to the country.
Spare me the talk of tax cuts, Mara. Since a large part of the so-called tax cuts will involve welfare checks cut to those who do not pay taxes I am not impressed at all. That is just dependency-generating vote buying, like the rest of this Generational Theft Pork Package.
I cannot believe that any thinking person takes this stimulus package seriously.