Bush met with reporters form, among others, the LA Times. iow, it was an off the record chat. It wasn't a strategy session on bashing liberals, as barry's Almost Certainly Was to in the opposite direction. So yes, in our sanctimonious opinion, barry is not playing fair, but then what would one expect of someone who has produced a clearly forged birth certificate, a clearly forged selective service application card with a forged gov't date stamp, and an almost certainly stolen social security number. In fact, as i've been saying all along, the fraud is the only thing that matters. Saying that health care or immigration or anything else is important is ridiculous when you have fraud who couldn't care less about following the law. It's why we need a legitimate president.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you interested in your 'word' or are you interested in the facts and the opinion? fhl said it better than I. I think you just want to play games. Hoofy, your confused face is appropriate.
Your sanctimony is what makes you lovable to your peers. Without it, your ideas and opinions would be rejected. You may even be feared and hated, if your righteousness were of a high enough level. Barry has the legal and moral right to have discussions with reporters off-the-record, just as you have, and just as any other president or politician has. In case you haven't figured it out by now, it's politics 101. After all, Can you really blame any president for wanting to make sure he is not setting up a public interview with someone who's primary intent would be to pick apart his statements and turn them around so that the public will look towards him with ill will (which seems to be your intent)? What if Ronald Reagan called you while he was in office and said, "Hey buddy, I have a job to do which involves relaying some information and certain proposals to the American people, and I'm looking for someone to do a story with. I'm not asking you for any favors or wanting you to partake in anything illegal or immoral, it's just that I want to make sure we are on the same page on a few certain general aspects before we set up a formal meeting or interview." Would you have declined his request and spouted off your same sanctimonious opinion, or Would you have gotten on a jet airplane and dashed over to Washington and had cocktails with the President?
You don't understand. You're not a shrink and you shouldn't play one on ET. The president should NOT be able to have secret, private meetings with members of the press that are off the record. The adversarial relationship should be maintained. A law could be passed that prevents national politicians from having private meetings with journalists and I think it would be a good idea. Call it sanctimony, righteousness or what ever you like. My point is that presidents at the minimum should not have private planning sessions with the press. The adversarial relationship between Obama and the MSM has been destroyed from meetings just like this. I think others here understand what I am saying. You are just hung up on playing semantics. Typical liberal obfuscation.
I'm not playing shrink. I'm simply commenting on your post. You have never posted your opinion about this matter during the pre-election while you were busy campaigning on behalf of Romney, the grand champion of off the record meetings with members of the press. For him, it is just business as usual. I'll admit, I could be completely in the wrong here and perhaps it's just your naivety which prevented you from coming forth with your strong opinion on the matter before now. Maybe you were just clueless as to how the guy you were championing (Mitt Romney) actually goes about his day to day business. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...servative-media-off-the-record_n_1472855.html So here is a golden opportunity for you to change my beliefs about your intent here on the forum. Prove otherwise, and provide for us posts stating your disdain for Romney, Bush, or any other republican presidential candidate schmoozing the press. But, I think that most others will see it just as I do- in that this only became a problem for you when you learned that Obama does it.
I don't really care if you know what my intent was for posting the story or not. It seems you are very concerned that I posted the article about Obama because I find Obama disgusting. I do find Obama disgusting. I posted because it is in the news again about his little parlays with the liberal press to plan strategy for promoting his liberal agenda. You on the other had have a problem with my posting information about Obama. You seem rather put off that your messiah has flaws and they are reported by other than the leftist MSM. No president has ever had the MSM in his pocket like Obama. It is an obvious problem that is detrimental to the freedom that American enjoy. Controlling the news is a trait of dictators, not presidents. That's too bad. If I see news that outs Obama as the low life non-presidential president that he is I'll post a story about it. If you have a problem with that maybe you should share your own opinion about it instead of having your little dance about my intent. Your lame attack on me me is making you look foolish and is really a lame attempt at obfuscating the real problem that is Obama and his lying, treacherous administration and their control of the press. I find your intent to discredit with your comments about me instead of addressing the issue hilarious. You are a strange person, hoofy. So why don't you take the your personal opinion of me and shove it up your ass and apply yourself to defending your grand wizard in the White House? Or have you been so beat up here by your foolish Obama ass kissing that you are afraid to defend by any other means than to try to attack others with your idiotic word games? You are being a moron, Hoofy. Everyone here can see that you are just too stupid to make an argument for your messiah's disgusting antics. Maybe you should just run along if you are too ignorant to develop an argument about what you are really trying to say.
You don't (can't?) see the difference between a candidate (someone with NO power) and a sitting President doing this? Talk about naïveté.