Yesterday, Brad Watson of WFAA (Dallas/Fort Worth) decided to ask President Obama some honest questions about his relationship with Texas. Of particular interest is Obama’s take on economics. He called Governor Perry a “hypocrite” for taking $6 billion in “federal help” to balance our budget. More on that later.
Obama was upset about the interview, telling Watson: “Let me finish my answers the next time we do an interview, all right?”
For breaking the rules and asking Obama real questions, USA Today launched a counterattack:
“President Obama has troubles with voters in Texas, and, apparently, with interviewers from the Lone Star State as well.”
(The implication being it’s our fault.)
Back to the $6B. The IRS notes that Texas’s total tax liability in 2008 was $93.6 billion. (Download spreadsheet here by clicking on Texas.)
In other words, it’s more accurate to say that the fed returned about 6% of our money, and cheerleader Obama is trying to tell us what a great guy he is for doing that.
It’s curious that while USA Today was busy trying to “correct” the record, they neglected to mention the true tax situation.
O’Reilly has a point on this question of answers: if you let Obama drone on he gives pre-packaged answers meant to advance his own agenda and filibuster the time away til there is none to get an honest answer.
It’s why he doesn’t really do interviews, certainly not tough ones; I don’t know that Obama could survive a shrewd and tough interview. When he was in such a position, during the campaign, he had to cut away Rev. Wright and others.
If Obama was dumb enough to do a really tough interview, he might have to fire Holder the next day.
ALL politicians must be re-educated to understand that OUR tax dollars are not their largesse to “give” away. this is the cankerous conceit that lies at the heart of the bloated corruption which is rotting this great nation.
any re-education involving tar and feathering, rotten fruits and vegetables in the faces whilst in the pillories, or a simple three stooges assault anytime a lib begins the fibs will get my attention
This illustrates a point I’ve made before and will make again: Obama can project an image of calm and coolness but only under controlled circumstances. He’s never been made to deal, in a very public setting from which he can not escape, with a pressure-filled and unpleasant event that he can’t control. That thin veneer of cool will melt very quickly if that ever happens. Note to any future candidate facing him in a public setting: Don’t defer, discomfit. Don’t play by rules set by media mavens meant to protect. Sucker-punch him by taking on topics not agreed upon before hand whenever the opportunity presents itself: he’s not good at improvisation and often at his worst when he’s off-the-cuff. Give him every opportunity to make himself look bad, because he believes he’s above “the first rule of holes”.
i’m getting the image of martin sheen’s character in the “dead zone”
any real and concentrated effort will send him into such a tantrum that even the msm will have to distance themselves
*anyone notice how gaunt and grey obama has gotten
i realize all presidents age quickly on the job but this is usually from a stressful environment and, if perceived to be “conservative,” a relentlessly rabid media
obama isnt afflicted with any of this
the only conclusions are: 1} michelle’s diet is killing him softly (which means obama does not have the final say with the white house chef—> which means michelle is our president SERENITY NOW!!)
2} obama’s statist armor is built on 19/20th century specs; the counterpoint to obama is 21st century (internet; several talented talk radio hosts; and a much more engaged “right”)
these statists have had it so easy that their skills have waned (nov 2010, scott walker, wis supreme court) and they are left with little more than lying about everything (although still a venomous and deadly)
we must keep up constant pressure so that the proverbial mask drops for all the world to see
“It’s curious that while USA Today was busy trying to “correct” the record, they neglected to mention the true tax situation.”
What’s “curious” about it? USA Today are partisan shills for Obamunism.