WHERE Were the tough questions?

Photo Credit: Chip Smodevilla/Getty

By l.t. Dravis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday, January 12, 2009 – George W. Bush held his final news conference today, played fast and loose with the truth as he defended his eight year record, and no one in the room had guts enough to challenge him.

George W. Bush opened the door wide several times for tough questions, but reporters didn’t dare rush in.

Why, I’ll never know . . . it’s not like any of these reporters had to worry about being barred from the next Bush Press Conference for having committed the mortal sin of asking a tough question.

Bush was aggressive, arrogant, and even joked about the incredible mess he’s left this country in.

And the White House Press Corps laughed with him.

Not one professional journalist had the courage to challenge Bush when he commented on his presidency’s record by saying, “I think it’s a good, strong record. You know, presidents can try to avoid hard decisions and therefore controversy. That’s just not my nature.”

With America mired in two wars, with our military nearing the breaking point, with our infrastructure falling down, with unprecedented deficit spending adding up to a $10+ trillion national debt, with unprecedented mismanagement of American resources in Iraq, with our economy in shambles, with millions of Americans facing foreclosure, with millions more out of work, with our banking system on the edge of failure, and with our manufacturing base nearly destroyed, why wouldn’t at least one journalist challenge that statement?

Who in the room, who in the nation, who in the world sincerely believes George W. Bush’s record, is ‘good and strong’?

When asked about America’s image around the world, Bush said, “I disagree with this assessment that, you know, that people view America in a dim light. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom.”

Of course, eight years of George W. Bush’s arrogant, detached, incompetence has damaged America’s image around the world.

Did the reporters at Bush’s final press conference truly believe that our image around the world has been strengthened by his mismanagement of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did those reporters believe our image has been helped by Bush’s lack of leadership in coping with the ongoing nuclear threat in Iran? Did any of those reporters seriously believe that the Bush administration strengthened America’s image by ‘rendering’ and ‘torturing’ suspected terrorists in secret prisons in foreign countries and at ‘Gitmo’?

Yet not one reporter challenged him.

George W. Bush then defended his record in the Middle East by justifying his failure. “It’s been a long time since they’ve had peace in the Middle East,” Bush said. “The challenge, of course, has been to lay out the conditions so that a peaceful state can emerge. Will this ever happen? I think it will. And I know we’ve advanced the process.”

No reporter pointed out the fallacy of his argument or asked Bush to explain how his administration had ‘advanced the process’.

Bush then said he’d “thought long and hard about Katrina. You know could I have done something differently, like land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge.”

Bush was revealing that the most important thing on his mind when Katrina hit was where to have a photo op . . . in New Orleans or Baton Rouge . . . yet no one in the room pointed out that he was talking about something completely unrelated to the question of his administration’s abysmal response to a national tragedy.

Bush then said something absurd . . . even for him. He said, “Don’t tell me the federal response was slow when there were 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed. Could things have been done better? Absolutely. But when I hear people say the federal response was slow, what are they going to say to those chopper drivers or the 30,000 who got pulled off the roof?”

That Bush could get away with making a statement like that . . . in front of experienced journalists was unbelievable.

It is well documented that George W. Bush failed to take charge; that he failed to make certain that every federal resource was utilized to quickly and effectively save lives and property throughout the Gulf Coast after Katrina. His failure cost lives and seriously delayed the rebuilding effort. George W. Bush and his minions failed to anticipate the scope of the disaster (despite very clear warnings from the national weather service) and they failed to react and they failed to follow-through.

Three and a half years after the fact, damage done by Katrina is still impacting the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans on the Gulf Coast.

Yet not one reporter pointed out that the Coast Guard’s valiant efforts to save 30,000 Katrina victims had absolutely nothing to do with Bush’s leadership or with his administration’s response to the tragedy.

Not one reporter asked George W. Bush to explain or justify why his Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, threw the first $350 billion of the financial bailout at banks with no accountability.

The outgoing president stood at that podium in front of the White House Press Corps for three-quarters of an hour so it wasn’t like reporters didn’t have time enough to ask the tough questions.

If the media exists only to serve as a conduit for truth between us and them, why didn’t reporters hold George W. Bush accountable for his failures today?

Were those reporters more concerned about playing by the unspoken rules of presidential press conferences, which are designed, first and foremost, to protect the president’s image or were they more concerned about honoring their obligation to report the truth?

After today, we know the answer to that question.

Don’t we?

Copyright © 2008 by LTD Associates West, Ltd. All rights reserved.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

IS Ben Porritt just another lying political hack?

By l.t. Dravis

MSNBC NEWS – Wednesday, October 22, 2008 – Ben Porritt, a McCain talking head, went on MSNBC today and said whatever he had to say to promote John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Ben Porritt gets the big bucks to make John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Republicans in general look good, no matter how he may have to manipulate the facts.

Since both campaigns put these people in front of every microphone and every camera every chance they get, I like to check them out every chance I get.

So, who is Ben Porritt and what do we know about him?

At this point, I have no reason to believe he’s a socialist and I don’t believe that he pals around with terrorists.

I do know that Ben Porritt is a nice looking fellow, probably in his late thirties, seemingly bright, very quick, and well-spoken.

But is he just another lying political hack?

Let’s see.

Porritt was interviewed by David Shuster on MSNBC today and here’s how it went:

David Shuster: “Ben, uh, Sarah Palin’s negatives are now higher than her positives and that’s from a poll conducted before we learned that she spent $150 thousand of public and” (Republican) “National Committee money on clothes and makeup at high end stores. First of all, why so much money and, doesn’t this hurt the campaign politically?”

Ben Porritt: “David, this is funny, because a month ago I was on the show and you were arguing that campaigns need to talk about the issues and now you’re asking me about pantsuits and blouses. Um, you know . . . ”

AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. Porritt refused to tell us whether or not spending a hundred and fifty grand on clothes and makeup hurt the McCain/Palin campaign.

David Shuster: (Interrupting) “Right, but this is an issue of judgment, isn’t it? There are a lot of Americans who can’t afford to spend $150 thousand in two months on clothes from Neiman Sachs.”

Ben Porritt: “If you want to talk about campaign finance, I think that there’s a legitimate issue on the other side . . . that we don’t know where one-third of Barack Obama’s fund-raising totals has” (sic) “come from. This is a ridiculous . . . “

David Shuster: (Interrupting) “Oh, come on, Ben. One-third? One-third? Nobody has said one-third.”

Ben Porritt: “Yeah.”

David Shuster: “What reporter, what credible news organization has said that we don’t know where one-third of Obama’s money’s coming from?”

Ben Porritt: “It’s well over $200 million that we do not know . . . “

David Shuster: (Interrupting) “Says who?“

Ben Porritt: “Look at the reports. There’s” (sic) “plenty of reports out there that . . . “

David Shuster: “Name one . . . I’m just asking you to name one.“

Ben Porritt: “He’s raised, he’s raised about $600 million? There’s $220 million that is unaccounted for . . . “

David Shuster: (interrupting) “Ben, nobody is reporting that there are $220 million unaccounted for, nobody except, I suppose, some very, very right wing blogs that again don’t have, uh, don’t have a lot of credibility. But, again, name one credible news organization that’s reporting, that will back up your assertion.”

Ben Porritt: “When I walk off this set, I’ll send you an email and you can read it on air.“

AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. Even on the straw man issue about Barack Obama’s missing $220 million, Porritt wouldn’t or couldn’t (so much for preparation for a national news show interview) answer the question . . . should we wait for Porritt’s Email?

David Shuster: “Alright. Fair enough. Uh, umm, the Republican National Committee is sending out a flyer to voters in Virginia and Missouri. I want to show it for you. The flyer invokes the 9/11 terror attacks with the image of a jumbo jet going towards a building. Inside, the flyer says, ‘Barack Obama. Not who you think he is.’ Combined with your previous comment about the money not knowing where it is, do you, do Republicans think that Barack Obama is a terrorist?”

Ben Porritt: “No, that’s a ridiculous assertion. I think that . . . “

David Shuster: Interrupting “Why would they have that, why would they have that suggestion in the flyer with a jumbo jet?”

Ben Porritt: “I think that the question that we’re asking is, that Barack Obama does have some, ah, you know, interesting policy positions of wanting to meet unconditionally with leaders of countries that sponsor terrorism, whether that’s Iran uh, or, or Syria what not, I think those are the questions that we’re trying to raise here . . . “ “

David Shuster: (interrupting) “And that is an absolutely fair point, but what does that have to do with a flyer that has a jumbo jet going directly at a building and a line that says, ‘we don’t know who Barack Obama really is?’”

Ben Porritt: “Well, I think that, I think that, when, when we have 13 days left in this election, there are still lots of unanswered questions about Barack Obama and who he is. But his policy positions still stand and on foreign policy he has shown his naïveté by wanting to sit down without preconditions, with leaders of countries that stat. . , that sponsor terrorism.“

AND THE ANSWER WAS . . . NO ANSWER. Porritt didn’t tell us how the disgusting attempt to link Barack Obama to the 9/11 tragedy by John McCain and the RNC relates to Barack Obama’s ability to lead the nation.

David Shuster: “Ben, that’s a fair point . . . all I’m saying is that has nothing to do with that flyer that John McCain and the RNC” (Republican National Committee) “have both said is acceptable and that most people who look at that say that it’s ex-extremely distasteful, but in any case . . . Ben, we always appreciate your coming on. You’re always welcome to come on here on the show.”

Ben Porritt: “Thanks a lot. Thank you.“

Did we learn anything from Ben Porritt that would make you or me vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4?

I didn’t . . . in fact, all I learned from Ben Porritt is that even in a three question interview, he won’t give straight answers to straight questions.

So, is Ben Porritt just another lying political hack?

Doesn’t seem like there’s much of a question about it . . . what do you think?

Copyright © 2008 by LTD Associates West, Ltd. All rights reserved.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at ltdassociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

We want to send your concerns to 435 Representatives

and 100 Senators until they listen

. . . and then, we’ll do it some more

IS Nancy Pfotenhauer just another lying political hack?

By l.t. Dravis

WALL STREET/WASHINGTON, D.C. – Wednesday, September 24, 2008 – Aren’t you sick and tired of political hacks who give convoluted, lying answers to straight questions asked by journalists?

If you are, permit me to introduce you to Nancy Pfotenhauer.

And once you know who she is, you may wonder why you should care about anything she has to say.

Nancy Pfotenhauer is an educated (Master’s Degree in Economics from George Mason University), accomplished woman with an impressive resume which includes a number of responsible positions with organizations like Americans for Prosperity, the Independent Women’s Forum, and the Republican National Committee.

Nancy Pfotenhauer was also the number one Washington lobbyist for Koch (pronounced ‘Koke’) Industries, the largest privately held conglomerate in the United States, employing approximately 80,000 people in 60 counties, with annual revenue in excess of $110 billion.

Pfotenhauer, who divorced her first husband and married top mortgage industry lobbyist, Kurt Pfotenhauer, now works for the McCain campaign as a spokesperson and top policy advisor.

So, what kind of spokesperson is Nancy Pfotenhauer?

Is she just another lying political hack?

Let’s judge Nancy Pfotenhauer by how she answers straight questions asked by a well respected journalist.

In an interview this morning on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell asked Pfotenhauer to respond to recent reports in the New York Times and Newsweek magazine that, despite John McCain’s denial this past Sunday, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis’s lobbying company received $15,000.00 monthly payments from Freddie Mac until it was seized by the Federal Government last month.

Here’s how the Mitchell/Pfotenhauer question and answer went:

Andrea Mitchell: “The campaign has come out again today very aggressively against the New York Times. Now, the New York Times is not alone. It was Newsweek and Roll Call reporting on at least payments made,” (Ms. Pfotenhauer laughs nervously) “to campaign manager Rick Davis’ firm. And you pointed out, the campaign, you have pointed out that Rick Davis did not lobby, did not take money from the firm, has not been not been involved in anything involving Fannie or Freddie.

“Can you guarantee that, you know, the voters, the American people, that even though Rick Davis has not taken any money and you say has not lobbied, that he will not sometime in the future benefit from money that has gone to his firm in which he still has a partnership interest?”

Nancy Pfotenhauer: “Well,” she said, with a stunning smile, “y-you know, Andrea, you at least you, you, at least are, are presenting it even-handedly. Rick never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie and let’s, you know, that, I don’t think they reported the story. I think they engaged in activist journalism that’s more of the Huffington Post, uh, caliber, than certainly should be expected from a, a, major newspaper outlet. The, the story is that Rick never took any money from Fannie, never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie and that John McCain actively fought for reform versus Barack Obama who took record number, amounts of money from Fannie and Freddie and looked the other way on reform. That, you kn . . , that’s the story. And as far as potentially benefitting in the future, the McCain campaign has the highest level of standards ever applied in Presidential election history that precludes us bene . . . , uh, eh, lobbyist involvement and, uh, any potential future benefit. And we challenged the Obama campaign repeatedly to comply by the same rules, and, rules, and they won’t do it and they won’t release their list of advisors even though they acknowledged there are lobbyists on that list.”

Did Mrs. Pfotenhauer give a convoluted, lying answer to Andrea Mitchell’s question?

Let’s see . . .

Andrea Mitchell wanted to know whether Davis would “sometime in the future benefit from money that has gone to his firm in which he still has a partnership interest”.

Though the answer to this question is obvious (Since Davis is still an equity partner in the lobbying firm, Davis-Manafort, he will of course benefit from $180,000.00 a year received from Freddie Mac), Mrs. Pfotenhauer completely ignored the question.

Was Nancy Pfotenhauer lying when she said, “Rick never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie”?

According to Newsweek reporter Mike Isikoff, Rick Davis’s lobbying firm did in fact receive $15,000.00 monthly payments for the past three years, long before and long after Rick Davis joined the McCain campaign.

If, according to Nancy Pfotenhauer, Rick Davis ‘never lobbied for Fannie and Freddie’, why on earth would Freddie Mac pay $15,000 a month to Rick Davis’ lobbying firm?

What do you think of Nancy Pfotenhauer now?

And, what do you think of a campaign that would hire Nancy Pfotenhauer to be its chief spokesperson?

Hmmm?

Copyright © 2008 by LTD Associates West, Ltd. All rights reserved.

If you have questions, comments, or concerns, Email me at LTDAssociates@msn.com (goes right to my desk) and since I personally answer every Email, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Want to go to a Blog that listens to you and speaks for you as well?

GO TO http://bothsidesnowbiz.blogspot.com/ AND SPEAK UP . . .

We want to hear BOTH SIDES NOW© so we can send your concerns to

435 Representatives and 100 Senators until they listen . . . and then, we’ll do it some more