Why SHOULD Obama have spoken out immediately about the AIG bonuses?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

In regards to the horrendous presser a couple of nights ago and Obama's dismissal of Ed Henry's persistent line of questioning about the AIG bonuses, my question is, is there a certain time limit by which Presidents are obligated to make a public announcement about things that might warrant a Presidential response but don't exactly rise to level of emergency/national crisis? The whole line of questioning by Henry practically suggested to me that he either believed that Obama was somehow involved with authorizing/approving the bonuses or, as is more likely, simply (somehow) derelict in his responsibilities to make a full and complete report about the situation immediately after finding out about the situation albeit, of course, without knowing all of the facts of the matter. I mean, it seemed to me that he (Henry) acted as though Obama knowing about and not talking about the AIG bonuses for a couple of days was somehow as important (more important?) as Bush's catastrophic dismissal of the August 2001 PDB which, as we all know, expressed growing concern about Al-Queda less than a month before the 09/11 attacks happened. It's like people like Henry simply have no sense of perspective about these things and seem to simply be out to find SOMETHING to blame Obama for, accuse Obama for, or make Obama responsible for. Frankly, I don't personally care that Obama waited two days to talk about the AIG bonuses because, unless it's an emergency and an alert of impending doom is immediately warranted, I want my President to have all of the facts together before speaking out about something. We've seen over the past eight years the consequences of speaking before even thinking, let alone knowing all of the facts. Does anybody (including Henry) remember how well Bush's "Bring it on!" statement turned out for our troops over in Iraq?

:rant:

[underpants]

1. Poltics (like Hollywood) is just high school with money and drugs

so they expect everyone to pay attention to them when they run in the lunchroom saying "Ooh ooh ooh did you HEAR????"

Obama is the cool kid in the corner smoking a cigarette

[Romulox]

2. Obama has developed a habit of "running out the clock" on difficult situations.

The AIG bonuses are a perfect example. He spoke out of one side of his mouth, then the other on the bonuses. Then he waits, and hopes we forget about it. He knows damn well that he cannot veto the AIG bonus tax bill if it reaches his desk, so his only hope is that Harry Reid doesn't allow a vote on the matter. :hi:

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Seems like a smart strategy

Especially where the issue is relatively minor in the larger scheme of things, but inflames popular sentiment and induces foolish behavior. When my three-year old used to have tantrums, we would wait them out, too. Not much else to do when a society is thrashing and screaming on the floor and "immediate" intervention would only exacerbate the situation. Let folks cool off.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. I think part of what Henry was trying to do was re-direct people's outrage over the AIG bonuses

towards Obama by making it look like he simply didn't care about people's natural outrage about the AIG bonuses to make an immediate statement about it. Of course, I do think he cares and is upset about it along with the rest of us but it's still simply not prudent to make comments that may have profound implications, particularly if you are POTUS, without first being able to ascertain what is really going on. The "outrage" over the AIG bonuses by wingnuts seems incredibly disingenuous since corporations have been feasting on and profiting off of taxpayer money for the past eight years- with nary a peep from anybody on the Republican side. Obama AFAIK didn't have anything to do with AIG bonuses and there seems to be some question about whether or not there is anything that Obama and/or Congress can legally do to recoup the bonuses since contracts have already been signed. At any rate, not speaking out publicly about the AIG bonuses for a couple days seems like a non-issue to me.

[Romulox]

7. Obama's opposition to taxing these bonuses makes it look like he doesn't care about the outrage. nt

[Romulox]

6. It's "cunning"--both smart and dishonest. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. ROFL

Whatever.

[Romulox]

10. You're quite the intellectual! Well played!

:snort:

[rpannier]

3. Because his not answering shows a lack of resolute leadership

Let me give you a few examples of how the last administration would have shown this leadership

1. Bush would have gone on vacation and been using his stunt double to remove brush from his ranch for photo shots. He'd have told us how they were on top of the whole situation and that he had complete faith in the people handling it. Then he'd have told us he understood it was tough, but he wasn't worried (because he had a job)

2. Bush would have gone to France gotten on his bike and run over some French Security Guard and made jokes about to distract people from the tanking economy. While Hannity, O'lielly and beck would have blamed the security guy for getting in the presidents way.

3. He'd have made a powerpoint presentation that showed the 'comedy' of the crisis. You know 1) Him looking under the bed to see if the bottom of the economy was there; 2)Him standing around an unemployment line wondering if he could be next; 3)Him selling a guy the rope to hang himself after he lost his job and pension at the age of 59. And making a joke like, "This is one way to turn lemons into lemonade."

4. The question never would have been asked because it never would have been cleared by the people who vet the questions Bush receives -- and then Ed Henry would be blacklisted from ever asking a question again.

The fact is, it is a fairly irrelevant question. The question was not that obscene and I think people are making too much of it.
I do think it seems more like a question you'd expect the Southside Grocery Shopper to ask.
Henry looked like an ass and yes, Obama did looked miffed at the question.
Mostly (I think) because of all the questions the Senior White House Correspondent could have asked, he chose one that is basically a throw-away question -- Kind of like Chris Collinsworth asking a Head Coach after they lost the Super Bowl on the last play of the game 31-30 "Are you disappointed you didn't win?"

[marshall]

9. We'd probably choke if we knew all the things that weren't being spoken out about

There is no reason or time to blab every single thing. Let them run the government without micromanagement from the masses.