Kroft, 60 Minutes go soft and safe in Obama interview

If anybody was wondering why Barack Obama chose 60 Minutes as the one news outlet for an interview on his buy-my-economic-proposals-please TV tour, they got their answer Sunday night: Beyond the 16 million viewers who tune in each week, correspondent Steve Kroft played it safe and soft with the President, much as he had done during the election last year.
While I praised 60 Minutes in November for having built a relationship with Obama that yielded great access and ratings for Kroft’s interviews with the then-candidate, I have to criticize the celebrated newsmagazine for being far too gentle with the President on Sunday.
I supposed some will criticize Kroft for not asking about the unfortunate remark the President made Thursday on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno in which the President jokingly compared his ineptitude as a bowler with athletes in the Special Olympics.
Not me. I thought it was a one-day flap, because most fair-minded Americans know that Obama did not say it with any prejudice or intent to harm. It was a silly mistake. Hardly anyone mentioned it on the weekend TV talk shows.
But I am astounded that Kroft did not ask when Obama or his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner knew about the bonuses to A.I.G. executives -- and what the President has to say in response to charges by Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Democrat, that the administration urged him to put last minute language into legislation that would guarantee the bonuses be paid.
The contradictory answers that came from the White House last week, raise serious questions about Obama’s credibility. To not go there at all in the interview was inexcusable. Thank goodness, CNN was on the case last week in terms of pressing Dodd and administration officials, because CBS News and 60 Minutes sure were not about to risk their relationship with the President to ask the tough questions.
Watch CBS Videos Online
Kroft did ask some questions about A.I.G. -- how could he not? But he gave Obama lots of leeway to repeat the main presidential talking points that viewers heard Thursday on Leno: We are going to be okay. I have a plan and team to deal with the economy. I’m angry, too, but let’s not get carried away with out rage. We have to work with Wall Street, or Main Street will suffer even more.
And the President once again defended Geithner, saying not only was there no talk of the embattled cabinet member stepping down, Obama wouldn’t let him resign if he wanted to.
If Geithner tried to resign, Obama said he’d tell him, "Sorry Buddy, you’ve still got the job."
The TV technique that allows Kroft to ask soft questions and still look like he did a tough interview, is a smart one: Kroft almost never smiles – even when the person he is interviewing tries to elicit one with his or her smile. Kroft remained stone-faced during the Obama interview Sunday, and it lent a seriousness of purpose to the conversation.
But Kroft did more than just go gentle with the president Sunday night. He teed up one of Obama’s harshest critics for the president, referencing the remarks of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said last week that some of Obama’s policies have already made America less safe from the threat of terrorism.
"How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney?" Obama asked rhetorically. "It hasn’t made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment."
Obama gave Kroft a tour of the White House grounds as he answered such questions as: "What is the most frustrating part of the job?"
Guess what it is: "To be confronted with bad choices that flow from decisions" made one and two years before he was president. Translation: Don’t blame me, I inherited this mess from Bush.
Steve Kroft is a fine correspondent, and 60 Minutes is one of the great journalistic institutions of this country. They can both do better than this.
(Above: CBS News photo of Steve Kroft and Barack Obama by Aaron Tomlinson)Categories: CBS, Cable and Network News, TV and Politics


Comments
Did you REALLY expect anything different from the lib lovefest crowd? The tingles are STILL going up & down their legs.
Posted by: Randy | March 23, 2009 12:27 AM
Wow, the mainstream media went easy on Obama. Shocking.
Posted by: brstevens | March 23, 2009 5:29 AM
Wow! Can we get over the 'bonus outrage' already? Personally, I'm sick of hearing about it.
How many readers, if they were offered, would pass up the opportunity? VERY FEW!
Yes, it stinks. Yes, they should give it back. NO, we shouldn't obsess over it!
GET OVER IT!
Posted by: Tom | March 23, 2009 7:19 AM
And the surprise is where? The media went soft on Obama during the election process while they were always harsh with the Republicans. To change course now would be ridiculous.
Posted by: Scooter | March 23, 2009 7:52 AM
Nobody is softer on Obama than "Z".
Posted by: john | March 23, 2009 8:41 AM
Readers, Americans...It is very easy to send a message to ABC. Stop buying their sponsors products!
Posted by: DJM | March 23, 2009 9:01 AM
Come on now - it is all scripted in advance.
Obama needs to get on with being the President and stop playing the "rock star" celebrity.
Talk shows just aren't in line for world leaders.
Being glib and funny is for entertainers not the President of our nation.
Man-up and get serious.
Posted by: Mark | March 23, 2009 9:11 AM
Anyone who expected a hard-hitting substantive interview has been living in a cave.
Posted by: mc | March 23, 2009 9:14 AM
The only surprise is that anyone even mentioned this. They have NEVER seen beyond his glib personna, if they did they sure never led a story with it. It disgusts me the leeway this presiden tis getting. He is a very scary man with too much power and too much unfounded support.
Posted by: Diane | March 23, 2009 9:19 AM
Are you saying they were tough on Bush? The one time they tried that, it turned out to be a false document that wasn't vetted properly. Talk about a story that died quickly -- everyone wanted the anvchor fired, but nobody asked where the false document came from.
Posted by: Pete | March 23, 2009 9:20 AM
What about Obama's inappropriate laughter? Kroft did bring it up, albeit softly, but that "gallows humor" is disturbing.
Posted by: Neva R | March 23, 2009 9:21 AM
I always love the way liberal media gives passes to democrat gaffes but nails conservatives to the cross for similar gaffes. Trent Lott, anyone? Absolutely disgusting double standard.
I agree, Obama's remarks were not meant to harm. Neither were Lotts, but it cost him his job.
Way to go!
Posted by: Justin | March 23, 2009 9:22 AM
We are standing by and watching the death of capitalism - and the networks and print are helpless under the trance of Obama charisma.
Posted by: Robert E. Bailey | March 23, 2009 9:22 AM
This guy just wrote, "Not me. I thought it was a one-day flap, because most fair-minded Americans know that Obama did not say it with any prejudice or intent to harm."
Like you two are best friends or something. Bush would've been crucified for such hate speech yet Obama gets treated like the golden child.
Posted by: Isaac | March 23, 2009 9:22 AM
It is hard to imagine being in the president's shoes with the enormous responsibilties and hard choices. The American people are watching closely and polls show they believe he is serving in their best interest. While Gietner and AIG bonusgate looms as a landmine, it is interesting that Karl Rove is standing by Gietner. Obama is definitely attempting to govern from the center, especially when it comes to the economy. He has a very fine needle to thread and I think most people realize this. My reading is that most mainstream pundits are giving the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Robin from Colorado | March 23, 2009 9:22 AM
Like most common-sense Americans I also chalked up his Special Olympics comment as an ill-attempt at humor, but in my opinion had George Bush or any other high-level Republican made the same comment it would have been front page news and the headline on MSNBC for two weeks with calls for impeachment and protest...
Posted by: MJ | March 23, 2009 9:23 AM
You're complaining about the same lack of tough questions we saw during the Bush administration?
Posted by: Ed | March 23, 2009 9:23 AM
Wow, you sound disappointed that Kroft didn't go after Obama with a switchblade. With all the hostility and negativity in the news it was kind of nice to see an interview with some balance insterad of being all about the economy and "gotcha" journalism.
Posted by: Tom L | March 23, 2009 9:27 AM
The proper way to address him is President Obama, not Obama. I am sick of seeing where people who should know better, journalists (?) keep referring to him as "Obama" instead of showing the respect of his office and using his proper title, President Obama.
Posted by: Sandra | March 23, 2009 9:31 AM
It's called respect. The President of the United States gets to say whatever he feels like on a show like that. And, of course "60 Minutes" is going to softball the interviews with as much fervor as they researched and attacked the previous administration.
Remember that this is the same network that got its head anchor fired because he put politics ahead of reporting. And the one that saved its toughest interview of the campaign for a Vice Presidential candidate that had joined the circus only weeks before.
One of the problems we have now is the polarizing politics and the reporters getting points for gotchas. It leaves us vulnerable to our government having "news" shows lead us astray with distractions like the "bonuses" when the real disaster is $9 Trillion and a total destruction of the Constitution.
But you still have to show respect for the man and the office.
Posted by: Tom Mariner | March 23, 2009 9:31 AM
Funny, If a republican said that we wouldn't read about anything else. That same kind of understand should be given to all. Not just the dummy you are standing by. Worthless program and interview. Suckups! Obama would scold you like your daddy if you did otherwise. I'm serious you better...I mean it this time... I'll... Very impressive words during the stim push.
Posted by: Adam Ciraolo | March 23, 2009 9:31 AM
60 Minutes lost any edge it had decades ago - it is mere "infotainment" now anyway.
Posted by: Candi | March 23, 2009 9:33 AM
Is this mysterious "plan" anything like Kerry's elusive "plan"? The left side of the aisle insults America's intelligence by thinking they can pull another one over on us with yet another "plan". I thought Kroft was the hardest hitting lib reporter yet. I'd hate to see the amount of slobber produced if the BS ever got the chance to worship this false prophet in person.
Posted by: Superpower | March 23, 2009 9:35 AM
"How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney?" Obama asked rhetorically.
This comment shows how little Obama understands about international politics and war in general. Does he think that every German or Japanese soldier during WW 2 was "brought to justice" or rather captured and removed from the battlefield? Obama is back in the Clinton pre-911 mind set of thinking we're dealing with criminal acts rather that acts of war.
Posted by: Mike Flynn | March 23, 2009 9:36 AM
Thank you for calling this out - it is pathetic no matter which side you sit on.
Posted by: JC | March 23, 2009 9:37 AM
Just MAYBE the 60 Minutes Program is noticing that whenever the crazed anti-Obama media goes after the judgement of the leaders during this crisis, the country starts to head down nose-first faster than ever. So it may be they actually CARE that the country wins, rather than fails....unlike some of those OTHER news programs that are hoping our country tanks under the Obama admin. They are more interested in seeing the enemy be torn down than helping bring the country up.
I'm glad to see at least one News program is actually behind the new President - Gosh, even the former President says this is what is needed right now - and he's going to get behind him so we can head into recovery!
Wonder if any of these other groups will join in? Or will they continually harrass every move, even when the opposite move would have brought on more harrassment ---- Such as asking AIG to break the law and ignore legal contracts?? Is that what you wanted him to do, Zurawik?
Oh boy, Fox News would have gone even more bellicose had that been the Obama or Congressional choice!!! Forcing Corporations to break US Laws!?! How can these news programs keep acting like that was actually an option here?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2009 9:37 AM
Steve Croft conducts as good an interview with Obama as Michelle may have. I think mr. Croft is in love with the man . . .
Posted by: Larry Douglas | March 23, 2009 9:37 AM
wow this really is an incredible age we live in when CNN is asking the hard questions of "The Chosen One."
Posted by: Joe | March 23, 2009 9:37 AM
I have to agree that Kroft was soft as it appears the mainstream media is still trying to please that area of American society that has bought into a neophyte president whose total claim to fame is being able to use imaginative rhetoric and charisma to persuade the general population that he is the savior. Kroft and CBS were puppets in this game.
Posted by: RLJ | March 23, 2009 9:38 AM
My thoughts exactly brstevens...I was shocked and amazed that 60 Minutes went easy on Obama! Eventually this lovefest between BHO and the mainstream media will come to an end and he will be asked the tough questions and will be held accountable. I for one will be glad when this happens so he can quite blaming GWB for everything that goes wrong.
Posted by: SlingBlade | March 23, 2009 9:38 AM
To Randy and brstevens, thou shalt stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Also, thou shall stop watching Hannity and thou shall not get into that new guy called Beck. Thou shall stop whining and complaining. Remember who drove our country into the ground? Dare I mention his name? I am Godfrey and I am liberal. So was my son. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Posted by: Godfrey | March 23, 2009 9:38 AM
60 minutes is only tough on Republicans. Remember that obama is the personification of the liberal/neo-soviet man, and he is not going to receive scrutiny from CBS/NBC/ABC after they worked so hard to manipulate the news and the election coverage to set their socialist in office. Obama is to politics what Jim Jones was to religion. Obama believes that the force of his personality and unbounded ego is all that is necessary to force his vision of a neo-soviet USSA on the once-free American people. Remember when obama denied that he would speak to iran without preconditions? What about his appeasement video? Does this man think that his charming personality could do what all the european leaders were unable to do? Then there is the annoying consistency with which the obama appointments seem to forget to pay taxes. Oh yeah, if they were GOP nominees that would be called the "culture of corruption". The networks have totally forfeited their moral responsibility.
Posted by: markm | March 23, 2009 9:39 AM
I guess at this stage, I would rather see positive coverage than any bashing. The American people need to look forward to the future and stop being afraid of it in order to get out of this quagmire.
The fact is that we are all waiting on the government to fix "our" problems when neither party can do it alone. We as consumers have to drive the bus here and focus on our role in this economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZJrJeykijI&feature=channel_page
Thanks for your article.
Chris Kilcullen
Posted by: Chris Kilcullen | March 23, 2009 9:41 AM
The name is President Barack Obama's not Obama's. Show some respect, there is no other president that we use his fist name. So fix it
Posted by: Julia Mitchell | March 23, 2009 9:41 AM
You think it was a "silly mistake"? Had it been Bush the media would have been all over him for his bias, prejudice, racial slander, etc. But everyone makes excuses for Obama. You need to look at the reality and see what happens in it.
Posted by: F. J. Soderlund | March 23, 2009 9:41 AM
I entirely agree with you. Why is valuable interview time taken up asking the President such trivial questions. In terms of AIG, there are serious questions about what the President knew and when, and he should have been asked about them.
Posted by: Thomas Rossetti | March 23, 2009 9:42 AM
Would 60 minutes have let President Bush off so easy? Yea, sure they would!
Posted by: Ed | March 23, 2009 9:42 AM
Under the Fairness Doctrine, I demand another interview--this time with a real journalist!
Posted by: Guy Macher | March 23, 2009 9:46 AM
60 minutes just proved that they are in cahoots with Obama and his crowd in putting in place their socialistic agenda for changing America into an also ran nation on the world scene.
Posted by: Frank | March 23, 2009 9:47 AM
This interview was ridiculous. I remember when an interview from 60 minutes staff was something most politicians feared. Steve go dig some backbone out of your closet. I know its there you used to have it.
Posted by: Joepbailey@mac.com | March 23, 2009 9:48 AM
Kroft is a "fine correspondent" and 60 Minutes is a "great journalistic institution"? That's softballing as well.
60 Minutes, like most of the MSM, sold out their journalistic principles to Obama over a year ago.
I commend the author for at least attempting to get some back, but don't quit halfway. Truth is Obama is a disgrace as a president. Standing behind Geithner is the dumbest move a president could make. And all the "blame Bush", constantly on a campaign rhetoric to push an econimic policy that his own CBO says will bankrupt this country just shows how incompetent Obama is.
The press should be excoriating Obama 24/7 for his stupidity and arrogance. Or do they need to wait for him to go after their salaries too?
Posted by: BMC | March 23, 2009 9:48 AM
It's too bad people wasted their time watching such drivel when Dateline on NBC (same time slot) had an excellent hour-long explanation of how the housing/mortgage/banking system broke down.
Posted by: Delores Nelson | March 23, 2009 9:49 AM
David,
Be honest. The problem you really have with Sunday's interview is that the President didn't make any obvious blunders in his responses to Steve Kroft's questions. To the contrary, he gave thoughtful answers to fair questions. Unfortunately, that means journalists like you are going to have to actually listen to his answers in your quest for a story. Abandoning that novel idea, you decided to make the story one about 60 Minutes failure to ask him questions that were tough enough. Give me a break.
Posted by: James Robinson | March 23, 2009 9:50 AM
Just a matter of where you stand. I thought Kroft was tough on Obama. At least Obama speaks with the people of this country. Bush hid in the White House for 8 years without a care what the people thought. He vene waas proud that he never read papers and did not care what anyone thought. Do not forget people, what a horrible president we suffered with for the last 8 years. The rich got richer and the poor got a heck of a lot poorer under Bush.
Posted by: M Phillips | March 23, 2009 9:50 AM
“You're sitting here. And you're— you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money—’ How do you deal with— I mean: explain. . .” Kroft asked at one point.
“Are you punch-drunk?” Kroft said.
How come you did not say anything about this?
Posted by: Gerald Leahy | March 23, 2009 9:51 AM
Hey ZON, guess we need to start calling you RUSH Jr. This is the ultimate wingnut gotcha media. What will ACTUALLY happen is the Geithner's plan will work quite well, leveraging a small amount of public money in order to take care of a mountain of unregulated junk paper that should never have been allowed to be created in the first place. You people can play your stupid gotcha games all you want but the market will be the ultimate judge of how well Obama et al actually govern. And by the way, he WILL be around for 8 years, so get used to it, and I would not be surprised if Geithner is there the whole time, whether the plethora of neanderthal senators on the hill like him or not. The MEDIA can ask Obama anything it wants tomorrow at his news conference, and they will get back actual intelligent answers, instead of Bush garble. Thank G-d we finally have some really smart people in charge. It could not have come at a more critical time.
Posted by: Richard D | March 23, 2009 9:51 AM
This is exactly WHY I did not watch the program...knew "they" wouldn't get down to the nitty-gritty! Come on get to the real "stuff", forget the "fluff! The main stream media are treating obama and his "merry men" with kid gloves.We are sick of this.spend, spend spend.that's all they know how to do.I'M VERY ANGRY!
Donna
Posted by: DONNA ERKER | March 23, 2009 9:53 AM
I must say I am stunned. 60 minutes, known for it's hardball "no lap dogs here" interviews, goes soft on The Messiah???
SHOCKING!
Posted by: Michael | March 23, 2009 9:53 AM
I stopped watching "60 Lies" ten years ago. Why is any serious person watching it??
Posted by: Edgar Howard | March 23, 2009 9:55 AM
Haters are everywhere, watch your back Mr. President!
Posted by: Pete | March 23, 2009 9:57 AM
What a pointless article. I would really tend to expect more from the Baltimore Sun than just jealously bashing another media outlet. What's the matter? Did the President rebuff your request for an interview?
You know what they say:
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't do or teach, criticize.
Posted by: Michael | March 23, 2009 9:58 AM
I am also disappointed Kroft did not ask about the bailout bonus clause involvement of the Administration about which Senator Dodd talked. We Liberals are looking for a fair and objective response to explain this bad decision, contrary and in contrast to, what the ideological conservative no-nothings want to think.
Posted by: Les | March 23, 2009 9:59 AM
Fully two thirds of the American people are behind the President. Why don't you report on the blatantly political obstructionism by the other side. Are you pushing your own agenda? The comment preceding is a prime example of the mindless attacks that they try to pass off as political discourse. If you want to see negative popularity numbers that are even lower than the Republicans take a look at the news media. Get with the program.
Posted by: David | March 23, 2009 10:01 AM
Same old....same old....a conundrum that will be repeated for the next 4 years - sad....
Posted by: Frank L | March 23, 2009 10:03 AM
Why don't you simply rename your column "Right Wing Bullshit". Or are you just making up for lost time pushing a war based on lies and keeping your mouth shut as Bush lowered taxes while going on a world wide spendython? How about getting behind the president you didn't vote for? You've already proven yourself to dumb to cast a smart ballot.
Posted by: MarkD | March 23, 2009 10:07 AM
What are the tough questions that the plethora of conservative idophiles who have responded on this thread want to be asked? Why is our country in such financial chaos? Why is our infrastructure crumbling? Why is education and health care in a state of near collapse? -- Oh, I see they want Obama and Geithner to cop to knowing or agreeing in advance that AIG was going to give out bonuses? They want Obama to stupidly engage them in a partisan fight and get made because he says he won't fight -- we have more important things to do to rebuild a country that was predictably brought to near ruin by the administration during the last 8 years.
Posted by: Michael Tierra | March 23, 2009 10:18 AM
It was a great interview. The questions were pretty fair and you got to give Obama credit for making everything look easy. It's just a gift the guy has. There are only so many times you can a bait a guy by asking him if he's a socialist. At one point you have to ask something substantive and acknowledge you're not going to get a gotcha moment through rhetorical slight of hand...
Posted by: Eyitayo Onifade | March 23, 2009 10:23 AM
Where do they find 15 people who watch 60 minutes? Every single word that comes out of their commentators' mouths is a lie (even their names). Obamamericans have tingles running up their leg from the foolishness happening on that show. It is not "the facts".
Posted by: Deborah Gold | March 23, 2009 10:23 AM
All of the sudden dissent is considered "obstructionism", "jealousy", I liked it when the Democrats and Left were calling dissent "patriotism", but now it's NOT patriotism? You silly Dems, always moving the goal line aren't you, or shall I say the basket in this case. Hey, the final four is more important than the security of our nation according to the runway model. Let me just tell you that "respect" is earned, not awarded, tell that to your community organizer.
Posted by: Superpower | March 23, 2009 10:25 AM
Please quit with your pro-business, anti-citizen propaganda.
Posted by: Hilary Smith | March 23, 2009 10:25 AM
For 8 years all we would hear from the Press was negative talk about Bush. Now that the "Chosen One" is in office, all we here is negative talk about Bush. At what point is this administration and the talking heads on T.V. and print going to own up to the liberal messes and stop pointing their finger at the FORMER President. This is 2nd grader playground crap.
Posted by: BrianM | March 23, 2009 10:26 AM
Obama is going to drive this country right into the ditch, and the MSM will be cheering the clueless silver-tongue the entire way. Shame on CBS.
Posted by: PeterB | March 23, 2009 10:27 AM
Is this your attempt to start getting mentioned in Howie Kurtz's column?
yawn.
Posted by: Richard | March 23, 2009 10:28 AM
Hang on all you people that are criticizing calling our president "Obama" instead of showing respect to the office by calling him "President Obama".
Anyone remember "W' or "George". Or how about "Clinton" or "Bill" or "Slick Willy"? (Okay, maybe I was the one that used Slick Willy all the time.)
Posted by: BrianJ | March 23, 2009 10:32 AM
Hear hear. It gives me hope when an Obama supporter reports objectively. President Obama (for those of you in a panty-twist for disrespecting the office--an irony given the incessant slash and burn job that was done on President Bush) will not be doing any hard-hitting interviews soon. He doesn't want hard questions. He's way too busy playing rock star to govern. He likes the perks of the office too much to actually do serious work. Leno, Kroft and Larry King are his preference. I hope the midterms are scalding to keep this megalomaniac's power in check.
Posted by: Marcie | March 23, 2009 10:34 AM
Give me a break Zurawick. You criticize both Obama and Kroft for what you feel is a softball question and answer regarding Kroft's query of "most frustrating part" of the president's job. The man has only been in office a little more than 60 days! Do you really feel that it is he who is responsible for this mess? Give Obama credit - and an ovation - for trying what he can to get the country out of this Bush debacle.
Posted by: Jim Newman | March 23, 2009 10:35 AM
Mr. Zurawik,
Just what sins do you want to lay on Obama's door step in order to be non "stop?" Obama is in the White House to solve problems which have been created by others. So, what problems should he have been asking?
Posted by: jpaultel | March 23, 2009 10:40 AM
It's very courageous for the Baltimore Sun and David Zurawik to point out this soft-ball 60 minutes interview. Obama will never face the same hard-ball tactics that President Bush faced. Obama is acting more and more like a "King", he commands and people cower and obey...like him telling Geitner, you cannot resign, as if to say, you are at my command.
Posted by: Patrick Henry | March 23, 2009 10:46 AM
This article is VERY confusing....
It's a softball article written to complain about a softball interview? I don't get it... What's the point? Why did I waste 45 seconds of my life reading this article... but I just had to comment. This is a typical liberal media double standard on display.
Posted by: Justin | March 23, 2009 10:47 AM
It is amazing that the economy was great for the first 6 years of the Bush administration even though we were coming out of a recession and was attacked. I wonder what happened during the last 2 years. It's funny that everyone wants to blame everything on Bush. What happened to Pelosi and Reed? Why are they getting a free pass? The top 3 leaders in our country scare the hell out of me.
Posted by: BrainM | March 23, 2009 10:49 AM
As a Republican who supports most of the President's Plans for trying to pull this country back up on it's feet, I don't understand all of the criticism coming from my party. A party, who BTW, shot itself in the foot so many times over the past 10years, that it is amazing that it is even standing.
Their latest plan is to stop ALL federal, state and local taxes for three to five years, so that people will have more cash to spend. That should ensure that all Government will close down! Leaving us without; a military, law enforcement, firemen,
hospitals, schools, water, sewage, road repair, etc.. Not to mention the additional millions of unemployed, who would add to those currently without spending money. One tends
to change one's mind when
he no longer gets what he wants or needs from the 'system'.
Where in the world, do these mental midgets come from? And, why are they running my party? Or even in my party? They need to roll up their sleeves, drop the arrogant, mind numbing, Nazi like tactics of obstruction and low minded propaganda and help to put this country back on track. Or be prepared to get thrown out of office. Same goes for those Democrats that
also want to play games. Now is not the time.
Posted by: gringovejo | March 23, 2009 10:50 AM
I garner by most comments, that these comments are made by those who are not supportive of anything that the Elected President of the United States attempts to help restore the Country to stability both Foreign and Domestic. Most only wish to point out some innocent gaffe that he may have made, knowingly or unknowingly and use it to try and present him in a bad light. This is not helpful and only shows how petty and childish they can be. I still support the President in his objectives. I do have some reservations about the ways to achieve these objectives but I voted for The President and will trust his judgment at this juncture. I still feel he is honest and can do the job. He needs the support of those who elected him. We need the leadership of a President who will restore the morality of our Country, One who will not take advantage of the World situation to further the fortunes of greed. Additionaly, I feel that Citizens who stand and support their Nation are owed one thing, that being, their good health.
Posted by: Grandpappybear | March 23, 2009 11:00 AM
I'm still wondering when the politicians who received all the donations from Fanny & Freddie and the other bailed out companies give that money back!!!
Posted by: Originalist | March 23, 2009 11:03 AM
"Posted by: Tom L | March 23, 2009 9:27 AM
The proper way to address him is President Obama, not Obama. I am sick of seeing where people who should know better, journalists (?) keep referring to him as "Obama" instead of showing the respect of his office and using his proper title, President Obama."
But it was ok to call President Bush: "Bush", "Bushie", "W", and all other types of foul names?
Standard liberal hypocrisy...
Posted by: Anonymous | March 23, 2009 11:10 AM
"Posted by: Tom L | March 23, 2009 9:27 AM
The proper way to address him is President Obama, not Obama. I am sick of seeing where people who should know better, journalists (?) keep referring to him as "Obama" instead of showing the respect of his office and using his proper title, President Obama."
But it was ok to call President Bush: "Bush", "Bushie", "W", and all other types of foul names?
Standard liberal hypocrisy...
Posted by: Originalist | March 23, 2009 11:11 AM
As a Republican who supports most of the President's Plans for trying to pull this country back up on it's feet, I don't understand all of the criticism coming from my party. A party, who BTW, shot itself in the foot so many times over the past 10years, that it is amazing that it is even standing.
Their latest plan is to stop ALL federal, state and local taxes for three to five years, so that people will have more cash to spend. That should ensure that all Government will close down! Leaving us without; a military, law enforcement, firemen,
hospitals, schools, water, sewage, road repair, etc.. Not to mention the additional millions of unemployed, who would add to those currently without spending money. One tends
to change one's mind when
he no longer gets what he wants or needs from the 'system'.
Where in the world, do these mental midgets come from? And, why are they running my party? Or even in my party? They need to roll up their sleeves, drop the arrogant, mind numbing, Nazi like tactics of obstruction and low minded propaganda and help to put this country back on track. Or be prepared to get thrown out of office. Same goes for those Democrats that
also want to play games. Now is not the time.
Posted by: gringovejo | March 23, 2009 11:14 AM
Wow gringovejo Straight up my fellow American. Tv is for selling diapers and soap. Our children and we is NOT learning yet
Posted by: Todd | March 23, 2009 12:04 PM
We should never "get over" the "retention"bonuses payed out to AIG,after the company failed and is now owned by the US GOVT. Who wants to retain these guys, anyway. They should all be forced to hand in their pink slips!!!! This bonus is simple blackmail. When a company gets that big and powerful (to blackmail the govermment)it should be allowed to fail and be sold off in seperate entities, thereby restructuring it. This is inevitable and will happen anyway after the billions we paid into it fail. Geithner and Obama MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. You can speculate all you want about how this path would have been disasterous, but watch and see, the path we are on is failing.
Posted by: Gail Bancer | March 23, 2009 12:18 PM
Z:
I missed this interview but still have not seen a comment from you re CNN John King's horrifically bad unchallenging interview of Dick Cheney. I suspect that unprecidented series of Cheney interviews less than 2 months out of office about the current Admin as the legit news reason Kraft brought up Cheney, not to help Obama.
Posted by: Tony Joe from Baltimore | March 23, 2009 12:47 PM
Just curious- Did you also point out how "soft and safe" CNN's John King was with Cheney last Sunday during his interview?
Posted by: Denise | March 23, 2009 12:47 PM
Did anyone else catch Obama's either lie, or failure to understand what is already happening with debt monetization? Kroft asked if there was a limit to how much the government could print or spend to bailout the banks. Obama said the limit would be when our foreign lenders would not lend us the needed money anymore. NEWSLFASH: we're there already! Why do you think the Fed had to monetize a trillion dollars of treasury and mortgage debt last week?
Posted by: Josh Dowlut | March 23, 2009 12:52 PM
Bush cut brush and played golf for eight years while America crashed. The fearful masses remained mum. There were few TV interviews or press conferences.Now, detractors expect miracles in 60-days. The naysayers are drinking the poison, hoping 69,456,897 Americans will join the Party of Nitpickers.
Posted by: J.Wo | March 23, 2009 1:06 PM
Z! You just can't win, can you? Half your commenters are calling you a conservative Nazi and the other half are calling you a liberal wingnut. As different as our opinions are, I totally agree with you. It was a very safe interview on Kroft's part. I'm mostly wondering when the President is going to stop doing the TV show circuit (enough with the bad jokes and laughter already. what next? an appearance on Three and a Half Men?) and stay in Washington to develop a fix for the economy.
Hi, Typical, you scan 80 comments, and instantly come up with the perfect synthesis. Wow, do I miss working across for you. I am going to email you later when I have a second. I want to catch up on how things are going for you. I hope you are doing well -- and bet you are. Based on this comment, I know you have not lost your keen edge for sarcasm since leaving the newsroom. Really, really, really miss you and hope you are well. Z
Posted by: dan thanh | March 23, 2009 2:59 PM
I think everyone is comparing Bush and Obama. Irrespective of whether he did well as compared to Bush....or Bush never talked to the people.......The important thing is the media should be neutral and Kroft should have asked the questions about AIG bounses.... Basically there are few questions we dont know the answers yet .....
Posted by: SRP | March 23, 2009 3:58 PM
Obama's smile during the Croft interview was that of a fox who at last caught his prey.
This is not a regular human being, and I hope it will prove to be in a good way.
Posted by: ingrid952 | March 24, 2009 2:31 PM
nice, really nice!
Posted by: illepurry | April 16, 2009 8:19 PM