Kirsten Powers Slams President Obama’s “Petulant” Press Conference

Kirsten PowersKirsten Powers is a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors, Daily Beast columnist and Fox News political analyst.  In my opinion she is as moderate a political commentator as you are going to get.  Yes, she is a regular contributor on Fox News.  That does not mean she’s some type of crazy, far-right analyst.  There are many contributors on Fox News that are actually fair and balanced.  Yes, there are.

Powers is one of them.  I like to diversify my news outlets, so I do watch one or two Fox News shows.  I’d like to point out that I am not some person who religiously holds every word as gospel.  I make my own decisions and I formulate my own thoughts on topics.

Today, Powers slammed President Obama during his last press conference of his first term.  She said that his tone was “petulant” and he was “acting annoyed that people were asking him questions.”  Regarding the impending debt ceiling debate, Powers said Obama “didn’t do a great job of explaining the situation” because although a default would be “disruptive,” he “didn’t need to exaggerate it.”  Obama saying that Social Security and veteran’s benefits may be delayed, Powers continued, is a “scare tactic” (funny I thought Republicans only used “scare tactics).  The GOP has a “fair position,” she added, and Obama is setting it up to appear that “if you don’t go his way, you like to starve children.”

*Here’s a link to the video if you want to watch the 2 min clip and the article I read her comments.

My take on the press conference:

The president continues to paint a picture of soulless Republicans willing to let Americans die.  The president has said he refuses to negotiate on the debt ceiling.  He wants the GOP-led House of Representatives to raise the debt ceiling and then finally they can begin to negotiate on spending cuts (like we haven’t heard this one before).  This is his grand bargain idea.

The president stated that GOP members were “holding a gun at the head of the American people” by demanding Democrats cut deficit spending.  I guess that’s what they call balancing the budget nowadays.  I find his comment a bit insensitive in light of the one month anniversary of Sandy Hook although I don’t think it was intentional.

The president also said today that he would be willing to essentially “go around” Congress and push his initiative.  If the president refuses to negotiate with Congress and wants to be able to borrow unlimited amounts of money then why even have a House of Representatives or Senate?  If it is whatever he says goes then we could actually save a lot of money getting rid of our Congressman.

Lastly, the president stated:

You don’t go out to dinner and then, you know, eat all you want and then leave without paying the check. And if you do, you’re breaking the law…We are not a deadbeat nation.”

No, Mr. President we aren’t a “deadbeat nation.”  What we have are “deadbeat politicians.”

As for leaving the table without paying the check, I assume you are talking about what you all have been “accomplishing” these past few decades.  Because you ALL are guilty of such a crime.

And as usual WE have to pick up the tab.

What do you think?


Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate


Tags: , , , , , , ,

About adrakontaidis

A conservative who doesn't pander to the GOP.

8 responses to “Kirsten Powers Slams President Obama’s “Petulant” Press Conference”

  1. Nancy says :

    Plus we have to leave a 20% tip! If we get rid of the Congress, look at all the money we will save. No entitlements of pay, pensions, & health care for them.

    Now the President is becoming a bully. The last 4 years he didn’t really do much, but all of a sudden this sleeping giant has awoken. Now it is his way or the high way. What he doesn’t have to campaign for the next election & now we are stuck with him in the White House making havoc!

    • realtalkrealdebate says :

      He’s tired of his base saying he allows himself to get bullied my Republicans. So he has decided to be the bully instead.

      • Kamil Zawadzki says :

        Here’s the thing, though… what’s there to be bullied about? Paying for the bill that’s already been incurred? A bill that’s already been endorsed by our lawmakers and president?
        That’s not something that should even have to be “negotiated.” It’s a matter of fact. And paying for spending that’s already happened has nothing to do with either finding new revenue as Obama might want or cutting spending as Republicans want. The current bill has to be paid regardless of what we do in the future. That’s that.

        Votes on the debt ceiling have typically gone along partisan lines, and in 2006 when he was senator, Obama even voted against it. But while the trend has typically been for the president’s party to unite in support of and the opposition party to criticize the debt ceiling increase, until 2011 it’s never gotten to the point where on the last hours of the last day before the deadline, it’s still unclear whether that ceiling will be raised. That’s how we got to our credit rating being downgraded then, and the brinksmanship can lead nowhere good now, either.
        I’ve got a more detailed post in the pipeline about this on my blog, set to publish in a few hours…

        But basically, this has nothing to do with the president being a bully to get revenge for any bullying, perceived or otherwise, from Republicans. It also has nothing to do with presidential overreach, either, considering he has ruled out the wonky trillion-dollar-coin (which I still don’t get but it seems to be a moot point for now) or other ‘simple solutions’ implying that at worst he’d use the ’14th Amendment’ option a a last resort, if at all.

        The fact of the matter is, there has been spending that’s already been incurred, and that’s been approved by our politicians. Whether they voted in favor of each different program or whatever is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is, that program has been initiated and the U.S. has a responsibility to meet its obligations.
        Those obligations WILL NOT go away if we promise to reduce spending in the future, or if we promise to find new sources of revenue. Nor will they go away if we just keep trudging along the path of the status quo. The debt ceiling has to be raised by the deadline regardless of what we do the day after. So there is no reason its increase ought to be bound to either spending cuts, tax hikes or a combination of the two. It’s just posturing and it’s bullshit.

      • realtalkrealdebate says :

        Yes, it’s been appropriated by another Congress. I think people have gotten the wrong impression from my post. I am going to post something soon to explain my position hopefully more clearly.

      • Kamil Zawadzki says :

        Although I will concede that Obama calling the Republicans ‘hostage-takers’ doesn’t help endear anyone and that is kind of extreme (and tired and whiny-sounding by now).

      • realtalkrealdebate says :

        Yeah, that certainly wouldn’t endear me to want to negotiate with him. Although I still would.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: