Obama is about to do his first full-scale news conference since last March.

Which was back when Rick Santorum seemed like he might get the GOP nomination and 2 months before Obama did his first campaign rally. He has been really press-shy... even though the press loves him and boosts him as much as they can. Or so it seems. But there's always a chance some reporter will break out a tough question.

Politico offers some "hard questions" that might conceivably be asked. But the questions, as phrased chez Politico, all sound softened to me. If they're soft on paper under a link-begging headline about hardness, how can we hope for any toughness face-to-face with the President who's been withholding press conferences for 8 months?

Here are the Petraeus-related questions:

Do you believe the FBI should have told you and Congress sooner about the investigation that led Gen. Petraeus to resign?

Do you worry about a culture in which trusted officials behave badly?

Does this administration consider anyone who’s having an extramarital affair, or has had one in the past, to be unfit for public office?

Easy: yes, yes, no. Add a few mushy words and you're done. Instapundit notes that Question 1 "lets Obama off the hook by pretending to believe that he didn’t know anything about Petraeus until after the election, which is quite implausible." It's like the old "When did you stop beating your wife?" question, assuming a fact not yet proved, but the assumed fact is helpful to the witness. The witness is in no danger of getting tripped up, letting the negative assumption go. He'll notice the positive assumption, silently celebrate, and proceed to answer the question asked.

Pre-assembling the excuses for Obama's defeat tomorrow.

At Politico (with an "if"):

Obama threw it away in Denver...

The Bush economy killed him...

It was the second-term vision thing...

Citizens United, the super PACs and the Koch Brothers did it...

He lost for a noble cause: national health care...

It all comes back to race...

There's grousing and blaming in the offing if this iffing is happening.

What they'll never say: Mitt Romney was a fine candidate.

He was a fine candidate — and so was Ryan — even with the media spinning everything they could against him. And if R&R win, their victory will be spun as negatively as possible. Politico is giving you a peek of what they will be doing if you people don't get a clue and vote they way you're supposed to. We're going to pummel you with stories of your racism and Obama's martyrdom until you expiate your sins by voting for whomever the Democrats present for your obeisance in 2016. Look out... or rebel.

"Billionaire Thomas Peterffy's ‘socialist’ ads raise questions."

Headlines Politico, pointing its readers at a very effective ad that they might otherwise avoid:



The "questions" referred to in the headline are about who is helping Peterffy, a political neophyte, to make and place such ad. But there's nothing interesting there, and Peterffy comes across as an intelligent, persuasive independent:

Typically, such ads call for supporting or opposing specific candidates, but Peterffy’s ad is more vague because it doesn’t mention specific candidates — only an encouragement to vote Republican....

Peterffy said he supports Republican candidates because he sees the rhetoric of social justice and fairness from Democrats, including President Barack Obama, as a slippery slope. He also said Romney’s 47 percent comment reflected his own fears about the future of the country and was taken out of context.

“My understanding was that he said he had no ability to influence the 47 percent,” Peterffy said. “That’s the very logic I’m based on. I’m worried about when that 47 percent goes to 60 percent.”

Focus on Tagg.

The Politico story:

But the biggest change in the [Romney campaign] ecology, according to the [unnamed] insiders, is the more assertive role of Tagg Romney, who has been “making sure that his father’s environment is such that he’s relaxed when he goes up to do things, and making sure that he’s not over-programmed, and is protected from the cacophony of advice,” a family friend said.

“Romney gets buffeted by all this advice because Romney takes everybody seriously,” the family friend said. “He thinks, ‘Well, gee, I’m talking to businessman X or C or Y. They’re really smart. That’s something I need to factor into my thinking.’ Tagg has been aggressive in saying: ‘There’s no more factoring stuff in. Your thinking is yours. Be who you are! And you’ve got to communicate that to people, and don’t be embarrassed by it.’”

The eldest son has been around the campaign’s Boston headquarters more often and keeps his own heavy schedule of media and campaign appearances. His involvement increased gradually in the two weeks before the debate, according to the insiders, after focusing on fundraising for much of the 2012 campaign.

“Unlike anybody else,” the friend said, “Tagg will basically call people out when they have something stupid to say. Because he’s the son, he’s in a different position to be able to really question people’s advice and question the decisions, but — more importantly — to drive them to make decisions, which is one of the problems in Romneyworld. They’re slow to react, in part because of the campaign’s organizational ambiguity. Tagg has helped resolve some of that.”

The Daily News story:

A recent POLITICO story quoted an unnamed family friend as saying Tagg Romney would be working behind the scenes at being “more assertive in making the organization work better, cleaning up some of the organizational dysfunction.”

But Tagg Romney said that’s simply not the case. In fact, he said he hasn't been to a strategy meeting in more than a year, and the last time his father specifically solicited his advice on a campaign issue was in considering his selection of a running mate.

“It sounds like a great story, but it's not based in reality at all,” he said of the suggestion that he’d be the one to broker peace between warring factions inside Romneyland.

“I’ve never approached anyone about wanting to play that role. No one has approached me,” he said. “This is not spin, the team really gets along well. There's no internal squabbling or fighting for territory or turf.”

"With Republicans everywhere wondering what has happened to the Mitt Romney campaign..."

"... people who know the candidate personally and professionally offer a simple explanation: It’s the candidate himself."

ADDED: The mainstream media are using a tactic reminiscent of grade school, alpha kids spreading the idea nobody likes this one kid. Not even for any particular reason. Just: Ew, nobody likes him. Hoping to influence the beta kids. Probably succeeding!

"Some people always don't get something, but I figured describing PowerPoint as having been invented to euthanize cattle would make the satire clear."

Said Politico's Roger Simon, referring to something that appeared on page 2 of his satire. Don't you know about satire?! You r dum.

I call bullshit. People don't read and read down into an article. Simon intentionally put a fake quote out there knowing it would be taken as real. You have to get 2/3 of the way into his piece to see the euthanize-cattle nudge. That's not the way people read these days.

Here you can see page 1. Who would click to page 2?

This was a deliberate attempt to pollute the public debate, to promote Simon's candidate. He would never fun with Obama like that. He kept his deniability, but he put it way down where no one would read. His writing doesn't merit the click to page 2.

Obama didn't "fall flat." He went low key on purpose. Here's the reason.

Politico is all "Obama fell flat."

A surprisingly long parade of Democrats and media commentators who didn’t think much of the speech described it less as a failure than a fizzle—an oddly missed opportunity to frame his presidency or the nation’s choice in a fresh or inspirational light.

Blah blah blah. But here's Howard Kurtz with the response Pee-Wee Herman made famous: I meant to do that.



Kurtz says Obama's speech was the result of careful focus-group testing.

Strategists felt they were in a box, unable to meet the twin goals of style and substance at once. To be sure, Obama wanted to excite the party’s liberal base. But his brain trust was convinced that they would have gotten killed by going with a red-meat speech that simply bashed Republicans without detailing what Obama would do in the next four years....

Dial-twisting focus-groupers, strategists-in-a-box, a brain trust. Where is the man himself, the candidate, the President? I don't see the excuse here, Howie. It's like you're saying he is the empty chair.

Do you think Romney needs to pick Paul Ryan?

There's no reason to think Politico wants to help Romney, but they've got an article purporting to describe the split within the GOP, and the second sentence over there is:

Ryan advocates, including some of his colleagues and high-profile conservative elites, believe Romney will lose if he doesn’t make a more assertive case for his candidacy and that selecting the 42-year-old wonky golden boy would sound a clarion call to the electorate about the sort of reforms the presumptive GOP nominee wants to bring to Washington.

Wonky golden boy would sound a clarion call... Hmmm. Okay, here's the other side of the split:

Their opposites, pragmatic-minded Republican strategists and elected officials, believe that to select Ryan is to hand President Barack Obama’s campaign a twin-edged blade, letting the incumbent slash Romney on the Wisconsin congressman’s Medicare proposal and carve in the challenger a scarlet “C” for the unpopular Congress.

A clarion is a "shrill-sounding trumpet with a narrow tube, formerly much used as a signal in war." So Ryan is either a shrill war trumpet or a double-edged sword, but if he's a sword, the sword is handed to Obama who then slashes plans to... uh... slash spending and he carves letters into Ryan's body. The hell?! Whatever happened to civility? And not just civility, but attention to metaphor and parallelism in writing? Ryan is a trumpet or the act of handing a sword to Obama. How do we know Obama wouldn't grab the trumpet, and maybe Romney could use the sword?

I think Ryan would be a great VP choice who would clearly help Romney. (I saw the 2 of them campaigning together here in Wisconsin.) But I'm thinking that if Romney becomes President, Ryan will be more of a help in the House than as VP. Here's my post from April 1st. It was titled: "Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan." I said:

[T]he team of Romney and Ryan was excellent. They answered questions from people as equal partners — some deference to Romney, but basically equals. Ryan is a terrific speaker, and he got more applause than Romney a couple times. Hearing them answer the same question, one after the other, I kept thinking Ryan is the stronger of the 2. And that's not to say Romney was unappealing, just less intense.

Surely, Romney will pick Ryan as his VP. Right?

I had the feeling there were 2 future Presidents in the room.

"'So patently false' Obama removed Churchill bust from the White House."

Politico headline for an article relying on White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer to contradict something Charles Krauthammer wrote in his WaPo column. The headline remains in that form, with no reference to the update that's now there, down at the bottom, saying:

Pfeiffer's "fact check" isn't quite right. While there is still a bust of Churchill in the White House, it's not the same one that was in the Oval when Bush was president. The bust by Sir Jacob Epstein... was lent to Bush's administration for the duration of his presidency, the British Embassy in Washington told Mediaite. When Bush left office, the loan ended and the bust was placed in the embassy. The White House collection includes its own Churchill bust by Epstein, which is the one that's now in the residence.

(All the boldface in this post is mine.)

Let's go back to Krauthammer's column. Here's the line that Pfieffer is quoted saying is "so patently false": "Obama started his presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office." Based on the update, I'd say what Krauthammer wrote was so patently true.

Krauthammer's column — which was about Romney's overseas trip — imagined Romney saying to the British:

 “We are grateful for your steadfast solidarity in awful places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The relationship truly is special.

“And one more thing. Still have that bust of Churchill?”

And in fact, Krauthammer says, on Thursday: "Romney did say he wants Winnie back in the Oval Office."

I've added boldface to stress the importance of the placement of the bust in the Oval Office (not tucked away somewhere less symbolic and high-profile) and the relationship signified by the loan from the Embassy. Those things might not seem that important to those who are pushing Obama's reelection, like Pfeiffer, but Politico should be ashamed of its shoddy work, taking what is obviously an unjustified shot at Krauthammer and leaving the accusation in the headline where it can continue its dirty work.

And here's Pfieffer's column on the official whitehouse.gov website (which should not be a campaign outlet!):

Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column.  He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”

This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.

Pfieffer's overreach is apparent from the start. He says "100% false," when it's at least partly true: There's no Churchill bust in the Oval Office.

News outlets have debunked this claim time and again.... just last year the AP reported that President Obama “replaced the Oval Office fixture with a bust of one of his American heroes, President Abraham Lincoln, and moved the Churchill bust to the White House residence.”...

Hopefully this clears things up a bit and prevents folks from making this ridiculous claim again.

So all the ridiculous folks need to stop talking about this... but then Pfieffer returns with an update, confessing his own ridiculousness (or craftiness, since he got his story out on the official White House website, beating back the Krauthammer narrative, and who's looking at updates now?):

Since my post on the fact that the bust of Winston Churchill has remained on display in the White House, despite assertions to the contrary, I have received a bunch of questions -- so let me provide some additional info. The White House has had a bust of Winston Churchill since the 1960’s. At the start of the Bush administration Prime Minister Blair lent President Bush a bust that matched the one in the White House, which was being worked on at the time and was later returned to the residence.  The version lent by Prime Minister Blair was displayed by President Bush until the end of his Presidency.  On January 20, 2009 -- Inauguration Day -- all of the art lent specifically for President Bush’s Oval Office was removed by the curator’s office, as is common practice at the end of every presidency. The original Churchill bust remained on display in the residence. The idea put forward by Charles Krauthammer and others that President Obama returned the Churchill bust or refused to display the bust because of antipathy towards the British is completely false and an urban legend that continues to circulate to this day.

And your effort to smear Krauthammer used patently false material. And you used the official White House website to circulate your own urban legend.

Is it even legal to use the the official White House website this way?

IN THE COMMENTS: Matthew Sablan said:

It's a good thing he didn't make up a Dylan quote. You can get fired for that sort of shoddy journalism. Good thing he just called someone no one really likes a liar.

Yeah, well, Jonah Lehrer needs a new job, so maybe he can be a White House blogger.

"A lot of politicians can go negative without losing too much altitude, but President Barack Obama doesn’t seem to be that guy."

Writes Glenn Thrush in Politco:

Obama’s sag — and it’s definitely more of a sag than a collapse — is a natural function of reluctant Republicans finally coalescing behind Romney, who clinched the nomination Tuesday night with a victory in Texas.

But the president’s enemies, and a few of his friends, think his in-your-face negativity, on display in his attacks on Bain Capital and a snark offensive that included comparing Romney’s statements to a “cow pie of distortion,” have produced a backlash among independent voters who have finally given up the image of Obama as a new-breed politician....

Nowhere has Obama’s slide been more dramatic than in supposedly safe Wisconsin — currently in the throes of a highly contentious gubernatorial recall election — where Obama’s margin over Romney has plunged from as much as 17 points in the early spring to about 3 points, according to Real Clear Politics’s average of the last four polls in the state....

Well, now don't blame the Wisconsin collapse entirely on Obama.  You've got to put some of the blame on the pumped-up protesters who stormed the Capitol last year and banged on drums and chanted for months, until they conjured up of vision of taking down Governor Scott Walker in a recall election. That delusive mission has flooded the people of this state with all manner of propaganda, left and right, and who knows what that does to the precious, all-important independent voters?

Politico attempts to frame the meme "birth control moms."

You know, like "soccer moms" and "security moms." But it's distractingly oxymoronic: if you use birth control, it's to avoid motherhood.

Except... soccer moms don't play soccer. And security moms — is that really a famous term? — aren't providing the security. The "mom" part of the term is about... well, what is it about? It's what patronizing politicos call the women who they imagine don't think, but emote and intuit their way through elections. Or perhaps, in part, it's that women who are mothers are concerned about the children. In that light, a "birth control mom" isn't a woman who wants her birth control devices. As a soccer mom likes to see the kids playing soccer, a birth control mom likes to see the kids using birth control, when they fuck, which they will do... you can't stop 'em... or if you think you can, you might already be a Santorumite.

UPDATE: After a lefty blogger criticizes this post, I expose his phallocracy.

Facebook gives Politico access to Facebook's private status messages and comments.

But you're not supposed to mind because the process is automated.

[E]very post and comment — both public and private — by a U.S. user that mentions a presidential candidate’s name will be fed through a sentiment analysis tool that spits out anonymized measures of the general U.S. Facebook population.

Scott Walker is the first of Politico's "top unanswered questions for 2012."

Here's how they phrase it: "Can Democrats claim a scalp in Wisconsin?" (Why isn't "claim a scalp" politically incorrect by now?) The question is whether the Democrats can take down Scott Walker in a recall election. I'm predicting they can't. I think the more interesting question is: Will the Democrats' effort to oust Walker have repercussions in the fall elections to the ironic point where it is Wisconsin that tips the Senate and the presidency to the Republicans?

There are a bunch of other questions. 2 are about the Supreme Court: "Will the Supreme Court deliver for the GOP?" and "Will a liberal retire from the Supreme Court?" Again, Politico is obtuse. For example, it says: "If the court strikes down the controversial individual mandate, it would be a jolting setback for Obama just a few months before he’s up for reelection." But striking down the individual mandate would help Obama! How is it a setback? The unpopular law would be gone. Obama could claim it was a good thing and blame the bad old Supreme Court for being all "activist." If, on the other hand, the Court upholds the law, Obama will feel the full force of the opposition to it. And the spotlight will be on the liberal Supreme Court Justices who won't enforce limits on congressional power, which will leverage the GOP to say: Do you want Obama naming the successors to those terrible liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer?

Politico's most sycophantic headline ever?

"Obama's toughest critic: Obama."

"Cain aide wrongly insists they've 'confirmed' accuser's son works for Politico."

Writes Maggie Haberman in Politico:

"Her son works at POLITICO," [Mark] Block said of Karen Kraushaar, whose name POLITICO printed earlier today after other media outlets made her identity public.

"I've been hearing that all day - you've confirmed that now?" Hannity asked.

"We've confirmed that he does indeed work at POLITICO and that's his mother, yes," said Block.

Block appeared to be referring to former POLITICO reporter Josh Kraushaar, who left for another outlet, National Journal, in 2010.

Josh Kraushaar tweeted earlier in the day, apparently after getting questions, that he's in fact not related to Karen Kraushaar, and simply has the same last name.

Oh, but Mark Block is an outlaw. He takes a drag on that cigarette. He's a rebel. The rules don't apply to him.

Allahpundit predicts:

You’re going to see three camps quickly emerge on this story. Camp one: “I can’t believe Block threw that accusation out there without confirming it.” Camp two: “Maybe … Block was thinking of another reporter?” (Some Cainiacs are already tweeting this.) Camp three: “Josh Kraushaar is lying; he really is Karen’s son. Where’s the birth certificate?” Place your bets now, as Block’s sure to be forced to clarify tomorrow what he meant.

Well, that was written last night, so add to "Camp one": "I can't believe Block didn't immediately clarify what he meant." What an embarrassing screwup!

Were you/are you a Cain supporter?
	I never was, but I've liked him, and I'm sorry to see him fail this badly.
	I never was, and I'm glad his inexperience is showing up early to keep him from getting nominated.
	No, but I'm sorry he's failing, because Obama would beat him.
	I was, but I've given up on him.
	I was, but I'm in the process of letting go.
	I was and I still am. It's a difficult fight, but it's worth it.
	I was and I am, even more so now. I'm invigorated to fight this high-tech lynching.
pollcode.com free polls

"Why publish the story then when you couldn't answer the essential question: What precisely is Herman Cain alleged to have done to these women?"

Howard Kurtz asks Politico's Jonathan Martin. Martin flails desperately, and Kurtz keeps going after him.

MR. KURTZ: I think at a lot of news organizations an editor would have said... you don't have the details of the sexually suggestive behavior that made them angry. Go back and get more. You could have waited, there was nothing forcing you to publish this last Sunday.

Martin blabbers. Kurtz makes him suffer. Watch the video at the link.

Meanwhile, on "Meet the Press," David Gregory had a chance to interrogate Maggie Haberman, whom he identifed as "Politico's reporter covering the Cain story." Gregory asked her absolutely nothing about Politico's behavior. He put up a quote from Cain, saying he'd like to leave the story behind and "get back on message," and asks her "So how does he really do that when there are more questions, which are primarily what?"

MS. MAGGIE HABERMAN: Well, I think among the questions are does he remember the second woman who we reported on? He says he has no memory of her whatsoever. Other media outlets have confirmed that there was another woman who had made some kind of complaint about sexually inappropriate behavior.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MS. HABERMAN: And Mr. Cain's campaign last night not only said they don't want to talk about this anymore, but they, you know, said they were going to email people the code of ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists, and did to one of my colleagues. I think this is where you're going to see the pivot. They are going to say the media is out to get him. I think that it has served them well this week.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MS. HABERMAN: I think that's how he's gotten around some conflicting answers about what's happened. I don't know that he's going to be able to not answer or at least not get asked them anymore, going forward.

At that point, Gregory moves on to another guest. That is, he lobbed Haberman a question that she was able to use to place the burden on Cain to come forward with the details, and Gregory asked nothing. Unless you consider "Mm-hmm" to be something. Haberman mentioned the code of ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists, but that did not rouse Mr. Gregory from his slumbers. Tim Russert would have grilled her. She needed grilling. Why have her on the show and not interrogate her?

High-tech lynching + Herman Cain.

A Google search returns 35,400 results the day after Politico drops its story about 2 female employees who, years ago, were angered and upset by what they said was "sexually suggestive behavior" by Herman Cain.

Let's listen to the original use of the phrase "high-tech lynching." It was just about exactly 20 years ago that Clarence Thomas, nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by George H. W. Bush, faced the Senate Judiciary Committee, which, under the watch of Senator Joe Biden, heard testimony accusing him of sexual harassment.

"In his two weeks as a presidential candidate, Rick Perry has done something that neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney could do..."

"... wake up the left."

Says Politico.

From my perspective here in Wisconsin, I had not noticed that the left was asleep. Indeed, I've noticed that it could use some sleep. A long, restful, sanity-restoring snooze. In a bed, not on a marble floor.

"Boehner's Obama Gamble: A tax increase now for the promise of tax reform later won't fly."

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial (before Boehner backed out):

Republicans would be putting their fingerprints on a tax increase in return for spending cuts as a first order of business, which would raise the dividend and top income tax rates to 39.6% (from 35%), or 41% if you include the phase-out of deductions. (Plus the 3.8% payroll tax hike baked into ObamaCare.) Only then would Mr. Obama and the Democrats negotiate the details of tax reform and lower overall rates. 

But why at that point would Democrats want tax reform? They'd have achieved their main political goals of a huge debt-reduction deal, getting GOP cover for a tax increase, and putting Republicans cross-wise with the tea party. Raising tax rates first also makes the math of tax reform that much harder to negotiate on both revenue and income-distribution grounds. Under the Beltway's scoring rules, cutting rates would look like an even bigger gain for higher-income folks and an even bigger revenue loss for the Treasury.

As The Politico puts it: "Under pressure from right, John Boehner steps back on debt deal."

Politico says: "Sarah Palin's bus tour leaves GOP cold."

Evidence?

While Palin has reveled in giving an extended one-fingered salute to the national press, refusing to give out details about her travel schedule and forcing reporters to literally chase her vehicle up I-95 in order to cover her, she reached out to precious few activists and party leaders in the states she visited.

So "leaves [them] cold" means that she was cold to them? In normal English usage, when you say X leaves Y cold, it means that Y isn't responding to X's overtures. It's not another way of saying X cold-shouldered Y.

Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Rob Gleason, whose state hosted Palin on visits to Gettysburg and the Liberty Bell, voiced a common exasperation about Palin’s tour: “I don’t think theater wins elections.”

“Running for president is a very serious thing and you need to deal with it as such,” Gleason said. “I’m looking for party builders.”

How far down on the list did Politico go to get a GOP politico to give the quote it wanted for an article disparaging Palin's bus tour? (And I love the locution "whose state hosted." Americans have a right to travel from state to state. We don't need the state to extend any invitation or hospitality. )

In New York – where Palin stopped at Ellis Island – GOP Rep. Peter King mused that the Alaskan “probably has more hardcore support than any other candidate.”

“But she needs to show that she can go beyond that, and this tour doesn’t accomplish that,” said King, who is urging Rudy Giuliani to enter the 2012 race.

So... King is pushing another candidate.

To former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, Palin’s visit to his state seemed more or less irrelevant. Asked for his thoughts on her arrival Thursday, the Republican shrugged: “I don’t think she’s running.”

Because nobody's more relevant than John Sununu.

Conclusion: The evidence in Politico's article is best seen as evidence of Politico's desire to undermine Sarah Palin.