Obama And Republicans Debate

[FSTargetDrone]

More of this, please:

Obama, GOP exchange barbs, ideas in rare encounter

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER and CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writers Stephen Ohlemacher And Charles Babington, Associated Press Writers 29 mins ago

BALTIMORE – In a remarkably sharp face-to-face confrontation, President Barack Obama chastised Republican lawmakers Friday for opposing him on taxes, health care and the economic stimulus, while they accused him in turn of brushing off their ideas and driving up the national debt.

The president and GOP House members took turns questioning and sometimes lecturing each other for more than hour at a Republican gathering in Baltimore. The Republicans agreed to let TV cameras inside, resulting in an extended, point-by-point interchange that was almost unprecedented in U.S. politics, except perhaps during presidential debates.

With voters angry about partisanship and legislative logjams, both sides were eager to demonstrate they were ready to cooperate, resulting in the GOP invitation and Obama's acceptance. After polite introductions, however, Friday's exchange showed that Obama and the Republicans remain far apart on key issues, and neither side could resist the chance to challenge and even scold the other.

Obama said Republican lawmakers have attacked his health care overhaul so fiercely, "you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot." His proposals are mainstream, widely supported ideas, he said, and they deserve some GOP votes in Congress.

"I am not an ideologue," the president declared.

But Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., pointedly asked Obama: "What should we tell our constituents who know that Republicans have offered positive solutions" for health care, "and yet continue to hear out of the administration that we've offered nothing?"

Obama showed little sympathy, disputing Price's claim that a Republican plan would insure nearly all Americans without raising taxes.

"That's just not true," said Obama. He called such claims "boilerplate" meant to score political points.

At times it seemed more like Britain's "question time" — when lawmakers in the House of Commons trade barbs with the prime minister — than a meeting between a U.S. president and members of Congress.

Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana defended Price on the health care proposals. He said a GOP agenda booklet given to Obama at the start of the session "is backed up by precisely the kind of detailed legislation that Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi and your administration have been busy ignoring for 12 months."

Obama shot back that he had read the Republican proposals and that they promise solutions that can't be realized.

In another barbed exchange, the president said some Republican lawmakers in the audience had attended ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects in their districts funded by the 2009 stimulus package that they voted against.

Pence said Obama was trying to defend "a so-called stimulus that was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts."

Obama replied, "When you say they were boutique tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts."

"This notion that this was a radical package is just not true," he said.

Republicans are feeling energized after winning a Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts, and Obama is trying to refocus his stalled agenda more on jobs than health care. With Obama at a podium facing a hotel conference room full of Republicans, both sides jumped to the debate.

"It was the kind of discussion that we frankly need to have more of," said House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.

"I'm having fun, this is great," Obama said when Pence asked if he had time for more questions.

"So are we," said Pence.

Some Republicans prefaced their questions with lengthy recitations of conservative talking points. The president sometimes listened impassively but sometimes broke in.

"I know there's a question in there somewhere, because you're making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with," Obama said to Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, whom he mistakenly called "Jim."

Obama, a former law school professor, launched into lectures of his own at times. He warned lawmakers from both parties against demonizing a political opponent, because voters might find it incomprehensible if the two sides ever agree on anything.

"We've got to be careful about what we say about each other sometimes, because it boxes us in in ways that makes it difficult for us to work together because our constituents start believing us," Obama said. "So just a tone of civility instead of slash-and-burn would be helpful."

Republicans sat attentively for the most part. There was some grumbling when Obama remarked — after being pressed about closed-door health care negotiations — that much of the legislation was developed in congressional committees in front of television cameras.

"That was a messy process," Obama said.

GOP lawmakers pressured him to support a presidential line-item veto for spending bills and to endorse across-the-board tax cuts. Obama said he was ready to talk about the budget proposal, though he disputed accusations that his administration was to blame for big increases in deficit spending. And he demurred on the idea of cutting everyone's taxes, saying with a smile that billionaires don't need tax cuts.

In his opening remarks, Obama criticized what he said was a Washington culture driven by opinion polls and nonstop political campaigns.

"I don't believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security, they want us to focus on their job security," he said.

The president acknowledged that Republicans have joined Democrats in some efforts, such as sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. But he said he was disappointed and perplexed by virtually unanimous GOP opposition to other programs, such as the economic stimulus bill.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said of the event, "In some places I kind of felt like I was in my high school assembly being lectured by my principal. In others, I felt like he was listening."

___

Charles Babington reported from Washington. AP Writer Christine Simmons contributed from Baltimore.

Even if this is all just so much hot air, I don't care. I want more if it involving ALL presidents and the opposition.

[Thanas]

Is there video footage available?

[FSTargetDrone]

Is there video footage available?

Check out C-SPAN and if the whole thing isn't online now, it should be later. They are showing a stream of the TV repeat but it's already started.

Some of the reactions from the press:

Pundits Shout 'Encore!' After Riveting GOP-Obama Debate

By Heather Horn on January 29, 2010 2:50pm

The political story of the afternoon is President Obama's address to the House Republican retreat and the riveting Q&A session that followed. Commentators are delighted by the frank exchanges and unscripted debate that unfolded. Several are comparing it to the famous rough-and-tumble of British parliamentary politics. In fact, both liberals and conservatives want to see more, and there's a distinct bipartisan feeling that this may have been one of the president's better moves. A small sample, below (the Post has some of the Q&A transcript here), with the commentators' reactions:

* Man, This is Good " I don't know if this will have any long-term effect, but it's good for Obama and, regardless, a good show. Presidents should do this kind of thing more often," says liberal Kevin Drum (He and Matt Yglesias that both think the president was "running rings around them").

* Another? "This became what could be the first publicly-held President's Question Time, and Obama was quick on his feet," concludes Eric Kleefeld in a report for Talking Points Memo. "Will something like this happen again?

* 'Address Is Not Quite the Right Word,' marvels the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, "because it was a genuine--and remarkable--conversation between Obama and his political opponents--transparently on CSPAN." His takeaway? "I remain depressed at the prospects for a breakthrough, but this was good politics and good policy. More, please. Do this every month." He likes the idea of Obama as "therapist in chief."

* 'Fun Times All Around,' says conservative Meredith Jessup at Townhall. Her favorite parts were the "Republicans who have stood up and told the President how the GOP has NOT been obstructive," and those who accused the president of lying "about employing lobbyists in his administration."

* Great Television "Why not replace the SOTU with this sort of thing?" Asks conservative National Review's Daniel Foster, transfixed. Summing up the event, he adds, "maybe it's just that the novelty of the Q&A has yet to wear off, but that was--for lack of a better phrase--pretty cool." His favorite part: the "back-and-forth" with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), "as it was clear that the president realized he was in the presence of a razor-sharp wonk and one of the most effective critics of his administration." Calling the entire event "remarkable," he says "more remarkable still is that it would be hard to argue the exchange is anything but a plus-plus for Obama and the GOP. Both sides emerged from it looking as if, contra the public's greatest fears, they more or less know what they are talking about on issues like the deficit and health-care reform."

* 'I Don't Recall Ever Seeing This Before in My Life,' says the Guardian's Michael Tomasky. "Whichever side you're on, this was fascinating television." Though he doesn't think the president "won every point," nor that he "changed a mind in the room," he still thinks it "a remarkably candid piece of political television, especially for this day and age." The only complaint? He wishes it had been on prime time, to get more viewers.

* Both Sides Civil, Earnest Tweets conservative Kathryn Jean Lopez, "i think everyone who participated in that Q&A exchange can spin it to his advantage. and it sure beats one-way lectures." Her National Review colleague Jim Geraghty agrees: "it was the antidote to everything that was insufferable about the State of the Union--the uninterrupted platitudes, the dishonest framing, the aversion to acknowledging alternative views, the endless droning, etc." Furthermore, he adds "the questions from the Republicans were pointed but fair." Like many, Geraghty wonders when we can expect a repeat performance.

Do go to the link of the reactions I just added. There are multiple links to the various reactions (in full) within that text that I didn't bother including.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Contrast this with people being arrested for getting thorugh audience vetting to ask Cheney or Bush a controversial question.

[Count Chocula]

As you may have guessed, I'm not an Obama fan, but I'm also not a big Repub booster and this is refreshing. Hey, an open debate on issues! Isn't that what he promised while campaigning? It's nice to see baby steps.

Now, if Reid and Pelosi would do the same, there'd be a lot more sunshine on the (so far) backroom deals and horse trading...for no result but backlash against the majority...that have gone on over the last year.

[Phantasee]

This is brilliant. This is what politics is supposed to be, if you buy the lines your teacher feeds you in elementary (and in some cases, high school). Unfortunately, I was always a believer.

[Phantasee]

You'll need some of the WaPo's transcripts, because you can't hear Pense at the beginning, but he gets a mic before the end of the first page. They are available here.

[FSTargetDrone]

Ok, despite this happening on a Friday, hopefully many of you have seen all or part of this or at least glanced through the transcript.

I confess I hadn't even heard about it until it was nearly over. I certainly hadn't heard about the invitation to this for the president by the Republicans until afterwards. I have no doubt it was mentioned by some White House functionary discussing the president's schedule for Friday, but I missed it. Of course, I wasn't in front of a TV for most of the day, but whatever.

Does anyone think that we'll see another of these Q&A sessions, as a publicly-viewable (on TV and preferably live) event? Will the Republicans extend another invitation? Will Obama accept? I think he will if they invite him again.

I think this was really fascinating and, more importantly, (hopefully) productive stuff. There is no reason there should not be more of these Q&A sessions.

[Simplicius]

Does anyone think that we'll see another of these Q&A sessions, as a publicly-viewable (on TV and preferably live) event? Will the Republicans extend another invitation? Will Obama accept? I think he will if they invite him again.

I think this was really fascinating and, more importantly, (hopefully) productive stuff. There is no reason there should not be more of these Q&A sessions.

I think it would definitely be good for the electorate if network TV time normally given to presidential addresses is used for Question Time instead. The way info from the president and members of the opposition is separated now, it is quite difficult to hear anyone's talking point in whole and in context and the entirety of the response presented together. Such a format also makes it harder for a speaker to get away with distorting or propagandizing, and makes the shouters and howlers look worse than they do when they have the stage to themselves. The potential benefit to the public perception of political discourse could be considerable.

Now, if Reid and Pelosi would do the same, there'd be a lot more sunshine on the (so far) backroom deals and horse trading...for no result but backlash against the majority...that have gone on over the last year.

And challenge the two-century-old tradition of Congressional business-as-usual? Sir, you shock me!

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah, I find it rather delusional that after the actions of Gingrich, Delay and others in the Conservative movement over the last twenty years, bitching about Pelosi and Reid.

[blacksun2175]

the only thing that bothered me is at the SOTU he spent 10 mins blaming bush for all the current problems. Then during the debate the next day he did a huge thing about how we need to stop pointing fingers and take responciblity.

[Knife]

the only thing that bothered me is at the SOTU he spent 10 mins blaming bush for all the current problems. Then during the debate the next day he did a huge thing about how we need to stop pointing fingers and take responciblity.

I think there is a difference between laying out what happened, particularly in the last two years, and how we ended up in this predicament and 'blaming' everything on Bush. The GOP wants everyone scared about the insecurity of life today to get elected in 2010, it should not be held against the Democrats to lay out to the American people that it was the GOP who lead them into this position. That is different than say Kerry's "I'm not Bush" routine from 2004.

[Simon_Jester]

Also, I think the Democrats have a right to point out that the Republicans' policies have not changed in response to the massive clusterfuck their policies created. The Republicans still concentrate on the same things in the same old way.

There's a reason they've gone negative: if they tried to sell a positive message to the voters, they'd have to advertise the fact that their plan to deal with the hole we're in is to dig faster. Or change their platform, which is not on, because of what Obama alluded to in this debate, they've got their base very worked up about "government bad, taxes bad, war in Iraq good, religious ideology good, public services EVIL COMMUNISM!" If they change they risk losing the base and forcing a split in the party.

But because they've chosen to go negative, they can blame all the current disasters on the Democrats and say "why haven't you fixed it yet!?" while trying as hard as they can to stop them from doing so*. For the Democrats to then respond with "Oh, and what would you do, more of the same idiocy that got us into this mess?" is entirely fair, I'd say.

*Not that they have to do much, since they can mostly get by just by standing fast and watching the Democrats beat themselves to death trying to compromise with the Republicans' own stupid positions, then blame them for the predictable failure that results from trying to strike a middle course between "smart" and "stupid."...

[Count Chocula]

Well if the President wants to spend ten minutes laying out how we got here based on the last two years (which is crap anyway, the Fannie/Freddie debacle was decades in the making), perhaps he should have pointed out which party has controlled Congress the past two years. Or which party has controlled Congress since 2006, for that matter: the Democrats. Or maybe he could point out that the Congressional oversight committe led by Barney Frank asserted, despite over a dozen warnings from the Bush administration, that Fannie and Freddie were A-Okay. Or maybe he could have pointed out that giving banks like BofA TARP money they didn't want and have already repaid was maybe a stupid idea from both parties. Or explain how a $787 billion "stimulus" plan and unprecedented, historic deficits since 2009 were good things. Or how a Pass-O-Matic Demo majority in the house and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate have still not been able to make good on "Cap and Trade" and Federal control of health care.

Never mind; I forgot for a minute that it's all Bush's fault and it takes time for "Hope and Change." I'd still like to see more raucous, open debates in the future, instead of set piece speeches on C-Span and lobbyists helping hammer out deals on legislation nobody gets to read before voting.

[SirNitram]

Wow, Chocula, need to troll much? Of course much of the current issue is decades old. One decade, like repealing Glass Seagalman. Two decades, like deregulation and S&L scandal. Three decades, when we first began down this idiotic period of conservatism, attacking taxes, social services, regulation, and of course, deficit-empty-theatrics.(Yes, I include Clinton. Only the very stupid don't see he was a conservative.) So yes. It was decades in the making. Decades of working against progressive taxes, promoting neoliberal economics, and all but urging on the housing bubble.

The W. Bush terms were merely an apex of these problems, when the SEC didn't bother to investigate, 'home-ownership' was promoted even further, and we hit the era of 'Buy now pay never' bills.

Of course, you engage in deficit theatrics too. So where were you when the GOP never bothered to pay for it's bills? Right, not complaining. Where are you on the fact PAYGO has been the norm the term? Nowhere? How about where were you, days ago, when PAYGO was made binding legislation, and the vote was party line in the Senate.. Every Democrat for, every Republican against? Link

You can whine all you want, but decades of conservative stupidity and irresponsible governing brought us here, and converatives in both parties continue to block all they can.

[Patrick Degan]

Well if the President wants to spend ten minutes laying out how we got here based on the last two years (which is crap anyway, the Fannie/Freddie debacle was decades in the making), perhaps he should have pointed out which party has controlled Congress the past two years. Or which party has controlled Congress since 2006, for that matter: the Democrats. Or maybe he could point out that the Congressional oversight committe led by Barney Frank asserted, despite over a dozen warnings from the Bush administration, that Fannie and Freddie were A-Okay.

Not this crap AGAIN:

There must be a Republican playbook circulating widely with a chapter entitled, "What to say if asked who's to blame for the foreclosure mess." Because an awful lot of Republican candidates are all suddenly yelling "Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae" whenever plunging home prices and the housing crisis comes up. John McCain runs ads trying to tie Obama to Fannie Mae, John Sununu points to his legislative agenda on these GSEs a central campaign theme in New Hampshire, and the RNC website plays up every Fannie Mae political contribution it can find (to Democrats only, of course.)

Today, almost 1 out of 10 Americans with a mortgage loan is in serious financial trouble, anywhere from a few payments behind to standing on the brink of foreclosure. And this is after several million families have already lost their homes.

So their plan seems to be to chant Fannie Mae often and loudly enough, and hope the public will get confused about who really caused this huge national calamity. It is always a good political story to just blame a bad guy who has something to do with the same topic. After all, invoking "Iraq" every time this administration talked about who attacked us on 9/11 worked pretty well for a while.

The problem is, blaming Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac for the millions of foreclosures and trillions in lost home value is just plain wrong, and in fact has the story pretty much backwards.

How did we get here? It is a complicated story, but a quick summary goes like this: When the Bush administration took office in 2001, most home borrowers got conventional ("prime") loans or they could not buy. Subprime lending was still a relatively small part of the total mortgage market. But a combination of a hands-off regulatory approach to the mortgage industry, a low interest-rate environment maintained by the Greenspan Federal Reserve, a president cheering on an "ownership society", and Wall Street firms rushing in to pool together prime and subprime loans and challenge the dominance of the existing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac home mortgage securitization system, set the stage for an explosion of higher risk lending.

Mortgage companies capitalized on pent up housing demand among many moderate income and minority borrowers. The subprime lending market soared, becoming nearly half of all new mortgage loans by 2006, and fueling huge bonuses among Wall Street investment firms like Bear Stearns.

But as has become apparent, these subprime loans were almost designed to go into default in massive numbers. Interest rates on adjustable mortgages spiked as low teaser rates rolled over and borrowers could not refinance their way out of trouble. Foreclosures started to come in waves in late 2006 and early 2007, so widespread and prevalent that the housing appreciation bubble burst, prices dropped sharply in dozens of states, and the epidemic spread.

When prices drop in a neighborhood, they don't just fall on homes with subprime loans. Everyone gets hit hard. For the first time since the Great Depression, American home values nationally fell nearly 20% since their peak, and in some places much more. Plunging prices trigger more foreclosures. The infection is still spreading even today. Even for those staying out of foreclosure, home equity has been wiped out -- and with it the equity to pay for a college education, or a new car, or to fall back on when medical bills come due.

Now, as even Wikipedia will tell you, "the term 'subprime' refers to loans that do not meet Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines." So how can Republicans point to Fannie and Freddie to lay blame when asked about the current housing crisis? Only to change the subject and point away from the inevitable outcome of pervasive underregulation.

The shoddy, even predatory mortgage lending that led first to the sub-prime meltdown, then to the national foreclosure crisis and loss of trillions of dollars in home value, was brought to American families primarily by private investment companies, not government sponsored ones.

There were plenty of laws and regulatory tools on the books which might have prevented this, if the current administration had wanted to use them. Just this past July 14th, the Federal reserve finally cracked down on "unfair, abusive or deceptive home mortgage lending practices and restricts certain other mortgage practices." Under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, they finally prohibited practices which they had allowed for years, like making a loan without verifying a borrowers' ability to repay from income and assets apart from the home's value, or charging exorbitant prepayment fees.

Of course, many of the same Republicans today blaming it all on Fannie and Freddie stood by, or even applauded, when in 2002 the Fed rejected most of these same protections urged by many consumer groups. For example, a coalition of advocacy groups in 2001 implored the Fed to use the power of HOEPA to protect borrowers, pointing out that "access to predatory lending is not a benefit to consumers. Destructive credit is worse than no credit at all. This is evident in light of the increase in foreclosures, the disintegration of many low income and minority neighborhoods, and the erosion of the tax base of cities due to foreclosures."

Other regulators, and the Republican Congressional oversight committees charged with looking over their shoulders, sat on their hands as new and risky products were rolled out. Wall Street stampeded into the home lending market with pools of mortgage-backed securities that ratings agencies stamped blessed as AAA. The SEC did nothing to police the spread of risk.

When the Senate held oversight hearings on ratings agencies in 2006, well into the era of massive subprime securitization, Senator Sununu among others was for holding off greater oversight with statements such as " I don't see the problem as being one of a lack of regulation or need for additional regulation in the area of particular business practices as much as it is a question of a lack of competition, and I think that competition is lacking in part because there are a number of barriers to entry and one of the most significant barriers to entry are regulatory, and they're the barriers that have been created by -- unintended but have been created by some of the existing regulations and we need to look carefully at those."

To be sure, for years there has been much to criticize about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- issues with transparency, misstated earnings, aggressive lobbying, and more fundamental questions about whether the public was getting full benefit in how they carried out their mission in exchange for an implicit governmental guarantee -- and commentators across the political spectrum have raised such questions. But laying the blame at their doorstep for today's boom and bust turmoil that is devastating hundreds of previously stable communities around the country, and spreading instability worldwide through the global financial markets?

Then again, if just mentioning their names change the subject away from the Republican record of "deregulate here, deregulate now", maybe Fannie and Freddie can't be all bad.

How many times must the Fannie/Freddie myth be debunked?