Jay Carney's blues - Glenn Thrush and Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.comPresident Barack Obama brought in press secretary Jay Carney “to lower the temperature” in the briefing room back in 2011 — but reporters are increasingly skeptical about Carney’s demeanor and the veracity of some answers to questions about recent administration scandals.
Carney, as laid back in private as he is buttoned-down in public, has clashed with the White House press corps repeatedly over the past few days as he struggled to address tangled official narratives on the I.R.S. probe of tea party groups and the administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.
Testy West Wing exchanges are nothing new — Carney’s predecessor Robert Gibbs was especially fond of rhetorical brawling. But Carney’s latest dust-up with the media, a particularly contentious Tuesday briefing, exposed long-simmering tensions between a presidential spokesman who often questions reporters’ motives and a press pack who regard him as unwilling or unable to deliver straight answers.
but you said he read about it in the newspaper!
but you said white house counsel didn't know!
you said you only made one change to the talking points and it was merely style!
"a feeding frenzy"
prestigious, omnipresent presidential historian douglas brinkely: he can't be an "albatross," right now he's "on the cusp"
the main message of politico's piece, attempting to be sympathetic: it's really not all jay's fault
he was brought in when gibbs got glib, jay's an outsider, gibbs really knew what leadership was doing
carney's wrong all the time because he really hasn't been told anything about the irs, about benghazi, about the doj's war against the first amendment
it's really starting to show, the poor guy
but he does bring his own problems
arrogance---the former time magazine reporter who worked in moscow shares his boss' low opinion (according to politico) of the whca
carney "has trouble masking his contempt for less experienced reporters he thinks are policy lightweights"
aren't we all?
i mean, even to ponder the possibility of questioning these pompous practitioners of peer reviewed best practices...
who wouldn't hate doubters like that?
the white house is now routinely and regularly insulting anyone who dares disagree, anyone bold enough to question, independent enough to think
it's a lot like dp, it's in their dna
still, carney's answers are too often "confusing, evasive or just plain wrong"
he "keeps shifting his story"
such that, lately, he "has had to publicly acknowledge his lack of knowledge on some issues"
funny, politico's piece is 3 pages, and roger simon's professional leftists forget to consider the ap sweep and the spying on james rosen in all this mix
i think it mighta been carney's suggestion, tho, that the brady briefing room was bursting with a buncha birthers that mighta done it
i answered the questions that were asked of me---that's exactly what ex irs commish miller said when he lied to congress last fridayOn Tuesday, Carney ticked off reporters by mocking what many in the room regarded as as legitimate chain of questions about the administration’s recent controversies, culminating with solicitations of private funds to help implement Obamacare.
“You know, we could go down the list… we could say what about the president’s birth certificate? Was that legitimate?” Carney snapped back.
Later, Carney interrupted a reporter from Bloomberg News who was requesting a detailed chronology of White House knowledge of the IRS probe.
“Here I am, asking precise questions and you’re acting like I’m petulant,” said the reporter, Hans Nichols, who is known for his aggressive questioning in the briefing room.
But the larger question reporters have been asking lately is just how much Carney really knows about the trio of scandals with still-unclear outcomes.
That issue came to a head this week, after reports surfaced that top administration officials worked with Treasury higher-ups, in late April, to manage the release of a damaging inspector general report revealing targeting of tea party and patriot groups by the service’s Cincinnati office.
That represented a shift from Carney’s claim last week that the White House only learned of the results in early May — and set off a flurry of stories questioning the administration’s capacity to get its story straight.
At first, Carney said he hadn’t initially revealed the involvement of White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler because no one had asked him a specific question.
“I answered the questions that were asked of me,” he said, adding, “I gave you the information in response to the questions.”
it's not carney, it's the white house's inability to answerBut later, Carney conceded he had been somewhat out of the loop: Ruemmler hadn’t told him about the involvement of White House officials until earlier this month, when Obama himself learned of the matter.
“I was not informed,” Carney told reporters.
exactly when did obama learn what was going on at the irs for 2 years, why can't he say?
why did commissioner miller lie to congress about what he knew full well was going on, why does he continue to lie?
why will ms lerner plead the fifth?
why were the talking points changed at foggy bottom's request, the truth edited out, the spontaneous demonstrations left in, for openly put political purposes?
how could obama's chief of staff know of a major development like the irs scandal without telling his boss?
what kind of president learns about significant and substantial occurrences within his administration by reading the newspaper?
exactly why DID the irs target the people barack obama most despises?
when there are no good answers what's an arrogant, elitist, young press secretary to do?
seeya in the brady room tomorrow, jay