If You Could Ask the White House One Question...

Since the Clerk of Court wrote in the summary of Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad that corporations have the rights of natural persons, the power of the corporation in America has grown. Do you see the recent failure of banking, insurance, and manufacturing corporations as an inditcator that it's time to rethink the basic power balance between these entities and the public?

And we're also looking for questions that can't credibly be punted on with the "let me check on that" typical response.

Isn't this asking the impossible? If we're going to define a worthwhile question as being one to which the President hasn't already given a public answer (assuming that it's a real issue like drug policy and not something about his birth certificate), isn't it certain that his press secretary can really say nothing other than "I don't know what the President's opinion is on that, but I'll ask"? It seems like any other answer would require a telepathic link between Gibbs and Obama.

Andrew - I think the WH press secretary makes news from time to time when given a good question. It happened during the March 3 briefing:

 Q    Robert, the Chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele, on Saturday night criticized Rush Limbaugh.  He walked back that statement yesterday.  I'm just curious as to your view.  Why do you think that the Chairman apologized to Mr. Limbaugh?  And what do you think it says about the state of the GOP?  (Laughter.)...

MR. GIBBS:  Yes.  Well, look, I talked about this yesterday.  I -- a little surprised at the reaction and the fervent reaction that Mr. Limbaugh got at -- from CPAC.  I've encouraged members of the press to ask Republicans whether they agree with Mr. Limbaugh's adage that he hopes that the President's economic ideas fail.  I was a little surprised at the speed in which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the head of the Republican Party.  (Laughter.) 

Those remarks deepened a national conversation that we took part in, here, too.

Perhaps the key words in the question were "I'm just curious about your view," meaning Gibbs' view, freeing him up to offer an opinion of his own.

I also think that framing questions by quoting from pledges or statements made by candidate Obama during the campaign and asking with specificity what has been done so far toward implementing that promise - whether on immigration reform or mandatory sentencing or any number of issues - can force a deeper response because it preempts the mere going back to repeating what had already been said.

For example:

"Robert, during the campaign President Obama pledged to tackle immigration reform during his first year in office. Can you tell us who in the administration is leading that effort, what progress if any has been made, and whether the administration still feels confident that it can keep this promise within the year?"

That would be, I think, a hard question to punt on.

Mr. Gibbs, regarding Torture.  President Obama has consistently stated that no one is above the law and that, quote,"if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that poeple should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen".  What, exactly, would the President consider a "clear instance of wrongdoing", and specifically, why does the United States' admission of waterboarding suspects not fit that requirement?

Really...I'd like to know how in the world knowing the fact that the US Government waterboarded suspects - which is torture - we still don't have a "clear instance of wrongdoing".

Since it is the domino effect of unknown credit default swaps assigned to one underlying asset that caused and is causing the AIG problem and similar financial cascades globally, when is the administration going to correct this, and what does it plan to do specifically? Waxman forced Richard Fuld and the ex-AIG execs  last October to identify needed regulatory actions for the $63 trillion CDS market, but nothing's been done. When are you going to take action?

I'd ask them something about the range of decisions that have been made regarding the detaining of terror suspects. Do these measures reflect the way the Obama administration plans to go forward, or are they temporary and will they perhaps change after the 6 month review? Or are they planning additional measures that will circumvent some of the decisions?

I'd probably spend some time yelling to Gibbs about abuses of power after that.

Mr. Gibbs, so far President Obama has committed to more troops in Afghanistan, but it is fairly obvious that troops alone will not solve the problems in that region.  What else is the President planning on doing that will change the overall equation there, and what specific timeline does he have to see significant progress.

I'm pretty sure that the press secretary won't answer any question he doesn't want to; that's his job, after all.  Still, I'd be curious to see how he'd avoid these:

Has the administration discussed with Senate leaders the possibility of changing Senate rules on the filibuster in order to improve the chances of passing important legislation like health care? If the administration has not done so, is it because they feel that changing the rules is not logistically possible?  Do they feel it would be wrong to change the rules?  If so, what principles are at stake which the administration feels are more important than its legislative agenda?

Illegal drug proceeds fuel the Taliban in Afghanistan and to the security problems in Mexico. Is there any point at which the administration would consider decriminalization as part of a broader national security strategy? And if not, can you explain why drug decriminalization is more of a threat to the U.S. than these security threats?

Robert, the administration has put forward a number of initiatives and rules mandating public access to information on government expenditures and contracting. Does the President support extending such a philosophy to information on the Federal reserve loans to banks and insurance companies given the possible impacts of such loans on the economy and President's own economic plans?

What, precisely, did President Obama mean when he said during yesterday's [Thursday, March 5, 2009] final health care session in the East Room that Progressives wouldn't be happy with what was being proposed?

Press Secretary Gibbs,

To the outside world seemingly there has been a coordinated attempt by specific demoncratic senators (i.e. Senator Menedez (D, New Jersey) and specific senate republicans to "slow down" or "stall" the confirmation of KEY positions within the the Treasury Department for political reasons AND to delay the passing of the Omnibus Budget from the previous administration .   

Our country is  in the midst of a severe economic crisis and since Senator Harry Reid seemingly cannot lead the senate, what steps can President Obama and his TRUE allies take to legally benefit {without formal confirmation} from the expertise of relevant economic advisors (such as Austin Goolsbee and Cecelia Rouse) and or continue to keep the government running smoothly?

Mr. Gibbs, as you know one of the questions most often asked by individuals on the "Open for Questions" was about legalizing marijuana.  Initially this question was dismissed with a rather curt answer that " President-elect Obama is not in favor of legalizing marijuana."  As this response does nothing to further resolve this issue which is so important to the people who actively supported and worked so hard to elect President Obama, as evidenced by the priority given to this in the "Open for Questions", what do you see as the next step we can take to address this issue.

During the campaign, Barack Obama often spoke of the need to find common ground on difficult issues.  What do you think needs to be done to take that inititave and work for common ground on legalizing marijuana?

As I see my beloved city and state (Detroit and Michigan) crumbling before my eyes due to the financial, mortgage, and auto crisises; our Governor fighting tooth and nail to save Michigan and the local city leadership engaging more in grandstanding and infighting than working for progress.

Before I formulate a question, I will have to investigate what the President has done/is doing to assist the cities after his Mayors' meeting.

On my wishlist, however, is Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm for Supreme Court Justice...(she's term-limited and a native-born Canadian/naturalized American Citizen; a pro-choice Catholic and pro LGBT rights...)

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Why are 'clawbacks' and criminal prosecution of financial dealers not at the forefront of discussions? Trust in the government and the markets cannot be restored if the robbers and looters go scot free. Why is the preferred course to put the American people further into debt to save those that put us in this situation?

Has anyone in the administration given thought to how they would protect those living along the Mexican border if/when the cartel violence spills over?  If so, what are the plans for protecting American citizens in this soon-to-be dangerous area?

JoAnn

Imagine, if you will, a bucket mounted on a pivot so that when it is filled to the brim it tips to empty itself down a trough to a parched,  withering, and dying plant, thereby watering it to preserve its life. The bucket is currently empty and has numerous holes in its base, which splashes the water from the bucket uselessly on the ground away from the desperate plant before it can be filled up suficiently to tip. The bucket, of course, represents the major lending institutions, which are in dire straits, because of their own misdeeds, and are empty of money to lend.  The water is money and the plant is the public commercial sector made up of businesses large and small, but mostly small. Loans and credit are the trough.

The Current administration is dipping a cup into a slightly larger source bucket, which is without leaks and full at the moment, and then pouring cup by cup into the defective watering bucket as fast as it can, but before another cup can be filled and transferred to the watering bucket much of the water previously transferred has leaked out.

It can be seen that eventually, if the pace of transfer is fast enough, and the reserve bucket doesn't empty first, the watering bucket will be filled and begin to pour. The question is whether it will be soon enough to save the life of the plant.

If the goal is actually to save the life of the plant before it sinks into desperate dispair and sheds more and more of its leaves leaving only twigs, why not use the cup to put water directly into the trough while the watering bucket is repaired?

Ultimately would that not save the plant undo distress and use far less water? Why is the current administration not pumping money directly into the economy through the business sector? Wouldn't that stem company bankruptcies and worker layoffs and immediately slow the unemployment rate; allow more people to avoid losing their homes to forclosure; increase disposable income enough to check the precipitous plummet of retail sales; keep more students in college? The list could on.

This is an easy solution and escapes me why it seems to be avoided and ignored. It could be instituted without the wrangling of congress and with modest effort to repurpose an agency like the SBA. The SBA is omnipresent and familiar with passing out money to worthy companies. Some policy revamping would be necessary and the process sped up, but it is now just sitting there puttering along as usual. If not the SBA, then something else. It is far smarter than just pouring money into huge troubled banks, insurance companies, investment houses and stock brokerages to save them the unpleasantness of pay cuts and possible bankruptcy proceedings, which is designed to help them restructure and emerge either healthy or dead, whichever is best for all.

Direct stimulus is the only intellegent answer to avoid a long, protracted, painful and hughley destructive recession or depression. Everyone should be talking about this and asking why the Obama administration is not doing this?

Mr. Gibbs,... the persistant rumor of the State of Israel building and maintaining nuclear weapons has never been dealt with in a public forum. Will this happen under the Obama administration?

Since the signing of "free-trade" agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA lead, and were predicted to lead, to increased immigration to the US of people from the countries who sign such agreements with us, is that partly their intention?

By flooding poor countries with US corporate agricultural products such as genetically modified maize, which forces subsistence farmers off their land, do these treaties also seek to undermine wages and worker organization in the US by helping to provide a pool of cheap and unorganized labor consisting of desperate people who are too afraid to speak out about their appalling working conditions because of the risk of deportation and racist vilification?

Art that has to be in a gallery to be art isn't art.

Mr. Gibbs,

Would you explain the President's policy on Drug Sentencing? When will the President apply retroactivity to drug sentencing? When will the President cut the disparity in drug sentencing?