GOP Blasting Obama for WYFF-TV Interview

Is Obama hiding from area voters, or does TV appearance give him a chance to speak to more people than a campaign stop would?

WYFF-TV's exclusive interview with President Barack Obama hasn't aired yet, but it's already drawing fire from the GOP.

News 4 Anchor Michael Cogdill's interview with the president is set to air at 5 p.m., but State Republican Party Chairman Chad Connelly says the president is using the interview to hide from having to answer to South Carolina voters personally.

“While giving the appearance that he wishes to answer questions about his failed policies from South Carolinians, Barack Obama chose a television station where he can reach voters in western North Carolina,” Connelly said.

Connelly said the President is trying to “pull the wool over the eyes of South Carolinians and speak to western North Carolina voters without setting foot in either state.”

WYFF 4 News Director Justin Antoniotti said the station had no comment on the issue, but that WYFF4 would include Moore's release as part of its coverage of Cogdill's interview with the president.

State Republicans believe the president should come to South Carolina to “explain his failed jobs record and answer questions about his government take over of healthcare,” according to a release sent out by State Republican Party Executive Director Matt Moore.

"South Carolina voters know that neither our national economy nor this President are 'doing fine,'” Connelly said. “And come November, hundreds of volunteers from the South Carolina Republican Party will work to ensure that North Carolina voters know this as well."

Amanda Loveday, executive director of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said that appearing on WYFF 4 gives the president a great chance to reach a large number of people at once.

“The President is one person and can't be in 50 different states at once,” Loveday said. “It's a great way for him to reach as many people as he can at one time.”

The appearance on a station that covers both North and South Carolina at once gives President Obama a chance to reach “two different states in two different situations,” Loveday said.

“The North Carolina Governor is helping them to build jobs and helping them put people back to work,” Loveday said. “The South Carolina Governor cares more about her personal celebrity than helping the people of South Carolina."

stanley seigler June 15, 2012 at 06:44 PM
@Wounded Warrior: '...jobs how many where also lost...' difficult to know for sure, but believe the job figs are net...anyway comparing apples jobs ib 2008 were being lost under GOP policies, now jobs gaining... hard to believe: 'the number of net jobs gained during the Bush presidency [8 years] was a paltry 147,000'...maybe something to do with lies, damn lies and stats. re: 'Why the recent dist ain by fellow democrats?' dunno...but the disdain pales by comparison to harsh criticism of MR by his friendly fellow candidates during the campaign for the GOP nomination. re: 'Doing a great job' yes indeed...many parallels to the political climate/rhetoric during FDR's first term...if law allowed...BO would be another 4 'termer'.
Wounded Warrior June 15, 2012 at 07:28 PM
SS- We will get their one way or the other. I think that even you would agree that neither is a perfect leader. Inside or outside the oval office. Either way we will succumb to larger gov., more class warfare, ZERO bipartisan principles. You seem to have quite the affinity for FDR, unfortunelty not all of us where around during his tenure. Even the great FDR, i think, would be appalled by what his America has become.
stanley seigler June 15, 2012 at 08:29 PM
@JoSCh: '...I disagree with wholesale term limits...' didn't work well in CA...and was tweaked (to allow longer terms) in the June primary elections...another interesting vote in CA: the top two canidateds (regardless of party) in the primary, run in the general... re: 'publicly funded elections' a giant step forward...why doesn't it happen...further all perks from lobbyists should be illegal... lobbyists should set up no frills public seminars to educate legs re lobbyist cause...andand...neither legs nor their staff should be allowed to be a lobbyist for x-years...
Robert Kelly June 16, 2012 at 12:48 AM
This is a great thread. Started over a television interview and has gone all the way to term limits and campaign funding. I like the idea (Stanley's post) of primaries determining the top two, regardless of party. Even better, no such thing as a "party primary election". Let parties choose who they want to spend their money on in whatever way they want, but let the primary election be an open election to choose the candidates in the runoff, whatever party. If there were many candidates, then maybe the first primary would select more than 2, whatever it took to add up to more than 50% of the total vote. Term limits...is that the pragmatic solution to "power corrupts", or does it limit the right of the voter to choose whomever he/she wants to elect? Anyway, enjoying the range of opinions here, knowing some of the posters might be my neighbors. I have totally given up any idea of commenting on USAToday or similar enormous forums, but the local Patch is great fun.
Rusty Inman September 04, 2012 at 10:28 PM
@stanley seigler Actually, what you call the "T-GOP trickle UP, voodoo economic policies" that "have destroyed the middle-class..." and "worked extremely well for the 1%-ers" were put into place during the George Bush years. To say that the some of the root causes "of current conditions" don't redound to Bush is ridiculous. And, to not talk about the fact that this dismal economy is, to a great degree (not completely, but to a great degree), rooted in the Bush policies and practices is to be delusional and, in the end, not conducive to productive conversation. President Obama should be held accountable for policies he put into place, but his accountability ends there. However, even then, proper perspective demands the understanding that, had he not inherited a flailing, failing economy, he would not have had to consider such policies---much less put them into place. His economic decisions were not made in a vacuum, tho the GOP would have us think they were. They have to be seen and evaluated against the backdrop of the situation left him by George Bush. As much as the Republicans would like to revise Bush out of our economic history, they can't. And bringing him up is not playing the "blame game." It is providing the perspective necessary for understanding why we are where we are, how we got here, and why the president believed he had to do what he has done for this economy. With all apologies for being impolitic, context is a bitch.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »