Obama, Lauer, and Tea Party Movement (Video, Transcript)

In what was billed as an EXCLUSIVE interview with Matt Lauer, Obama lied about the Tea Party movement.

Maybe he didn't intentionally set out to deceive, so technically he didn't lie. Maybe he's just ignorant. It's hard to say.

Obama has knowingly and repeatedly lied to the American people. Of course, he's also displayed his ignorance on plenty of occasions.

So I'm not sure how to label his statements about the Tea Partiers.

Is Obama lying again, using the Leftist propaganda NBC/MSNBC news outlet and mouthpiece Lauer as tools?

Is Obama clueless about the roots of the Tea Party movement?

It started on the morning of February 19, 2009, on CNBC. Rick Santelli delivered a rant that resonated with the public. He used the term "tea party."

Obama told Lauer that part of the Tea Party movement existed before he was elected. Obviously, people opposing Obama's radical Leftist agenda did exist before he took office. Birthers and Reagan Democrats would be examples. But it's wrong for Obama to suggest that the Tea Party movement sprang from those cores.

Liar or ignorant.

Video.


Transcript

MATT LAUER: Let me ask you about the Tea Party. This is a movement, this is an organization that didn't exist before you were president, and now they're in the headlines almost every day.

Some say they are a legitimate movement. Others think they're a fringe group. Where do you fall?

OBAMA: You, you know, I think that it is a still loose amalgam of forces. There's a part of the Tea Party movement that actually did exist before I was elected. Um, we saw some of it leading up to my election. Uh, there's some folks who just weren't sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist, right? So, so there, there's that segment of it, which I think is just dug in ideologically, and that strain has existed in American politics for a long time.

Then I think that there's a, a broader, uh, circle, uh, around that core group of people who are legitimately concerned about the deficit, who are, uh, legitimately concerned that the federal government, uh, may be taking on too much. And last year, a bunch of the emergency measures we had to take in terms of, uh, dealing with the bank crisis, uh, you know, bailing out the auto industry, uh, fed that sense that things were out of control.

And I think that those are folks who have legitimate concerns. And so I wouldn't paint in broad brush and say that, you know, everybody who's involved or, or have gone to a Tea Party rally or a meeting, uh, are somehow, uh, on the fringe. Some of them, I think, uh, have some, uh, mainstream legitimate concerns. And, you know, my hope is is that as we move forward and we're tackling things like the deficit, and imposing a freeze on domestic spending, and taking steps, uh, that show we're sincere about dealing with our long-term problems, that some of that group will dissipate.

There's still gonna be a group, at their core, that, um, question my legitimacy, uh, or question the Democratic Party generally, or question, uh, people who they consider, uh, to be against them in some way. And, and that group we're probably not gonna convince.

In short, Obama is a victim. Although he gives lip service to the "mainstream legitimate concerns" of some protesters, he suggests there's racism involved in the movement.

He blatantly points to a segment of wackos as the core of the Tea Party movement, a group of Birthers and "dug in" militia types.

Note to Obama: The Tea Party movement was not built around questions of his legitimacy as president or a desire to overthrow the government. It's not a Bill Ayers, Weather Underground, Prairie Fire, violent sort of thing at all.

At least I'm not aware that Rick Santelli was questioning Obama's legitimacy when he stirred the nation on the morning of February 19, 2009. I don't think Santelli wants to bomb the Pentagon or kill police officers.