Let me see if I can lay this out in nice, simple, easily comprehended terms (using as many single- and double-syllable words as possible) so you may understand that what you assume people say is not always what they've said. Okay?
The WH picks and choses, to the extent it can, matters it will focus on. Sometimes these are matters of great import. Sometimes not. At the moment, the message is on the latter, not the former.
Tossing barbs at the Party of No-Nothing and making its "leadership" look like lackeys of Rush Limbaugh was an artful (and successful) attempt to highlight the weakness of their position (I mean their political position; their policy positions are simply a joke at this point). Job done, mission accomplished, fold up the tents and go home.
The ceaseless drumbeats about teleprompters is, on the other hand, an unartful (and therefore unsuccessful) attempt to undercut Obama. But it doesn't work in this instance (L'Affaire de St. Patrick). And why doesn't it work? Because it's inaccurate, not true, bullshit. Once it's exposed as such, those who harp on it as an indicator of something negative about Obama simply look foolish. Why should the WH engage at this point? There's nothing to engage about and nobody worth engaging.
You really do need to take a crash course on politics to get up to speed, unless your ignorance is merely feigned. In which case, you sound both uniformed and moronic. (Syllable count rising, sorry.)
"my fem friend"
Your drag queen act's getting old, kiddo. Unless you mean I'm a feminist. Which I am. Why, aren't you?
Take care, my butch acquaintance.
