Gov. Butch Otter spent an hour fielding questions from Statehouse reporters Wednesday, making his main objective clear:

Say nothing — absolutely nothing — that would alienate or even somewhat surprise legislators.

• On Tuesday, a legislative committee came in with a cautious revenue projection for 2012-13 that sets up a $33.3 million gap between Otter’s budget and the Legislature’s. The two sides will negotiate, he said.

• Some lawmakers have questioned Otter’s budgeting priorities, saying state employee and teacher pay raises should come before tax relief. Is Otter open to rethinking things? “We’re discussing that.”

• State schools Superintendent Tom Luna wants to backfill an additional $19.7 million into the teacher salary pool, and the idea seems to have some support from legislative budget-writers. Otter didn’t budget this money; is he adamant about holding the line? “We’re discussing that.”

• Otter said he opposes moving party primaries to August, because voters are less likely to show up at the polls in the middle of the summer. Does that mean Otter will veto a bill, introduced last week, to move the primary from May to August? “In most cases, I don’t like to get out ahead of the Legislature.”

Well, you get the idea. It was to the point that when Otter actually staked out a position, he did so while noting he was deviating from normal policy. Which he did when he suggested he would support a bill, on its way to the House floor, that would close down the Occupy Boise encampment on the Capitol Mall.

News flash: Otter takes on Occupy. Like that’s going to alienate anyone in his political base.

Otherwise, it was pretty much an exercise in conflict avoidance. Otter refused to weigh in about the state’s redistricting fiasco and attempts by GOP House Speaker Lawerence Denney and state Republican chairman Norm Semanko to fire their appointees to the bipartisan redistricting commission.

And even if Otter won’t say it, I will. The governor seemed to be giving up on establishing a state-run health insurance exchange — vehemently opposed by some Republican legislators who chafe at the notion of taking federal health care grants to set up the program. Otter suggested the state doesn’t have enough time to set up a framework and meet the feds’ January 2013 deadline. (Idaho has asked the feds for a one-year extension but hasn’t heard back.) Spoken like someone who has decided the fight isn’t worth it.

Here’s one reason why Otter was so cautious Wednesday. In 2010, the last time he accepted an Idaho Press Club invitation to have a Q&A with reporters, he injected himself in a House-Senate squabble over public employee pensions. Otter sided with senators, who wanted to give retirees a 1 percent cost-of-living increase. This came as news to House conservatives, who opposed the move — and learned of Otter’s position through the media. Otter then took the unusual step of going to the House GOP caucus to apologize.

Otter is sensitive to blindsiding the legislative branch, and I get that. Otter might also be sensitive — at least more than he lets on — about his inconsistent legislative record, working with generally like-minded Republicans.

So Otter did come back to have a breakfast with reporters, after sending Lt. Gov. Brad Little in his stead a year ago, and I give Otter credit for coming back. I can’t even fault him for trying to avoid making news. It doesn’t give Statehouse reporters much to chew on, but it keeps Otter from eating his own words.

‘EDITORIAL VIGILANTES’

“We’re discussing that” emerged as the catchphrase from Otter’s Q&A Wednesday. My vote for runner-up goes to the phrase “editorial vigilantes.”

Otter used that barb when he spoke about the health exchange and the controversy over whether Idaho stood to lose $300 million in Medicaid money if it failed to set up an exchange. Otter said that $300 million was at risk during a Jan. 5 Associated Press legislative preview, recanted less than a week later — and then, he said, he took heat from the state’s “editorial vigilantes.”

Grievance duly noted. But his comments, however inaccurate, couldn’t have been more clear. You can’t really call us “vigilantes” when we quote you accurately.

Still, I love the phrase. I wonder how it would look on a business card.

COMMENT IN 140 (OR LESS)

Not content with firing two commissioners, Denney and Semanko now claim they have authority to fire baseball commissioner Bud Selig.

Kevin Richert: 377-6437