Skip to main content

Yes, President Obama moved the date of the speech to acccomodate Boehner's demand.  I predicted that he would not, that he would fight.  I was wrong.  My idea on that was summed up in a comment by joanneleon in another diary:

I didn't understand why they chose to schedule the speech in conflict with the Repub debate in the first place.  There's no way that was a mistake.  It was an aggressive act, a show of power.

So why did they do it?  To provoke the Repubs into an aggressive response?  

Makes no sense.  Don't make the aggressive move unless you plan to hold your ground.

It just makes no sense.

by joanneleon

But the entire controversy shows something else.  

If you did not know by now, bipartisanship is impossible with the Republican House.  Steve Benen says it well:

Remember, this is just about picking the date for the speech. It’s like arguing about the shape of the table before sitting down for negotiations. What possible chance is there for Washington to approve meaningful economic legislation if there’s a dramatic showdown over scheduling? That’s a rhetorical question; the chances are zero.

Washington Monthly, Steve Benen

The chances are zero.  Zero.  Nada.  The empty set.
 

Here's Benen's understanding of how the "speechdate" controversy happened:

Accounts differ as to exactly how this fiasco occurred, but it appears the White House consulted with congressional leaders before the announcement and, according to Democrats, chose Wednesday. Republican leaders didn’t object at the time, which the White House interpreted as acceptance. GOP officials then said they hadn’t actually agreed to Wednesday, leading to Boehner’s letter yesterday afternoon.

It was, according congressional historians, the first time in American history the president requested an audience with a Joint Session, only to have the Speaker balk.

Washington Monthly, Steve Benen:

"The White House interpreted as acceptance."  Better get it in writing.  

But the bigger lesson is bipartisanship is dead.  It has been since January 2009.  It never was alive.  Bipartisanship usually is just another word for Democrats deserting their principles to support Republican policies.  See, e.g.,Iraq AUMF, Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.  

There are real and deep differences between the parties (with the exception of blue dogs and DLCers).  As Democrats sought compromise since January 2009, the Republicans kept moving the goalposts to the right, the extreme right.  Soon Democrats offered moderate Republican polices, only to be rebuffed.  See, e.g., health care reform, defict plans.  It's a losing strategy and we have been losing.

The empirical data for the last two and a half years is in.  The way of the past two and a half years in dealing with Republicans is not working.  There is a vast right wing conspiracy.  There are red states and blue states.  And bipartisanship will not work when one party only seeks to defeat this President.  It's pragmatic to admit when something does not work and try something new.  I hope for pragmatism from this White House.    

 

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (202+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brooklynbadboy, Nina Katarina, TooFolkGR, skillet, Debbie in ME, Justanothernyer, LaurenMonica, Catte Nappe, khereva, Youffraita, synth, srkp23, tomephil, Ray Pensador, tarheel74, bwintx, psilocynic, citizenx, Ruh Roh, lineatus, clarknyc, Crashing Vor, pixxer, Gary Norton, Darmok, RubDMC, DerAmi, tomjones, Debby, bear83, Miggles, Overseas, MKinTN, LWelsch, MizKit, esquimaux, cskendrick, Wee Mama, confitesprit, anagram, bsmechanic, ItsSimpleSimon, David Futurama, gooderservice, DavidW, Nance, Timaeus, PhilJD, Remembering Jello, dsb, johanus, susans, DiegoUK, lgmcp, Crabby Abbey, Carnivorous Plantling, TheOrchid, GeorgeXVIII, lostboyjim, caul, alasmoses, Jarrayy, Jackson L Haveck, Alfred E Newman, ChocolateChris, anodnhajo, greenbastard, No one gets out alive, begone, RantNRaven, Medium Head Boy, sawgrass727, middleagedhousewife, TRPChicago, Keone Michaels, mikeVA, priceman, skayne, bfitzinAR, Tentwenty, sodalis, semiot, More Questions Than Answers, KJG52, pat of butter in a sea of grits, zerelda, Tyto Alba, fijiancat, dle2GA, MartyM, pat bunny, sorval, TexMex, Cronesense, Janeo, mconvente, wyldraven, satrap, FrY10cK, Nowhere Man, Actbriniel, poligirl, susakinovember, MinistryOfTruth, RJDixon74135, bythesea, tardis10, cpresley, airportman, orson, leonard145b, Seneca Doane, Plox, mightymouse, SpecialKinFlag, Superskepticalman, Eric Nelson, jayden, Voodoo, prettygirlxoxoxo, DianeNYS, catly, Zack from the SFV, dotsright, Shadowmage36, voracious, Murchadha, AspenFern, doroma, Dancun74, Fury, eztempo, radmul, mslat27, CoExistNow, NormAl1792, x, Shockwave, Quicklund, princesspat, greycat, Marjmar, Williston Barrett, SwedishJewfish, skyounkin, Whimsical Rapscallion, blueyescryinintherain, Little Flower, mos1133, renbear, Ronald Singleterry, Son of a Cat, roses, Mebby, Ed in Montana, viet vet, Bcre8ve, FyodorFish, SouthernLiberalinMD, roystah, CTPatriot, sockpuppet, slksfca, ipaman, triplepoint, TX Unmuzzled, pot, vacantlook, Dillonfence, Betty Pinson, freesia, tea in the harbor, LamontCranston, naperken, MarkInSanFran, keirdubois, Drocket, mikejay611, tidalwave1, IdeaTipper, majcmb1, mdmslle, msdrown, Garfnobl, eXtina, Badabing, pensivelady, S F Hippie, jhawklefty, science nerd, J M F, triv33, bronte17, ZhenRen, sostos, makettle, JekyllnHyde, millwood, jamess, Eric0125, kurt, HCKAD

    The American people must wise up and rise up!

    by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:46:04 AM PDT

  •  I Guess We'll Know When We Hear The Speech (27+ / 0-)

    Whether the White House is tuned into that message.  Containing the message to things we know can pass only has a point when we know things can pass.

    There's simply zero chance that a jobs initiative started by the White House ever goes anywhere in the Tea House.

    •  I agree with all your points. (4+ / 0-)

      The American people must wise up and rise up!

      by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:54:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then I want to hear how it happens without them. (5+ / 0-)

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:57:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh Nothing's Going to "Happen" (22+ / 0-)

        ...that's a given.  The best we can hope for is a bold proposal that the people like that goes nowhere.

        •  That's not a Presidential Address, that is a (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rcnewton, Kickemout, Whimsical

          campaign promise.

          It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

          by Murphoney on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:02:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It Is What It Is (20+ / 0-)

            GOP Leadership has explicitly stated that defeating President Obama is more important to them than the economy, education, foreign policy, etc.  

            For making this statement they paid zero penalty.  In fact they were rewarded with control of the House and a progress proof minority in the Senate.

            Who knows, maybe the President's lawyers have told him he can take 100% of the budget of the Departmnet of Labor and hire people with it, and that's what he's going to announce.  But SHORT of something like that, we have to consider the facts as they are.

            •  so true. So what does Obama do? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mint julep

              Chides "Congress" for obstructing, rather than explicitly calling out the Republicans who are the problem.  How do you justify that?

              "Mr. Obama needs to put forward a comprehensive plan and fight for it. If he loses to obstructionist Republicans, Americans will know who is to blame."---NYT

              by claude on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:27:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well, it usually takes me a while (0+ / 0-)

                to respond to comments, so I'll keep waiting for an answer.

                "Mr. Obama needs to put forward a comprehensive plan and fight for it. If he loses to obstructionist Republicans, Americans will know who is to blame."---NYT

                by claude on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:16:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  crickets... (0+ / 0-)

                "Mr. Obama needs to put forward a comprehensive plan and fight for it. If he loses to obstructionist Republicans, Americans will know who is to blame."---NYT

                by claude on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:41:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  It's a Presidential Address if it gives voice to (20+ / 0-)

            what the country actually needs.  It's not just a partisan speech, a campaign speech, though it will affect the campaign, if it tells the truth about where we are and what can move this country forward.

            That's what we want.

            And I say that as someone fully convinced that Obama has been RIGHT to make many biparatisan overtures, that what DKos diarists see as weakness is often seen by non-activists as serious effot to get things done.  It's crucial that Obama has appeared to be working harder than the Republicans to bring Washington together.  Still, he must also be willing to get up and say clearly just what needs to be done, and to fight for that even if he loses, even if he's doomed to lose.  

            Being President is always partly theater.  The point now is that it has to be theater that touches people's experience of how bad things are, and lays out some ways to move forward.

            Then Obama has to do as much as he can via the powers of the president, without Congress, and pass some really good stuff through the Senate for the House to torpedo.  And ask the American people which way they want the country to go.

            •  Unilateral bipartisanship was never (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              claude

              a viable concept.  The only thing it accomplished besides making Obama appear inattentive was most of whatever the Republicans wanted.

              If Obama changes his tune now he will finally be joining the story already in progress but if he counts on Congress for anything that he wants to accomplish, including 'proving his point' in some coup counting flourish, he is not doing the work we need.  He needs to have a complete plan of action and -- at the absolute very least -- he needs to have every loose Democrat asshat firmly in line.

              It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

              by Murphoney on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:35:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, please. "Every loose Dem" firmly in line? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Whimsical

                Ben Nelson?  Joe Lieberman?  The whole pack of Blue Dogs in the House?

                One of the limits on Obama's performance, which too many writers here at DKos love to ignore, is that he has a very mixed quality group of Democrats in Congress.    The idea that if he just "showed leadership" he could whip them into shape is hollow.  The best thing we could do as progressives to move Obama to the left is simply to elect a more progressive Congress.  Wish it were easy. But, both now and after Obama, it's one of the key things we have to do.

                I do agree that unilateral bipartisanship, aimed at the likes of Cantor and Boehner, is not a viable strategy for getting the kind of legislation we want.  Appalling levels of compromise are sometimes necessary to pass what little we can get.  I think that dressing that process up as a search for bipartisan cooperation is aimed at the electorate, not the Republicans.  

                And it does carry weight, at least with women voters.  This is what I've heard consistently while blogging on political boards at big mom's sites.  Disappointment with what Obama has accomplished is often moderated by the statement that he's done the best he could, that he's tried to work with Republicans, that he cares more about getting something done than they do, etc.  

                I think sometimes Obama has bargained poorly.  Sometimes well.  But I really don't think he believes Boehner and Cantor will be his friends if he's nice to them.  He's not pushing bipartisanship to make nice .

                •  I'm totally with you on calling the RW Dems (0+ / 0-)

                  on their behavior.  And yes, that happens way too little in Democratic circles.

                  If not for them, we would not have been "shellacked" in 2010.  And yes, I mean that.

                  Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:33:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Every asshat; no one mentioned "making nice"... (0+ / 0-)

                  that's leadership.

                  Separately, I'm not sure when was the last time anyone tried calling Lieberman a Democrat

                  It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

                  by Murphoney on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:42:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I've long wanted to see the kind of dialogue (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Grumpy Young Man

              that says "Look, this is the deal. The politicians have created a dysfunctional government. For a long time now, ordinary people simply complain about the system, complain about the politics, go through another election cycle, and it happens all over again. The politicians promise this and that to get elected, and history repeats.

              But here's your chance to change that. I'm offering you a bold plan, right now, one that is for real. It's so credible, so bold, so specific, that most politicians would never dream of presenting it as an election platform. Many of you will like some parts and dislike others; vote for it anyway. I want you to vote in 2012 to get the country moving forwards again and to break the dysfunction. That means you too, well-meaning republicans, even if you don't like a lot of the plan. Consider voting the get the country moving, because the real issue here is not economics or philosophy, it s broken government by selfish, small minded people.

              So when you vote, cast it for whoever supports this plan. I'll tell you this: in your lifetime, you'll probably never get another chance for a national vote on such a bold, specific plan... because no politician would dare propose it. Except for me, except for now.

              You want to break the dysfunction, here's your chance. If you decide to vote only as you usually would, playing tug-of-war again instead of giving something of yourself to engage in the spirit of cooperation and connection with others, that's of course your right. But when next you complain about the broken politics in the near, and distant, future, don't say you weren't given this chance to say to one another "Let's end this war and move forwards." Don't say you weren't given the chance to go beyond today's media spin and sound bites, and get something done.  

              And then, as you say, "And ask the American people which way they want the country to go."

               

            •  i have been on the Hill (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Murphoney, jts327

              and it should have been clear to Obama from around Fall '09 that his serious efforts to get things done were going to fail because the Republicans had decided to oppose him at every turn.

              Once that kind of rigid, partisan Realpolitik greets you, you can either keep trying to inhabit a kinder world, knowing you will get nowhere, or you can fight back by taking stands and showing people why progress isn't being made.

              He chose the former.  Hasn't done him or anyone much good.

              Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:31:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, of course it is, and it's one that incumbent (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, Deep Texan, Grumpy Young Man

            and new Dem candidates can run on because it's what the public wants to hear

            IF. IF Dem incumbents and challengers are paying attention -- they damned well didn't in 2010 and lost their asses as well as the majority.

            ...as Pelosi can confirm

            "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

            by Sybil Liberty on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:58:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And make it the cetnerpiece of (6+ / 0-)

          the election.

          An election clearly about policy.

          The American people must wise up and rise up!

          by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:04:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, nobody cares about what's in the speech. (9+ / 0-)

      That's going to be long and relatively complicated.  Let's all just focus on the day.  That's easily put at the top of a post containing all the other equally important points.

      Inland: A privately held corporation spun off from the Womb Division of MomCo a half century or so ago.

      by Inland on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:32:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes. (25+ / 0-)

    the White House should accept it as a given that the opposition will...oppose.

    But the real lesson in this particular fiasco is that the staff is not on the ball.

    •  Let the finger-pointing begin. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      psilocynic, Cedwyn
    •  I think btw Daley and Boehner's COS someone (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, psilocynic, Cedwyn, mrblifil, skohayes

      dropped the ball.

      But according to WH, Boehner's office didn't object ....until they realize that the debate was hold that day.

      "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

      by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:57:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  On the ball? (9+ / 0-)

      I'd say democratic messaging sucks.

      Pick a story and stick to it.  Either you want a fight or you don't.  Dont pick a fight then change your fucking mind.

      And if you think anything is okay because "key Republicans"  give you a wink and a nod, you're a blithering moron that is too fucking naive to ever be near the red phone.  Did you learn NOTHING from the fiasco of the debt ceiling negotiations??

      Guess so.

      Fucking idiots.

    •  Oh come on. This is the first time in history (10+ / 0-)

      the speaker of the House has rejected the President's request for a joint session.

      Boehner looks more like a total jerk than before (as if that's possible).

      And Obama gets what he wants in the end.

      The republican party continues its image of the party of "no!" and Obama comes out looking like the guy trying to get something done.

      I'm not completely happy with this administration but this is only a "fiasco" to the political class. The rest of the world is too busy to care about the particulars. They just know that Obama tried to have a speech with Congress, Boehner said no, then Obama asked for Thursday and got it.

      The fact that Boehner said no will not help the republican party's slide with indies. This IS arguing over the shape of the table and Boehner looks like the child in this one.

      Sorry, but I have to score it for Team Obama.

      Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

      by Methinks They Lie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:44:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so wrong (7+ / 0-)

        it looks like Obama is spineless, once again.  That is the take away from this.

        Backdown Obama.  That is the headlines

        Bad is never good until worse happens

        by dark daze on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:52:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, the headlines are Boehner said "NO!" (6+ / 0-)

          Obama got what he wanted.

          NFL night is better than debate night (veiwership wise).

          I'm not happy with this President but I have to say Obama comes out looking better in this one.

          We who criticize this administration are allowed to give praise every now and then dark daze, or at least not fall into the trap of repeating republican talking points (i.e. dems are "spineless").

          Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

          by Methinks They Lie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:59:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think so (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vc2, Grumpy Young Man

          It looks like Obama said 'I want to address Congress the day they come back' and Boehner, typical inattentive teenager, didn't listen and said 'meh'

          Obama, assuming he's dealing with adults and not uncouth and disrespectful 10 yr olds, says 'OK then'.

          Then Boehner realizes what he just agreed to, and goes 'OMG! That's the same time as DWTS! That's totally not going to happen! My BFFs will KILL me!'

          And Obama, being the adult, sighs and goes 'so we'll do it Thursday then'

          I suspect what he said in private would be not fit for sailors to hear.  

      •  The internal Republican math (0+ / 0-)

        seems to me all about their confidence that the 2012 elections are essentially in the bag for them.  At least the House and Senate majorities, with the Presidency a 51-49ish outcome either way but more likely Republican.   But even if Obama prevails, they can keep on taking hostages and he has to keep on trying to protect his loyalist base.  (A Republican President might actually pose more and Party-splitting opposition to some of the stuff they're willing to do.)

        So Obama is politically a dead man walking in their eyes, and that's how they're treating him.

        Which may be true.

        The cold pessimistic/pragmatist view to take on all this stuff is that the Administration and Congress and all the various leaders are largely at work not on anything that will be implemented.  It's really all about defining the particular size and terms of the mandate that the election winners get out of the 2012 elections.

        For Democrats (who are the likely losers) that is largely to define, limit, and moderate what that mandate is by rallying public opinion into making certain areas politically toxic.  Mitt Romney taking major SS and Medicare cuts off the table would be an example of a success, perhaps.

        The deeper damage inflicted on Republicans in the present likely won't tell in 2012, where voter priority will probably remain the eliminating of economic status quo-defending conservative Democrats.  (Which was the case in 2010.)  But by the 2014 elections if Republicans hold true to form of never learning, as they invariably do, they'll be sinking under the waves in voter opinion as well.

      •  I would think the President would prefer (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Grumpy Young Man

        to speak after the GOP debate which promise to be a real circus.  Then he will look even better in comparison.  If he spoke before them, they would spend the whole time railing against whatever he said.  Now their "jobs" ideas have to come first.  Will they immediately flip flop if the President includes some of the same elements?

        “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

        by ahumbleopinion on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:26:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Methinks gets it right (2+ / 0-)

        The President of the United States has an obligation to the future of the country to be the adult.

        Beohner was engaging in junior high school politics.

        We should side with the adult and not support contined sinking to the depths Republicans are willing to sink to.

        hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

        by Stuart Heady on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:29:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A week from now, no one will care about... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Methinks They Lie

        ... this point. Some points are better than others.

        This one counts for almost nothing, since it's just more infantile psychodrama for pundits to become excited over.

        Do the millions of people losing their homes care whether a friggin' speech is on Tuesday or Wednesday? This week, next week? This month, next month?

        Nope.

        So while I'm always glad the Thugs are so willing to make arses out of themselves, this one counts for nothing.

        What really matters is the content of the speech. If it's More Of The Same Neo-Liberal Dogma, expect masses of people to be thoroughly uninterested in the point-tallying afterwards.

    •  apparently this was a trick (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Orange County Liberal

      the WH scheduled before they scheduled the debate.  Boehner et al didn't say no so the WH assumed the answer was yes.

      Then the Repubs scheduled their debate, and Boehner said NO loudly.  All to make Obama look weak on the eve of his big jobs talk.

      Nicely played by the Repubs. Sure wish we had more suspicious sorts working for Obama.

      Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:34:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bipartisanship died a long time ago....with (14+ / 0-)

    civility.....Joe Wilson is lubricating his tonsils.

  •  You (and Krugman) were right; Obama and I were (23+ / 0-)

    wrong.

    You may not remember the exchange we had during the primaries about whether or not most Republicans were evil.

    It was clear that Obama thought they were not and thus his insistence on bipartisanship, while Krugman thought that they were evil and that pursuing bipartisanship was a waste.

    I thought Obama was right at the time, but subsequent events have proved otherwise.

  •  I would have loved him to maintain his speech on (19+ / 0-)

    wednesday.

    But you know what? it's a just a speech date. What matters  is what is in his jobs plan. Susbtance vs Venue.

    According to Gen Robinson's sources, "Progressive are going to love the job plan"

    So as long the plan is  good, I wld care less about where he gives his speech either from Congress, WH, his bedroom, or bathroom.

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:54:09 AM PDT

  •  Slight correction (9+ / 0-)

    Better get it in writing written in blood.

    Not sure why Obama can't internalize the fact that almost the entire GOP hates him, and would nuke him and his family if they thought they could get away with it.

    •  Slight correction to your slight correction (4+ / 0-)
      Not sure why Obama can't internalize the fact that almost the entire GOP hates him, and would nuke lynch him and his family if they thought they could get away with it.

      I think this phrasing better summarizes the situation.

      Tea Party manifesto: We're resigned to our collective fate because we don't want no stinkin' collective future with the likes of you

      by Richard Cranium on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:04:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  back to the "they're racists!" (0+ / 0-)

        i don't think this anything to do with race. i'm pretty sure it has something to do with his being a democrat tho...

        "In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." -John Adams

        by rcnewton on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:40:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you don't think this has anyting to do with race (6+ / 0-)

          how sweet.

          keep dreaming.

          "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
          I am a volunteer for Bob Massie for MA-Sen

          by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:53:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not one little eensy bit? (6+ / 0-)

          Remarkable.  

          "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

          by lgmcp on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:54:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It definitely has something to do with race (9+ / 0-)

          Here in Tennessee, I am surrounded by people who remain gobsmacked on a daily basis that we elected a ... shhh ... black man to be President. They cannot understand, to the marrow of their bones, how that can possibly be.

          Sure, they complain about Obamacare or socialism or whatever Limbuagh-inspired paranoid hallucination has occupied their brainstems for the day. But no matter what the #1 issue is, the #2 issue is always welfare, which to them means black people getting money and getting ahead. They can't stand the idea that black people are getting ahead, and would as soon destroy civilization as let that happen.

          These people still have a burning hated of Abraham Lincoln, and still call it The War of Northern Aggression. Even though all of their ideas have been discredited for 50 or 100 or 150 years, there are still a lot of them around.

          The Republicans can get away with the stunts they're pulling on a daily basis because there's no downside for them with their racist base. They are opposing a black man, and that's what they're being rewarded for doing.

          The invasion of Iraq was a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against civilization. Prosecute the crime.

          by Positronicus on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:53:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Race is definitely behind disrespect (5+ / 0-)

            I grew up in Texas,  I know that people there are seething that the way the country started going wrong with the natural order being upset by the overturning of Jim Crow, has been confirmed by electing a n......r to sleep in the White House bedroom.  

            It isn't just the South.  Here in New Mexico the Tea Party cannot seethe enough over how brown people are allowed to vote, if they happen to have immigrated.   There aren't as many black here as the South, but the attitude stems from the same fear that American should be defined in terms of white heritage.  

            A lot of progressives apparently have never lived anywhere near this attitude or have explored this with people they might disagree with.  Racism is alive and very dynamic and it could mean losing the next election to the Republicans who have no compunctions about pandering to the baser emotions.

            hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

            by Stuart Heady on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:39:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The "disrespect" thing is what kills me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Positronicus

              I may not have been brought up right, but I was always under the impression that regardless of party affiliation, you respected the President of the United States.

              I can not imagine the disrespect that is leveled at this president (both real, ala Joe Wilson "You LIE!", and code-worded) being leveled at any - and I mean any - of his predecessors of either party, by members of either party.

              There is a huge racial component.  There is tremendous disrespect of President Obama based solely on his race.  The current GOP Tea Party leadership will do NOTHING to reign in the disrespect, either.  One thing I'll give them credit for - they're very overt about it.

              Tea Party manifesto: We're resigned to our collective fate because we don't want no stinkin' collective future with the likes of you

              by Richard Cranium on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:03:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  It has to do with both. Both, folks. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Richard Cranium

          If Michael Steele were president, this would not be happening.

          However, if Bill Clinton were president, it probably wouldn't be happening either--at least not in such an in-your-face kind of way.

          Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:37:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Apparently, everyone has forgotten the Clinton... (0+ / 0-)

          years.

          Of course race is a HUGE issue for the Thugs. That's been a big part of their organizing since... many decades ago. Nixon formally institutionalized bigotry in the GOP. So this isn't news.

          But if Obama were white he'd be enjoying 95% of the same treatment, with the same intensity. They'll fling whatever feces they have on hand. This is not to discount the racism, as it is perfectly horrid, but rather it's a part of a larger problem. Or perhaps more accurately, pathology.

          Bill Clinton, after all, was a coke-snorting philanderer, commie sympathizer, bad real estate deal-making (as in lost money, which is apparently a crime in Bozoville), socialist interloper... and so on... oh, and he murdered Vince Foster! Oh, oh, he also caused 9/11!

          And, to top it all off, after years of caving to Republicans 90% of the time, they still treated him this way! Ingrates!

      •  yeah. (0+ / 0-)

        Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:36:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think he knows that (2+ / 0-)

      but in some ways he has to be like Jackie Robinson.

      He has to take it. And just do the best he can, because they all want him to FAIL.

  •  Why does anybody care? (12+ / 0-)

    There are enough days in the year to accomidate both Presidental speeches and Republican debates.

    I haven't even been able to summon up enough interest in this story to click on any of the links and read the articles.

    "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

    by ehrenfeucht games on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:56:06 AM PDT

  •  "The Bigger Lesson" has been old news... (9+ / 0-)

    since the beginning of the Health Care debate -- and we have been suffering with the outcomes.

    The Bigger Question is: "When will the White House learn this Bigger Lesson?"

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:56:55 AM PDT

  •  The only doctrinaire thing about the Obama WH (14+ / 0-)

    ...is its doctrinaire belief that they have to continue seeking common ground with people who couldn't be more explicit in rejection the possibility of finding common ground.  What a bizarre thing to stick to against all evidence!

    Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

    by Rich in PA on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:58:26 AM PDT

  •  The real fiasco here (29+ / 0-)

    is that this issue is deemed a fiasco.   It just provides another opportunity for folks to opine about their imaginary presidency and how much better the world would be if only they were in the WH.

    I honestly don't care if this was a scheduling faux pas, a trust faux pas or a deliberate attempt to show how pathetic the GOP is.  

    Hopefully folks will pay as much attention to the actual speech as they are to this latest "outrage."

    Oh -- and I do hope to know the numbers on how many people watch the GOP debate.

    Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:58:27 AM PDT

  •  Here's my previous comment that bears repeating (16+ / 0-)

    1. If you want to give a SOTU address, announce it when everything is arranged.

    2. If you do announce it openly, before the schedule has been formally decided even though it conflicts with the Republican debate (maybe it was intentional mischief), make damn sure you stick to that schedule.

    3. If you cannot give a speech at the House, have your alternate plan ready so that you look like you won this round.

    4. If you are so utterly and totally clueless that you somehow fuck up points 1 to 3, give your speech on a day that does not conflict with a much anticipated NFL opening day, because no one wants their program to be interrupted or delayed by a pedantic meandering speech.

    Seems like they fucked up all 4 of those points.

  •  What SpeechDate really shows is (14+ / 0-)

    that Boehner is an ass who does not care about jobs. Period.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:09:43 AM PDT

    •  Knew that. (7+ / 0-)

      The American people must wise up and rise up!

      by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:13:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, but this drives home the point. (7+ / 0-)

        Other than that, all I can see that it shows is that some people think the football pre-game show is more important than jobs.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:20:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hope you are right. (6+ / 0-)

          I think it just helps the Rs.  They make it look like Obama and Rs are always fighting over bullshit.  Casual observers blame both.  Obama looks weak, takes the loss, and loses in the polls.  Rs in congress are willing to take the hit to destroy Obama's popularity.  Rs have played it brilliantly so far.

          The American people must wise up and rise up!

          by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:22:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are right that casual observers blame both. (8+ / 0-)

            That is one of the main reasons I argue against the Obama is weak or whatever. We have to fight for the casual observer to understand the dynamics of the situation, and repeating the Obama caves meme, rather than stating what the issues are and what each side got is important. Whether you look at the Bush tax cuts or the debt ceiling debate, Obama actually got quite a few things that were needed. Might someone else have done better? Maybe, but someone else is not POTUS.

            Therefore, I will continue to point out what things are different and better than what the Republicans wanted.  Does anyone here actually think the country would have been in better shape if the Republicans had won or will be if they do win? I can't personally get worked up over whether Hillary would have been a better President because she is not President. We are where we are and the one thing I am sure of is that the country is in better shape because Obama is President than if McCain were and will be in better shape in 2016 if he remains President than if any Republican (who may or may not be a candidate now) is.

            In 2016 we will have another Democratic Primary and we can decide who we want to be our nominee for President in that election. It may be a liberal; it may be a moderate. But that is the time to fight for someone else. Right now the choice is between Mr. Obama and some crazy-ass Republican and I do not intend to do anything to weaken Obama's chances. This does not mean I do not write and call the WH to state my opinion, particularly my opinion when I disagree with something he has done. It does mean I will look at each situation and that I will look at the reality of each situation and decide whether I think he did okay or not. Mostly, I think he has done okay under the circumstances that actually exist. Some things I think he has been outstanding on and some things I do not like his position on. Nothing new about that concerning any Democratic President.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:45:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Nah, it shows that folks think that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sewaneepat, TomP

          the pre-game show is more important than other people's jobs.

          I don't think you're going to find a job-seeker who feels that way.

          But hey, I got mine, and that includes a comfy chair and a rack of tallboys, so we can talk about other people's jobs later

      •  But non-political junkie crowd didn't. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, mrblifil, Beetwasher, Deep Texan, mmacdDE

        My friend who knows more about Soap Operas than politics was like "WTF"

        "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

        by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:23:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  AAAAAAANNNND . . . water still wet. (0+ / 0-)

      In case anyone's wondering.

      The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

      by Orange County Liberal on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:55:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama is not stupid. Why is he acting stupid? This (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, rcnewton, dark daze, KJG52, pat bunny

    little kerfuffle is mind boggling. He has to know NOTHING is going to pass the House. (He should have known that in January) So it's all about politics. Its's all about 2012. Americans don't care about bi-partisanship. They say they do, but they don't. They care about results. And they admire strength and decisiveness. Right now he is demonstrating weakness and vacillation and getting no results to boot.

    Further, affiant sayeth not.

    by Gary Norton on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:12:12 AM PDT

  •  Speech Date is a relatively minor consideration... (9+ / 0-)

    and mostly irrelevant issue for most Americans, IMHO.  

    Actually, IMHO, speeches are a relatively minor blip on the radar of most Americans these days.  

    Words begin to lose their impact with overuse.  

    Even enthusiastic initial responses to inspired speeches fade over time, and fade even more quickly when words aren't quickly followed by effective, widespread, tangible, and easily perceived,  obvious actions to translate the words into realities.  

    Talking about putting Americans to work and actually putting Americans to work are two distinctly different things.  The first is easy.  The second is much more difficult.  

    It will be the translation of words into deeds of "actually putting Americans to work" that will be one of the major deciding factors in November 2012, no matter what was talked about one particular evening in September of 2011.

    •  Few deeds are possible now. (6+ / 0-)

      All we have is words.

      The American people must wise up and rise up!

      by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:25:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then the words don't really... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        mean much, do they--especially if promises made can't be kept?

        •  They're all we have. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Whimsical

          They can convince people.

          There is always hope that promises will be kept, at least in part.  

          The American people must wise up and rise up!

          by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:13:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Two edged sword of unkept promises... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            While most adults are fully aware of realities, there is still a psychological impact and a political consequence to unfilled promises.  

            When reality hits, we forget how unrealistic we were in believing that somehow "this time," the outcome would be different.

            ...In many ways, voters are the eternal optimists who can't learn from experience. We want to believe that our politicians will improve our lives...

            ...when the miracle failed to materialize, they reacted with outrage and contempt...

            Research in marketing psychology provides intriguing insights into why broken campaign promises "hurt so bad." The effect known as "negative expectancy disconfirmation" has been demonstrated in studies involving consumer products that fail to deliver on their promised effects. According to this research, we have a bias toward being more angry when a product fails to perform than to be happy when it lives up to its claims...

            What's worse...when one product fails to perform, we generalize to other similar products...

            As the impact on our lives of broken promises becomes more pronounced, as when we vote someone into a position of high authority, the effect can only be magnified. In other words, we come to distrust all politicians, all of those who work for politicians, and at the national level, Washington (or London or Rome or Ottawa...

            While speeches can motivate and encourage people, they can also raise false and unrealistic expectations.  When those expectations aren't fulfilled, anger can--and has--been the result.  

            The cited article lists things we can do to combat "the apparently pervasive nature of negative expectancy disconfirmation" which, as the author points out "is hard to fight."  Because if we voters expect too much, or depend too much on the power of the words, we can easily become disillusioned and disheartened.  Maybe the best thing we can do, from the article's "to do list" is:

            5. Teach your children well. If adults become disaffected by the political process then what people fear about our society being in decline will come true. Keep a balanced but positive perspective on the democratic process for the sake of the next generation.

            But it won't be easy for those who are aware of the power and the potential disappointment of words, and for those who aren't aware, it will be even more difficult.

            It might also be best for all if politicians would promise less--especially when they don't have a clear and realistic plan to implement those promises--and actually just do more effective and beneficial things for their constituents.

        •  Proposing ideas and putting forth (0+ / 0-)

          a plan does not equate to making promises.


          Not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot • Mumford & Sons

          by jayden on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:18:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  While I don't agree with a lot in this diary (10+ / 0-)

    It is still a logical, coherent piece, and serves as a nice counterpoint to that absurd Cenk diary.

    T'd & R'd.

    Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

    by tomjones on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:14:00 AM PDT

  •  They did this bit on Frasier years ago (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    esquimaux, TomP, mrblifil, Nance, KJG52, jayden, polecat
    Bebe: Sign right here, darling.

    Frasier: You know, I’m holding you to that promise about changing. I won’t stand for any more shady doings.

    Bebe: Those days are all behind me.

    Frasier: Once you’ve worked out this thing with the Hammer, maybe you can see what you can do about defusing this bird situation.  

    Ben: Oh, you don’t have to worry about the crane anymore. The poor thing choked to death this morning. They have no idea who would feed a bird a jawbreaker. Bye, now.

    Ben leaves. Frasier turns slowly to Bebe.

    Frasier: Is there any chance it wasn’t you?

    Bebe: Oh, darling… There’s always a chance.

    In that context, the idea that "there is always a chance" that Obama will change and exhibit the kind of fortitude that we expected is pretty much illusory these days.

  •  It's time to crush them (9+ / 0-)

    During the campaign, the president did an interview with a newspaper editorial board. He said at the time that he would reach out his hand to Republicans and attempt to come to bipartisan solutions to the countries problems. When asked what would happen if his hand was slapped, he jokingly said he would crush them. (I remember the video, but have been unable to find it.)

    It's long past time to crush them.

     Not only are they horribly wrong on politics by thoughtlessly opposing everything the resident is for, they are disastrously wrong on policy and would take our economy and our country to an even darker recession or depression if they are allowed to succeed.

    I was all for the president's conciliatory tone and attempts to be  bipartisan because it is good for the country to have a variety of ideas when solving problems and no party or person is always right. But bipartisanship requires two parties interested in working to solve a problem and we  do not have that. We have one party too spineless to stand up to the other party's reckless disregard  for anything but destroying this president.  

    It's time to crush them. For the good of the country. Please

    "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by atlliberal on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:18:00 AM PDT

    •  I don't any sign (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, jayden

      that this crew has the ability to crush anything.   The thought of them going up against Rick Perry makes me cringe.

      •  Rick Perry has more skeletons than (6+ / 0-)

        A Halloween Haunted House. He doesn't scare me nearly as much as someone who pretends to be reasonable while their policies are  just as radical  as the rest of them.

        "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

        by atlliberal on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:42:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's a new skeleton (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, semiot, jayden, DianeNYS
          Ten years ago, Gov. Rick Perry spoke at a border summit held in South Texas. It's a safe bet that few remember his comments that day, back in the halcyon days before the war on terror.

          But some Texas tea party adherents have dusted off the Perry text and found an objectionable reference to a legislatively required study of "the feasibility of bi-national health insurance," or coverage of both U.S. and Mexican residents along the border. Not to mention some other friendly gestures Perry made that day toward Mexico, including a boast about how he'd just signed a Texas DREAM Act that granted in-state college tuition rates to the children of illegal immigrants who are academic achievers. "Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate," he said. Perry also spoke glowingly of how the Legislature in 2001 passed a children's Medicaid simplification bill and increased funding for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

          http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/...

          You will never know what it’s like to work on a farm until your hands are raw, just so people can have fresh marijuana. Jack Handey

          by skohayes on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:56:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  found the video (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      semiot, jayden, DianeNYS

      "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

      by atlliberal on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:43:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Deeds, Not Words (10+ / 0-)

    Announcing the bin Laden raid. Now that was a speech, because it was fait accompli. The deed was done.

    I could get into more of that sort of speech.

    I don't want to hear "Why can't we all just get along?"

    I want to hear "I just did this. Stop me, if you dare."

    •  A lot of Dems I (8+ / 0-)

      know (just regular folks who voted for Obama) have expressed that idea to me.  They don't read dkos.  They just say, deeds, not just another speech.

      Yet few deeds are possible with the R Congress.  The time for deeds was when Dems had Congress.  The WH thought they had cured the economy and moved on.

      The American people must wise up and rise up!

      by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:24:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And now speeches are impossible too (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bwintx, NearlyNormal, Eric Nelson

        Philosophically, I can grok that Obama is committed to weaning the American people from a generations-long trend toward more and more monarchistic Presidents - the appetite for strength.

        And that this is a laudable goal from a balance of powers perspective.

        However, the time to break the back of the Imperial Presidency was in 2007, with the Dem wave Congress laying the smack down on a lame-duck 20something approval rating President Bush.

        The Dems took a power on that. Ergo, here we are.

        There are some jobs that just should not be done from the inside.

        An incumbent President cannot de-Imperialize the Presidency. He just looks weak (even if he is not).

        And that just raises demands from all sides, blue and red and in-between, for exactly the opposite - an even stronger skew toward the Presidency as an elected monarchy.

        That's my from-low-Earth-orbit take on what we are witnessing. Obama is working toward something big - something Republic needs badly, more balance of powers, a righting of the Constitution.

        But he's just not where he needs to be to do that. And I would never trust the GOPers to pursue such an objective, even against this particular President, unless they could make it uniquely about this particular President.

        They are the last people who want the Oval Office to be less of a throne room.

        •  Recc'd for interesting argument (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cskendrick, Eric Nelson

          Not sure I agree yet, but good point of view.

          I Know a place where a Royal Flush never beat a Pair" T. Waits

          by NearlyNormal on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:16:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a theory that explains the observations (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NearlyNormal, Eric Nelson

            that does not require flight to aspersions of weakness in the fact of or collusion with teh evil.

            Only well-meaning efforts, toward solving a problem that actually transcends pretty much everything on the roster of Things We Don't Like (complete regime collapse), that just might not be possible.

            It's just not Caesar's job to reform the Senate. Quite a few tried. They almost all ended badly.

            I submit the parallel applies to the here and now - and strongly.

  •  what speechdate really shows (11+ / 0-)

    ADD on a broad scale.

    srsly...who flipping cares?  few things could be more meaningless than haggling over this speech date, certainly if as everyone says, all people care about are jobs and the economy.

    My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

    by Cedwyn on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:23:35 AM PDT

  •  Yes..These days, I look back on the Republicans (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, LaurenMonica, mangusta

    of my youth with fondness...Where did all of these guys go? Did they all just disappear, die off?? Remember Chuck Hagel? Listen to him talk with disgust about his own party....

    •  Any points Hagel gets by criticizing Rs, he loses (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      for implyng that Simpson-Bowles was legitimately bipartisan. And shame on the interviewer for not calling him on it.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:43:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I thought the same thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    When is this administration going to stop getting pwned by the Repubs?

    "So do not try to one-up me because I will one-up yours." Peggy Hill

    by anagram on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:26:59 AM PDT

  •  It benefits the POTUS anyway (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, LaurenMonica, WisVoter

    as the GOP candidates assuredly would have completely ignored the subject of how government policy can spur job growth (wait...wait...I know...cut corporate taxes...).

    Now, with the President's dramatic decision to call a joint session, the GOP can either ignore him and adhere to talking points or they will have to address the issue of jobs (and why none of them has said a word heretofore on what they would do to lower unemployment).

    Then the POTUS has the advantage of responding to their initiatives, or lack thereof, in order to play pretend bipartisanship. In reality I imagine the entire point of the speech will be to threaten unilateral Executive action if Congress fails to act to stimulate job growth.

  •  On the bright side, Michele and 7 dwarfs will have (6+ / 0-)

    the all night for themselves to bash Obama, Libs, Gays, Latinos, Feminists, Muslims and atheists on MSNBC of all place.

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:31:39 AM PDT

  •  While Benen's scenario seems plausible (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisVoter, TomP, Deep Texan, DianeNYS

    on the cause of the speech-date blow-up:

    Republican leaders didn’t object at the time, which the White House interpreted as acceptance.

    I think that it ignores timing.

    The initial request went out at 12 noon.

    The speaker's response is some four hours later.

    What happened in the meantime? Hurt fee-fees from the clown parade that would have otherwise held center-stage on MSNBC from the Reagan library.

    In other words, I think this is an instance wherein Boehner looks petty and small (based on the rejection) and ill-informed and disconnected (based on not grasping the significance of the 9/7 date and time, till it was pointed out to him in the RW echo chamber).

    Rick Perry executed a man ... just to watch him die

    by ItsSimpleSimon on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:35:44 AM PDT

  •  How about it shows nothing (0+ / 0-)

    other than grist for confirmation bias.  I tend to think they proposed it being ok with moving the date if the republicans objected, raising the profile of the republican clown show debate and looking gracious in the process.  I can't prove this, and neither can anyone who proves it really means something (as what it means is bootstrapped from the interpretation of the event).  What's more, the people who know about this either don't care or they already have an agenda, in which case they don't care.  Wait till next week, eh?

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:35:45 AM PDT

  •  What Was Obama Thinking? From TPM (7+ / 0-)

    It's an interesting read, as was this diary.  Thanks.

    Some reader reactions to yesterday's brouhaha over when Obama would be allowed to address a joint session of Congress about the jobs crisis:

    Late Update: I've added a few more at the bottom:

    TPM Reader AL:

        Can someone explain why the president picked this fight? At first I thought maybe it was some sort of bold stroke to build up anticipation for the speech and pit him squarely against the Republicans--job creation vs. politics. But the fact that he caved so quickly makes it seem like there was no strategy here. What am I missing?

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe. Meteor Blades 48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam

    by gooderservice on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:36:56 AM PDT

    •  I just think the cave talk is just silly. Obviousl (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, taylormattd, Eric Nelson

      y someone in the WH staff or Boehner's staff dropped the ball.

      Its just silly to think that Obama should have wasted more time over this sort of high school fight. If he had embarked on this dumb fight over a date, people would say that it's a distraction to the fact that he has no plan on jobs.

      As Ed said, he took the high way good for him.

      What matters its what is in the Jobs Plan.

      If the plan sucks, Progressive will have the right to be upset. But not over this stupid speechgate.

      Not sure if it was you or someone else, Gooderserive, who said yesterday that it was better for the President to speak after the stooges not before, and you're right.

      "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

      by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:45:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Speechdategate (11+ / 0-)

    is the correct name, if you please. Wolf Blitzer's doing a one-hour CNN special on it..."David Gergen, what does this indicate about the balance of power in Washington?" "Alex Castellanos, was this a sign of weakness on Obama's part, incompetence, or just pragmatism?" "Paul Begala, the liberal websites are on fire tonight, screaming betrayal. Was it a betrayal?"

    On might quote Kurt Vonnegut, "And so it goes." Except even that is a journalistic cliche.

  •  And then... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    He moved the speech to the kick-off night for the NFL.  Talk about politically tone-deaf.

    The 'Free Market' will decide. It will decide that the United States cannot consume 25% of the world's resources and the upper 1% cannot control 50% of the wealth.

    by RichM on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:40:43 AM PDT

    •  No, That is the only thing (4+ / 0-)

      that makes me think there was some sense to all this craziness.
      The night of the 7th, the President was pulling a potential audience away from the Republican debate. Cool.
      The night of the 8th, the NFL moved the start of the show back a half hour, so the President goes into his speech with a larger audience. Cool.
      If the President knew in advance that the NFL was willing to change their time, them maybe there was some clever stuff going on from the beginning and not tone-deafness.

      "We have cast our lot with something bigger than ourselves" - President Obama, July 30, 2010

      by Overseas on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:49:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't buy it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RichM

        If you're trying to complete a 50 yard pass it's a bad thing when you get an offsides penalty first play.

      •  Sports... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, DaveVentura, mightymouse

        Is entertainment.  It's escapism.  People watch because they want to get away from the real world.  It's one of the few entertaining things that one can still do that is almost free.  They don't want to be reminded that the economy sucks just before they engage in their escapism.  It's tone deaf.

        The 'Free Market' will decide. It will decide that the United States cannot consume 25% of the world's resources and the upper 1% cannot control 50% of the wealth.

        by RichM on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:55:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  oh, they moved it back? (0+ / 0-)

        well that helps a little.

        Good for them.  Nice that the NFL is capable of patriotism and respect, even when the Republican party isn't.

        Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:44:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  While setting aside for a moment your main point (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Seeds, Deep Texan, mmacdDE

    re: bipartisanship, I do think that this mini non-crisis crisis again paints the president as the gracious adult and the Republicans as petty and small.

  •  What we need (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, mightymouse, Eric Nelson

    is a nice little public message stating Obama wants to promote jobs; repubs postpone because they want to debate.

    But it needs to come out now, across the country.

    Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

    by barbwires on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:52:13 AM PDT

  •  Anybody but a rookie knows a comma can hurt... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, semiot, DaveVentura

    A well placed comma in a memo, review, assessment, court finding, etc. can injure, pacify, cripple, defeat, or self-destruct. Sure, it's just a comma. Well, no, not so. And smart people know that a comma is never just a comma.

    We are not stupid. Well, not many of us. Surely not all of us.

    A schedule that requires the presence of Congress and the President is one that screams for coordination. It just is discussed in advance of making public.

    We know there was an indelicate scheduling conflict between arch enemies.

    Was it due to malevolent intentions, incompetency, a strategy yet to unfold, or arrogance?  Like a play with a winding technical plot in which mystery and intrigue slowly play out, will the end be a shocking surprise, or an ironic anti-climax? This is politics, nothing is a sure thing and everything counts.

    Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

    by kck on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:53:01 AM PDT

  •  Obama is Hoover (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Jackson L Haveck, mightymouse, polecat
    Hidden by:
    taylormattd

    Hoover was a good man who was well-qualified, super smart (probably IQ wise up there with Jefferson, Carter and Clinton as one of our smartest Presidents), but who was completely incapable as a human being of confronting the issues of the day - he really was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

    A lot of people  think Hoover was an idealogue/rightwinger - he actually had more in common with the Bull-Moose/progressive Republicans than he did with the Coolidge/Harding crowd.  He just couldn't comprehend what needed to happen.

    And I fear Obama is in the same boat - he FUNDAMENTALLY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
    1) there is no such thing as compromise
    2) the financial/banking industry will lead us to ruin if we keep listening to them
    3) people are REALLY pissed about outsourcing/jobs at a level beyond politics

    The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. --George Orwell

    by jgkojak on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:53:01 AM PDT

    •  If Obama is Hoover, then you're Hitler? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, taylormattd

      Seriously !The stupid comparison should be left to TBaggers.

      "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

      by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:04:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's a dumb & rude comment (0+ / 0-)

        jgkojak made several arguments showing similarity of Obama to Hoover. This comparison has been made before, at much greater length, with many supporting arguments.

        Comparing one person to another is a reasonable thing to do.

        If you want to discount this comparison, feel free to so - why are jgkojak's arguments wrong.

        But you provide nothing but rudeness.

        Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

        by mightymouse on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:21:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just because the comparison has been made before (0+ / 0-)

          doesn't make it an intelligent one.

          That's the point of my previous post. Too bad you didn't catch it.

          "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

          by LaurenMonica on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:43:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I defend my argument AND support Obama (0+ / 0-)

            I say Obama = Hoover to suggest that Obama is very close to stepping over the line where some of this economy IS his fault.

            And the comparison is apt -
            Hoover was a gifted ORGANIZER (he was sent to organize European recovery efforts after WW I) and a decent man - like Obama

            My arguments suggests that Obama's gifts, like Hoover's, were not what the country needed at this particular time.

            And this comes from a long-time Obama (and continued) supporter.

            I really think Obama just doesn't like conflict and that's not gonna work.

            The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. --George Orwell

            by jgkojak on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:01:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  you made no argument but called names instead (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            polecat

            very weak.

            WHY is the comparison weak?

            Name calling and "Hitler" throwing is weak.

            Here I am! I'm up here! Where are you? - the Red-eyed Vireo

            by mightymouse on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:58:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Tacky and HR-able. (0+ / 0-)

        11 Minutes from post to Godwin's law.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        -Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:33:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Uprated to counter the specious HR. (0+ / 0-)

      Disagreement does not a Hide Rate make.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      -Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:32:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  by your account, it looks more like the President (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaurenMonica, Darmok, mightymouse

    was played.

    It looks like the adult in the room is being bullied by the kids.

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:54:01 AM PDT

  •  "I hope for pragmatism from this White House. " (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    Pragmatism is a 10 letter word to some, but facing what is facing you is almost always the key to success.

    I too hope for pragmatism from this White House.

    Roman Catholic by birth---thoroughly confused by life.

    by alasmoses on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:54:21 AM PDT

  •  I don't think that the President and the White (7+ / 0-)

    House have ever underestimated the intentions and craziness of the Right wing.  After all the GOP came right out of the gate with fascist behavior.  How could anyone miss it unless you are part of it and rationalize your behavior?  Even before the election the GOP campaign rallies were the first signs.

    WE moved the goal posts, I believe, when we elected the President.  What we are experiencing is retaliation and WE were the ones who were not prepared, not the President.  His decision to act as if the other party is still functioning as worthy opponents is something that we can weigh in on but believing that he doesn't understand the rabid nature of that part of our American society that cannot tolerate a biracial President nor liberal solutions to our problems is just, to my mind, not true.  Of all people he understands what this is.

    I just read this quote yesterday and have fallen in love with it.  Also it makes me think of the messages the President has delivered in the past. By Reinhold Niebuhr:  "Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime; therefore, we are saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore, we are saved by faith.  Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore, we are saved by love."

    •  Not sure I agree (0+ / 0-)

      with first two paras, but the quote is beautiful.  Thanks for sharing.

      The American people must wise up and rise up!

      by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:58:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Arab spring is my inspiration. When I see (0+ / 0-)

        pictures of the inauguration, of the Grant Park gathering I see people reflecting the same sentiment that was in Tahrir Square.  When I see the ruthless and cruel GOP response that has been coming back from those that feared their loss of illegitimate power and corrupt sources of wealth along with the reactionaries that could be manipulated by their insecurity and need to belong, I see Gadaffi and Syria.

        We haven't experienced the violence as directly except in a few cases but indirectly through the desire to tank the progress on the economic recovery, we have.

  •  Forking Maneuver: Chess Theory (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaurenMonica, Deep Texan, DianeNYS

    They left the GOP with two equally unpalatable choices:

    1. have their weak bench compared face-to-face to Obama on the jobs issue; or

    2. Petulantly say they don't want to come back to work to talk about people's pitiful "unemployment."

    It was a win-win, however they got there.

    Abandoning the Democratic Party b/c Progs Lack Influence Isn't a Strategy, It's a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

    by Maimonides on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:08:20 AM PDT

    •  Maybe. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      Chuck Todd in First Read on msnbc thinks Boehner inadvertently saved Obama because having the speeches on the same day would elevate the R candidates.

      I thihnk it just showed DC as dysfuctional and people will blame both Obama and the R House.  Not fair, but I think it will continue so long as Obama fails to blame Rs.

      The American people must wise up and rise up!

      by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:52:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  there is no there here (6+ / 0-)

    the only take away from this story is the last line block quoted above

    It was, according congressional historians, the first time in American history the president requested an audience with a Joint Session, only to have the Speaker balk.

    there is no strategy from the white house to parse. congressional liason staff did what they always do to schedule the speech, and it was turned into a political football by the House GOP. full stop. everything else is media spin, including by "progressive" media and bloggers who want to make more out of this non-story than there is.

    and at the end of the day, the POTUS will get to present his plan AFTER the GOP blowhards make asses of themselves in their latest debate. there is, literally, nothing to bitch about in this story.

    •  A debate which no one will watch (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, polecat

      remember, or even make a blip on any radar screen in the universe.

      I think "Dance Moms" is one Wednesdays, I think that will have a larger audience that the GOP debate.

      •  Only inside the Beltway, ultimately. (0+ / 0-)

        But if he could have gone on, say, Sept 10th, he could have controlled the topic of the debate.  

        This way he's counter-punching, but only if they give him something to counter-punch.

        And, of course, if anyone is listening.  (e.g. Inside the Beltway).

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        -Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:04:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  sure there is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SouthernLiberalinMD

      The Congressional leaders are telling the President when he has their permission to address the country.

      This is all about social dominance.  The Republicans make a noise and the President cowers.  It's basic psychology and Obama's response makes him look weak.

      He's so damned intent on trying to please the opposition party that he's lost the people who voted for him.

    •  How hard is it to get an email (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SouthernLiberalinMD

      approval before announcing?
      The WH staff is to blame here, not the President.  But they look foolish, and created the possibility for this type of spin to occur...

      "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

      by justmy2 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:16:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Isn't this what u thot afta the last dustup? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse
    But the bigger lesson is bipartisanship is dead.  It has been since January 2009.  It never was alive.  Bipartisanship usually is just another word for Democrats deserting their principles to support Republican policies.  See, e.g.,Iraq AUMF, Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.  

    Obama apparently thinks shit like this is playing the game and perhaps it is.  It is so strange I want to wait to see what and how he says what he has to say before I judge how  this was played.  

    Perhaps there was a strategy there because for sure there will be a lot more folks sitting in front da TeeVee channel surfing 'cause of the NFL rollout.  He will reach folks he might not otherwise reach.

    I'll wait to hear him one last time before I turn him off completely.  

  •  Everyone behaving as expected. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rennert, Robinswing, Mebby

    The GOP's plan to drive a wedge through the Democratic party base by obstructing everything the POTUS does from the critical to the mundane continues unabated.

    The predictability of the response of some on this site to a non-issue shows how easily we are played by this same trick again and again.

    •  Not being played (0+ / 0-)

      Sick of him being played.

      If it's his staff's fault, not his, hire some competent goddamned staff.

      I am entitled--yes entitled--to expect basic competence from my leader.

      Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:46:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama (0+ / 0-)

        has not found an effective way to counter GOP strategy of obstructionism, no doubt.   However, it is the GOP who are the root cause of the problem.  Why is the lead story "Obama sucks -- again!" and not "GOP gives Pres historic Fuck You." ?

        And why are we, as democrats, so eager to see his fault in this -- which, if any offense at all, is not really that important?  

        •  Because this SNAFU could have been avoided (0+ / 0-)

          by the WH, and fairly easily.

          Markos lays it out pretty well in his diary.

          Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:20:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  You get a "kudo" for "the empty set". (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Eric Nelson, polecat
  •  Personally (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, taylormattd, DianeNYS

    If the President or White House is going to draw lines in the sand, I'd rather it be with something far more substantive than the date on when President Obama is going to address a joint session of Congress.  Who cares that he moved the speech date? What does it signify other than a game of one-upmanship the president has already said he's not interested in playing even on stuff that's important?

    If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

    by shanikka on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:24:37 AM PDT

    •  I'm fine with that, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      justmy2, SouthernLiberalinMD

      but why did they start the game if they don't want to play?  Carney was playing games about the R debate in his press conference.

      Why not be sure they have an agreement at first on when?  It's pretty basic.  

      But regardless of that, my overall point is that this is just another of many data points showing "bipartisanship" is a complete failure.

      So lines in the sand now will be rhetorcial.  That's fine with me; it's a start.  Better than the "compromsies" on policy of the past.

      The American people must wise up and rise up!

      by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:47:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No more Faith (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickD

    After this last capitulation I have no more faith in this President.  He has allowed the Minority to bully him out of his constitutional prerogative to call a Joint Session whenever he wants.

    Frankly, I believe this is catastrophic for his presidency and the Democratic Party.

    Think of it this way, many of those who look towards a leader want strength and commitment to principals.  Obama has shown time after time that he will back down from his original position if challenged by a minority.  Look at the polls; these repeated capitulations are losing support from his base (i.e. me and many other long time democrats) and not gaining any of those in the so called middle or the independents.  This is the last straw for me.  Now I am wondering what he will do if challenged by a violent enemy?

    •  Violent enemies should be the least concern (0+ / 0-)

      Even in the current poisonous atmosphere of Washington, a bona fide violent enemy is the easiest way for people to put aside differences.  See, e.g., 9/11.

      The real danger is that there are non-violent enemies, in the US and outside the US, who are profiting from the dysfunction in Washington.  That's where Obama has failed to show leadership.

  •  someone upstream called the Prez (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    a "weak p%%$$ssy. I hr'd him. I hope this is ok.
    TomP I agree with you. The setup is for obama to run against all the Republicans for the next 15 months. I hope to God it works as President Perry will turn me into a weak...p word.

    "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding" - President Barack Obama

    by AAMOM on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:45:42 AM PDT

  •  This is silly shit. (5+ / 0-)

    Tom - I've really appreciated your attempt to give the benefit of the doubt when you can, and I appreciate it that you have moments when you feel like the accumulation of facts makes that impossible.

    But honestly - this really is much ado about nothing.  It wasn't some grand test of bipartisanship.  It was just a scheduling snafu that got built up by onlookers as a battle of some kind.

    Anyone who gives a shit about this needs to step back and ask themselves why.

    If Kucinich, Grayson, Sanders or Feingold were President, you'd be accusing them of betrayal right now.

    by snout on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:46:17 AM PDT

    •  It's just one more of a series (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, RickD, Murchadha, Dallasdoc

      of data points showing failure of one of the most fundamental overarching polciies of this president.

      Has two years of attempting bipartisanship been successful for him or this nation?

      Go back to the stumulus that he loaded with tax cuts in an effort to get R votes.  They thought they could get 70 senate votes.

      On the fundamental belief that these core differences could be transcended, and you and I and others fought over this in the primaries, I think the data proves Obama wrong.

      This, while not of great importantce, is just one more example.  The Rs won't even stick to a deal on a date for a speech.    

      The American people must wise up and rise up!

      by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:05:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think so. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, Mebby

        I think you are stretching more than a little to view this as a meaningful data point on the subject of bipartisanship.

        Bipartisanship can work.  It has in the past.  But nobody could have foreseen the level of partisanship we'd see during this admin - even in the primaries.  Look at any chart showing the historical use of the filibuster.  Was there any precedent for 2009 and the years that followed?  Has there ever been in modern times an opposition party that was so disinterested in governing and so committed to obstruction?

        More to the point, is there any strategy we could employ that would be more effective in the face of what we are currently seeing?  I don't think there is?  I don't think a hyperpartisan President gets a better stimulus deal out of the congress Obama had to work with.  I don't think the debt ceiling is resolved better.  The only thing that changes perhaps is people here feel more satisfied about seeing the outer trappings of a "fight".  But it could also work the other way, convincing voters that  the intransigence they are seeing is equally divided on both sides of the aisle.

        There may soon be a day of reckoning for the GOP for the strategy they are employing.  The American people may indeed continue to reward them for it in the short term, but how long can their strategy work?  and how do they back away from it?  

        I don't think we can simply offer the same in kind coming back the other direction.  The key to hostage taking is you have to be willing to kill a few at some point.  Are we?

        If Kucinich, Grayson, Sanders or Feingold were President, you'd be accusing them of betrayal right now.

        by snout on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:01:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not a critcism going in, although (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snout

          I did not think it would work.  It is more the failure to change in the face of empirical evidence when it was clearly not working.

          The American people may indeed continue to reward them for it in the short term,

          That may include Nov. 2012.

          I think he needs to identify more with Democrativc principles.  We don't need ot be like them, but we do noed to stand for something other than compromise or giving in to extortion.

          We see it differently.

          The American people must wise up and rise up!

          by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:09:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The thing is... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mebby

            It is a failure to change to what strategy?  I still don't see anybody arguing for one that convinces me it would be more effective.

            You can argue all you want that he ought to identify more with Democratic principles, but he can't implement them.  So ultimately the argument is one on rhetoric.  What do you suppose that change in rhetoric would achieve?  Would it make him mor eelectable in 2012 - maybe.  We'll see.  I think he'll be elected jut as he is.  Would it have staved off the mid-term disaster?  I seriously doubt it.  Would it have resulted in better legislation?  Nobody has made a credible case for that in my view.

             

            If Kucinich, Grayson, Sanders or Feingold were President, you'd be accusing them of betrayal right now.

            by snout on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:50:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Much ado about nothing, Tom. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaurenMonica, jj32, taylormattd

    Everyone around here is so excited by the "Obama is a caver" meme, they're burrowing about to find examples of caving where none actually exists.

    If anything, Boner comes out of it looking like an asshat who'll do anything, no matter how trivial, to make Obama's life difficult.  Something Obama will be running against in 2012, so mark it down to "2012 campaign tactic" if you're going to mark it down to anything.

    But I just don't see what the big deal is, on this story.  I honestly think y'all have been suckered by the lamestream media who love nothing more than to create "news" stories out of thin air, of which this speech-date trivium is a prime example.

  •  my take, after browsing a few opinions on telly, (5+ / 0-)

    radio and blogworld is that:

    1: the final decision works extremely well for the President, because now people will (maybe) actually watch the Repub debate and have something to compare with the President's speech on the following night. WIN for Pres.

    2:  The NFL game between Saints a packers starts at 8:30 pm after the Presidents's speech, therefore the great white male demographic may be reasonably sober if the watch his speech. WIN for Pres, NFL and GWM's

    3:  NBC will build audience and make more money off the debate and the Pres's speech. WIN for NBC (otherwise known as Comcast).

    4:  The whole blog world and the entire  chattering cable world have a whole bonus 24/48 hours to stay hysterical now the waters are receding from Irene and there is no new disasters yet in sight.  WIN for ALL.

    5"  BONER once again is left with egg on his face having to choose between being incompetent, disrespectful, led around by the nose by everyone. LOSE for BONER.

    As for the blathering blog world, I'll let you all have at it. Those who love Obama will say he did good, those who don't will say he caved and you have almost a week to hash that out before the debate and the spearfish.

    Enjoy.  Get your diaries written and ready in the starting gate!

  •  Tom please tell me where those real and deep (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    differences between the parties lies. Not in words but in real policy and legislative action. I am in my 50's and I haven't seen those differences since the 60's. They talk about real differences but in real policy not so much. They fight on the cultural issues but never on foreign policy or economics. Not even gun control anymore.

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:23:47 AM PDT

    •  I hear you. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tanya

      This is also true with me to some degree:

      I am in my 50's and I haven't seen those differences since the 60's

      There are differences, but you're right that the 60s had real Democrats.

      Still, Dems, while medicore, are better for working people.  The NLRB matters.

      Unfortunately, there is more truth in what you say than I would like to be.

      The American people must wise up and rise up!

      by TomP on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:36:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this isn't working for Obama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Murchadha, Eric Nelson

    or for the Democrats.  We're in a long-term pattern where the Republicans are bullying the President on petty and large issues left and right.  

    We've been watching this nonsense all the way back to when Republicans told us how to grieve at Paul Wellstone's funeral.  At some point, the appropriate response is to give them the finger.

  •  I hope he chastizes the House on Thursday night, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    mentioning the refusal, for the first time in history, to allow a President to address a joint congress on his own timeline, the refusal to fund emergency services for those hard hit by natural disasters and the refusal of Congress to move any kind of jobs bill.  Start using the rebuffs to paint this as a do nothing Congress and demand action.

    If he appears right before the game and finished before kick-off, he might even get some support.

    But then, I really hope my husband picks up the right lottery ticket on his way home this afternoon as well.

  •  The data is in: His "losing" satisfies his donors (0+ / 0-)

    and "bipartisanship" is a campaign-friendly cover for the underlying, partisan battle for such dollars.

    "Gullible pragmatism" arguments don't illuminate what is going on behind the scenes any more than they help us thwart the obvious pro-conservative bias of this Administration and the rest of the Dem elite.

    "I am confident that we're going to be able to leave the Gulf Coast in better shape than it was before." Barack Obama

    by quagmiremonkey on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:44:05 AM PDT

  •  Tip for not calling it DateGate (0+ / 0-)

    Not sure this molehill needs a name, but at least you put a twist on it.

  •  are you lazy or unwilling to read > 1 news sour (0+ / 0-)

    5:12 p.m.: Glenn Thrush tweets that Obama administration officials say the date and time of the speech was "cleared" with Boehner's office.

    5:50 p.m.: Brendan Buck, Boehner's press secretary, pushes back on White House claims that the timing was cleared. He directly emailed reporters to say "No one in the Speaker's office - not the Speaker, not any staff - signed off on the date the White House announced today. Unfortunately we weren't even asked if that date worked for the House. Shortly before it arrived this morning, we were simply informed that a letter was coming."

    SOURCE" TALKINGPOINTSMEMO

    LETS US TRANSLATE FOR YOU.....Boehner didn't object to the date or time....when he received the letter early wensday morning......wouldn't you have been on the phone immediately with POTUS if you knew this a problem..

    just asking

  •  i say this to you in Cenk's diary...but you (0+ / 0-)

    hit the nail with this diary.  And I'd love to see the President address this point.  Even use the this speechdategate as an example of the petty mindset of the speaker and his party.  Allow himself to be portrayed as being "duped" by the Boner so that he can show just unserious Boner and his fellow repubs are about governing this country and getting people back to work.  Start the speech with a condemnation of the political gamesmenship which dominates the Speaker and his Party's decisions...then GO BIG!

  •  To me it also showed: Choosing your battles .. (0+ / 0-)

    ..wisely is Pragmatism as it should be considered.
     Definition:

    way of thinking about results: a straightforward practical way of thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results rather than with theories and principles
    ..and not the way it has been used of late - to mean bipartisan seeking at any cost, in other words, as a derogatory.
    After the first time in historys refusal of Congress (Boehner), to accept a Presidential request it was the right move for the white house to quickly move on to the important goal - addressing a joint session of congress with the plans to move this country forward on a jobs agenda.

    That is what the American people want. results. The white house wasn't deterred:  bipartisanship - working with the Republicans cooperation  wasn't/isn't going to happen. This move forward avoided another media pile-up.
    Thx TomP

    It's pragmatic to admit when something does not work and try something new.

    also for showing that pragmatism isn't a dirty label as it was beginning to be used.  Pick your battles where it matters.

     

  •  Bipartisanship (0+ / 0-)
    Bipartisanship usually is just another word for Democrats deserting their principles to support Republican policies.

    Many, many years ago I heard Grover Norquist give his definition of bipartisanship, which was "date rape."

    I don't think the Republican's definition of it has changed since then.

    None of this makes a bit of difference if they don't count your vote.

    by Toddlerbob on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:07:27 AM PDT

  •  Nicely and simply stated, Tom. (0+ / 0-)

    I too hope for pragmatism.  

    Nowhere do I understand that national security is a substitute for the law.---Thomas Drake You cannot tell from appearances how things will go.--Winston Churchill

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:27:07 AM PDT

  •  It was bad in so many ways (0+ / 0-)
    What possible chance is there for Washington to approve meaningful economic legislation if there’s a dramatic showdown over scheduling? That’s a rhetorical question; the chances are zero.

    Precisely.  You spend two weeks hyping and talking this speech up.  You want people to watch to hope someone will finally do something about jobs.  Why should someone bother watching now?  It may still have been true that nothing would get done, but at least you might be giving the people someone to blame.   It's not the end of the world but it might be the very thing people remember on Nov 2nd.

  •  The President's cave on this speech date (0+ / 0-)

    is so puzzling, the mind reels with speculation.

    I mean, why provoke this confrontation to begin with?  Maybe the White House really is surprised by the Speaker's response to the initially proffered date for the speech?  It's true, it's never happened in history.  And should've not happened this time, either.  The Rethugs are despicable in this instance.

    But if the WH provoked the showdown for political reasons, then why fold up like Dom Delouis's lawn chair at the first whiff of opposition?    I just don't understand the strategy at all...

  •  There is no hope for a jobs bill (0+ / 0-)

    So the President better win the politics surrounding its discussion. On that front, he suffered a substantial, self-inflicted wound last night.

    In the bubble of the White House, they might think compromising on the date is what's necessary to get a package passed. But the reality is, no legislation is going to pass. He needs to take his case to the American people, because nothing will get done until WE vote next year.

  •  "bipartisanship is dead" = no jobs program (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mebby

    whatsoever.  I agree.  But the "true progressives" will blame the President for that and give the Repubs a free pass.

  •  Ø (0+ / 0-)

    The big question is "Does Obama actually GET it or not? FINALLY"

    He's a dealmaker.  I doubt he "gets it."

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    -Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:31:22 PM PDT

  •  Spin as much as you want (0+ / 0-)

    Bipartisanship is impossible but so is Obama standing up to anyone.

    Dennis Kucinich has more fight in him.

  •  Timing is everything, folks. (0+ / 0-)

    And unless you are sitting at the table, you haven't a clue what is going on behind the scenes and/or why the attack hasn't come.

    I trust the intelligence and political saavy of this president. I voted for him because I trust his judgment MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE'S...which includes everyone here, of course.

    This is why some of us get upset at the criticism: It smacks of distrust.

    And if you weren't going to trust him, if you were going to see him do "X" when you wanted him to do "Y" and decide to do nothing to help the man get re-elected so that maybe "Y" will eventually get done (cuz it sure ain't if he doesn't get re-elected), then I truly think that your original motivations for voting for him were very, very suspect.

    There is an odd fickleness among us...

  •  The irony, it is thick (0+ / 0-)

    When this quote:

    It's pragmatic to admit when something does not work and try something new.

    comes from a left who still clings to the same failed electoral strategy that has pushed the party (and by extension, the country) right for the past 30+ years.

    And whose response to ANY suggestion  that they look at how bad their strategy has failed us all and change it can be summed up as "We SHOULDN"T HAVETA!"

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:55:48 PM PDT

  •  Tom, (0+ / 0-)

    It is going to get WORSE.  Until the behavior changes, shake ups in the WH (major ones), and the POTUS acknowledges that he must change, it will continue to be business as usual with obliviousness continuing to come from the WH on what is actually happening to people out here.

  •  Bipartisanship died when Clinton was elected (0+ / 0-)

    When Bush replaced Reagan in '09, there was some hope that he would carry on the Gipper's mostly conservative (but not really in many ways, e.g. raising taxes) policies. When he proved to be insufficiently conservative by breaking his pledge to not raise taxes, and as a result enough Repubs abandoned him for Perot or Buchanan and handed the election to Clinton, and then Clinton in his first major act as president tried to end the ban on gays in the military, both the GOP leadership and rank and file decided that they'd had enough of working with the other side. It was all-out war to the death, and no more bipartisanship.

    It's been that way ever since, where there's either been no bipartisanship, or "bipartisanship" on mostly GOP terms. But the GOP has shown no serious willingness to negotiate in good faith since 1993. And the only way to change that is to destroy the GOP as it's currently constituted. Yet Obama doesn't want to do that. It goes against his nature or something. He wants to "work" with a party that refuses to work with him. At what point do you call such a person either an idiot or a coward--or both? And yet we're stuck with him till '17 (if we're lucky).

    Now I know what it felt like to be a Repub circa late 1991.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:50:02 PM PDT

JekyllnHyde, Superskepticalman, Ed in Montana, Alfred E Newman, Jackson L Haveck, slinkerwink, greendem, Shockwave, genethefiend, mslat27, dsb, xynz, LeftHandedMan, FyodorFish, MarkInSanFran, bronte17, susans, cskendrick, Dont Just Stand There, roses, jalbert, naperken, nalakop, Janeo, byebyeblinkie, tidalwave1, sockpuppet, pat bunny, Viola Lee, johanus, synth, lcrp, clarknyc, bwintx, zerelda, ybruti, tomjones, TheOrchid, vacantlook, jhawklefty, bibble, sawgrass727, tea in the harbor, fijiancat, DianeNYS, UncleCharlie, caul, CTPatriot, Lying eyes, Militarytracy, Bcre8ve, citizenx, Brooke In Seattle, YucatanMan, orson, Laurence Lewis, Gary Norton, Fury, Carnivorous Plantling, sodalis, mightymouse, begone, RJDixon74135, Nance, Debbie in ME, Medium Head Boy, Yellow Canary, Son of a Cat, triv33, gooderservice, gatorcog, middleagedhousewife, Cato come back, TooFolkGR, BB10, RantNRaven, andrewj54, AntKat, cpresley, ammasdarling, bear83, bluicebank, ludwigdog, Cronesense, SpecialKinFlag, tgypsy, jds1978, dclawyer06, anagram, Shadowmage36, Unbozo, Democrat, rantsposition, HCKAD, millwood, GeorgeXVIII, leonard145b, conniptionfit, MKinTN, poligirl, Youffraita, prettyobvious, Rich in PA, bythesea, brooklynbadboy, alasmoses, KJG52, triplepoint, catly, makettle, wyldraven, psilocynic, priceman, Justanothernyer, DavidW, David Futurama, ZhenRen, mos1133, tarheel74, J M F, bsmechanic, BigBensBeermaster, Partisan Progressive, bfitzinAR, lastman, sfarkash, Little Flower, susan in sc, Susan Grigsby, blueyescryinintherain, Crabby Abbey, Ronald Singleterry, cazcee, Garfnobl, ItsSimpleSimon, DerAmi, DiegoUK, roystah, Floande, Murchadha, Actbriniel, Eric0125, renbear, Plox, sostos, freesia, Possiamo, mikejay611, CoExistNow, satrap, dle2GA, TRPChicago, pensivelady, Tyto Alba, PhilJD, sound of progress, Miggles, SouthernLiberalinMD, Lucy2009, DEMonrat ankle biter, No one gets out alive, Tentwenty, Whimsical Rapscallion, anodnhajo, Williston Barrett, greenbastard, ahumbleopinion, Eric Nelson, AspenFern, Ruh Roh, MartyM, doroma, skayne, FrY10cK, Marjmar, Ray Pensador, SwedishJewfish, philowitz, Dancun74

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site