Obama: I want to give jobs speech! Boner: Fuck you!

[D.Turtle]

And this addresses the point that joint sessions have been addressed in the (more and less) recent past in order to announce (some) successful major policy drives, how?

This addresses the point that in private inquiries no objections were raised, and instead Boehner waited for the (necessary) official and public request in order to object publicly, how?

This addresses the point that this is an unprecedented act of defiance and spite by the House against the President, how?

[TimothyC]

And this addresses the point that joint sessions have been addressed in the (more and less) recent past in order to announce (some) successful major policy drives, how?

This addresses the point that in private inquiries no objections were raised, and instead Boehner waited for the (necessary) official and public request in order to object publicly, how?

This addresses the point that this is an unprecedented act of defiance and spite by the House against the President, how?

There is actually nothing inconsistent with the stories coming out of the Speaker's Office and the White House. The White House is saying that they asked about the day before the letter went public, and that no objections were given.

Many here seem to think that this means that the White House asked more than 24 hours before the letter. It is entirely possible that the White House did sent a request before the letter, but that it was only the 15 minutes or so that the Speaker's Office claimed. Both sides told the truth, but it would be an entirely different situation than what is being presented here.

If the above conjecture is correct, then it was the White House that was the problem, not the Speaker's Office.

As an aside, It find it very easy to believe the above conjecture because it fits in very well with the narrative of the President being a clueless invertebrate who doesn't get how the big leagues work.

[TheHammer]

You said it yourself, knowing that one of the two will be elected - and there is nothing I can do to change that immediate fact -, obviously the only pragmatic choice is to vote for the "less nasty monster". Why the hell would you want the worse one to get elected by abstaining, or throwing your vote away on an non-viable candidate?

What is morally correct and what is pragmatic are often but are not always the same thing. There are also long term concerns. If you dont "throw your vote away" on a third party, you will ALWAYS be voting for the lesser of two evils. Why? Because in this particular instance, the republican party has been shifting the political center in this country rightward, and the democrats follow. Why? Because they do not fear their base, and wish to continue sucking militaery industrial complex cock.

If your goal is simply to wash your hands of making a "bad" or "worse" choice then you are free to do so. But don't pretend it makes you some moral paragon. The reality is that sometimes it takes courage to make the bad choice, realize things need to change, and work to make sure that you have a better choice in the future.

You did not answer the fucking question. Where does the line get drawn? At the point where you are voting for a murderer over a serial baby rapist? Because your logic extends that far.

Slippery slope moronical statement. The line needs to be drawn BEFORE the election, not at the point where you are stuck with the bad and worse choice.

In short, yes and yes. If I vote for someone else or abstain and Mengele gets elected then things are even worse right?

Not substantially, and in the long term your strategy will result in people worse than Mengela being elected because there will not be anyone better running.

If the worse guy wins then what? Are things better off long term? Do you realize how fucking stupid you sound?

Do you simply wait til the next one? Or do you try to build up a movement to get someone in power who would be a viable winner, and is a better choice than you had in this election.

And miserable chicken shits like you will tell others not to throw your vote away on a candidate from that movement.

It seems like its worked for the tea party hasn't it? I'm not suggesting you start your own "third party". Its too late for that, and yes it would be throwing away your vote. You do what the tea party has done and usurp a portion of the establishment.

You have to be more pro-active then that - like the Tea Party has been for an unfortunate example.

Well no shit shirlock. Not voting for Obama is part of a larger strategy. Either a third party needs traction, or the democrats need to fear their base, which they wont do if we always vote for them out of fear.

Your strategy is fucking stupid. You don't make them fear the base by voting in Republicans. You do it by support "your" candidates in the primaries. You change the party from within - as the Tea Party managed to do to the Republicans. If you let the Republicans drag the country even further right, then in the end when everyone wakes up and drags it back to the left you end up with a zero sum game where nothing ever changes.

Obama has made progress. Maybe not on everything you wanted, but for me I want those changes retained so that further steps can be made without having to re-fight for old territory. Give him four more years and lets see if he can get things more to your liking. Because I can gauranfuckingtee that the Republicans won't do anything of the sort.

[Jim Raynor]

Why does everyone think the Democrats would "fear their base" if people vote Republican? Isn't the argument against Obama based on the idea that he caves too much to the Republicans? Who says a Republican victory won't convince the Democrats to move further right?

[Mr Bean]

Why does everyone think the Democrats would "fear their base" if people vote Republican? Isn't the argument against Obama based on the idea that he caves too much to the Republicans? Who says a Republican victory won't convince the Democrats to move further right?

Because the only ones left are the left wing. There's already been some indications of this that blue dog democrats were annihilated in 2010, if the last of the Blue dog democrats are tossed out in 2012 or 2014 those Blue dogs will go back to running as Moderate republicans rather than right wing Republicans.

The only way to make them fear the base is to punish the outliers, those know to vote yes on Republican issues. That's how the Republican base made their politicians fear them by taking them out in the primaries or publicly working against them in the general.

[Andrew J.]

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart presents: Tales of Manufactured Conflict - Speechgate.

[TheHammer]

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart presents: Tales of Manufactured Conflict - Speechgate.

My sentiments exactly. How sad is it that the only voice of reason on major T.V. is the commedian. I hope Jon Stewart steps up his game in years to come and gets a serious news segment on a major network.

[D.Turtle]

Because the only ones left are the left wing. There's already been some indications of this that blue dog democrats were annihilated in 2010, if the last of the Blue dog democrats are tossed out in 2012 or 2014 those Blue dogs will go back to running as Moderate republicans rather than right wing Republicans.

The only way to make them fear the base is to punish the outliers, those know to vote yes on Republican issues. That's how the Republican base made their politicians fear them by taking them out in the primaries or publicly working against them in the general.

What really destroyed a lot of the fear of the "radical left" in the eyes of the party establishment was Joe Lieberman's victory in the general election in Connecticut in the mid-terms in 2006 after losing the primary to Ned Lamont. It really cemented the view that left-wing challengers were bad for the party, and could be - had to - be suppressed.

After that, the "radical left" has not really managed to topple any further main-stream candidate.

The one big danger right now to the establishment is the fact that some unions are weakening their unconditional support for the party and instead have stated that they would look a lot more at the individual candidates in question and support only the ones they like.