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

[Simon_Jester]

Degan, I think it is far more because the Republican Party of 2009 and on simply refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of a Democratic president. Even in places where Obama is not involved at all, we see this across the nation- there is a strong wing within their party which places no value on parliamentary rules or courtesies.

That wing drives Republican actions toward Obama, because Obama has become the poster child for all that is evil damnliberal communism to the far right.

They would be doing this even if Obama were holding the line left and right- only they'd pitch it as 'resistance' and 'standing up to him' instead.

[Patrick Degan]

Degan, I think it is far more because the Republican Party of 2009 and on simply refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of a Democratic president. Even in places where Obama is not involved at all, we see this across the nation- there is a strong wing within their party which places no value on parliamentary rules or courtesies.

That wing drives Republican actions toward Obama, because Obama has become the poster child for all that is evil damnliberal communism to the far right.

They would be doing this even if Obama were holding the line left and right- only they'd pitch it as 'resistance' and 'standing up to him' instead.

That is also true, to an extent. But even with this attitude in effect, had Obama shown much more of a backbone in his first two years in office and, far more importantly, had kept and made use of the large grass-roots movement which helped sweep him into office as a bludgeon to get his agenda advanced rather than letting it melt away, even a GOP which refuses to recognise the legitimacy of a Democratic president would be thinking twice about actually making such an open show of disrespect. Also, it is the aforementioned failure on Obama's part to fight for his own agenda which accounts in part for the GOP victories in the 2010 elections that put Bonehead in as speaker and, thus, also helped set up this situation. He faces enemies who openly despise him and has very much nullified his own political support base by yielding on every fight to the right. And that is why the GOP feel so emboldened as to break precedent stretching more than two centuries to be so openly churlish. They know there will be no consequences for doing so.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well, that's cause they're all Hydrocehaplic Platypus Cuckolding Assholes.

It's hilarious how they were all like respect the decider and whatever bullshit then, but now it's all amounted to nothing. I wonder how those Start Sades and Art Ades and Bart Blades will bitch 'bout balls and blubber when it's their turn to get their Presidente wailed on for being a total shit. "Oh no, show respect!" "Oh no, show loyalty!" Etcetera.

This is why I'm for Palin 2012. Give America what it deserves.

[Flagg]

Prove that the "debt ceiling fiasco" is why Boner pulled this shit.

And clearly the US Constitution makes Obama weak. :V

[Coop D'etat]

That is also true, to an extent. But even with this attitude in effect, had Obama shown much more of a backbone in his first two years in office and, far more importantly, had kept and made use of the large grass-roots movement which helped sweep him into office as a bludgeon to get his agenda advanced rather than letting it melt away, even a GOP which refuses to recognise the legitimacy of a Democratic president would be thinking twice about actually making such an open show of disrespect.

As a foreigner that watches American politics as a recreational blood sport, this is what really bugs me about Obama's strategy since winning the White House. If there was a functional equivalent to the Tea Party on the left it was the organized groundswell that lead to Obama's decisive victory. He had an organized group of committed small donors and volunteers that viewed him as their natural leader that was basically ignored and disbanded.

Having that kind of organization is what he'd need to keep Democratic congressmen in line by controlling the most enthusiastic and thus most valuable part of the Democratic base. Instead it seems his greatest ambition was to be a bland DNC politician whose base vaguely liked rather than enthusiastically supported whose greatest strength is probably now all the corporate money he can raise. After he was able to spend McCain and Clinton into the ground on the backs of his small donor base this is a perplexing change of course.

[Gandalf]

I wonder how those Start Sades and Art Ades and Bart Blades will bitch 'bout balls and blubber when it's their turn to get their Presidente wailed on for being a total shit. "Oh no, show respect!" "Oh no, show loyalty!" Etcetera.

A lot of arguments have centred around Obama not being their image of presidency. Republicans want Charlemagne Caesar von Reagan. Obama isn't trying to be a warrior king, and therefore will not get the respect of one.

This is why I'm for Palin 2012. Give America what it deserves.

I was for Pawlenty.

[The Big I]

So how should/can Obama recover this situation?

[Flagg]

So how should/can Obama recover this situation?

He already rescheduled for the 8th.

I just love the whining in this thread though. "Waaa, we elected a centrist and deluded ourselves into thinking he was a left of center politician even though he never presented himself as such, waaa."

And clearly Obama is weak because he follows the constitution.

[Winston Blake]

So how should/can Obama recover this situation?

Is there anything stopping him from withdrawing his agreement, saying 'I changed my mind, kinda like you did'? Then he walks into Congress at the date and time originally agreed upon, gives his speech to a room with no Republicans in it, and all this is televised and broadcast on the internet? Then he lets the Republicans watch it later on their own time. It would be like Obama is saying 'If you're not going to play ball, then I'll just run the country without you - I don't need you'.

Forgive me if I've screwed something up with how the American system works.

[JME2]

. If there was a functional equivalent to the Tea Party on the left it was the organized groundswell that lead to Obama's decisive victory. He had an organized group of committed small donors and volunteers that viewed him as their natural leader that was basically ignored and disbanded.

And this is going to come back to bite him in the ass next November. That same group, particularly young adults who were sick of the Bush-era bullshit, are not happy with him right now.

[Thanas]

Cenk Uyger

Here was the headline on Yahoo News tonight: "Obama bows to Boehner on jobs speech"

Bows to Boehner: I can tell you what any progressive who has been paying attention thought, "Oh boy, here we go again."

President Obama has now changed the day of his address to Congress to accomodate the Republicans. They were having a GOP presidential debate on the original date he picked. So, Boehner told him to move his speech. He is the president for Christ's sake. Of course, they should have accomodated him, not the other way around. But as usual, President Obama bowed.

So, this leads to the eternal question of whether Obama is just weak or if he is a brilliant strategist who has been playing rope-a-dope all along. I am so silly that I still had hope. My hope this morning was that Obama was laying a trap for the Republicans. He picks a day for his speech that is the same as the GOP debate. Then if Boehner says he won't let him give the speech on that day, he seems so petty and harsh.

That way, either the president gives his big speech on jobs and bigfoots the Republican contenders or the Republicans look disrespectful and petulant for turning down the president. Well, if you're playing rope-a-dope, that's not a bad maneuver. But it turns out that's not what he was doing at all. He just stumbled into this problem and then stumbled out when he let Boehner dictate when he could and could not have his speech. That looks so sad.

You see, if you're playing rope-a-dope, at some point you have to actually swing. When your opponent has worn himself out knocking you around the ring -- you counter-attack. But that counter-attack is never coming. We're holding our collective breaths in vain.

Why is this definitely not rope-a-dope? Because Obama hates risk. Even his most ardent supporters will tell you that he does not like to take big risks. He thinks it is imprudent. They see that as one of his strengths. McCain was a wild gambler, Obama was a cautious and smart poker player. That's why he won the election.

But would a man who dislikes risk that much risk his entire presidency on a strategy where he gets pummeled for three straight years and then finally comes out swinging at the very end? No way. That's a tremendous amount of risk. I don't mind taking plenty of risks, and I wouldn't do anything half that crazy.

No, the answer is much simpler. He doesn't realize he's getting pummeled. He thinks this is all still a genius strategy to capture centrists by compromising on every single little thing. He is not trying to put on an appearance of weakness to lull his opponent into a false sense of complacency. He doesn't even realize he is being weak. He's the one with the false sense of complacency. As he's getting knocked around the ring, he thinks he's winning.

These guys in the Obama camp are in for a horrible, rude awakening. Sometime in the next year, they are going to blink and realize they are lying flat on their back on the canvas. Then as they finally stumble up, they'll realize they should have started fighting 11 rounds ago. Then a panic will set in, but I'm afraid it will be too late by then.

Here is what all voters, and especially independents, despise and disdain in a politician -- weakness. Nobody wants to see their leader get beat to a pulp every night and then bow his head again.

There is no secret, brilliant strategy. This White House is in a bubble. They think they're winning when the roof is about to cave in.

[TheHammer]

Can someone enlighten us foreigners what is the significance of this?

It's basically the President wanting to give a speech before a joint session of congress and the speaker of the House telling him to go fuck himself.

Respectfully requesting a meeting be done one day later = "Go fuck yourself"? I don't think either person was being unreasonable quite frankly. Why is it that even the smallest cooperation is made to look like weakness? My reaction to the whole thing is "BIG FUCKING DEAL". Obama moved his speech to Thursday, WOW the Republicans really got him there. Its another thing that simply doesn't matter in the slightest, will be forgotten two weeks after the speech was given.

. If there was a functional equivalent to the Tea Party on the left it was the organized groundswell that lead to Obama's decisive victory. He had an organized group of committed small donors and volunteers that viewed him as their natural leader that was basically ignored and disbanded.

And this is going to come back to bite him in the ass next November. That same group, particularly young adults who were sick of the Bush-era bullshit, are not happy with him right now.

Those same young adults surely can recognize that they would be significantly less happy if they allow the Republicans take the Whitehouse in 2012.

[JME2]

Those same young adults surely can recognize that they would be significantly less happy if they allow the Republicans take the Whitehouse in 2012.

In theory, we can hope.

I will certainly never ever vote GOP as long as I live. The idea of the Republicans in control of the White House again in this climate scares the hell out of me. I will probably vote for Obama, even with how disappointed I am.

[Patrick Degan]

Prove that the "debt ceiling fiasco" is why Boner pulled this shit.

And clearly the US Constitution makes Obama weak. :V

Is that actually your idea of a rebuttal? Nice strawman about the constitution, BTW.

And yes, the debt ceiling fiasco, combined with Obama's other cave-ins, has indeed observably set him up to be dissed in a way no other president —not even Nixon— has been. I'm sorry if you can't see what's in front of you. Weakness never garners respect, only contempt.

[Coop D'etat]

Those same young adults surely can recognize that they would be significantly less happy if they allow the Republicans take the Whitehouse in 2012.

In theory, we can hope.

I will certainly never ever vote GOP as long as I live. The idea of the Republicans in control of the White House again in this climate scares the hell out of me. I will probably vote for Obama, even with how disappointed I am.

The problem isn't so much that they'd be willing to defect to the other side but that it cuts down on Obama's ability to raise money and more importantly his volunteer base which is important for improving voter turnout among Democratic supporters. The other side is that the young adult demographic isn't so much likely to have a major shift against Obama in percentage but end up not voting. Unusually high turnout from minorities and young adults was a significant advantage for Obama and the entire Democratic ticket in 2008, the fact that they stayed home in large numbers was a huge Democratic disadvantage in 2010.

[Stormin]

How come there is so much more talk about wasting votes on third parties than there is about voting for someone other than Obama in the Democratic primaries? Wouldn't that be a more likely way of getting someone not useless or outright horrible in, even with the incumbent advantage?

[DaveJB]

How come there is so much more talk about wasting votes on third parties than there is about voting for someone other than Obama in the Democratic primaries? Wouldn't that be a more likely way of getting someone not useless or outright horrible in, even with the incumbent advantage?

Leaving aside the fact that an incumbent President hasn't been usurped from his ticket after one term since Franklin Pierce way back in 1856, who do the Democrats have that could realistically dethrone Obama? The only one that comes to mind is Hilary Clinton, and I'd suspect she'd have made her move by now if she intended to do so.

[Stormin]

How come there is so much more talk about wasting votes on third parties than there is about voting for someone other than Obama in the Democratic primaries? Wouldn't that be a more likely way of getting someone not useless or outright horrible in, even with the incumbent advantage?

Leaving aside the fact that an incumbent President hasn't been usurped from his ticket after one term since Franklin Pierce way back in 1856, who do the Democrats have that could realistically dethrone Obama? The only one that comes to mind is Hilary Clinton, and I'd suspect she'd have made her move by now if she intended to do so.

That still seems more likely than a third party ever getting in, and even just a groundswell against Obama in the primaries might make the party grow a spine and stop being "Republican Slightly Lite (Now with 5% less Republican than the Republican Party!)"

Voting for third parties just splits the Left of Crazy vote at a time when every loss pushes the Democrats further rightward than their victories do.

As for who in the party would have a chance against Obama, I don't know. I'm not an American and not a Democrat. If instead of not voting, the masses that got Obama in intended to vote for change within the party then people would be stepping up rather than hiding (not surprising given Obama's speed in smacking down uppity members of his party).

[JME2]

The problem isn't so much that they'd be willing to defect to the other side but that it cuts down on Obama's ability to raise money and more importantly his volunteer base which is important for improving voter turnout among Democratic supporters. The other side is that the young adult demographic isn't so much likely to have a major shift against Obama in percentage but end up not voting. Unusually high turnout from minorities and young adults was a significant advantage for Obama and the entire Democratic ticket in 2008, the fact that they stayed home in large numbers was a huge Democratic disadvantage in 2010.

I'm less afraid of the young adult vote going to the Republicans. I'm more worried that they'll stay at home and not vote at all -- in effect, trying to punish the Dems just like the idiots in 2010 elections did.

[Vympel]

The Democrats should be punished. Staying home is exactly what voters who are disappointed with Obama should do. What the hell reason do the Democrats have to change their behavior and fight for things their base wants if the votes of their base are taken for granted?

In essence, they believe that no matter how many times they go along with Republican policies, framing, and dogma, they will never lose the votes of the left, because they can scare them with the Republican boogeyman. And they can focus on sucking wall street cock.

Republicans, by contrast, are quite a bit more terrified of their base. This is how things should be.

[Lord Zentei]

So how should/can Obama recover this situation?

He already rescheduled for the 8th.

I just love the whining in this thread though. "Waaa, we elected a centrist and deluded ourselves into thinking he was a left of center politician even though he never presented himself as such, waaa."

And clearly Obama is weak because he follows the constitution.

Personally, I don't really care that he's a centrist. The problem is that he's a wanker. Unless he's doing this deliberately, in which case he's not a centrist at all. There's more to his weakness than just that he's following the constitution.

[Coop D'etat]

The Democrats should be punished. Staying home is exactly what voters who are disappointed with Obama should do. What the hell reason do the Democrats have to change their behavior and fight for things their base wants if the votes of their base are taken for granted?

In essence, they believe that no matter how many times they go along with Republican policies, framing, and dogma, they will never lose the votes of the left, because they can scare them with the Republican boogeyman. And they can focus on sucking wall street cock.

Republicans, by contrast, are quite a bit more terrified of their base. This is how things should be.

The problem to me seems to be that the left isn't organized into pressure groups that can present the politicians with the threat of "work for our interests or our guys stay home," and "be good to us and you'll probably get x amount of money from us and y amount of volunteers for your next campaign." The institutional right seems to be far better organized in that respect. When they get involved it seems to be mainly at election time to get people to vote for candidates that are supposedly sympathetic to their goals rather than to involve themselves at the point when decisions are actually made.

I think they don't realize that previous gains for their cause like under Lyndon Johnson or FDR weren't because some wise leader wanted them but because their was considerable pressure vocal public groups for the politicians to act. Its not sufficent to have politicians that are supposedly in your camp in office, you also need to put them in a position where acting on your issues has tangible benefits for them.

Also the Democratic leadership doesn't seem to understand that they can give their own far end of the spectrum a voice to make the equivalent kind of noise that the far right generates in national debates. Winning these kinds of battles is a lot easier if you've got your own fringe setting terms of the debate so you can negotiate from there rather than positioning yourself in the middle from the start.

[TheHammer]

Prove that the "debt ceiling fiasco" is why Boner pulled this shit.

And clearly the US Constitution makes Obama weak. :V

Is that actually your idea of a rebuttal? Nice strawman about the constitution, BTW.

And yes, the debt ceiling fiasco, combined with Obama's other cave-ins, has indeed observably set him up to be dissed in a way no other president —not even Nixon— has been. I'm sorry if you can't see what's in front of you. Weakness never garners respect, only contempt.

Actually, if anything the debt ceiling fiasco made the Republicans look like irresponsible thugs willing to drive the country off a cliff. Most Americans agree with Obama's plan to balance the budget, and that's why, despite not looking great, he came out of it looking better than the people across the isle.

The American people as a whole continue to like Obama. All he would need is a little momentum moving forward in the economy to make it a landslide victory over Republicans. Even as it stands, there is no sure bet to beat him.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The American people as a whole continue to like Obama. All he would need is a little momentum moving forward in the economy to make it a landslide victory over Republicans. Even as it stands, there is no sure bet to beat him.

This fails to take into account the demographics of who actually votes. You cannot capture the center of the electorate and still win the election if your base stays home. His base, is staying home. Why? Because the people like me who were desperate for meaningful healthcare reform did not get it. People like me who wanted and were promised the closing of Gitmo, and the end of indefinite detention and torture didnt get it (in fact, the legal and ethical quagmire got worse when the motherfucker ordered the assassination of US citizens). The people like me who wanted environmental regulation and who wanted BP to be debarred from US contracts didn't get it. We did not even get the promised reform of the department of the interior, which is still just as corrupt as it ever was. Oh, and those derivitives that caused the Great Recession are still unregulated.

The people like me who would otherwise canvas, make phone calls, and donate to his campaign will not be going so in this election. Why? Because the new boss is extensionally equivalent to the old boss.

[open_sketchbook]

It's a lot more difficult for the left to have a Tea Party-like organization dedicated to making their own politicians scared of their base because the left doesn't have the same kind of corporate backing. The Tea Party wouldn't exist if Fox News wasn't doing all the organizing for them.