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

[Lord Zentei]

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.

For some reason, it's darkly amusing to me that the "right" is more prone to collective thought and action than the supposed "progressives", at least when they're the particular sort of "right" that likes to see themselves as rugged individualists.

[open_sketchbook]

Of course. They are all the same sort of rugged individualist

[TheHammer]

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.

I don't think you are his "base". No offense, but you seem like a bit of an extremist. And not a very pragmatic one at that. While you did not get everything you wanted from each of those reasons you cited, you did get significant improvement over what we had under Bush. Improvement that would not have been seen under McCain.

Those same steps that were very hard fought to get will quicky be reversed under a Republican president. I never got the Impression that Obama was "done" working on any of these things, or that he considered them the final product. Rather they were neccessary steps to move the country in a direction that was being stiffly resisted by the right.

A pragmatist will look at this next election and realize how stupid it would be to stay home to "make a point". Even if you aren't happy with Obama, he is clearly going to be the lesser of any evils the right puts up there. You think things are bad now? How bad would they be under President Perry and Vice President Palin. I'll tell you - a fuckton worse. They will make you pray for the days of Dubya.

So you need to suck it up, vote Obama in again and see if he can make more progress with four more years. If he doesn't, then you'll have a whole other round of primaries to find a candidate you think can do a better job. As bad as you think it is, it could
always be much much worse.

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.

Again, no offense but he's the President now. He doesn't need the grassroots build up like he did before. Only thing he really needs from you at this point is to vote for him. That, and to get the economy moving in the right direction. That's the one and only thing Republicans are banking on.

[Coop D'etat]

Again, no offense but he's the President now. He doesn't need the grassroots build up like he did before. Only thing he really needs from you at this point is to vote for him. That, and to get the economy moving in the right direction. That's the one and only thing Republicans are banking on.

The economy improving is no sure thing right now. If it doesn't then Obama might well wish he had the grassroots behind him. It also missing the fundamental point that its a lot easier to win legislative battles when you have a large and vocal segment of the voting public actively pushing for it rather than on the sidelines.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't think you are his "base". No offense, but you seem like a bit of an extremist.

Wait, let me go through the list.

I want single payer, or at least the stepping stone of the public option

I am opposed to torture, extrajudicial killing, and extrajudicial imprisonment

I am in favor of the protection of imperilled species, conservation of dwindling ground and surface water, and for the enforcement of regulations pertaining to pollution to the fullest extent of the law, and making repeat offenders like BP ineligible for further permits. Why? Because as it stands right now, if the (low) fines from a safety or environmental violation is lower than the cleanup/lawsuits over time, then the company will continue to violate the rules. This needs fixing.

I am in favor of ending the complete lack of conflict of interest rules within the EPA and FDA which leads to corruption and the approval of pesticides (for example) that are documented to cause severe reproductive side effects immunosuppression and cancer at levels orders of magnitudes lower than what is permitted in drinking water (but it turns out, the EPA does not require independent testing, and people in the employ of the company seeking regulatory approval are permitted to sit on the review board)

I am in favor of the regulation of complex investment products for which there is currently no oversight, which have caused massive market bubbles and collapses including the great recession.

How do these positions make me an extremist? What? Is there some sort of middle ground with regard to torture?

While you did not get everything you wanted from each of those reasons you cited, you did get significant improvement over what we had under Bush.

No. There was no improvement. At all.

Let me go through the list again:

Healthcare: We got an individual mandate, and an anemic public option with no cost controls. Yes, discrimination is no longer possible. What we got for this though was a lack of price controls. So, while the insurance companies cannot charge someone with cystic fibrosis more than someone who does not, they CAN raise premiums across the board, which is exactly what they will do. They even have a captive audience now. And yes, this is what would have happened under McCain, because this exact option was originally a republican proposal.

I am opposed to torture, extrajudicial killing, and extrajudicial imprisonment

Imprisonment without trial? yeah. Still doing it. Torture? Bradley Manning, hell... he is even a US citizen. Gulet Mohamed as well, also an American Citizen. Then there is Obama's hit list. Even Bush did not openly call for the assassination of US citizens. Obama has also shielded the perps permanently, and invoked state secrets when the CIA tortured a german for four months then left him on a mountain to die. he lived. He sued. No justice.

I am in favor of the protection of imperilled species, conservation of dwindling ground and surface water, and for the enforcement of regulations pertaining to pollution to the fullest extent of the law, and making repeat offenders like BP ineligible for further permits. Why? Because as it stands right now, if the (low) fines from a safety or environmental violation is lower than the cleanup/lawsuits over time, then the company will continue to violate the rules. This needs fixing.

BP was responsible through their negligence with the largest spill in US history. When the moratorium on drilling was lifted, they were still permitted to drill, despite having 700 total violations of federal regulations... ten time higher than the runner up... for one year.

I am in favor of ending the complete lack of conflict of interest rules within the EPA and FDA which leads to corruption and the approval of pesticides (for example) that are documented to cause severe reproductive side effects immunosuppression and cancer at levels orders of magnitudes lower than what is permitted in drinking water (but it turns out, the EPA does not require independent testing, and people in the employ of the company seeking regulatory approval are permitted to sit on the review board)

I am in favor of the regulation of complex investment products for which there is currently no oversight, which have caused massive market bubbles and collapses including the great recession.

No change since Bush.

A pragmatist will look at this next election and realize how stupid it would be to stay home to "make a point". Even if you aren't happy with Obama, he is clearly going to be the lesser of any evils the right puts up there.

Where does the line get drawn? I have asked this before. No one answers. If you vote for someone, knowing what they will do or what they have done in office, you are responsible for their actions. So, assume you have three options. You can vote Joseph Mengele or Dr. Raymond H. Vonderlehr into office as the head medical ethics regulator for the city of Randroidville, knowing full well that one of them will be elected... or you can abstain. You can sit out the election, write in No Confidence, or otherwise find a way to not give your assent to either of them, because they are both monsters. One is just a slightly less nasty monster than the other.

So tell me, do you vote for Dr. Vonderlehr knowing full well that he will use his position to "study" syphilus by refusing to reveal the diagnoses of and refuse treatment for the syphilus infections of dozens of people, endangering and in fact killing hundreds of others, trick them into consenting to spinal taps etc? Yes? Why? Because he is not as bad as Mengele? Is that sufficient reason?

Are you a Utilitarian or a Deontologist? Not that it matters. Using deontology, you lose. Prima facia. You lose. Why? Because torture is an abomination.

Utilitarianism makes you consider the long term utility of a decision. It also obligates you to make the choice which results in the best possible outcome. In systems where you are not the sole contributor, you are not obligated to pick between the two most probably options, but rather in the option that is the most good, not the least evil. You have more than two options in an election, even if you only have a third which is abstention. In most states, there are others. Fuck. You could write in Angela Merkel and she would be a superior choice.

Only thing he really needs from you at this point is to vote for him.

And I will not condone, consent to, assent to, or otherwise be complicit in torture, war crimes, rape of the natural world, insurance profiteering or corruption. Thus, I will vote for neither party. Instead, I will vote with my conscience.

[TheHammer]

*snip*

A pragmatist will look at this next election and realize how stupid it would be to stay home to "make a point". Even if you aren't happy with Obama, he is clearly going to be the lesser of any evils the right puts up there.

Where does the line get drawn? I have asked this before. No one answers. If you vote for someone, knowing what they will do or what they have done in office, you are responsible for their actions. So, assume you have three options. You can vote Joseph Mengele or Dr. Raymond H. Vonderlehr into office as the head medical ethics regulator for the city of Randroidville, knowing full well that one of them will be elected... or you can abstain. You can sit out the election, write in No Confidence, or otherwise find a way to not give your assent to either of them, because they are both monsters. One is just a slightly less nasty monster than the other.

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?

So tell me, do you vote for Dr. Vonderlehr knowing full well that he will use his position to "study" syphilus by refusing to reveal the diagnoses of and refuse treatment for the syphilus infections of dozens of people, endangering and in fact killing hundreds of others, trick them into consenting to spinal taps etc? Yes? Why? Because he is not as bad as Mengele? Is that sufficient reason?

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

The question you should be asking isn't "who do you vote for" because that's a no brainer. The question is what do you do after this election is over. 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.

Are you a Utilitarian or a Deontologist? Not that it matters. Using deontology, you lose. Prima facia. You lose. Why? Because torture is an abomination.

Utilitarianism makes you consider the long term utility of a decision. It also obligates you to make the choice which results in the best possible outcome. In systems where you are not the sole contributor, you are not obligated to pick between the two most probably options, but rather in the option that is the most good, not the least evil. You have more than two options in an election, even if you only have a third which is abstention. In most states, there are others. Fuck. You could write in Angela Merkel and she would be a superior choice.

Only thing he really needs from you at this point is to vote for him.

And I will not condone, consent to, assent to, or otherwise be complicit in torture, war crimes, rape of the natural world, insurance profiteering or corruption. Thus, I will vote for neither party. Instead, I will vote with my conscience.

You can shake your fist at the corrupt system, be made as hell and determined not to take it anymore. But the fact remains this will be a two horse race. Obama vs whoever the Republicans put up against him. Your abstention, or a vote for a third party isn't going to change that, not now and not in your lifetime.

If it helps you to justify your conscience, you should consider a vote for Obama to be a vote against Perry or some other Republican crony. Unless you truly believe things would be "no different" - which is a load of bullshit - then by not voting you are helping the worst of two evils to victory.

The reality is, if you want to change a system, you can't do it with votes. You have to be more pro-active then that - like the Tea Party has been for an unfortunate example. You need to build a movement, get backing for it, something that's got some power. Then you can promote a candidate that you think can do what you feel needs done.

[Zaune]

Wait, let me go through the list.

I want single payer, or at least the stepping stone of the public option

I am opposed to torture, extrajudicial killing, and extrajudicial imprisonment

I am in favor of the protection of imperilled species, conservation of dwindling ground and surface water, and for the enforcement of regulations pertaining to pollution to the fullest extent of the law, and making repeat offenders like BP ineligible for further permits. Why? Because as it stands right now, if the (low) fines from a safety or environmental violation is lower than the cleanup/lawsuits over time, then the company will continue to violate the rules. This needs fixing.

I am in favor of ending the complete lack of conflict of interest rules within the EPA and FDA which leads to corruption and the approval of pesticides (for example) that are documented to cause severe reproductive side effects immunosuppression and cancer at levels orders of magnitudes lower than what is permitted in drinking water (but it turns out, the EPA does not require independent testing, and people in the employ of the company seeking regulatory approval are permitted to sit on the review board)

I am in favor of the regulation of complex investment products for which there is currently no oversight, which have caused massive market bubbles and collapses including the great recession.

How do these positions make me an extremist? What? Is there some sort of middle ground with regard to torture?

By being radically different to the status quo, which is how extremism has always ultimately been defined. "One man, one vote" was an extremist position a couple of hundred years ago.

And a middle ground on torture? Oh, that's easy; you just have to take the position that the Constitution is only supposed to apply to "real Americans" or some other euphemism for "people like us", and that "people not like us" don't really count as people.

[Soontir C'boath]

If the amount of people who do not want to vote for Obama ends up being significant enough to harm his chances for re-election he has no one to blame but himself for allowing such discontent to fester. It would then take a campaign of extraordinary skill (more than his 08 campaign frankly) and perhaps much greater progress in his campaign promises to convince a large swath of those people like Alyrium and myself to hold our noses and vote for him.

As it stand now even if in this thread you can convince Alyrium and me to vote for Obama, it most likely won't be enough in this scenario.

[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.

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.

The American people may like Obama personally, and they may dislike the GOP congress a hell of a lot more, but Obama's job-favourability numbers are shitty and he's still perceived as weak or clueless to the game his political enemies are playing against him.

[GuppyShark]

How bad would those numbers have to be for the Democratic Party to remember it has other people who could run for office?

[SCRawl]

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.

Our American scholars will know this better, but can the president just show up? He has to be formally invited for the State of the Union addresses, so this makes me think that he's not allowed to address a joint session of Congress without such an invitation. My Google-fu isn't coming up with a good answer.

My alternative would be to have Obama give his jobs talk on the date and time he had in mind, but to a non-governmental body (with cameras in attendance, of course). The same effect would be made, and he'd get to write in his own implicit "fuck you" to Boehner. I really don't know why he needs to have the Congresspeople in attendance; it isn't as though they're not going to get a copy of his plan.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm puzzled by all the 'They should have accomodated him!' talk in this thread. The debate the republicans are having has been on the books for a couple of months, so why didn't someone in the White House say 'Hey, all the Republicans are gonna be gone, think we should ask for that day or move the date?'

Also, why does the man need to appear before a joint session of congress to tell us his 'secret plan' to fix the economy? If the economy sucks now, why wait a second longer than you have to before you start fixing it?

This is the first time a President has been refused a joint session because this is the first time a President requested a date without bothering to check if the schedule worked. If you'll look bad by getting a refusal, make damn sure nobody has a reason to say no to you. This simple, basic sort of failure has been the hallmark of the administration since January 2009, when they gave some british dignitary (either the queen or the PM, can't remember) a region 1 dvd set.

[KrauserKrauser]

He definitely should not have scheduled the megahugenormousepic job's program announcement on a national holiday dedicated to jobs. It would be crazy if one of those actually existed.

Wait.... isn't Labor Day exactly like that? Ohhhh but Obamoron said he would make the speech AFTER the holiday dedicated to jobs and working.

He's an idiot.

[Terralthra]

So, you think he should've addressed Congress on a federal holiday, when Congress...doesn't....convene...?

Wait, who's the idiot again? Because right now it seems like you.

[CaptainChewbacca]

What was wrong with tuesday?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

This was scheduled this way as a Chicago style in your face bigfoot stomp. The knew damned well the debate was scheduled that night, and did it as a cheap one upman ship to divert attention from their opponents.This is also just the sort of trick that works in Chicago. It doesn't play well in DC.
It back fired because one coequal branch of 3 does not "summon" an other for a political speach.
They must have thought they were very clever. I will screw up all their schedules! Did they even THINK what would happen if they were to be told NO?
If this is a first refusal, it is because it is a first request of it's kind.
Then the WH liar saying, "oh, no, it was all just pure coincidence."
This is not a state of the union, or emergency address.
He can make this speech any time he wants from the Oval office.
This is a campaign speech, and as such it doesn't warrant the opposition party jumping when obummer snaps his fingers.
The Speaker did fine. Saying, sorry, it is too short of a notice, perhaps a day or two later will work?

[Flagg]

What was wrong with tuesday?

Congress wasn't back until Wednesday. He wanted to give the speech ASAP in front of congress seeing as how important the jobs crisis is.

[CaptainChewbacca]

But the act of giving a speech physically in front of congress is unnecessary in this day and age. If he wanted to give the information out in a hurry, he could have done it from the oval office 4 days ago and had messengers hand-deliver copies of the speech to everyone. He wanted to give the speech before congress to score extra-super-bonus political points and someone in his administration figured they could get them at the expense of the republicans.

If this plan was THAT crucial and THAT urgent and THAT revolutionary, any man with a conscience would have shared the information. Its like a doctor refusing to tell you that you need emergency heart surgery for 5 days until you come in person. Boehner may have had political motives for refusing the President, but Obama had only political motives for demanding a Wednsday session.

[D.Turtle]

You are acting as this is an unprecedented and unheard of thing.

Fact is, lots of Presidents have addressed joint sessions of Congress in order to announce major policy drives.

[aerius]

I admit I haven't kept up with Obama's speeches, so maybe someone who has can answer this for me: How many of his speeches have actually resulted in important or significant policy shifts or initiatives? In other words, how many times has he actually delivered on the stuff he talked about in his speeches? If the answer is "I can't think of one off the top of my head", then who the fuck cares about his jobs speech?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Exactly. My point is that either this speech is so important and fundamental to our economic security that it needs to be given now, or its pointlessly political doublespeak that doesn't merit an 'emergency' session of congress and the rescheduling of a significant republican event.

Both options mean that for Obama to be insisting it be given before congress he's trying to score political points and save his own slipping numbers.

[D.Turtle]

He has previously addressed one extraordinary join session of Congress: The topic was health care reform.

Though most people aren't exactly happy with what health care reform looked like, it is undeniable that he passed the most significant health care reform in a long, long time.

So his record is 1 for 1.

[Terralthra]

Exactly. My point is that either this speech is so important and fundamental to our economic security that it needs to be given now, or its pointlessly political doublespeak that doesn't merit an 'emergency' session of congress and the rescheduling of a significant republican event.

Both options mean that for Obama to be insisting it be given before congress he's trying to score political points and save his own slipping numbers.

He wasn't asking for an "emergency session" of Congress. Congress is supposed to convene on that day. He was asking permission to address them, as the Constitution mandates he do. News reports indicate he had already cleared that day with Boehner previously, who had agreed in private, then 'changed his mind' when the public request was issued.

So you're saying that the President couldn't address Congress because, what, a bunch of Republicans aren't planning on showing up to work that day? And Boehner deciding to fuck around with him is justified because "modern technology" means he doesn't need to go to Congress in person?

Is this seriously your counter-argument?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yes, a President doesn't need to address congress in person for his words to have significance and impact. This is my argument. Hell, they're not even required to address congress in person for the State of the Union.