Here was the headline on Yahoo from Wednesday night: Obama bows to Boehner on jobs speech.
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 accommodate 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 accommodated 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 manuever. 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 breath 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.
Watch The Young Turks here.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Robert E. Prasch: President Obama's Speech and the Unemployed: Why Now?
Richard (RJ) Eskow: Labor Day: A Day to Rest, Remember, and Act -- For "Entitlements" and Jobs
If anyone was being a jerk here and violating protocol..it was President Obama.
If you want to address Congress..common sense and simple courtesy demands that ,as President, you first contact congressional leaders and arrange for a mutually agreed upon and conveniient date..before making an announcement that you will address Congress and expect them to accomodate you.
Obama acted like an arrogant dictator..and got the slap down he deserved.
As much as you might dislike the fact.. Obama is not yet the dictator of the United States..and there are a LOT of us who intend that he never will be.
Moreover, the Senate also needs to approve, and obviously the Senate would have---so why does Reid, who also must know as much as Boehner about "security sweeps," disagree?
The reason is that Boehner is the dictator, who can get away with it only because Democrats are wimps.
Agreed.
But besides that, Obama was the one who violated protocol and the whining of the White House because it was called on that violation is pathetic.
I'm as frustrated as anyone with Obama's weakness. I find solace in the fact that all of the best vedic astrologers predicted this weak period in his life, and he will come out of it in July of 2012. Here is a web address of one of these astrologers, and his examination of Obama's chart is noted at the bottom of this article written in November of 2010.
http://www.dgoldsteinphd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=176
FDR saved capitalism and instated major works projects that changed this nation and took people off the soup lines and put them to work with honor and dignity. Ever see any of the bridges those folks built? They are awesome and beautiful. But before FDR people in those days were turning to communism (see the movie Reds with Warren Beatty if scholarship is not your bent.
It is a lie and has been proved that not taxing the wealthy creates jobs. Where are those jobs then? The wealthy have had major tax cuts for a decade or more.
Under the US Constitution, the American people ARE the government. We are supposed to vote in people who care about us--not banksters. That's what we now have--corporations running the CONGRESS, FCS!
We the People of the United States...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution "
It does not say:
We the banksters--or we the corporations (who are NOW FREEKIN PPEOPLE according to the Reight wing SCOTUS)--it says WE THE PEOPLE!
We need new infrastructure, & new schools, there are a lot of jobs that the government can supply. Have been listening to the BANKSTERS? They've robbed us blind and we still love them!!!--or rather YOU love them. I've had ENOUGH!
Obama's mild mannered, patient approach is "winning."
See 2012 and smile.
As it is with the Thursday night speech, he precedes the first NFL game of the year.
This is perfect scheduling.
He can take off the gloves when the next election belongs to us, and we can watch the TP'ers squirm.
Obama is still appealing to the Republicans as human and to the electorate as being smart and sane. If he is wrong, and he may be, then he will be a one term President. If he is right, he will win re-election. If the former, it is your loss and America's loss. And if the GOP "wins" its objective of "making" Obama a one term President on the backs of the economy and the livelihood of the American people, then you and the American people deserve what you get. Don't you think?
Oh and what the President wants to win is the war not the fight. If you really think that the common view is that the President made a mistake with the schedule flap, then you misread what happened there. It highlights how far off the map the Republicans are with their thinking. They are more important than the American people is the message. They are more important than the President of the United States. That is a sense of superiority, I dare say supremacy, that is breathtaking.
Obama can't obviously do this all alone. And your disparaging him and his office is completely unhelpful and falls into the agenda of the three stooges. Don't get alarmed about the state of the economy and help Obama and the American people! No no. Let's pile on the President and blame him personally as being flawed. While the country is falling apart around you, people are going hungry, without jobs, and falling into a malaise of despair.
Good Grief.
"King Obama’s War Put Al-Qaeda-Linked Extremist in Charge of Tripoli | Expose Obama"
http://www.exposeobama.com/2011/09/03/king-obamas-war-put-al-qaeda-linked-extremist-in-charge-of-tripoli/
Obama CANNOT win by using his paltry record. Obama just said yes. Catching Bin Laden has been in the works for 10 years, so he just piggybacked on, and others did the work and strategy.
2) No, he CANNOT win on ObamaCare. Where have you been? The STATS CONSISTENTLY have shown his darling UnAffordability Health Carev Overhaul Act Against America was NOT wanted buy a majority of Americans- before it passed, when it passed, and up to now. A majority want it repealed. Strict liberal I know states it, and the financial aid bills both favored corporations/companies, and lacks in the common person assistance category, according to his liberal perspective.
You & your wife are correct. Obama is weak. pathetically weak. His university learning did not help him in the Oval Office. He is in way over his head.
He does not deserve re-election. No way.
Oh, and OBAMA is one of those "lying, cheating politicians."
Read: Charles Gaspirino's "Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street".
She has the experience of her husband to draw from:
Bill Clinton:
- ARK Gov from 1979-1981 & 1983-1992
- President for 8 years.
12 years as gov, 8 yrs as president = 20 years in governmental executive office positions.
Hillary was US senator 8 years.
That's 28 years total.
A majority of voters got what they voted for, or what they chose not to vote against, in the upstart, inexperienced, thin-record bearing Obama.
McCain wasn't great, but he certainly has more experience in US politics - since Obama was a kiddie.
Most stats or all now, have him abysmally low in so many categories by the American public, especially voters, and even more especially by Likely Voters.