There are those who say that we should root for a sane Republican to win the primary, because all that matters in a general election is the economy and if it’s in the tank, we want Generalissimo Romney not Generalissimo Perry to become president. Sometimes I feel happy that Republicans will probably put a possibly unelectable lunatic up as their nominee, sometimes I feel sad that said lunatic may be the final nail in this NASCAR nation’s coffin.
Super Dave Osborne used to go on David Letterman and read inappropriate jokes from a book that was supposed to be inspirational. One went like this…a man with a talking dog walks into a bar. He bets the bartender 100 bucks his dog can say “pour me another beer”. The bartender takes the bet, the dog says it, and the guy collects 100 bucks. He gives the dog 20 of the 100 he collected, then drinks his beer. When he goes outside, he finds his dog in the road humping another dog. He says “Fido, I’ve never seen you do that before”. Fido says “I’ve never had 20 bucks before.”
Democrats have never won a presidential election because of a weak Republican nominee before. No Republican nominee has ever called Social Security a “monstrous lie” and a “Ponzi scheme” before.
Trentrunner
WTF happened tonight with Obama’s speech date?
I mean, why did the WH set it all up like they did and then turn around and cave?
WTF is going on?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Your assumption that the Plastic Man will revert to sanity either during the general or after (god forbid) winning the White House is a bit optimistic. Romney would be a prisoner of Jim DeMint and Eric Cantor for two years at least
butler
@Trentrunner: You’re asking why Obama caved on something?
Why is water wet? Why does the sun rise?
Judas Escargot
@Trentrunner:
Hoping to win 2012 on the Pity Vote, apparently.
Good fecking luck with that.
Big Baby DougJ
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
That is what I think too. There are some who say that I am wrong.
Ira-NY
Well, I found it both inspirational and funny.
Comrade Kevin
@Trentrunner: Perhaps he decided that it wasn’t worth it to try to “fight” on something where he’s guaranteed to lose?
suzanne
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Concur 100%.
I am under no illusion that Romney would be substantively different from Perry in any way. They both have to kiss the same asses to get re-elected. So Romney’s Relative Sanity is no benefit when accompanied by Romney’s Complete Lack of Conviction and Borderline Sociopathy.
Origuy
In 1964, Barry Goldwater said that Social Security ought to be voluntary. Although he backed away from that stand, his primary opponent, Nelson Rockefeller, hung it on him so successfully that even my stanch Republican Hoosier parents voted for LBJ. I was eight, but I remember them telling me that Goldwater would take away my grandmother’s Social Security. If the Democrats did today what a liberal Republican did in 1964, they still wouldn’t get LBJ’s margin of victory, but they would probably get enough.
aisce
there is no such thing as a good republican. there’s no longer any such thing as a tolerable republican. that is all.
jheartney
It’s not at all clear that a weak GOP nominee will necessarily lose.
Where we are is that unemployment is so high that it’s inconceivable the incumbent can win. This is countered by a challenger so crazy that it’s inconceivable he’ll win either. So we’re betting on which impossibility will become a reality.
The Republican game is one they’ve played out before. The play is that you nominate a four-sheets-to-the-wind extremist. If the extremist loses, you try again the next time. If the extremist wins, then you’ve pushed the Overton window over a few notches, plus you can go with an even further-out extremist the next time.
The endgame is either the country collapses from being run into the ground by whackjobs, or the GOP eventually becomes completely unelectable.
Zach
Yeah, Goldwater. Led to Buckley et al cleansing the party of nuts (but continuing to string along racists); an effort that’s almost completely been reversed at this point.
Lyrebird
@Comrade Kevin: Also, this way he gets the last word! (Not permanently, of course… but if they’d gone with the intermediate solution of keeping the 7th for the Prez and then having the debates immediately after, those debates coulda turned into a mockery festival. This way he gets to burst their bubbles instead, possibly.)
Ron
@Trentrunner: It might have to do with the fact that he can’t FORCE the Congress to let him talk to a joint session. It requires a concurrent resolution of both houses.
General Stuck
Someone with these planks in their personal platform, that gets elected in this country, means we never had a chance to begin with. And I don’t care how bad the economy is, or how black Obama is. If it happens, it will be the snake swallowing its tail, then digesting it.
SteveinSC
@Trentrunner:
Already? That was fast.
Keith G
@Big Baby DougJ: While I have no idea who the GOP will front, I do believe the the economy will be as fucked then as now (maybe worse).
But I do think even then, Obama can pull it out, but he has to push every button and like Pacman gobble up every dot (and power pellet) along the way. That’s why today is so frustrating. Presidents live off imagery and today’s was not good.
redshirt
Maybe the Mayans were right – 2012 is our Calendar end. Meaning: Time for Perry/Palin Fever!
kdaug
@Trentrunner: Setting them up, stand and point as they fall down. Reinforce “Do-Nothing Republicans”. Again. And again.
This will be the priming message. Get it out and let it soak in. Demonstrate it non-stop through the GOP primaries.
Ie:, wrap the House Republicans around the necks of all the candidates. Watch them twist.
Like I said, it’s the primer. Ain’t the big guns yet, but it’s a pretty good way to soften the ground before you know who the opponent is. Ain’t one of them that’ll benefit from a tie-in w/ congress. Especially GOP Reps.
Some Guy
I thought got it, then I didn’t. The analogy loses me. + 5, I admit.
SteveinSC
@Ron: Right on time, and on cue, the apologists arrive.
Judas Escargot
Please take this in context: The GOP has just dictated the terms on which the President may discuss job creation/stimulus policies which they will ignore anyway.
If you’re not angry right now, there’s something wrong with you.
Tonal Crow
@Trentrunner: Don’t criticize Obama here. At a minimum you’ll be accused of “firebaggery”, if not called a ratfucker outright. Meanwhile, your accusers will wax poetic about Jane Hamster’s unlimited rhetorical power while denying that the President’s “bully pulpit” is good for anything but hanging spare laundry.
burnspbesq
DougJ:
“Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine,
The Continental Liar from the State of Maine.”
Wait, what? You say you weren’t around in 1884? Get off my lawn, you damn kids.
Jenny
Bush Sr?
McCain/Palin?
Taft?
Hoover?
Alf Landon?
Dewey?
Goldwater?
Ford?
Dole?
mk3872
@Trentrunner: Really? You are having heartburn over the date of the president’s speech? Geez, you need to chill just a bit …
Hill Dweller
@Keith G: @Keith G: Today most certainly wasn’t good.
But what really kills me is the republicans will once again emerge unscathed after this most recent act of complete disrespect of the office of the Presidency. Even if you hate the person in the office, there was always a level of respect afforded the office itself in these type matters. Not anymore apparently.
There is virtually nothing a republican can do to get criticized and/or lose credibility with the MSM these days.
If Pelosi had pulled this stunt, she would be pummeled by the village idiots.
mk3872
@Jenny: Clinton beat Bush Sr not because Bush Sr was a weak Republican. Clinton won because Perot siphoned off conservative votes from Bush.
WyldPirate
@SteveinSC:
Punk-ass bitches gotta do what punk-ass bitches do…
Joe Bauers
And once again the Josh Marshall Bitch-Slap theory of politics is demonstrated by the familiar players, with Republicans providing the slap and Obama providing the bitch.
Big Baby DougJ
@Jenny:
People keep saying the nominee makes no difference. And of that group, I think any would have lost in that economy even with a better candidate. Granted the Great Depression was complicated that way.
mk3872
@Judas Escargot: Why? Because the speech is on Wednesday not Thursday? You don’t think that just maybe you’re reading Politico a little too much? Making a big deal over the date? Good grief …
brendancalling
“Democrats have never won a presidential election because of a weak Republican nominee before.”
huh? clinton/bush, 1992.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@mk3872: Perot was pro choice, IIRC, borderline contemptuous of the religious right, and at one point ran on budget plan that included a .50/gal gas tax (again, IIRC). Perot’s impact on the race, I think, was to run not so much for the presidency as against Bush personally, much like Nader did to Gore.
Mark S.
If Bush decided to give a speech to Congress the same night as a scheduled Democratic debate, I think everyone here would think he was being an asshole. It was a bad decision on the part of the White House.
mk3872
DougJ:
Actually, Ronnie St. Reagan came pretty darn close to doing just that
mk3872
@brendancalling: Clinton won because of Perot
Evolved Deep Southerner
@Jenny: Jenny, you beat me to it. In just my relatively short lifetime, I’m thinking Ford, Dole, McCain. Bush I wasn’t necessarily a bad candidate so much as Ross Perot fucked him up. The Nader bitches always forget that one.
Lev
I go back and forth myself. I mean, in Michigan they elected a moderate GOP governor who did the same as the wingnuts. Then again, Perry seems like a real nut to me and Romney doesn’t. Which could lead to different outcomes.
Here’s what I do know: Perry might or might not be just like Bush, but Democrats will see him that way. Which will make holding the White House in 2012 a hell of a lot easier. Romney would require some work to turn into something the Dem base will instinctually hate, but Perry’s already that way.
Anne Laurie
Sometimes, DougJ, I forget you got started here as a spooftroll.
But I can count on you to remind me, and it never takes long, either.
hamletta
@mk3872: That was a good 10+ years before he ran for president.
Evolved Deep Southerner
@mk3872: Beaten to the Perot observation, too. DougJ, did you really think about that portion of your post?
General Stuck
I’m sure the Obama’s poll numbers will suffer, because of a rescheduled speech from the night of the republican debate. The public just won’t stand for that kind of shit. It will be Obama’s Waterloo, all over again.
Judas Escargot
@mk3872:
Humans are pack animals. Obama just did the old squat’n’pee.
It’s over.
Mark S.
@General Stuck:
Game changer. Definitely.
mk3872
@Evolved Deep Southerner: You can’t throw Dole into your list if you give Bush I a pass due to Perot. Dole was knee-capped by Perot, too, don’t forget …
Jenny
@mk3872: Not true.
Evolved Deep Southerner
@brendancalling: Bush I was not a weak candidate. IIRC, in the wake of our “victory” in Desert Storm, that fucker’s approval ratings were 90+ percent – I’m talking less than a year out from the election. Shows you what approval rating benchmarks this far out are worth.
ABL
@General Stuck: no, it’s his katrina.
derp.
OzoneR
@Trentrunner:
Because the Speaker of the House told him he can’t speak to the house on that day.
Evolved Deep Southerner
@mk3872: Yeah, but by then he was seen as a crazy-ass coot, blathering about some shadowy group Photoshopping his daughter’s face onto something or other, and Cubans hiding out behind his outbuilding. He was ridiculed by Jackie Fucking Mason on CNN for God’s sake. That FIRST election, though, his ass was a genuine spoiler. As for the Gore/Nader comparison, if Gore can’t overcome that shit relatively easily, well …
General Stuck
@ABL:
I see no reason why it can’t be both, and we might could throw in a Chernobyl just to be on the safe side.:)
Evolved Deep Southerner
@Anne Laurie: I have fallen into an elaborate trap, and feel foolish now.
Jenny
@Judas Escargot:
Just two weeks ago, folks were wringing their hands and going into a tizzy over the optics of his vacation and calling on him to stay home.
In the end, nobody cared that he went or where he went and the down time was filled with the earthquake, Libya, and the Hurricane.
And if that wasn’t enough, when he did come home early for the hurricane, he was criticized for over reacting.
No one even watches these debates.
The big fancy Fox News debate on August 12th only had 978K viewers. In fact, it was the lowest rated show Fox had that night by a whopping 50 percent.
On the other hand, the SOTU address in January had 42.8 million viewers and the Tucson memorial speech had 31 million viewers.
mk3872
@Jenny: I’ve heard that before but the data does not back it up.
Look at the party break-down of Perot’s votes at the bottom of the 1992 election Wiki here.
Average each of the 3 lines for Repubs & Dems who voted for Perot.
This is what you get: Perot drew 21% of the Repub vote and 14% of the Dem vote. That’s not equal, I’m sorry.
OzoneR
@Judas Escargot:
Yes, they control the House, Obama wants to speak to the House, that’s how it fucking works.
You want me to be frustrated over how our government functions, been there for a long time.
Gordon, The Big Express Engine
Since this is morphing into an open thread and I missed the climate change thread earlier, I spent the day with my family at the Birch Aquarium in La Jolla today and they have an in depth interactive exhibit on climate change and to say that it was a sobering experience would be a contender for understatement of the year. I guess I knew this already, but humanity is looking at two outcomes: Really F*cked and Only Slightly Less Really F*cked.
I had seen most of the material in one form or another before, but to have it presented all in the same place so clearly (not dumbed down mind you) was pretty staggering.
That being said, I highly recommend a visit!
mk3872
@Evolved Deep Southerner: No, the Nader comparison does not hold up to Perot’s impact.
Perot got 18% of the popular votes in 1992 and 8% in 1996.
Nader only accumulated 2.8M votes TOTAL.
The entire 2000 story is way too complex to debate here and, IMO, Nader is not of much consequence.
Mark S.
All I know is Obama’s lost my vote because of this.
You might win some BUT YOU JUST LOST ONE
Redshift
@jheartney:
No, it’s not at all inconceivable. There’s a bit of conventional wisdom that says that no incumbent president has been reelected when the unemployment rate is above X, where X is the number that happens to fit the extremely small set of data points where there was relatively high unemployment during a presidential election since we have had modern measures of unemployment. (And it’s always “since FDR,” because otherwise it wouldn’t be nice and simple.) Like most bits of conventional wisdom, this one is true until it’s wrong, not some iron rule.
It makes it tougher, no doubt, but that’s all.
SteveinSC
@OzoneR:
Try to think a bit deeper, you know closer to the main point, otherwise you get tonight’s award for “Intentionally Oblivious.” Why be so stupid as to schedule something that fucking begs boner to spit in your face because he has a fucking legitimate reason.
Kane
There is a silver lining to moving the speech to Thursday. President Obama can offer his speech prior to the NFL game. Every network will cover the speech, so all those people waiting for the game will actually see the speech. Sadly, there won’t be time for the Republican rebuttal before kick-off.
Judas Escargot
@OzoneR:
Then he shouldn’t have picked the fight in the first place.
butler
@mk3872: That doesn’t mean he was the deciding factor.
You can’t assume all those Perot voters would have come out without him, or assume that they all would have stayed true to their party lines. Furthermore, where he took support from is more important that his total amount of support, thanks to the electoral college.
ABL
@Mark S.: MARRY ME.
butler
@Kane: The speech is currently set for 830, which is kickoff time. He’s going up directly against the kick off of the NFL season. That’s a losing proposition for him.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@mk3872:
Almost 100,000 of those were in Florida. But it’s less about the vote than the constant drone of “Bore and Gush… not a dime’s worth of difference…” I’ll never believe that didn’t have an effect on the final, very close outcome.
Redshift
@mk3872:
Good thing we have elections by popular vote, and not some weird Electoral College thing, so all you need to judge the impact of a third-party candidate is their share of the vote…
ETA: FYWP — how does that multi-line blockquote thing work again?
ABL
I heard from someone on Twitter who was with someone who passed out at 31 flavors, but before he did, he said that his friend knows somebody who’s going steady with someone at Politico who reported that “Admin official says the date/time of Obama address was “cleared” with GOP before it went public.”
Did he cave or didn’t he cave, and if he didn’t cave, how much caving did he do?
We shouldn’t speculate, but it would be irresponsible not to.
Evolved Deep Southerner
@mk3872: @mk3872:
I think if you’ll look back, you’ll see that we’re arguing the same thing with regard to Nader. Perot was a helluva lot more of a factor than Nader ever has been, even in his weak/crazy/pathetic second run. And, like you, I thought about bringing up 2000 but decided not to wander into those weeds.
burnspbesq
@mk3872:
I’m guessing you’ve forgotten the CNN exit polling in Florida.
CNN asked Floridians who self-identified as having voted for Nader whether they would have voted for Bush or Gore if Nader hadn’t been in the race. The responses split better than five-to-one for Gore.
Over 92,000 Floridians voted for Nader.
Do the arithmetic.
mk3872
@burnspbesq: Well, see, that’s hard to believe/prove since the ballot counting was not accurate and was never corrected.
butler
@mk3872: You also appear to be making the mistake of looking at all the subgroups as if they are of equal size. Nader took a larger percentage of “liberal Republicans”, but even then they were only 2% of voters. He took just as many from the Dems biggest block as from the Reps biggest block, and less by percentage but more by aggregate from each groups smallest block (30% of 2%< 15% of 6%).
dww44
@Keith G: Wonder how Carney will spin this tomorrow? If you can’t win the small stuff, then you damn well can’t win the important stuff.
Redshift
In hindsight, I don’t really have any interest in having that argument again after all. Guess I picked the wrong night to
quit sniffing gluedrop on on BJ…OzoneR
@mk3872:
Like I’ve said over and over again, if only 10 percent of Nader’s voters voted for Gore, Gore would’ve easily won the presidency THAT night
OzoneR
@burnspbesq: New Hampshire too
Elie
@mk3872:
Her point was not based on the ballot count. The data was a an exit poll… different denominator…
Get it?
Evolved Deep Southerner
@Redshift: The Electoral College is a weird fucking anachronism, for sure. I think it should be abolished for Presidential elections. That’s not really the point. Even 8 percent of the vote going to Perot is statistically significant. Even Teddy Roosevelt spearheading the Bull Moose Party never got much in the way of electoral votes, but tell me it didn’t have an effect on that race
Hunter Gathers
@General Stuck: It’s his 1979 Iranian Hostage crisis, Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS and Tora Bora all rolled into one. I, for one, demand that the POTUS get into pissing contests that no one gives two flying fucks about. Now that he caved, I’m going to go dye my hair black, put on my emo pants and slit my wrists while listening to my Morrisey records.
mk3872
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Agreed. Liberal indifference that was ginned-up by Michael Moore and Bill Maher had more impact in 2000 than Nader being on the ballot in Florida.
Look, if Gore could have just won the stinkin’ state that he represented in Congress for years (TN) then none of the Florida craziness would have mattered!
Elie
@Redshift:
Yeah, there are a lot of those here (bad days to quit sniffing glue…)
Kane
@butler: Same Stein reports,
A White House official says “We won’t conflict with football,” meaning an early time frame for the speech.
OzoneR
@mk3872:
I’m sure liberal indifference is why he fucking lost Tennessee.
Elie
@mk3872:
True dat.
Sad…
mk3872
@dww44: Sorry, but when did the day of the week of a speech become a battle that needed to be won?
Cris (without an H)
Dammit ABL, you need to talk to Jakob Nielsen about what blue text means on the web. I’m always clicking your emphasized text and waiting for something to happen.
mk3872
@OzoneR: You have proof otherwise?
Elie
@Hunter Gathers:
LOl — needed that for sure
butler
@Kane: I hope that’s true. Both as a football fan and and Obama fan.
WyldPirate
@OzoneR:
No, you excuse making tool, what Boehner did was unprecedented.
From the NYT:
Cris (without an H)
@Kane: They ought to give Obama the halftime show.
Citizen Alan
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Yes, I’m sure it did. Such a pity the way Gore chose not to do anything to differentiate himself from Bush even after it was clear that the Republicrat meme was gaining traction. And such a greater pity Gore went so far as to run on a platform of being so embarrassed over Bill Clinton that he picked his ex-boss’s most fervent Democratic critic as his running mate.
WyldPirate
@OzoneR:
No, he lost in Tennessee because he was a legacy politician who people saw as not even being from the state anymore (which was basically true).
Then there is the fact that many Tennesseans are bat-shit crazy conservatives that couldn’t begin to tell you how government works other than a spittle-flecked repetition of some Rush Limpball’s sack off lies.
jheartney
@Redshift:
I’m guilty of hyperbole; I agree that the unemployment rate isn’t necessarily dispositive. But it does seem like both sides are pushing against really high barriers to victory. It remains to be seen which barrier will breach.
OzoneR
@WyldPirate:
LOL what does this have to do with what I said? Did you miss a Xanax dose today?
OzoneR
@SteveinSC:
Monday Morning Quarterbacking much? My guess is because he had ALREADY AGREED TO IT
Elie
@Citizen Alan:
You got both of those points down pat. The selection of the running mate was so so critical. I remember the VP debate and what a walk on that was for Cheney and how very disappointed I was…
I wonder how many fights he had with his advisers about the whole thing —
Then he capped it off by conceding without any fight or push back. Holly shit — it all floods back to me and turns my stomach.
OzoneR
@mk3872:
I don’t have to prove anything, but if I was to, I’d say the extremely small to nonexistent left wing base in the state is a good reason
Citizen Alan
@OzoneR:
And if he’d had enough brains to pick Bob Graham as his running mate instead of Holy Joe the AIPAC Ho, he’d have also won. Is there a point to this, other than using the 2000 election as a cudgel to enforce mindless fealty to the present leadership of the Democratic party?
KG
@mk3872: Or you know, the State that Bill Clinton was governor of before he became president…
As for Perot in ’92, 2/3 of his voters were Democrats or Independents. All of the evidence we have suggests that he pulled evenly from both Bush and Clinton.
WyldPirate
@Elie:
Funny how the same shit from the current occupant of the Oval Office doesn’t turn your stomach now.
hamletta
@Cris (without an H): Your point stopped being relevant around 1998. Nobody needs to listen to Jakob Nielsen. About anything.
Mark S.
I’m tired of these people with their motherfucking snakes trying to board the motherfucking plane.
Seriously, how do you fit seven snakes and three tortoises in your pants? Were they baby tortoises?
OzoneR
@Citizen Alan:
If the Democrats had nominated Bob Graham, they would’ve won, or if Bill Clinton could run for a third term, we can do through this all day. I didn’t start the conversation, I just interjected.
Hill Dweller
It is hard for me to believe the WH didn’t have an agreement with Boehner before going public.
The problem is Boehner doesn’t run the show. Once the impotent fat man on the radio started whining, he got cold feet and backed out.
Elie
@WyldPirate:
Ah c’mon.
I don’t think its quite the same thing but if you have to kick me, kick me.
I am very tired of all of this from all sides.
BTW — you had some new/good happenings lately didnt you? Hope things are going well.
danimal
Well, if this isn’t the best example of Team Red/Team Blue bullshit, I don’t know what is. Anyone who changes their vote based on this kind of alpha dog heuristic is probably not worth the trouble. Presidential speeches don’t matter much at all in the grand scheme of things; a tussle over the date of the speech is really, truly inconsequential.
BTW, I thought scheduling the speech concurrent with the GOP debate was rude; perhaps the White House figured they didn’t have the high ground on this fight. A tempest in a teapot.
Xenos
If Boehner dicked around, allowed for one night, then realized that he made a mistake and then insisted that Obama change the date, he ought to apologize. If he can’t bear to apologize, give the speech to the Senate only. Let the petulance of that idiot be part of the news story.
aisce
i can’t believe anybody genuinely gives a shit about what day some speech is given. that couldn’t possibly matter less in any way.
now, the fact that even setting the speech schedule is now impossible with acrimony, underhandedness and pointless sabotage on the part of republicans should pretty well foreclose on the possibility of productive work on employment legislation…well, that is the story.
but that one has little to do with internet shut-ins judging a certain president’s testicular fortitude, so i’ll chalk that up to another lost cause.
Elie
I wish this hadn’t happened.
Yes, in some ways its not a “big deal”.
For Obama’s leftie critics, this is another example of his “weakness”.
For me, I would have preferred not having this happen after such a horrible year — almost as bad as the year I am having personally, but I digress.
Hell, for those of you who want to rub my nose and the noses of other general Obama supporters, have fun. Great way to win folks over to your side. What, wait — that’s not your goal? What IS your goal? Woops, glad that the President had a bad visual so that I can cheer? Glad that Boehner is an dick so he can show this n—–r up? What?!! Why do so many of you celebrate his/our adversity? I just can’t come to grips with how off that feels.
There are some critics who are genuine and do not have other resentments snd perhaps loyalties. There are others however who need to just stop and take stock of what your goals really are. If you are celebrating right now, and are not a secret ratfucker, what are you doing and why does it feel “good” for you?
stickler
I’m also sure that this speech-date-dance is going to be irrelevant in the long term.
But it sure as hell looks to me like one more “drip” in a “drip-drip-drip” pattern from Team O. Josh Marshall’s “Bitch-slap politics” thesis is right on the money, as far as I’m concerned.
You want to fire up your base? Give them a sense that you’re kicking ass and taking names. Is this childish and immature and little boys looking for some dick-waving?
Yes. Yes, it is. And it’s also how politics is played in this deeply imperfect Republic.
Groucho48
From my understanding, there is usually quite a bit more notice and prep time for a Joint Address. Sounds like the Obama Administration contacted Boehner in the morning, didn’t get a definite “no” and announced the Address for Wednesday.
I assume most of the House is still out of town and Boehner spent most of the day on the golf course, then retired to a Happy Hour somewhere.
Now, somewhere in there, Boehner began to have second thoughts about the date. Might be because it conflicted with the Republican debate, might be because of the reasons he stated…it would be a huge logistical problem for Weds. Might be both. Might be just the usual Republican instinct to say “no” to everything Obama suggests.
In any event, I think the WH messed up by contacting Boehner in the morning and making the announcement in the afternoon without definite written confirmation from him. Without that, Boehner was in the driver’s seat. The WH did the smart move by immediately accepting Thursday and poking fun at Boehner while claiming it was no big deal in the first place. Which, in reality, it isn’t.
WyldPirate
@OzoneR:
I love the selective reading by you Obamabot buffoons.
You were bitching way upthread that Obama had to clear a Joint session of Congress with the House and you said “that’s how our government works.
I posted in response with a quote from the NYT that had the Senate historian saying that Boehner refusing Obama’s proposed address was unprecedented.
Keep on tossing those red herrings out and flaming strawmen you excuse-making piece of dung.
Cliff
There are those who say that we should root for a sane Republican to win the primary, because all that matters in a general election is the economy and if it’s in the tank, we want Generalissimo Romney not Generalissimo Perry to become president.
I like to call those people “fucking morons.”
cat48
@Hill Dweller:
On Twitter, Norah ODonnell said that Bill Daley called Boner’s Office & got the speech ok’d & said they would send a letter.
They sent the ltr & Boner went public stating that he didn’t know anything about it until he rec’d the letter from O; which was a lie. Guess Massa Limbaugh was upset w/Boner & told him to tell Obama no.???
This is the Grand Bargain all over again! Say yes & then say No & say Obama tricked you. He’s one crazy fucker that I would never, never trust again b/c he obviously has to ask permission from whoever???
Edit: Daley called at 10:30a.m. today & spoke with aide.
Spaghetti Lee
A month from now, I’m going to come in and say “Remember when Obama moved his jobs speech to Thursday?” and see who knows what I’m talking about.
fleeting expletive
Day of giving a speech: equals big fucking deal. True enough.
Political insiders think this is “caving”.
And this matters, why?
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
Obviously, Speaker Boehner sandbagged President Obama by agreeing to the time in private, and then reneging in public. That’s not the point. The point is how President Obama makes Speaker Boehner accountable for his reprehensible and disrespectful behavior. President Obama is 100 percent in the right on this matter, and should therefore drop the hammer on the Speaker’s forehead.
.
.
ABL
@Cris (without an H): WP is bollocks. i fixed the link in my comment above.
as a general matter: i’ve said soooooooo many times that i cut the html from my blog and dump it here. cole’s H4 settings are different than mine.
i weep that i inconvenience so many of you so greatly.
Spaghetti Lee
I mean seriously, this is all such Villagey crap. Mo Dowd and Ben Smith and the rest of the courtesans are all going to be talking tomorrow about how weak this makes Obama look, using language similar to the worrywarts in this thread.
ABL
@Mark S.: i am undone.
ABL
I tip my hat to you, Doug.
This comment thread is fucking hilarious.
ETA: Except the post wasn’t even about the ZOMG!! SCHEDULE CHANGE!!!11one. Aw hell, I tip my hat to you anyway.
WyldPirate
@Elie:
yeah, you’re right, Elie. I probably shouldn’t have went there with you. I get frustrated with Obama a lot because I think his “nice guy” approach isn’t working too well and that it is going to hurt him in the long run.
Despite my harsh criticism of Obama, I want to see him back even though I don’t like most of his foreign policy at all and abhor the fact that he called off the Spanish judiciary in their quest to indicate Bush, cheney and the others. That makes me ill as well.
But Obama is a far better choice than anyone in the Dem ranks now or on the horizon. I want to see him stand up to the people that are hell bent on destroying the country. Someone has to or they will succeed.
I appreciate the kind thoughts about my changed situation. Things are going real well; better than they have been in years.. It’s nice to have something to look forward to in life and to feel like I am helping others .
Yutsano
@ABL:
And since when has that stopped this blog commentariat? There was yet another Obama sell-out woman! TEH PANIC, IT MUST BE SCREAMED!!
Elie
@WyldPirate:
To me, that is what life is about — for real…:-) Lucky Lucky
I hope the fates will change for me before long but in any case, will still be working my volunteer enviro issues and working with my folks here and seeing progress (20 chum salmon returned this year for first time!) after 8 years or so, makes it worth it.
I pray for him and us. Its easy to get frustrated.
ABL
@Yutsano: Oh, I’m panicking my ass off. You already took your cyanide pill, right?
IT’S OVAH.
Anne Laurie
@Mark S.:
I’m guessing those 80s’ M.C. Hammer pseudo-arabian pants with the knee-deep crotch and the cinched cuffs?
Jenny
Obviously Obama created this distraction to deflate the building blog momentum to block the Keystone pipeline.
Unfortunately, blogs are their own worst enemies. They swallowed the bait and they’ve taken their eyes off the pipeline prize.
Well played, Mauer.
srv
Drat. I have to be nice to Mr. Fallows now.
Yutsano
@Jenny:
I’d call this a sin but I LOLed too hard.
Elie
@Anne Laurie:
and a metal cup….(to prevent ‘fang penetration’
just sayin…
boss bitch
@dww44:
The reason why Obama has such an impressive list of accomplishments is because he knows when to let the small stuff go.
gah!
B W Smith
@WyldPirate: At the risk of being called an Obamabot buffoon, I read your original posting re: this being unprecedented and thought you might be confused. It is my understanding that the way speeches before joint sessions work is that the president does have to request an invite. Due to the separation of powers, the president can’t just show up and say I’m here to speak. The part that is unprecedented is Boner’s public refusal. Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, maybe you could explain it.
Yutsano
@ABL: Teh deaths, they shall indeed be glorious. We’re talking like Klingon level here.
Check Book of Faces. And dare to tell me I’m wrong.
Upper West
@mk3872: Not the case. Perot voters were about split between Clinton and Bush — they would have had to have been overwhelmingly for Bush to overcome Clinton 6 pt. margin.
Elie
@Jenny:
this is pretty funny Jenny. Nicely done
Joel
Something happened today?
Steeplejack
@Redshift:
Like this:
Jenny
@Joel: Yup. In an obvious corporatist move Obama blocked the merger of ATT and T-Mobile.
WyldPirate
@B W Smith:
I didn’t mean to imply that Obama could just “show up”.
I had the same understanding that you did–the Prez asks for the invite and ALWAYS gets it. The quibbling and whining by Boehner iswhat I thought–and the Senate historian in the linked NYTimes article confirmed-was unprecedented.
Presidents shouldn’t get dissed like that. They don’t speak before Joint sessions that often. When they do, it isn’t over some trivial matter (which this isn’t). The Congress makes the accommodations as a matter of course. It should particularly be the case in this situation as they are just reconvening and have no pressing business.
B W Smith
@WyldPirate: Thank you. I see we are on the same page here regarding this issue. If the administration plays this correctly (big if, I know), the whole situation makes Boehner and the Repubs look even worse. A legitimate press would point out how disrespectful this is. But I’m not expecting that.
Ripley
@Joel:
It’s over, didn’t you hear?
Bago
They see me postinn, they hatin,
They wonder how I login and can still be friggin postin!
Nerdy.
Building the cadence of this post took waaaay too long.
CAfan
In 2008 Obama won on his merits, but McCain was a weak Republican nominee. That helped Obama win.
SixStringFanatic
I just want to know how it is that some of you can stand the odor of constantly pissed pants.
Alex
Obama scheduled the speech for Wednesday as soon as the House was back in session. From Boehner’s letter, the House wasn’t going to be in session until 6:30. I guess he could have moved it up, but I believe there are formalities to get the House session started (roll call and stuff?).
The debate might have something to do with it — but concentrating on that kind of ignores that Obama wanted to give a speech on jobs as soon as the House was back in session. He could only have moved the speech forward by 90 minutes.
Steeplejack
This will spread peace upon the waters: Joe Jackson, “You Can’t Get What You Want (Till You Know What You Want).”
Odie Hugh Manatee
So what is the theme that the Chicken Littles of the Left are running with today? Obama is weak for letting Boner force him to change the date of the speech?
Ok, just wanted to make sure I had the manic progressive ‘theme’ of the day right.
Anya
As one of the dewy-eyed Obot koolaid drinkers, I promise to get really upset if someone tells me what can Team Obama do to counter Boehner’s dickish move. Once I know, I promise to dial up the panic to eleventy billion.
Jc
This again looks like a cave – but it’s more of dirty pool by Rethugs.
I doubt Obama had much to do with it -Daley got played, certainly Obama wasn’t involved in the scheduling.
It’s unprecedented for Boehner to say ‘ok’, and then refuse.
But I also doubt there has been a republican primary presidential debate held at the same time as an address to Congress.
I hope Daeley gets wise to these guys. They are out toscrew you
Mike D.
Seems to me Boehner is not going to be a popular man in that Chamber, should the president (not to mention any rebuttal) happen to run just slightly into football hour. Not that that counts for much, but I certainly expect POTUS to be able to make a bit of good-natured hay out of the question of why it is exactly that everyone has to be convened to listen to him on these important questions rather than holed up at a fine drinking establishment preparing to watch my Packers dismantle the Aints’ swiss cheese defense.
Chris
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Back in the 2008 election cycle, when I was still a political noob, I was actually interested in McCain because I’d heard his reputation was that of a moderate, and I thought it might be good to have a Gooper president who could put them on a course back to sanity, or at least stop their slide into insanity.
Of course, that hope died a quick death when I watched the actual campaign and realized that no matter what McCain actually believed, he’d have to make so many concessions to the far right in order to govern that you might as well just put a far-righter in the White House. (Choosing Palin was the last nail in the coffin, but very far from the first).
Same’s true of Romney and virtually every “moderate” running around these days.
Chris
@Zach:
Wait – Goldwater’s disaster led Buckley to clean the party of nuts? I thought Goldwater was pretty much in line with the New Conservative movement Buckley started in the fifties.
Chris
@mk3872:
I remember reading that Perot actually took equally from Democrats, Republicans and independents. Which would suggest Clinton would’ve done well regardless.
Dennis SGMM
To me, scheduling the speech in conflict with the Republican debate was a wrongheaded move. If Bush had tried to schedule an address to a joint session of Congress at the same time as an early-days Democratic debate the outrage would be palpable and justified.
Changing the date of the speech doesn’t suggest to me that Obama caved. It does suggest that someone on his staff should be fucking fired for giving the Republicans a legitimate excuse to slap Obama in the face. The argument that the Republicans’ move was unprecedented ignores the fact that, as laughable as the debates are to us, they are a Big Deal for Republicans.
Obama faces a difficult-to-impossible road to re-election. Easily avoidable blunders are not going to help him.
slightly-peeved
This change of speech date is clearly a continuance of Obama’s previous tactics. It will be no surprise if it increases the popularity gap between him and Mr tangerine man.
TenguPhule
Dropping a Horse Head in his bed.
TenguPhule
No no no. We’re looking for dick *CHOPPING*. I want to see Republican cocks flying free and clear into a pile to be fed to wild hogs while their former owners watch.
Halcyan
@ABL:
Good to see you, girl.
priscianusjr
@Trentrunner:
Halcyan
@OzoneR:
Ok, here it is, for reals. Obama is trying to publicize the Republican debates. He wants people to know what night they are on, because he wants people to watch them. If you were the Dem candidate this year, wouldn’t YOU want America to see what the Repubs are putting up for their candidates?
priscianusjr
@Keith G:
Donut
There is, apparently, an apropos Lou Reed phrase available for every blogging occasion.
Omnes Omnibus
@Donut: Between Lou Reed, Elvis Costello, and the Clash pretty much everything is covered.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@aisce:
The looming Goodhairpocalypse has many a firebagger pantie in a twist. Desperation among their crowd does seem to be running high these days.
sherparick
Truman beating Dewey in 1948. Although we now think of the whole post WWII period as economic nirvana, the economy had a rough go of it during the post WWII adjustment with inflation and then a recession in ’48. Then the Democratic Party fragmented with the Firebaggers of the day (Henry Wallace) going one way and the Confederacy Party going the other (Strom Thurmond) because the majority of Democrats were coming around to the idea that Blacks needed be treated like human beings. Truman was considered dead President walking.
But Tom Dewey proved so unpopular that he ended up winning. Of course, the press was actually about informing the people in those days, and one journalist in a piece, describing the Dewey train pulling out from some small town train station, wrote, “and the train pulled out with a little jerk.”
jefft452
“Democrats have never won a presidential election because of a weak Republican nominee before”
AuH20
mk3872
“There you go again”
St Ronnie walked it back, to the point of accusing D’s of being crazy for daring to suggest that St Ronnie was anything less then the New Deal’s greatest defender
Can you see Perry doing that?
Oh bullshit,
Bush got the lowest percent of the popular vote of any incumbent in history
That happens when people want to dump the incumbent, not because of 3rd party runs
jefft452
sherparick
Dewey is a better example then AuH2O
Also, too
Republican crackpots running Congress ’46-’48 trying to dismantle the New Deal
Scott P.
He got 11 times as many EV as the Republican.
That’s because Perot campaigned nationwide. Nader avoided liberal states and campaigned mainly in swing states so he could swing the election to Bush with the least expenditure of effort.
forked tongue
Gerald Ford would probably be flattered to hear that, except he’s dead.
forked tongue
Not Goldwater. LBJ would have been pretty unstoppable no matter who his opponent was.
chopper
@WyldPirate:
and once you figure out that the latter has fuck-all to do with the former, you can come back and join the adult table.
Bob L
@mk3872
I guess that kind of made Bush I weak, doesn’t it? I mean his own freaking party splits under him. Or we “liberals” now pushing the god damned Right lie that Clinton was a cheater?
chopper
@Bob L:
exactly. if perot siphoned conservative votes from bush I, then bush was, pretty much by definition, a weak republican candidate, right?
xian
Statistically, Perot didn’t throw the election to Bush, but dynamically his dropping out and getting back in both advantaged Clinton.
Svensker
@Bob L:
:
A Republican at the time, I remember being totally dismayed at how uninterested Bush I seemed in being re-elected. He just wasn’t into it and his campaign stank. He never was a particularly principled pol anyway (Mr. Pragmatic Centrist) so the base wasn’t fired up to start with, but I clearly remember his lackluster performance being very disheartening. If he didn’t care, why should other anyone else?
Brachiator
Goddam, this is some stupid ass thinking. So far, both of these nimrods are useless. But Romney would be a total disaster. His supposed knowledge of economic matters is smoke and mirrors. And all GOP candidates are going to be singing from the Republic hymn book, and Romney has shown nothing to indicate that he could stand up to the worst of these weasels.
Worse, my gut tells me that Romney is both a coward and a bully. And the economy is not the only problem in the world. Mittens strikes me as the kind of sniveling shit who would start World War III just to prove he had balls.
mattski
(Mostly unrelated to the topic at hand)
Sometimes I feel so happy
But mostly you just make me mad
Baby you just make me mad
Linger on, your pale blue eyes
Linger on, your pale blue eyes
Dougj – Stay out of my college CD Collection!!! 1st Bob Dylan and now the Underground. When Can i expect some Talking heads?
Fred Fnord
@jefft452:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Clinton got the lowest percentage of the popular vote of anyone elected president in modern times, too. So that’s perhaps a silly benchmark.
DougW
At this point, there is no Republican candidate that can beat Obama. Their own now non-moderate Republican party candidates are toast. From their own toaster.
jefft452
Fred Fnord
“Clinton got the lowest percentage of the popular vote of anyone elected president in modern times, too”
Clinton wasn’t the sitting President at the time
Bush 1 didn’t break 40%
That amount of fail has only happened to chalangers 4 times in history, and those 4 challengers are rightfully mocked as losers
Bush 1 was the only incumbent to loose that badly
Marginalized for stating documented facts
Obvious nonsense. Don’t any of you remember Bob Dole?
Once again, clearly and provably untrue. Ronald Reagan said both those things about Social Security. Moreover, Reagan described Medicare as “the anthill of tyranny” that would “destroy America” in a famous speech in 1964.
None of you seem to remember the last 45 years of American politics.