• Comment (41)

Squabble Over Timing of Obama's Jobs Speech Is Embarrassing

September 1, 2011 RSS Feed Print

There is really only one word to sum up the recent dispute between the White House and congressional Republicans over when to hear the president talk about creating jobs:

Really?

The whole episode is so embarrassing, on so many levels. President Obama, who for weeks has been promising a major speech on ways to create jobs, sent what is normally a perfunctory request to Congress, asking to be hosted on the Wednesday after Labor Day. [See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

House Speaker John Boehner said no. Really. This was the first time in history that a Speaker has rejected a presidential request to speak to Congress. Perhaps it's not so surprising; there have already been signals that some Republicans either don't think Obama is legitimately the president, or for some reason, don't think they have to treat him as the president. Boehner failed to return a call from the president during the debt ceiling debate. A Republican at the healthcare talks at Blair House complained that the Democrats were bring given more time to yammer on than the GOP; in reality, the time was virtually equal between the two parties' congressional representatives. It was the president's remarks that added to the "D" column—and the Republican member seemed to think Obama should be on the same level as members of Congress. Then, there are those who still can't accept that Obama is a real American, convinced he began an elaborate scheme, from birth, to wrongly claim U.S. citizenship.

Boehner said he was concerned that the logistics would be too disruptive to House members, who don't absolutely have to be back in Washington until Wednesday evening. Really? Most of us are back at work the Tuesday morning after Labor Day—not counting those who have to work on the Monday holiday. A Republican National Committee spokeswoman accused the president of playing politics by trying the steal the limelight from GOP presidential candidates set to hold a debate that night. The "really?" question isn't even about whether the Democratic incumbent might not mind big-footing the debate. The disbelief here comes from the fact that the RNC thinks people were going to be glued to the TV, anyway, to watch the debate. This is not to say the debate isn't valuable, or important. But for most Americans, the value will be in seeing video clips or news stories on something bizarre or creative or otherwise newsworthy said by one of the candidates. The American public isn't paying much attention to the primary contest right now. Probably half of the current candidates will have dropped out of the race by the time most Americans go to vote in the primaries. And it's not as though it's a debate in New Hampshire or Iowa, right ahead of those states' early contests. [See a collection of political cartoons on the 2012 GOP hopefuls.]

Obama caved (really), agreeing to deliver the speech on Thursday, opening night for the NFL season. Again, it's unclear how many people feel genuinely torn over which event to watch. But there is one truth from this: the American people, suffering from unemployment rates of more than 9 percent, would prefer to see their elected officials spend their intellectual energy on job creation instead of internal power plays. Really.

Tags:
Congress,
John Boehner,
2012 presidential election,
unemployment,
Barack Obama,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (41)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Many people are buzzing about an article at truthout.org by one Mike Lofgren, a longtime Republican staff aide on Capitol Hill who just couldn’t take the crazy anymore, left his job, and produced this buzzy (and quite well-written) lamentation about his party’s tactics and goals. If you haven’t read it, you must

The Lofgren piece is full of harsh observations and accusations, but here’s just a little sampling:

• The debt-ceiling debate was an act of “political terrorism,” in which the GOP concocted a crisis and used it to ensure that the party's unprecedented demands were met. He writes: “Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care.”

• The August FAA reauthorization fight was another instance such of hostage-taking: “Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers, and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay for their own work-related travel—how prudent is that?—in order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization.”

• The GOP plan to discredit government in the people’s eyes is very conscious: “A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.”

• As for belief as opposed to tactics, the party basically really cares only about the rich. Actually, Lofgren doesn’t say “basically.” He says “solely and exclusively.” And he explains how they’ve camouflaged this with talk of protecting small businesses and so on.

There is much, much more. He’s not very happy either about his party’s militarism, its cynical use of religion, its total opposition to doing anything about the environment, and other matters, but most

programs so they will be there in the future."

Eggman of CO 7:02PM September 06, 2011

Susan Milligan is an embarrasment to USN&WR...

But that's for USN&WR to worry about.

Any opinion blogger think of this:

Speeches are subject to revision up until practically the time they are delivered. My opinion is that the White House wanted to put out a test feeler a week in advance to see if Obama was able to pull off dominant-hamster, and get others to accomodate him. They found out he wasn't and couldn't.

And that's because nobody really bought the White House bull about them being unaware or unconcerned about the previously-scheduled republican debate.

That has implications for tone and content of his speech. The speech some* will hear from now non-dominant-hamster Obama at the new agreed-upon date and time will be considerably different than the speech a dominant-hamster Obama WOULD have given at his originally-requested time.

Plouffe is frantic with Obama given Obama's sinking polling numbers. He has to continuously determine and redetermine faster than a Borg can remodulate its shields how Obama should portray himself -- forcefully/conciliatorily -- and Plouffe needs to synch that with public perception of Obama. Otherwise, Obama looks even worse.

The long and short of it: Five bucks says Plouffe advised Obama to step on the republican debate and try and get the House to snap-to, to see how that would go over.

After two and a half years of Plouffe and Axelrod image-shaping of Obama, you'd think more would catch on to the constant behind-the-story machinations of the White House. They've totally lost all the positive inferences of what president Obama would be like given previous Candidate and Senator Obama -- because of the actions of President Obama -- and have to scramble to keep declining perceptions from unravelling any further.

Good luck with that one.

------

*Footnote: I said some will hear Obama's speech. I won't waste my real-time on it. I'll link up to that information superhighway everyone is talking sometime about after the speech, and read the full transcript.

I can read a lot faster than Obama can yammer.

dom youngross of OH 6:34PM September 06, 2011

Sentinel of CO

Looks like obama could have his own Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Watergate going on.

Blame anyone but obama. But I believe in Ghandi...

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Bill Hedges of MO 10:04PM September 05, 2011

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan

Susan Milligan is a political and foreign affairs writer and contributed to a biography of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, "Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy." Follow her on Twitter @MilliganSusan.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement