This whole incident is curious in the extreme. As an attempt at a power-play, it's remarkably amateurish, even juvenile. I mean, the President is trying to inconvenience who, exactly? Bachmann? Newt? Ron Paul? Is this the level he wishes to engage on?
It's almost as if the more politically savvy Clintonites are quietly feeding him the idea that these missteps will make him look, in fact, powerful -- only to watch the hapless amateur stumble into yet more situations that make him look weak, confused, lost in the deep waters of Washington.
I ask again: As a power-play, what does this possibly gain the President? It distracts a populace hardly in tune with the upcoming presidential race from watching Perry and Romney debate a bunch of second-tier candidates? Really? Is that the brilliant strategy dreamed up between ice cream and pie on the Vineyard?
Boehner handled it perfectly. He didn't mention the debate and he came up with perfectly reasonable points to move the speech (only) one day.
Yes, this "play" was rank amateur hour. Either they are really stupid, just juvenile or too clever by half. But this is par for the course with this crowd, no?
Why exactly does he need to speak to a joint session in the first place? This was clearly an attempt to kick-off his reelection campaign using the congressional setting.
Besides, when in comes to the economy and jobs, this administration suffers from a Keynsian-induced coma...
Sorry, but Boehner was the a-hole on this one. The WH did consult with him first: External Link This is incredibly petty and will only serve to make the GOP look more ridiculous.
Spox: Boehner Did Not Sign Off On WH Jobs Speech Date
From Speaker Boehner's press secretary Brendan Buck: "No one in the Speaker's office -- not the Speaker, not any staff -- signed off on the date the White House announced today. Unfortunately we weren't even asked if that date worked for the House. Shortly before it arrived this morning, we were simply informed that a letter was coming. It's unfortunate the White House ignored decades -- if not centuries -- of the protocol of working out a mutually agreeable date and time before making any public announcement."
NPR reported (or strongly implied) that Obama's staff had reached out to Boehner prior and had an informal "ok". They did not go into more detail but again, strongly implied, that Boehner was thus reneging on at least a reasonable understanding from the WH's perspective.
1) So someone at the WH *told* NPR that this was the case. So what? Do you think NPR made any effort to confirm the story? Do you think this WH is incapable of lying to give itself political cover?
2) The Speaker would not have agreed to a speech date the conflicted with the debate, period. Maybe the WH "reached out" to the leaership on the idea of the Joint Session (for which there is no particular need other than providing a better backdrop for this campaign-launch event) but there is no way they got a prior agreement on the date.
The inexperienced WH staff (and their Maximum Leader) continue to flunk Government 101, and continue to act like petulant children when called out on it.
Who on earth is going to watch his speech? It's not as if he has new rabbits to pull out of his hat. I've seen the tax credit for new hires floated (again), a concept that reveals the depth of the administration's ignorance about what makes a robust economy. My husband is not hiring because he does not have customers for projects larger than he can handle on his own, and he won't hire until he does.
I don't think the break with normal practice was an accident. EVERYTHING this administration does it does with one eye on November 2012.
The President probably assumed that the Speakr would either fold, thus wrong-footing the GOP debate people, or reject the joint session entirely. This would allow Obama to attack the Republicans for snubbing him, disrepecting the office, and taking an "unprecedented" action in doing so. (Heavy subtext - "Those racist tea b*ggers would never do this to a white president.") He probably saw it as "heads I win, tails you lose". deal.
Boehner should have told Obama that if he wants that evening for a speech, its fine with him. Then all the Republicans skip the joint sessions speech citing "prior commitments."
This whole incident is curious in the extreme. As an attempt at a power-play, it's remarkably amateurish, even juvenile. I mean, the President is trying to inconvenience who, exactly? Bachmann? Newt? Ron Paul? Is this the level he wishes to engage on?
It's almost as if the more politically savvy Clintonites are quietly feeding him the idea that these missteps will make him look, in fact, powerful -- only to watch the hapless amateur stumble into yet more situations that make him look weak, confused, lost in the deep waters of Washington.
I ask again: As a power-play, what does this possibly gain the President? It distracts a populace hardly in tune with the upcoming presidential race from watching Perry and Romney debate a bunch of second-tier candidates? Really? Is that the brilliant strategy dreamed up between ice cream and pie on the Vineyard?
Good gracious!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust tell him no.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoehner handled it perfectly. He didn't mention the debate and he came up with perfectly reasonable points to move the speech (only) one day.
Yes, this "play" was rank amateur hour. Either they are really stupid, just juvenile or too clever by half. But this is par for the course with this crowd, no?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy exactly does he need to speak to a joint session in the first place? This was clearly an attempt to kick-off his reelection campaign using the congressional setting.
Besides, when in comes to the economy and jobs, this administration suffers from a Keynsian-induced coma...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, but Boehner was the a-hole on this one. The WH did consult with him first: External Link
This is incredibly petty and will only serve to make the GOP look more ridiculous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom the same link you provided:
Spox: Boehner Did Not Sign Off On WH Jobs Speech Date
From Speaker Boehner's press secretary Brendan Buck: "No one in the Speaker's office -- not the Speaker, not any staff -- signed off on the date the White House announced today. Unfortunately we weren't even asked if that date worked for the House. Shortly before it arrived this morning, we were simply informed that a letter was coming. It's unfortunate the White House ignored decades -- if not centuries -- of the protocol of working out a mutually agreeable date and time before making any public announcement."
Nice try...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSome outlets are reporting that Obama DID consult with Boehner first and Boehner had no objections to the date.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresident Massive Genius never misses a chance to act like a jerk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNPR reported (or strongly implied) that Obama's staff had reached out to Boehner prior and had an informal "ok". They did not go into more detail but again, strongly implied, that Boehner was thus reneging on at least a reasonable understanding from the WH's perspective.
*If* so, this feels like a West Wing episode.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1) So someone at the WH *told* NPR that this was the case. So what? Do you think NPR made any effort to confirm the story? Do you think this WH is incapable of lying to give itself political cover?
2) The Speaker would not have agreed to a speech date the conflicted with the debate, period. Maybe the WH "reached out" to the leaership on the idea of the Joint Session (for which there is no particular need other than providing a better backdrop for this campaign-launch event) but there is no way they got a prior agreement on the date.
The inexperienced WH staff (and their Maximum Leader) continue to flunk Government 101, and continue to act like petulant children when called out on it.
Regards,
Joe
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCourtesy from obama or his minions? Have you been asleep for 2 and 3/4 years?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat, Barry preemptes tv for another boring speech.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho on earth is going to watch his speech? It's not as if he has new rabbits to pull out of his hat. I've seen the tax credit for new hires floated (again), a concept that reveals the depth of the administration's ignorance about what makes a robust economy. My husband is not hiring because he does not have customers for projects larger than he can handle on his own, and he won't hire until he does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think the break with normal practice was an accident. EVERYTHING this administration does it does with one eye on November 2012.
The President probably assumed that the Speakr would either fold, thus wrong-footing the GOP debate people, or reject the joint session entirely. This would allow Obama to attack the Republicans for snubbing him, disrepecting the office, and taking an "unprecedented" action in doing so. (Heavy subtext - "Those racist tea b*ggers would never do this to a white president.") He probably saw it as "heads I win, tails you lose". deal.
The Speaker has proven him wrong.
Later,
Joe
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoehner should have told Obama that if he wants that evening for a speech, its fine with him. Then all the Republicans skip the joint sessions speech citing "prior commitments."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse