Let me get this straight. President says, "I'd like to give a speech on jobs to a joint session of

[EffieBlack]

Congress on Wednesday." Boehner says, "Wednesday's not a good night so I respectfully invite you to come on Thursday instead." President says, "Ok."

And THIS has caused a virtual meltdown on DU - PRESIDENT CAVES!!! DISASTER!!! OBAMA'S A WIMP!!! I'M SO ASHAMED TO BE A DEMOCRAT! WE'RE DOOMED!!!

I don't get it. Did Boehner stop the President from giving his speech? If the President had insisted on giving his speech on Wednesday, could he have just walked up there and forced his way into the House chamber and started talking? Will the fact that the speech is taking place on Thursday instead of Wednesday weaken the President's jobs plan?

Why all of the hand-wringing and condemnation?

I think this is all ridiculous.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Do you think the WH and Boehner discussed this beforehand?

I suspect they did.

[vaberella]

26. What's your point? n/t

[applegrove]

3. I think we were all pleased to see the President stick something into Boehner that

we lost sight of what was really important. It was nice for a moment to think Obama was thumbing his nose at those assholes.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. He was, and then he backed down the second the assholes challenged him on it

It's not like the people at the White House are total morons who didn't know that the GOP would be upset about this...

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Traditionally the President isn't turned down to address a joint session

Granted, I'm not sure a President has ever tried to schedule a joint session during a televised debate of the opposition party's candidates, while the opposition party controls congress.

Regardless, the people who work at the White House aren't stupid. They didn't schedule the address coincidentally. They scheduled it to try and upstage the Republicans. And then the second the Republicans call them on it, they back down. My question is why the fuck did they schedule it that night in the first place.

[EffieBlack]

9. How did they "back down?"

How was the President to force the House and Senate to invite him to speak to them on a night they didn't want him to? What exactly was he supposed to do to make this happen?

[Llewlladdwr]

52. Why announce anything about timing until it was confirmed?

This was a totally self-inflicted wound on the Administration's part.

[woolldog]

22. The opposition party doesn't control congress.

They control one house, although it sometimes feels like they control all 3 branches of government so I get where you're coming from.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. They control enough to hold all of the cards on this matter

Both houses have to approve the resolution to invite the President. If one doesn't agree then the President doesn't speak.

[woolldog]

34. He can still speak.

If he had a pair he'd speak from the oval office at that date and time.

But he won't. Because he doesn't. Which is why the GOP was emboldened enough to say no to the President's request, when saying no is really quite unprecedented historically. They see him as weak and as a consequence walk all over him.

[EffieBlack]

35. What is so sacrosanct about that date and time?

He's speaking less than 24 hours later, so what's the big deal about that night at that time?

The Republicans didn't say no to his request. They said no to a date.

And if he DID decide to speak from the Oval Office - a strange place for a president to unveil proposed legislation - people would criticize him for "caving" into the Republicans by not giving his speech to a Joint Session of Congress as he originally wanted.

This whole debate is stupid. He's giving his speech where he wants to give it within 24 hours of when he originally wanted to give it. Enough already!

[Whisp]

38. if no couth, at least have some respect for the President.

how dare you demean him like that

[woolldog]

40. He demeans himself. nt

[Whisp]

51. according to you. but you are wrong. n/t

[pnorman]

41. I'm still trying to Google what the US Constitution says about this situation..

But AFIK, the Senate is present at a "Joint Session" as "guests" of Congress. I won't try to micromanage Obama, and will accept his best judgment here. But I sincerely HOPE that he'll make a passing reference to the mean-spirited childishness OF Boner et al!

[EffieBlack]

42. They joint session is just that - a joint meeting of the House and Senate

But because they meet in the House chamber (the Senate's isn't big enough), the Senators have to be invited into the venue. Sort of like if we all belong to a book club and we're meeting at my house - I still need to invite you to come in to my home, notwithstanding we're all members of the club . . .

It's a fine point, I know - all about the real estate . . .

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Tell me when was the last time, in US History,

that this happened?

If you do not understand the level of protocol breaking here, I can't really help you... but this is at the very last about an absolute DISRESPECT for the OFFICE as long as a democrat is in charge.

No, I do not expect those for whom the President could do no wrong to get this... but those of us with knowledge of US History... this is not a good thing.

Sorry...

We do really part company. and where normal Americans live, this will add to the this President is WEAK, which is what the Republicans are successful at creating. If the goal was to show how adult the President is... well tomorrow I will be able to test this theory with locals at a coffee shop.

[EffieBlack]

11. I doubt that "normal Americans" give two damns about any of this.

Where "normal Americans" live, they're getting the kids ready for school, cooking dinner, paying bills and going on about their business. They aren't hanging onto every word that comes out of MSNBC, they're not reading Politico online and they're not worrying about what anyone on DU thinks about anything. Next week, they'll watch the President's speech and decide whether they think his jobs plan is a good one and whether it will help improve the their lives and that of their families and friends. I doubt they'll care in the least that the speech was given on Thursday rather than Wednesday - and care even less about how that ended up happening.

I think we really need to get over ourselves about this issue. It's not that big of a deal.

[benlurkin]

23. BRAVO!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Oh you'd be wrong on that

talk is of a weak president... at least locally.

[Whisp]

45. and your local represents everyone?

o.f.f.s.

who'd you meet at the general store now and get insider info, someone from the Capitol?

[Hippo_Tron]

18. In fairness I don't think a President has tried to use a joint session to upstage the opposition

Which again begs the question, why the fuck did he do this in the first place?

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Truman used to play those games

They just didn't plan it fully.

If they are trying to set this as we are running against the useless congress (TM 1948) this is not a good launch. Of curse this is my opinion...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Just another normal DU day.

[housewolf]

8. It's a power issue

and it looks like Boehner won AGAIN and Obama conceded. It makes Boehner look strong and Obama look weak. Kinda like a the bully Boehner whips Obama's a** one more time.

I find it kinda disheartening. But I imagine I'll get over it...

[EffieBlack]

13. So WHAT?! I don't see Boehner inviting the President to speak one night after the President first

requested to be any great victory.

Obsessing over tiny and meaningless details (Thursday v. Wednesday) is petty and meaningless. Who CARES what night he gives the damned speech?

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. People are mornons

It's nothing new.

[Azathoth]

12. The President of the United States does not say "I'd like to give a speech to Congress"

The President has the Constitutional power to convene a special session when he sees fit.

Obama is letting John Fucking Boehner publicly dictate to him how he will exercise the powers of his office. That's like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court letting Boehner write decisions for the Court. It's pathetic.

On edit: replaced "joint session" with "special session"

[EffieBlack]

16. New rules?

Every previous president in recent times has done just that. None have "convened a joint session when he saw fit." They respectfully request an opportunity to speak.

Of course, President Obama is being held to new rules. Now he's a "wimp" because the Congress didn't want to have him come on the night he wanted to come.

This outrage is ridiculous. I thought that Boehner was acting like a petulant crybaby - but now I think DU has him beat by a mile.

[Azathoth]

25. I can't ever recall a President publicly asking to address Congress and being rebuffed

It just doesn't happen. The President has the authority to convene special sessions of Congress, and while he can't actually force his way into the House chamber, he can certainly give a speech from the steps and make them watch from the windows.

This isn't a question of compromising on policy and ideology. It's about strong leadership.

[EffieBlack]

28. You think the President would demonstrate "strong leadership if he stood on the steps of Congress

and made a speech after being refused admittance to the House chamber?

Oh, yes - that would make him seem REALLY tough.

And, by the way, he couldn't make a speech on the steps unless Congress allowed him to. They control the grounds and people have to get permission to do that sort of thing. If he couldn't get on the floor, he likely couldn't get on the steps, either.

[Azathoth]

31. Yes. Speaking on the steps, with the entire Democratic Congressional delegation next to him

and every news camera in America focused on him, calling out the GOP cowards hiding inside, would be a profound display of strong leadership. At some point, Obama is going to have to stand up for himself.

As far as the steps go, they are a public space, and Boehner does not have unilateral authority over the Capitol police.

[EffieBlack]

32. The steps are a public space, but in order to hold an event - which a Presidential speech certainly

is - requires permission. People can't just show up on the steps and hold a rally or give speeches, etc.

Moreover, with all due respect, that is a STUPID idea. The president is speaking less than 24 hours later right where he wants to speak. It would be ridiculous to turn a serious speech about jobs into the partisan, political spectacle you are suggesting. It might make YOU feel better, but it would accomplish nothing and would be nothing more than a ridiculous stunt.

Standing on the steps of a building surrounded by people who already agree with you is NOT a "profound display of strong leadership." It's the kind of empty showboat routine pulled by Tea Party politicians and their ilk who know they can't get heard any other way. It is NOT the way a President of the United States demonstrates leadership.

I really don't understand the sudden love affair that's sprung up between some DUers and 8:00 on September 7, 2011. He's giving his speech on September 8th, not September 28th.

[Azathoth]

44. "It would be ridiculous to turn a serious speech about jobs into the partisan, political spectacle"

You're joking, right? The fundamental purpose of addressing a joint session of Congress is to create a political spectacle. That's the whole point, and the only point, of such a speech. You're really deluding yourself if you think that whatever speech Obama ends up giving is not going to be "political."

Standing on the steps of the Capitol with the rest of his party and demanding that a do-nothing Congress pass a jobs bill would hardly be a "ridiculous stunt" -- it's precisely the kind of audacious tactic a strong leader would use when faced with public disrespect from a sneering, intransigent opposition. It's the kind of thing that made Truman a legendary name in Democratic lore. And since the GOP have already made it clear that they will not pass any meaningful jobs legislation anyway, there is really nothing to lose, since another milquetoast "I know we can work together in good faith" speech will do nothing but cause people who have already heard that pablum over and over and over to just turn the channel. The guy's leadership ratings are plummeting for a reason. You can only get slapped in the face and respond with "Thank you sir, but can we please just get along?" so many times before people get the idea that you're weak.

[woolldog]

47. Azthoth

gets it.

[MrMickeysMom]

50. None have, thus enabling flex of muscle...

hypertrophy and.... atrophy.... bleh...

Obama wouldn't have decided to ask, if not for a show of power, Boner would not have responded that way, if not for a show of power.

May as well hang a sign, "Gone Fishing"...

[hack89]

53. "Joint session of congress requires a concurrent resolution from both House and Senate to meet."

Congress has the power to say no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_session_of_the_United_States_Congress

[elocs]

14. It was ridiculous to pick that date to begin with. Was this amateur hour at the White House?

Nobody had a clue that there was a Republican debate that night? If that date was picked with the knowledge that there was a Republican event, then that was equally stupid when they had to change it when he would not be invited that day.

Obama and the White House made this ridiculous, not DU. Lots of spin here tonight about it, but the spin you will read and hear about the date change tomorrow will not make for any happy campers here.

[CakeGrrl]

17. Some of the "campers" here will NEVER be happy. And yes, the WH knew about the date.

And look at all the yammering and gibbering and caterwauling and...ATTENTION is now focused on next Wednesday and Thursday night.

But still, the perpetually UN-happy campers will hold to their belief that the POTUS is a naive fool who is SOOO much less smart than they.

(Not)

[Parker CA]

19. We have a winner!! I'm not sure how this is being overlooked. Carney even played coy today saying

that the shared date with the GOP debate was merely coincidence. They must think we're all half-brains. The WH stepped into this mess for zero reason.

And in the off chance that DU has a better handle on events in the political world (being aware of the GOP debate) while WH staffers were not, then there's a larger problem that should be addressed with the schedule maker in the WH.

[emilyg]

39. ++++ 10

[yurbud]

15. it is a purely symbolic issue

[CakeGrrl]

20. Don't you go making SENSE around here!

The drama is getting more and more silly every time the outbursts occur.

[Denzil_DC]

21. The timing now favors the President

It would perhaps have been an interesting exercise to see how quickly the GOP candidates could get their act together to rebut him if their debate had followed his speech, but now he has the floor to either pick up on whatever they may happen to bother discussing about job creation (assuming that's in the questions that are put - and if it's not, that's very telling in its own way) or plough ahead with whatever plans he intends to propose and highlight their lack of ideas.

The media's ginned this up into some sort of fight, and folks here seem to have wanted to run with that. Perhaps that'll mean more attention will be devoted to how it plays out.

And no, I don't get the hysteria either - it's just another excuse to go off on one and perpetuate the "weak" meme.

Here's a hint - if you're (generic "you") going to get pissed that Obama can't push an agenda, quit undermining him at every opportunity. It doesn't help.

[vaberella]

27. +1. Valid point. You should make your statement it's own thread.

DU is rather narrowed in it's thinking at time. A new perspective is always welcome.

[CakeGrrl]

29. Agreed. Timing is good to follow the GOP, the MSM has provided the hype like clockwork,

and nothing has derailed his agenda. He gets to lay out his plan AFTER the GOP lays out more of its agenda, and there's nowhere for the spinners to attack on the logistics.

[Cirque du So-What]

30. Any port in a storm

Some are so hellbent on slamming Barack Obama by any & all means that they will latch onto the flimsiest of pretenses to criticize the President and his administration. Recent evidence at the thread below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4980558&mesg_id=4980558

AFAIK, there is no such thing as an automobile built from 100% American parts.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/MadeInAmerica/page?id=13795239

The suddenly vilified Chevy Equinox in question is made from 66% American parts, according to the above website. The bashers will not be dissuaded, however.

[JI7]

33. the fake outrage over this certainly exposes a lot of people

[Recovered Repug]

43. If you think it's bad now,

wait until the speech is over. That should be a very interesting night around here.

[treestar]

46. Rec'd

Some people care only about who is "toughest" and who "wins" every battle, no matter how trivial and are in fact looking for anything they can use to claim "Obama caved." Rather than attacking the Republicans. Very strange.

[bhikkhu]

48. If it gets more publicity, and more people to watch the repug debate...

then its all good by me.

The more people who watch those jokers and asshats in action, the more people realize how we have the better party and the best president right now.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. Come on, now. You know how it is around these parts. You'd better not

defend Obama, either. You'll be called a "dumb ass," or whatever Hampsher called us. You'll also be called an "Obamabot," an "enabler," an "appeaser," a "gravler," etc.