Why President Obama was smart to reschedule his jobs speech - Did Boehner bail out Obama?

[jefferson_dem]

Why President Obama was smart to reschedule his jobs speech
By Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake

But Obama and his political team were smart to reschedule the event for (at least) three reasons.

1. No one wins a process fight: If Obama had doubled down on the Sept. 7 date, the coverage leading up to the speech would have focused heavily — if not exclusively — on the process (why the White House had done it, etc.) of the speech rather than the policy of it. Process battles, while beloved by reporters, are rarely a good thing for politicians and policy-makers. (See the health care debate and the fight over raising the debt ceiling.) Obama wants and needs to begin to build momentum — from a policy and a political perspective — from this speech, and turning it into a process story would be the exact wrong way to do that.

2. Get the last word: If Obama had stuck to Sept. 7, it would have allowed every Republican presidential candidate a real-time opportunity to respond (and criticize) his proposal. The coverage of the speech would be inter-mingled with coverage of the debate, meaning that Obama’s preferred message would be decidedly muddled. By waiting a day, Obama can more tightly control his message and get the last word (or close to it) of what will be a pivotal week in the presidential race.

3. Pick your audience: Given House Speaker John Boehner’s (Ohio) resistance to putting the speech on Sept. 7 and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint’s promise to block such a move, Obama would likely have had to give the speech from the Oval Office if he wanted to deliver it next Wednesday. (The logistics of setting up such a major speech somewhere out in the country are daunting and not something the White House would likely have done.) Some of Obama’s least effective addresses have been from the Oval Office, and his team knows it. They wanted him to speak to a joint session of Congress for a reason — to send a powerful visual and rhetorical message that he can’t solve the economic problems of the country alone. To walk away from that preferred backdrop simply to prove a point makes no political sense

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-president-obama-was-smart-to-reschedule-his-jobs-speech/2011/08/31/gIQAluDJtJ_blog.html#pagebreak

*** Did Boehner bail out Obama? All that said, you could argue that Boehner bailed out the White House politically. Obama’s speech on the same day as the GOP presidential debate would have been treated as a political address, and it would have resulted in a split-screen story (Obama addressing Congress, the presidential candidates responding to his speech). But now that Obama gets to go by himself on Sept. 8, the speech will be treated more as a jobs/economic plan. What’s more, the Republican presidential candidates who will be debating on Sept. 7 won’t really have the opportunity to respond to it. The White House did not seem to think three moves ahead on this one; elevating the presidential candidates to his level this early wouldn’t have been good politics for him.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/01/7554287-first-thoughts-picking-up-where-they-left-off

[Cirque du So-What]

1. I'm still gonna find fault with this!

Don't know HOW just yet...but gimme some time! Gotta scour the internets for just the right talking points, yunno :eyes:

[vaberella]

22. ROFL. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. The Republicans probably would've accused of him of giving a "campaign speech"

ignoring, of course, the irony of their accusation while they're busy at their *debate*.

[godai]

3. He had no choice and now he's up against the NFL.

I believe the original plan was to avoid opening night of the NFL and strike while the iron was hot, as
Congress returned. Once the repub scheduling issue was floated, Wednesday became impossible. The question remains, were they blindsided by the repubs about Wednesday being acceptable, then unacceptable. My guess is yes, a continuation of kneecapping of Obama.

[emulatorloo]

10. Speaking before the game.

[godai]

13. There's a lot of football stuff before the game and a concert. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. The ODSers will *STILL* blame the president. Good try, though. n/t

[Maven]

18. Just like the "BDSers" did when shrub was pres, right?

You do know that's a right-wing epithet you keep using, don't you?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. I'm using a right-wing epithet? Please do explain how and what that is.

If you don't fall into that category of ODS, then why take offense?

[Maven]

28. Here, read up.

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

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. The difference is that whatever they said back then was a bunch of bullshit!

They were trying to get people to support a mass murderer and a thief.

Obama Derangement Syndrome simply refers to those who refuse to acknowledge ANY positive or good thing the administration does, always finding fault with him and/or the Democratic Party FIRST! If you are not one of these people, then you shouldn't take offense. I am well aware that there are those who often criticize the president but also praise him when he does well. Again, if you are one of those, then ODS does not refer to you!

The ODSers tend to ignore the facts on the ground in favor of bashing. Note: there is a difference between criticizing the president and BASHING him for it.

Asserting that he's an evil man is bashing. Asserting that he's just like Bush is bashing. Calling him names is bashing.

Criticism is...

Disagreements on policy decisions that he has made, such as lifting moratorums on oil drilling. That is a legitimate criticism. Not agreeing with his (non)actions on the FISA law.

To be sure, lest I'm called an 'Obamabot' or any of the other derogeratory names for those who still support the president--AND CAN ALSO CRITICIZE HIM WHEN WARRANTED--here is a list that contains a few of my disappointments:

- Larry Summers
- FISA law
- Extending the Patriot Act
- Extending Bush tax cuts (though we got repeal of DADT, extension of unemployment, START treaty)
- Free Trade Agreements and not pushing harder against NAFTA/CAFTA
- Predator Drones in Afghanistan
- Not "bragging" about his and the Democratic Party's long list of accomplishments

[Warren Stupidity]

34. why is name calling permitted against DU members?

I could swear posts like yours are categorically against the rules, and yet your post sits there undisturbed.

But I digress. Obama gets credit when credit is due, and gets blamed when he fucks up, as his administration recently did in their embarassingly mishandled scheduling of the Jobs speech. An event that is supposed to be the central theme of his presidential campaign, and a fuck up that resulted in a public humiliation event as the warm up to the speech. If assigning blame and credit fairly is 'deranged' then I must admit to being deranged.

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

:thumbsup:

[frazzled]

6. On the other hand ...

The Republicans could have started their debate immediately afterward and gotten a big national audience. As it is, they will probably get the predictably small audience that these early season debates get.

Frankly, I'd like to suggest (and maybe I will) that we try to boycott the debate at DU by refusing to watch or post about it during its broadcast or even until the next day, when we can base our commentary on video clips or news accounts. Show them nobody's watching them anyway.

[joeybee12]

7. Wow! That logic is so convoluted it's...

well, not logic! Obama fucked up. Again. Deal with it.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Well then...That solves that.

You rebutted their "illogic" with such stellar argumentation. I'm absolutely floored! :wow: He "fucked up". Brilliant!

[Maven]

20. Well according to you he chose the "worst possible option"

Which is it?

[emulatorloo]

11. I read yesterday that Obama fucked up by choosing the 7th.

Now I read today that Obama fucked up by speaking on the 8th.

Seems like DU default position is "Obama fucked up"

[dionysus]

37. the fringe left and fringe right come together in a bipartisan effort to shit on a guy........

[whistler162]

32. You of course mean Boehner f*cked up....

[dionysus]

35. lol

[Sheepshank]

8. One other minuscule issue in Obama's favor

Obama has announced over and over that he will be presenting a bi-partisan idea that should be acceptable in a bi-partisan manner. To the general public, Obama has thrown out the olive branch (yet one more time) for bi-partisan work, and they just threw it back at him with a self important air. The GOP has just told the public their presumptuous debate is more important than American Jobs. I wonder if any one of them would dare to talk about reaching across the aisle during the debate?

The general public doesn't know diddly about rules, schedules and convoluted behind the scenes political maneuverings. They see the first blush of GOP self centeredness...a theme that the Dems have been brewing and cultivating for some time.

[dkf]

12. If the GOP hopefuls picked apart his speech is that really bad? They would look like do nothings.

[elias7]

14. What a F*ckin' NON-ISSUE!!!

Why a scheduling conflict is being played out in public is beyond me. Why it is being infused with exponentially more import than it deserves is insane.

[lynne]

15. This doesn't address why the WH picked that date in the first place -

- as they certainly were aware of the debate. That's a big question, IMO.

[TwilightGardener]

16. First day that Congress reconvenes, and a football game the next day (which

is surely a bigger deal than the wannabe freak show debate).

[Chocolate_dreamer]

17. The author of this OP originally encouraged Obama NOT to reschedule the date

Jefferson_Dem called it the worst optionyesterday. I quote him:

"Would be the worst possible option, in my opinion. This is gamesmanship. POTUS has too many cards to play. The public will back him." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=758646&mesg_id=758651

Now that Obama took a decision, it's time to praise whatever decision Obama took. Now, rescheduling is "smart."

Interesting.

[Maven]

19. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, that is priceless. Thanks.

jefferson_dem, your move.

:rofl:

[vaberella]

26. How is it a your move moment?

Would it not be a logical change of opinion when people give valid reasons for the date change? I'm sure JD gave his opinion before the full list of opinions were laid out. This list would or should convince a lot of people that it was a better move to change the date. I know I was against the date change until a few people gave some interesting reasoning, no.2 on this list being the one I read more frequently on the board. At which point, I had to definitely agree they had a point. There is no "your move" scenario here.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Maven]

29. You really have to be kidding.

There were only two options, which JD admitted by the terms of his post: Obama could stick to his guns or accede to the Republicans and reschedule. There was no "list" of options JD was not privy to. He explicitly said that acceding to the Republicans was the "worst" option. Then a day later Obama accedes and JD calls it a brilliant move.

Please try harder.

[blogslut]

21. Know what else is interesting?

That you're so familiar with this board like you are. Long time lurker - first time poster maybe?

[vaberella]

24. I think I'd be laughing at you to be honest.

I was for the 7th until a few people pointed out the reasons outlined above. And these are from the thinkers on DU. Several of them supported the move to the 8th and said why. No.2 was the primary basis used and a few mentioned House rules and all that. When all that came into play I changed my opinion from the 7th to the 8th. So I'm not really getting why it's funny.

[jefferson_dem]

25. Creepiness of your post aside...

First off, you do realize that I did not author the OP, right? I still believe "taking the show on the road" would have been best option, though I appreciate the arguments presented in the OP. In your world, are people not allowed to consider alternative positions ... and even change their mind ... as events unfold and presented with new information?

[Cali_Democrat]

33. I'm amazed that jefferson_dem, to this day, still has no idea that Obama has no backbone

Come on, dude.

Wake up.

[dionysus]

36. how droll.