You don’t say:
Usually, the WH will work out a date in private with the Speaker & Majority Leader before going public with a request.
Well, that’s only for those White Houses that aren’t occupied by the Sun King.
Obama’s lucky he’s been offered a joint session at all. There is nothing in the Constitution or law that requires Boehner to give him one. He could have told the president to pound sand, and give an Oval Office address. It’s not like he’s going to say anything new.
Obama’s lucky he’s been offered a joint session at all.
That’s the amazing thing. It’s obvious the date was picked as a partisan slap to a preplanned debate. But there is an audacity to demanding that the Republican controlled House would just have to go along with it. You don’t need a joint session of Congress to give the same speech you gave a year ago. Moreover, you don’t need a joint session of Congress to tell your EPA to quit abusing its regulatory power to create new laws, or to tell your DOJ to quit attacking American business based on how they give campaign contribution. You do those two things and at least some jobs would come back soon. Then there is the unlawful moritorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
My prediction is that Obama will blame grid lock in congress for no progress on the economy and the press will conveniently forget that the Democrats controlled congress from 2006-2010 and have super majorities for Obama’s first two years.
My other prediction is that he wont have a detailed plan. Similar to every other time he has said that he would have a plan. Remember the one time he gave a speech and said that his plan would be unveiled by Geithner the following day and then Geithner came out the next day and said there wasn’t a specific plan?
Maybe Obama plans to use a bunch of mendacious hectoring to goad Congress into a “You Lie!” response. But I think they’re on to Johnny One-Note now.
In the game of chicken, the WH apparently blinked.
Looks like President Obama is learning to do things the Tea Party way.
Looks like President Obama is continuing to do things the Chicago way.
FIFY
Huntsman: Controversy over Obama speech ‘nonsense’
(AP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman calls the fuss over the timing of President Barack Obama’s job speech “nonsense,” saying it is “what people hate about politics.”
Huntsman says Obama “has not been able to deliver on jobs” so far, so it doesn’t matter where or when the president delivers his new plan.
[..]
Appearing Thursday on NBC’s “Today,” Huntsman also criticized his GOP rivals, saying “we’re getting drama but not solutions.”
Asked if Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are too far to the right to beat Obama in 2012, he said voters “don’t want politics at the extreme ends.”
Alsoran: Look at me!
(AP) -1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Irrelevant candidate whatisname said something to grab a headline. An hour later, no one gave shit.
FINALLY Boehner gets some stones.
Of course today this kerfluffle will be widely cast as a racist response by the GOP…”no other president treated this way…” ” …usually happens pro-forma…”
“…only with THIS president do we get this kind of disrespect….”
And on and on. But I think that, perhaps, Boehner now realizes O is politically wounded and it’s safe to be a shark.
And of course, it didn’t take very long:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/31/wolffe_opposition_to_obama_speech_possibly_based_on_skin_color.html
“The interesting question is: What is it about this president that has stripped away the veneer of respect that normally accompanies the Office of the President? Why do Republicans think this president is unpresidential and should dare to request this kind of thing? It strikes me that it could be the economic times, it could be that he won so big in 2008 or it could be, let’s face it, the color of his skin. This is an extraordinary reaction to a normal sequence of events,” MSNBC contributor Richard Wolffe said on “The Last Word.”
Well, gee, Wolffey, it just couldn’t be for the stated reasons — no, that’s too simple to be true.
So today, Matt Drudge links to a story about Obama hosting NASCAR drivers. The story is that 5 of the invited drivers are not planning to show up. The author of the story makes a bunch of snide remarks suggesting that the driver’s sponsors or fans shouldn’t be more important than the POTUS. But there’s a whole bunch wrong in that article.
First, the event is to recognize “Chase” drivers (essentially playoff contenders) from 2010. The next “Chase” period begins in just over a week, and now the President is recognizing last years leaders.
Second, all but one of the 5 drivers attended a similar event last year.
Third, 2 of the 5 drivers are also team owners with cars competing in other events. In short, they have businesses to run. And that’s a BFD, considering the event will be held the same Wednesday that Obama originally planned to announce his new “new job plan”.
To be fair, other than the year late (and that seems a tradition now), President Obama isn’t being rude. It’s just the Obamabots that think everyone should bow to King Putt. Also to be fair, much of the MSM for sports is just covering that last years overall champion will be there, and Obama will recognize him and others.
I didn’t provide a link, because the author is an idiot that doesn’t deserve attention.
“There is nothing in the Constitution or law that requires Boehner to give him one.”
US Constitution, Article II, Section 3:
“…he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper…”
I don’t read there anything about the President needing to ask if one time or another is convenient. That’s what some folks call, “being polite”, a foreign concept to today’s batshit crazy Republicans.
I don’t read there anything about the President needing to ask if one time or another is convenient.
That’s because you don’t understand the article. Congress will convene next Wednesday and that was the case prior to the President announcing a desire to give a speech to a Joint Session of Congress. If the President wants to wander over to the House and listen to Congressmen discuss their plans, I’m sure he is welcome to do it. But if he expects them to pass a rule that yields time for the President to speak to them; well then he might just want to remember Article I Section 5. To demand that 435 members of the House simply shutup and listen during one of their already convened sessions is simply rude. You want them to be quiet, ask politely.
Mike, maybe you’d understand it better if the parties were reversed, so try this. Keep showing us that new civility.
today’s batshit crazy Republicans.
Classy!