This little kerfuffle over the date of the president’s speech to Congress about jobs was entirely predictable, entirely avoidable, and a foolish gambit by President Obama. NYT:
President Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner clashed over, of all things, the date and time of the president’s much-awaited speech to the nation about his proposal to increase jobs and fix the economy.
In a surreal volley of letters, each released to the news media as soon as it was sent, Mr. Boehner rejected a request from the president to address a joint session of Congress next Wednesday at 8 p.m. — the same night that a Republican presidential debate is scheduled.
In an extraordinary turn, the House speaker fired back his own letter to the president saying, in a word, no. Might the president be able to reschedule for the following night, Sept. 8?
For several hours, the day turned into a very public game of chicken.
By late Wednesday night, though, the White House issued a statement saying that because Mr. Obama “is focused on the urgent need to create jobs and grow our economy,” he “welcomes the opportunity to address a joint session of Congress on Thursday, Sept. 8.”
Yes, the refusal by Boehner was unprecedented – never before in the history of the United States has Congress refused a request by the president to address a joint session on a particular date. But so what? Does anything that has transpired in the last few months suggest that House Republicans have any respect for the country’s traditions, or that they have any interest in working cooperatively with the president on anything? Is anyone really surprised that Boehner did this?
This was a stupid fight for Obama to pick. He must have known that the GOP would balk at scheduling his speech the night of the debate, particularly when two sitting Members of Congress would be participating in the debate. And in this situation, the president has no leverage. Congress has to extend, or not extend, the invitation, and the president can’t do a thing about it.
Gawker had it about right – Obama’s request was “perhaps the most gratuitously—and joyously!—dickish move of his presidency.” One can just imagine the 20-something staffers chortling amongst themselves as they gleefully imagined the Republicans fretting about what to do. Thing is, though, when you make a dickish move, it’s crucial to do it in such a way that you can’t get out-dicked. Now, all the coverage is going to be about how Boehner out-dicked Obama, and only in passing on whatever Obama is actually going to say about jobs.
JimC says
– There would be a resolution condemning the refusal by Boehner.
– Impeachment hearings against the Speaker would be threatened.
– There would be dozens of speeches denouncing this naked political move by the President to embarrass Congress.
And on and on …
Mark L. Bail says
try to hurt the bully’s feelings. I think this incident is the White Huose trying to act tough against the GOP. They have yet to learn the idea is to talk softly and carry a big stick. Not the other way around.
At this point, Obama’s weaknesses are apparent to everyone paying attention. Here’s Martin Wolf:
Obama’s lack of backbone will be a campaign issue. This is only the beginning.
dont-get-cute says
Obama graciously rescheduled to allow the Republicans to debate. It’s easy to imagine that he didn’t even know when it was. I didn’t know, and I am somewhat interested, but not enough to care when it is. Maybe Obama even wants people to watch it, and to watch his speech too.
dont-get-cute says
I generally don’t ask about thumbs-downs, but this time I’m perplexed. Are they just a reflex action to all my posts? I’m saying Obama comes out good here, he’s cooperating and drawing attention to the Perry-Bachman-Paul circus, where they’re all going to be out-crazying each other.
JHM says
It is difficult to believe that “It’s easy to imagine that he didn’t even know when it was” was not sarcasm.
I’d keep my thumbs to myself about that one, yet there may have been previous offenses. Possibly Cuteless does not care to participate in the cult of St. Elizabeth?
Maybe she does not even much like doughnuts?
Happy days.
dont-get-cute says
I didn’t know when it was, and I follow the Republican race.
When is it anyhow? Now I think I know: his jobs speech is an hour before the NFL season opener, which everyone knows is is Thursday at 8PM, so the speech is at 7PM, and the debate is the day before, which would be, uhh, Wednesday.
And jim are you saying those thumbs are because of earlier comments I’d made about Warren?
merrimackguy says
They get the give and take with the legislature. We see how even in our state that Patrick needs to make moves constantly not only to get what he wants done, but also to prevent himself from looking weak.
The President clearly doesn’t have that ability.
PS I’m not sure what category (did Obama “get it done”, or was it Congress?) to put healthcare reform. That was a hard sausage to watch getting made.
mski011 says
There are no winners here. Nothing about this Congress has been routine, the debt ceiling, the abortion bills, and now this. Frankly, while the President got less viewership as he competes with Thursday Football, he won’t have to compete with Grand Outrage Party debate or have their spins rooms respond to his speech. By stopping this before it went too far, he only has a day of process stories. With all of the unprecedented dysfunction that has plagued Washington this year, this will only be a blip. If people are going to read weakness from this episode, then they’ve already made up their mind on weakness from other ones. Nobody’s mind has or will be changed by this.
David says
that this isn’t a huge deal – “little kerfuffle” is what I said, and that’s what I think. The point is that it should never have been any sort of deal at all.
Peter Porcupine says
The President WILL be addressing Congress, right? He hasn’t been denied the opportunity, just the date.
Are you telling me in the 250 +/- years of the Republic, no President has EVER asked for a date, and been asked to choose another? Difference is, to be clever, the children in the White House released the press release before making the reqeust to the Speaker and so the date choice became public.
FWIW, I would have given the President the date of his choice, and made NBC decide which to cover – the debate they are sponsoring, or the President’s speeech. Remember, the Speaker grants the venue, but the news organizations decide if they will cover live, tape, or at all. Since some of the President’s recent speeches have struggled to beat the ratings of reruns of ‘Pawn Stars’, this may not ahve been the automatic thing the Adminsitration thought it was.
David says
Yes, that is what is being reported. From the NYT article:
Of course, I’m sure that in the past, dates have been tossed around behind closed doors so that when the formal request is made, it’s already for an agreed-upon date. So arguably it’s a difference of form rather than substance – usually the formalities have been better observed than they were in this case. But form matters, so now a precedent has been set: Congress refused a president’s request to address a joint session on a particular date. And Boehner gets to go into the history books for something.
As for NBC, amusingly enough, they were never going to cover the debate (and they still aren’t). It’ll be on MSNBC and CNBC, but NBC itself is sticking to its regularly-scheduled program, which is “Minute To Win It,” in which a mother/daughter team hilariously take on the “Human Burrito” challenge, among others, “in their bid for the million.”
Peter Porcupine says
I thought that since they advertised their involvement, they would carry it. Makes you wonder even more about the ratings of speeches to announce Old Wine in Newish Bottles (watch, if the speech is greeted with a ‘meh’, it will be because Austan’s replacement hasn’t had enough time – the Alibi Ike Administration strikes again!)
I can’t help wondering why the Senate historian is explaining the House actions. But we agree – an agreed upon date had always been announced, and the Obama brain trust couldn’t be bothered to secure one.
waltstime says
Lucky for me the current New Yorker arrived before I read this thread. It certainly provided a sound bite title for my comments.
First of all, as I read the thread, I get the sense I might as well read Palin press releases. The tone is anger, and the anger is directed at Obama. I think emotions motivate me more than thoughts, and I trust this is true also for you. The extreme emotionalism of the opinions expresses drown out whatever rational position is being espoused.
Second, the arithmetically challenged Republicans have pretty much shot their wad, and have pretty much come to the end of the vein of their fools gold follies. Whatever universe they inhabit, it is not the one that can build the complex digital infrastructure which created this blog. I believe that enough people have the decency to tell their deluded friends, neighbors, relatives and barbers that, yes, in fact, the government is already involved in Medicare, and, in fact, it is entirely a government program. I just hope these decent people do not then drive their quirky friends to the polls in November.
Third, whatever really happened, Boehner gave Obama a great opportunity for a different approach: After the blather of the Republican debate, clear, Ross Perot style charts. If he does not use this opportunity to put in easily understood graphical form the reality of our economy, I would then criticize him. Since it is simple arithmetic, and since he likes to be the teacher, bring it on. Those not convinced will get held back.
Fourth, and here I lead, if not from behind, then at the end, recall the great failures of Obama/Clinton foreign policy in Tunisia, Egypt, Pakistan, and by that, I mean Bin Laden, and now Libya. Give the guy a break. Tell him how he can do it better, and appreciate how well he has been doing.
kirth says
I
If you’re not referring specifically to David, your trust is misplaced. Even if you are, I’d guess it is, even though I think the reaction here to those events is kind of overwrought. There are much more significant things going on, that are getting little or no attention on the front page of BMG.
“…Republicans have pretty much shot their wad…” – I cannot count how many times I have seen this claim since 2003. While I by no means think that the Republicans are an unjuggable stoppernaut, it’s up to the Democrats to stop them, not simply wait for the public to somehow come to its senses. That means the Dems have to have a set of core values and to sell those values in a convincing manner to the public. They had a huge opportunity to do the latter in 2006, and again in 2008, but because they do not seem to have the former, the opportunities were wasted. Meanwhile, the crazy fringe of the Republicans keeps moving the so-called “center” of every debate further to the right.
“Whatever universe they inhabit, it is not the one that can build the complex digital infrastructure which created this blog.” I’m sorry – who do you think did create the Internet? Do you have some knowledge of the politics of the people involved? Aside from the Internet itself, most of the digital infrastructure was built by major corporations or entrepreneurs, and I haven’t seen any indications that either group is particularly progressive.
“Give the guy a break. Tell him how he can do it better, and appreciate how well he has been doing.” We did that, a couple of years ago. Then most of us did it again, a little later. Then somewhat fewer did it a while after that. Eventually, it became clear that his vision is not really compatible with ours, that he knew that all along, and that he wasn’t going to go out of his way to please us. So the appreciation has pretty much dried up, and we’re just saying how he could do better. Not that he’s listening.
bostonshepherd says
It has been reported that this is the first time a White House publicized the date and time of a presidential address before Congress WITHOUT prior communication with the Speaker. What is this, the king summoning Parliament?
Barry gets back from the Vineyard and tells us to tune in, but it’s news to Boehner, hence, the “kerfuffle.” AND BARRY LOSES!
Memo to progressives: when the president loses a trivial fight over a scheduling conflict, he’s diminished and looks weak. Now he has to compete with Thur nite football (when’s the Pats-Giants kickoff?)
(Or maybe the WH media geniuses concluded his bloviating on Wednesday would draw lower Nielsens on broadcast than the Repub debate on cable.)
David says
Yes, I believe that was precisely the point of my post. Thanks for reiterating.
For the record, there was of course prior communication with the Speaker. The content of that communication is now disputed by the parties, as one might expect.
SomervilleTom says
So much for professional courtesy.
It sounds to me as though when dealing with the GOP, the learning is get everything in writing.
More evidence that GOP is a mob of sleazy, slimy scumbags.
bostonshepherd says
Meant the Jags
kbusch says
David says
Barry Soetoro. The Kenyan who is now president.
johnk says
date night. Who is going to ask whom to the address.
bostonshepherd says
Can it get any worse? Nope.