Boehner Wins: Jobs Speech Moved to Sept. 8

[red states rule]

Another humilating moment for the manchild Presidnet. Of course the liberla media paints the R's as the bad guy





President Obama announced Wednesday his intention to lay out a new jobs plan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-address-congress-on-jobs/2011/08/31/gIQAXX6VsJ_video.html) in a speech to Congress next week that strategists hope will set a new tone for his tenure.

But the announcement provoked an instant confrontation with Republicans over the seemingly trivial question of timing, resolved only when the White House agreed late Wednesday to delay the speech by one day, to Sept. 8.


The dust-up underscored Obama’s dilemma as he attempts to show progress on the economy while distancing himself from a dysfunctional Washington.

The speech before a joint session of Congress, one of the grand symbols of the presidency, reflects a calculated attempt by Obama to regain an advantage in his bitter battle with Republicans over the economy, restore fast-eroding public confidence in his leadership and, perhaps, turn around a presidency with less than 15 months before he faces the voters.
White House officials said Obama would lay out a much-anticipated package of new proposals to stimulate job growth, a package expected to include spending programs for roads, bridges, school repair and training for the long-term unemployed.

Yet simply scheduling the address quickly turned into another partisan spit-fest.

</ARTICLE>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-jobs-speech-creates-conflict-with-gop/2011/08/31/gIQAWfsGtJ_story.html?hpid=z1

[KartRacerBoy]

Why start a new thread on this when there was already a previous one?

In any case, it's good to know he's moving the speech date.

[red states rule]

Now the liberal media is playing the race card on this issue. Obama caves, looks totally useless, and of course the R's refused his request because they are racists


<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=360 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/105223" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[OCA]

And America loses................God help this country if an R gets in.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gm11090120110901062208.jpg

[KartRacerBoy]

Now the liberal media is playing the race card on this issue. Obama caves, looks totally useless, and of course the R's refused his request because they are racists




I'm just wondering, RSR. Do you practice being stupid in front of a mirror or does it just come naturally?

[red states rule]

I'm just wondering, RSR. Do you practice being stupid in front of a mirror or does it just come naturally?

Were you born an obnoxious jerk or did you have to work at it? Like most libs when you can't counter facts you attack

I posted the video of the libs on MSNBC playing the race card so I understand your desperation to spin

All I have seen today is the charge of racism leveled toward the R's for refusing Obama's request

Of cousre the left has played the race card for the last three years

If you oppsoe Obama's poilcies you are a racist

If you are a Tea Party member you are a racist

If you are at a Town Hall opposing Obamacre you are a racist

If you oppose the Ground Zero Mosque you are a racist

If you support the AZ law on illegas you are a racist

[fj1200]

And America loses................God help this country if an R gets in.

Because right now we're winning. :rolleyes:

[KartRacerBoy]

Were you born an obnoxious jerk or did you have to work at it? Like most libs when you can't counter facts you attack

I posted the video of the libs on MSNBC playing the race card so I understand your desperation to spin

All I have seen today is the charge of racism leveled toward the R's for refusing Obama's request

Of cousre the left has played the race card for the last three years

If you oppsoe Obama's poilcies you are a racist

If you are a Tea Party member you are a racist

If you are at a Town Hall opposing Obamacre you are a racist

If you oppose the Ground Zero Mosque you are a racist

If you support the AZ law on illegas you are a racist

So the answer is WORKED IN FRONT OF A MIRROR? Thought so.

[red states rule]

So the answer is WORKED IN FRONT OF A MIRROR? Thought so.

You must be an advisor to Obama. It explains why the man can talk for 30 minutes and never says anything relevant - just like you

Is this how you debate Kart? When the facts become too much to handle, you ignore them and show your inmaturity.

If you are in need of a job you would be a pefect guest host for any show at MSNBC

You have the arrogance and condescending attitude down to perfection

[Little-Acorn]

So the answer is WORKED IN FRONT OF A MIRROR? Thought so.

Does anyone have any idea what this person is ranting about?

[OCA]

Because right now we're winning. :rolleyes:

ROTFLMFAO!:laugh2:

As bad as things are only 1 R is leading Obama and only by 3 percentage points and that R won't win his own party's nomination.

Get ready for Barack...........2012-2016.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[OCA]

If you oppsoe Obama's poilcies you are a racist

If you are a Tea Party member you are a racist

If you are at a Town Hall opposing Obamacre you are a racist

If you support the AZ law on illegas you are a racist

Yes

Yes

Yes

And

Yes

[Kathianne]

It's wonderful when political experts speak frankly.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?13794-The-Low-Road-to-Victory&p=235302&highlight=Hillary#post235302

[OCA]

Back to the op though, just another sign to voters at just how fucking partisan and trivial R's are, basically they are obstructionists.

You will see that no matter how much they dislike Obama in the polling place he will have just a hair more trust than the party that is "by the corporation, of the corporation and for the corporation".

Not that anything will change either way.

[OCA]

It's wonderful when political experts speak frankly.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?13794-The-Low-Road-to-Victory&p=235302&highlight=Hillary#post235302

Ooooh yeah good one.....................you are an asset to the wood shop teachers.

We won't discuss caucuses and how the nomination was basically stolen, we won't go there.

[Little-Acorn]

Back to the op though, just another sign to voters at just how fucking partisan and trivial R's are

Does this mean that Trent Lott can have his job back?

[OCA]

Maybe I should go back and pull up the massive number of threads on how McCain would win and Obama had zero chance.

Yes, i'm an expert.

[OCA]

Does this mean that Trent Lott can have his job back?

Nah, he's racist.

[KartRacerBoy]

Does anyone have any idea what this person is ranting about?

Yes. I am insistiing on intelligent dialogue rather than RSR talking points. Shame on me.

[Little-Acorn]

Nah, he's racist.

So much for calling Republicans partisan and trivial.

[OCA]

So much for calling Republicans partisan and trivial.

2+2=4

[gabosaurus]

A lot of short memories on this subject, as I recall.
Back in 2008 (I believe), Nancy Pelosi objected to Bush wanting to address the joint Congress. She was immediately castigated for "dishonoring the office of the Presidency." In fact, several newspapers (yes, the MSM) reminded her that Congress had never objected to a planned Presidential address.
The Washington Times even published an editorial blaming Pelosi for the low rating for Congress because she chose to do battle with the office of the Presidency.

Now it is almost sport for the GOP to battle the White House on every move. Guess there is no "dishonor" when the roles are reversed.

[Kathianne]

A lot of short memories on this subject, as I recall.
Back in 2008 (I believe), Nancy Pelosi objected to Bush wanting to address the joint Congress. She was immediately castigated for "dishonoring the office of the Presidency." In fact, several newspapers (yes, the MSM) reminded her that Congress had never objected to a planned Presidential address.
The Washington Times even published an editorial blaming Pelosi for the low rating for Congress because she chose to do battle with the office of the Presidency.

Now it is almost sport for the GOP to battle the White House on every move. Guess there is no "dishonor" when the roles are reversed.

I don't remember such, perhaps you have a link? OTOH, this was not an objection to President Obama giving an address, rather the timing: 1. If the speech was 'a real changer' he could easily command all the media, yesterday or today. 2. He was well aware the House was only returning on the 7th, there was already a long-planned debate that evening--at the same time. 3. The Capitol had to be secured for his appearance.

The offer was made to move it to the next day and have all the issues addressed. So it was.

[red states rule]

I don't remember such, perhaps you have a link? OTOH, this was not an objection to President Obama giving an address, rather the timing: 1. If the speech was 'a real changer' he could easily command all the media, yesterday or today. 2. He was well aware the House was only returning on the 7th, there was already a long-planned debate that evening--at the same time. 3. The Capitol had to be secured for his appearance.

The offer was made to move it to the next day and have all the issues addressed. So it was.

You beat me to it Kat. I also do not recall it happening either therefore Gabby will be unable to provide a link

Obama fumbled the ball once again, and in desperation his few remaining supporters are now forced to make up past attempts to try and distract from another gaffe from the manchild President

Obama was not denied making the specch. In his letter to Obama the Speaker offered him any other day that would fit his timetable

Funny how Obama has had this "jobs plan" for about a month but he has to have a grand setting to announce it

[red states rule]

Yes. I am insistiing on intelligent dialogue rather than RSR talking points. Shame on me.

As long as I don't bring facts into the discussion you do just fine

[fj1200]

ROTFLMFAO!:laugh2:

As bad as things are only 1 R is leading Obama and only by 3 percentage points and that R won't win his own party's nomination.

Get ready for Barack...........2012-2016.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

BO is barely leading or losing (within the margin?) against the generic Republican and the top two AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. He's in trouble because he's neck-and-neck and the real campaign isn't close to starting. If he's not above 50% approval then he's in trouble.

At this point it's only name recognition and he's already losing, just wait until he starts to defend tax increases against tax cuts then watch him plummet.

[red states rule]

BO is barely leading or losing (within the margin?) against the generic Republican and the top two AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. He's in trouble because he's neck-and-neck and the real campaign isn't close to starting. If he's not above 50% approval then he's in trouble.

At this point it's only name recognition and he's already losing, just wait until he starts to defend tax increases against tax cuts then watch him plummet.



Or tell folks looking for a job things are getting better, his shitload of economic experience will kick in soon, and we will be back on the road to recovery in no time at all

http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/090211_unemployment_20110902_085838.jpg

[red states rule]

A lot of short memories on this subject, as I recall.
Back in 2008 (I believe), Nancy Pelosi objected to Bush wanting to address the joint Congress. She was immediately castigated for "dishonoring the office of the Presidency." In fact, several newspapers (yes, the MSM) reminded her that Congress had never objected to a planned Presidential address.
The Washington Times even published an editorial blaming Pelosi for the low rating for Congress because she chose to do battle with the office of the Presidency.

Now it is almost sport for the GOP to battle the White House on every move. Guess there is no "dishonor" when the roles are reversed.


Still witing on that link Gabby. I guess we will go on waiting since one probably does not exist

BTW Tip O'Neil turned down a request by Pres Reagan to address Congress. No offer of another date and time - just a flat NO!





The June 24, 1986, edition of The Wall Street Journal featured a story headlined, "President's Bid to Address the House On Nicaragua Is Rejected by Speaker." That's right, no quibbling over the date and time, just a flat-out rejection.

In that case, President Ronald Reagan wanted to address the House before its critical vote on funding for the anti-communist "Contra" rebels in Nicaragua. Then-Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neil said that he was willing to host a Reagan speech if it was expanded to include the Senate in a joint session, or he would allow the President to speak to the House alone if the President would also agree to take questions from lawmakers. Otherwise, there would be no Reagan speech in the House chamber. Reagan already had the votes to prevail in the Senate, and Mr. O'Neil wanted to avoid having the spotlight turned on the House, which would make him and his colleagues accountable to the public if Contra aid were rejected.

Both Speaker O'Neil then and Speaker Boehner this week were on very solid Constitutional ground. The president has no more right to take over the proceedings in the House, or to invite himself in, than does the speaker have the right to commandeer the president's time and attention within the White House. On this point, the meaning of a separate Article I and Article II in the Constitution couldn't be clearer.

A White House aide at the time tells us that Reagan simply shrugged off the rejection and said, "They have televisions up there on Capitol Hill, don't they?" He made his case on TV instead and then won the House vote to continue assisting the Nicaraguan freedom fighters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576546643389574716.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk082411dAPR20110824124518.jpg

[Missileman]

ROTFLMFAO!:laugh2:

As bad as things are only 1 R is leading Obama and only by 3 percentage points and that R won't win his own party's nomination.

Get ready for Barack...........2012-2016.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Wanna put a grand on it?

[red states rule]

Wanna put a grand on it?

You would never collect. You would get excuses like the election was stolen form Obama just like the nonmiation was stolen from Hillary

After all, the Clinton's do not lose elections - remember?