Well, if http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080492-503544.html is the same poll you’re looking at, then who cares that “60% of the people think that Obama is trying to find a solution to the standoff, compared to only 32% who think the Republicans in Congress are”? If the same poll says that more people are against raising the debt ceiling than are for it, then the 60/32 split doesn’t reflect well on Obama.
I mean, yeah, full marks for making it so the other “number jumped to 46%” – but if the same poll says that 49% of people are against it, then you’re glossing over the most important number in the whole story. (Shucks, I can’t imagine anything more “at odds with the evidence” than trumpeting the lower number for while failing to even mention the bigger number against.)
I thin k you’re confused about what the primary point of this thread is.
The thread is about whether Obama made an amateurish gaffe in not guaranteeing that checks will be sent out as a result of the debt ceiling standoff.
The evidence I cited argues clearly against that position.
Now, whether or not the majority believes the debt ceiling should be raised or not is a different matter, independent of whether Obama made a political mistake, is it not?
The question is whether Obama’s handling of the situation is politically inept. The evidence is that his handling of the situation has caused a swing of 22 points in public opinion towards his position. The conclusion, then, is that his handling of the situation has been very ept indeed: When was the last time you saw a President manage to swing 22 points of public opinion?
I’m certainly confused about why you led off the post in question with the following: "Check out the results of the CBS News poll from 7/15, which is after Obama made what you see as a serious gaffe that insinuated himself into the discussion.
They reveal that 60% of the people think that Obama is trying to find a solution to the standoff, compared to only 32% who think the Republicans in Congress are."
If that wasn’t the primary point, then why lead with it? Why even mention it? It seems irrelevant to the primary point, and worse than irrelevant if you mention it without mentioning the 49/46 split. If you hadn’t brought up the 60/32 split in the first place, I can assure you I wouldn’t have mentioned the 49/46 split in response.
Is it irrelevant to the 60/32 split you for some reason brought up?
[QUOTE=Chronos]
The evidence is that his handling of the situation has caused a swing of 22 points in public opinion towards his position. The conclusion, then, is that his handling of the situation has been very ept indeed: When was the last time you saw a President manage to swing 22 points of public opinion?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, it’s quite good. It’s almost, but not quite, good enough. He’s almost, but not quite, as ept as the Republicans at selling his position regarding the point in question. That the Republicans are now winning the argument by a smaller margin is quite an accomplishment, and I freely congratulate Obama on it.
And now word that a debt deal may have been reach in the Senate, around the $4 trillion number Obama was pushing for and with his 3-to-1 split. Senate Group Unveils Deal On Major Deficit Plan
I think we should wait and see if the plan’s got any chance in the House before it needs a thread. Eliminating the AMT and Doc Fix patches that have to get voted in periodically would be a great way to put our whole budgeting process on a much better footing. I also understand that there’s no cap on government spending as a percent of GDP included in the plan, which makes it much easier to deal with demographic issues as the population ages.
whoa nelly, someone is really, really, angry. get up to the white house at 11 am on saturday and explain yourselves! whooooo, riled vulcan.
the president calls you in the morning to find out how things are going and where they stand… you don’t call him back until 5:30pm to talk to him. but you have time to posture in front of congress before you talk to him?
that must have been some 5:30 phone call.
this grover nordquist either needs to run for office himself or get out of the way of those who are in office. this signing pledges, this is bloody rediculous.
Forgive me if I am an idiot … but the president doesn’t make the budget decisions, does he? I thought he ratified the crap the senate and the congress got around to doing … part of the whole 3 governmental department system shit… so in reality it is our elected assholes fucking us over, isn’t it?
It has been too many years since schoolhouse rock…
Sure, which is why (IMO) it’s doubly unnecessary for him to personally identify himself with the issue. Regardless of whether one agrees with Obama’s position, he really strikes me as conducting himself like a political amateur throughout this whole thing.
And now . . . WTH is he thinking trying to make an amateurish ploy to distract from the GOP primary debate Wednesday night, declaring that will be the time he makes his address to a joint session of Congress – and forgetting that he needs Congress’s invitation to do so? And when reminded, he immediately caves, squabbles with Boehner over the following evening’s potential time conflict with the Packers/Saints game, and finally agrees to a time that’ll still be early afternoon on the West Coast.
Yes, yes. Boehner is a bad, bad, orange man. But Obama keeps giving him opportunities to play the president like a fiddle, and seriously distract from his economic message before he’s even given it. Doesn’t Obama have any experienced political operators left on his staff to steer him away from rookie mistakes? Or does Obama not listen to them? I really am perplexed WTH he’s thinking: and though he’s a Democrat, he’s still president of my country in a dangerous world, and I do wish he’d demonstrate some acumen and backbone.
The White House says Boehner’s office OK’d the date. Boehner’s office denied this. You, unsurprisingly, believe Boehner over Obama.
If your point is that Obama should have assumed Boehner would lie to him, then we’ve reached a level of discord when we might as well start pulling out the guns.
Let’s see, there are 11 debatesin the June - December 2011 timeframe with more scheduled for 2012. I’m not quite sure how these, almost a year before the Republican convention, debates rate in national importance vis-a-vis the economy and jobs. YMMV.
Still, I’m happy to see your *concern *about Obama and how one obviously needs to interpret this. Feel free to keep starting threads highlighting your concern.
Don’t know what you’re winking for. I’d far rather have a relatively decisive and competent president, with whom I disagreed ideologically, than a weak and befuddled one. Heck, that’s why I originally favored Obama over McCain in the first place.
Uh, no, he doesn’t need an invitation, and the date of an address has never been refused in the past. You just like to throw the word “amateurish” in front of everything Obama does as though that is justified somehow. The president’s address is more important than the GOP “debate”. But keep raising all that concern, Koxinga.
As opposed to what, the President summoning them at a time of his choosing? I don’t think American government works that way. Anyway, doesn’t your second clause contradict your first?
No, it’s a historic request that goes something like this:
Prez: “I’m coming to speak on this day.”
SOH: “Okay, see you then.”
That is not asking permission, but Boehner has decided to refuse it anyway for some bullshit reason. But keep digging for all that “amateurish” stuff you are desperate to find. What with your seasoned political experience and all.
The Constitution stipulates that the President must (not may, but must) address Congress. The Constitution, however, says absolutely nothing about political parties, primary elections, or debates. The only thing amateurish here is that the Republicans didn’t reschedule their unimportant debate so as not to conflict with the President’s important speech (which was, after all, scheduled for the first day Congress was back in session, which is an eminently sensible time to schedule a speech for).
