He doesn’t need the support of ordinary voters, he’s already wildly popular, but (IMO) he would like their support, and (IMO) he wants people (not just people who voted for him) to hear from him directly.
And as such, we get the Leno appearance, the 60 Minutes appearance,** AND he’s going to have a nationally televised press conference next Tuesday, 8pm eastern.** (American Idol will move to Wednesday).
The more certain segments are upset by all this the more it tells me he’s doing exactly the right thing.
President Obama has already done more (good things) in 2 months than some presidents do in two terms. The man can’t win, either he’s “doing too much” (I think that was last week’s talking point) or he’s not doing enough, or now, should be doing something else, something other than speaking directly to the American people, which is, actually, doing something.
I know, me too! Since we’re not used to having a president who cares what the American people think of his policies, it makes me wonder, how in the world could we have gotten so lucky!?
No, but he wants to do it, and that’s good enough for me.
And how do you put pressure on other politicians? Appeal directly to their constituents.
If McCain had won and was doing this, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Everything a president does, from tying his shoes to actual policy, is fodder for the shit-flinging hyper-partisan extremists. I think politcally moderate Americans, the majority, will judge him on his words and deeds and not on how he chooses to deliver his message.
I still remember watching one of the Sunday news/chat shows shortly after Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota. They had a memo that had been circulated among Republicans about what lessons they should learn from that surprising victory. One of them was “you must appear to be plain-speaking.” One of the pundits (I think it was George Will) said exactly what I was thinking. That memo proved how utterly they had missed the point. Ventura did not “appear to be plain-speaking”, he just spoke plainly.
More than left/right, my political position is pro-honesty. And not just the technical, weaselly, I-never-actually-said-X kind of honesty. I am sick to death of press conferences with byzantine, long-winded questions and answers that don’t answer them. I don’t expect Leno to grill Obama, but I think he’ll ask about more than the new puppy and his NCAA bracket. And I expect Obama to answer. I think it’s great.
This is (slightly edited) from a longer Pit thread that I ended up not posting because it kept getting too long. The original post would have been titled “Assholes of the Day” (though I might have re-thought that title since I guess we’re not supposed to curse in Pit thread titles anymore?), anyway…
==================================
North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-Duh)
PatrickMcHenry’s a piece of work (see previous links for background). He’s earned a 100-percent conservative rating from the American Conservative Union, which means that Hannity would adore him. One problem, like Michael Steele, he can sometimes be a bit too honest, an absolute rarity for a conservative. In an interview with the National Journal (link is subscription-only) he says this:
I suppose this can be interpreted in various ways, but it sounds to me like the plan is to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, country be damned. They just want to bring down the approval numbers. I see this as just another way of saying that they hope President Obama fails. I can only hope that the American people stay focused on President Obama. So far a majority have seemed to tune out the “Republicans-crying-wolf” yabbering and hopefully they’ll continue to do that.
==================================
So yeah, I don’t think most of them are willing to make an honest effort to work with President Obama. Some are, but those who do then become the target of angry right-wingers (see Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins). Their Fearless Leader Rush Limbaugh has them bobbing like marionettes. Now, only part of it might be for spite, which is not a word I used. Much of it is because it simply won’t do for President Obama to be successful, or even be seen as being successful because the more successful he is, the worse they look. So they keep pounding pounding pounding criticisms, throwing tantrums and lobbing attacks hoping that something, (SOCIALIST! MARXIST! TERRORIST! ILLEGAL ALIEN! DOING TOO MUCH! NOT DOING ENOUGH! WHERE’S THE DOG?? MICHELLE’S BARE ARMS! and on and on and on and on and on and on and on), anything, will stick. So far nothing has. It’s nice to finally have a Teflon president I can call my own.
Not that there can’t be legitimate and reasonable ideological differences. President Obama himself said that he wants to hear all sides of an issue and has tried, over and over and over and over, repeatedly, to reach out to Republicans, only to be slapped away. Now it’s, among other things, HE’S APPEARING ON TELEVISION WHEN HE SHOULD BE WORKING! and next it will be HOW DARE THEY! THEY’RE TEARING UP THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN TO PUT IN A GARDEN! (next week’s talking point no doubt), then it will be WHY IS HE GOING OVERSEAS WHEN AMERICANS NEED HIM HERE??? with several more in between I’m sure.
That’s hilarious. Nixon and Reagan were more “socialist” than Obama! You’ve been listening to too much Rush.
For those who are interested, here’s a link to President Obama’s town hall meeting yesterday. Going directly to the people. It’s a wonderful thing.
Don’t you think that’s a bit of an exaggeration? Especially since historians typically say that it takes years before one can legitimately evaluate the effects of one’s Presidency?
Yeah, I think The Tonight Show is kind of an odd pick. It’s an entertainment show, it’s not a news show or a serious venue for much of anything. People don’t watch it for news and information, they watch to to hear Jay Leno crack jokes and banter with actors promoting their latest project. Occasionally you get a magician or a comic or people on the street saying hilariously stupid things, but you don’t get – nor, IMO, do viewers expect or particularly want – substantive talk on economic recovery and the choices and challenges we all face.
If the President has a a serious message to convey, then I think he would be better served to choose a more serious venue. I think taking the message to The Tonight Show begs the question as to why people should take him, or his message, seriously. Nothing serious is ever presented on The Tonight Show; that’s not what the show is about.
If OTOH he’s not “on message” but is just dropping by for the usual “banter with Jay,” then I don’t think that’s a smart choice, either. He’s not an entertainer or a celebrity as such; he is the President. He should have better things to do.
If he wants to go the “entertainment” route, IMO he’d be much better served to go on The Daily Show than The Tonight Show.
Bullshit, a president that reaches out to the public effectively and often is the one putting a blowtorch to partisanship (see FDR, Andy Jackson, JFK). Playing the tit for tat game of insider one upsmanship is why we get slow ineffective underfunded legislation bloated with pork.
I really don’t see much difference between this and the (any) president going to speak to the Politically Active Dog Groomers For a Brighter Tomorrow group. Except that this’ll be seen by millions and the PADGFABT meeting would only result in one or two selected quotes in the Huffington Post and some shakey cameraphone footage on YouTube.
Presidents leave the Oval Office to yakkity-yak with groups all the time.
I’m sure that’s precisely why he picked The Tonight Show. It’s a softball venue on a network that’s strongly sympathetic toward the Obama administration.
I’m not criticizing this decision, mind you, though I do have some misgivings. I’m just saying that if I were in his position, and if I wanted a non-threatening, non-confrontational venue in which to be heard by the American people, I’d pick The Tonight Show.
But he won’t go on Rush Limbaugh’s show, because he knows that Rush will ride him like a mule. Whether you like Rush or not is immaterial; Obama won’t go somewhere where he will actually have to answer hard questions.
You’re assuming, in that logic, that there’s only one reason and one way to go onto the Tonight Show. I would have been annoyed with Bush doing it because he wasn’t articulate and because it would have felt like he was going on to win approval, not to communicate effectively with his people. I feel like Obama is articulate, and is going on to communicate effectively with the American people, so it doesn’t bother me. Two different apparent motivations and skill sets mean the action is judged differently.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit I’m a little amused at my own tendency to cut Obama slack I wouldn’t have Bush. But I’m pretty aware of it, and this isn’t one of those times.
I think that both of these comments stem from a, hopefully, outdated view of the President’s job. Yes, the President has to sell their policies to other politicians, but in Obama’s new vision of the Presidency - the one he sold to the American public and was, probably more than the man himself, the reason he got elected - was one of cooperative power. Power, if you will, of the people and for the people.
Above all, IMHO, the job of the President right now is to fix the economy. And the problems with the economy are only partly because of the politicians and the banks. They’re also because a lot of the people who watch The Tonight Show instead of CNN signed mortgages they couldn’t afford, bought too much stuff on credit and are now terrified and don’t know what they, personally, can do about it. They’re the consumers of the “consumer confidence crisis”. Seems to make sense to talk to them, too, and the best place to do that is on the show that they watch. (I’m not saying that people who watch CNN didn’t make the same mistakes, but they’re already presumably getting the information they need.)
That wasn’t outrage. I was just trying to present the other side of the argument in a dispassionate, impartial way.
I don’t care if he goes on Tonight - actually it’ll probably be fun. Still smacks of unnecessary populism though.
One election doesn’t change the job of the president. He’s still just an elected politician same as he always was. Elected politicians need to persuade other elected politicians not the public. It doesn’t really matter what the public thinks until the next election day. So it’s a waste of time for no discernable reason (apart from populism).
But hey, I don’t really feel very strongly about this. It’ll probably do no harm and will be fun I guess.
Just thought someone ought to provide the devil’s advocate/other side of the argument role.