Press reports indicated that the long-awaited (?) speech by President Obama to a joint session of Congress, outlining his latest plan to turn around the economy and create jobs, will be held next Wednesday, September 7.
Purely by chance, this also happens to be the same date (and same time, again purely by chance) that challengers for the Republican presidential nomination are scheduled to hold a debate in California to be broadcast on national TV. Nothing like using the office of the president for a little political theater.
When it was pointed out to the administration that its planned speech conflicted with the previously scheduled Republican debate (something that somehow must have escaped the notice of the president's political advisers), the administration's response was that the Republican candidates were welcome to move their event. In his letter requesting to address a joint session of Congress, Obama stressed that "Washington needs to put aside politics." But apparently, what he meant was that everyone but he needs to put aside politics.
After all, Obama is going to give a speech, a rare event that has not occurred for at least a couple of days. The world needs to pay attention. Oh, and make sure that all the networks broadcast it. This time he might really say something.
One will recall that, during his recent non-political bus tour prior to his recent vacation, Obama promised that he would be setting forth a specific plan for the economy and jobs. He subsequently said that such a plan would have to wait until September. Next Wednesday's speech is apparently the time in which he will unveil the specifics of that specific plan.
Interestingly enough, the president has already indicated that he will "lay out a series of bipartisan proposals" on which Congress can take immediate action. Now, one of the problems here is that "bipartisan" means that both sides agree to the proposals. And if that is the case, if indeed both sides already agree to the proposals, then why is a speech necessary? If there truly is bipartisan agreement, then Congress should just pass the proposals into law.
More likely, however, this is once again the Obama administration needing to find itself a good dictionary. In the president's mind, bipartisan means what he wants, while partisan means anything else. Thus, the healthcare law written behind closed doors, presented for vote without debate or even reading, and passed on Christmas eve was considered bipartisan because it was what he wanted, regardless of what the majority of American people wanted.
Anyone who watches the president's speech will likely find out that it is not truly bipartisan, is probably not that specific, and will mostly consist of a rehash of programs that he has already espoused. Programs that have either failed, have been rejected, or are just waiting for members of Congress (both Democrat and Republican) to get off their respective duffs and finally approve because they are just lingering, in some cases already approved by one house but languishing in the other.
But the president will read from his teleprompters and his media will no doubt speak in awe of how great his plan is, its innovation, and how nobody else could have thought of such ideas. Later, it will be pointed out quietly that each of the proposals has already been on the table for some time.
No, it is doubtful that next Wednesday's speech will provide any great enlightenment. Instead, it will appear that President Obama is continuing to play politics, even to the point of pushing aside or trying to detract from a previously scheduled event involving the other political party. Instead of being a triumphant gesture by a president seeking to rally the nation, it will appear as a sign of political pettiness.
It is a poor cry to be considered relevant by a president who is becoming increasingly irrelevant, both at home and in the world.
Regards to President Dunsell.
Purely by chance, this also happens to be the same date (and same time, again purely by chance) that challengers for the Republican presidential nomination are scheduled to hold a debate in California to be broadcast on national TV. Nothing like using the office of the president for a little political theater.
When it was pointed out to the administration that its planned speech conflicted with the previously scheduled Republican debate (something that somehow must have escaped the notice of the president's political advisers), the administration's response was that the Republican candidates were welcome to move their event. In his letter requesting to address a joint session of Congress, Obama stressed that "Washington needs to put aside politics." But apparently, what he meant was that everyone but he needs to put aside politics.
After all, Obama is going to give a speech, a rare event that has not occurred for at least a couple of days. The world needs to pay attention. Oh, and make sure that all the networks broadcast it. This time he might really say something.
One will recall that, during his recent non-political bus tour prior to his recent vacation, Obama promised that he would be setting forth a specific plan for the economy and jobs. He subsequently said that such a plan would have to wait until September. Next Wednesday's speech is apparently the time in which he will unveil the specifics of that specific plan.
Interestingly enough, the president has already indicated that he will "lay out a series of bipartisan proposals" on which Congress can take immediate action. Now, one of the problems here is that "bipartisan" means that both sides agree to the proposals. And if that is the case, if indeed both sides already agree to the proposals, then why is a speech necessary? If there truly is bipartisan agreement, then Congress should just pass the proposals into law.
More likely, however, this is once again the Obama administration needing to find itself a good dictionary. In the president's mind, bipartisan means what he wants, while partisan means anything else. Thus, the healthcare law written behind closed doors, presented for vote without debate or even reading, and passed on Christmas eve was considered bipartisan because it was what he wanted, regardless of what the majority of American people wanted.
Anyone who watches the president's speech will likely find out that it is not truly bipartisan, is probably not that specific, and will mostly consist of a rehash of programs that he has already espoused. Programs that have either failed, have been rejected, or are just waiting for members of Congress (both Democrat and Republican) to get off their respective duffs and finally approve because they are just lingering, in some cases already approved by one house but languishing in the other.
But the president will read from his teleprompters and his media will no doubt speak in awe of how great his plan is, its innovation, and how nobody else could have thought of such ideas. Later, it will be pointed out quietly that each of the proposals has already been on the table for some time.
No, it is doubtful that next Wednesday's speech will provide any great enlightenment. Instead, it will appear that President Obama is continuing to play politics, even to the point of pushing aside or trying to detract from a previously scheduled event involving the other political party. Instead of being a triumphant gesture by a president seeking to rally the nation, it will appear as a sign of political pettiness.
It is a poor cry to be considered relevant by a president who is becoming increasingly irrelevant, both at home and in the world.
Regards to President Dunsell.
- AH
No comments:
Post a Comment