home

From The "Presidential Speeches Don't Matter" File

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:40:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Jed Lewison, actually they do:

Barack Obama has jumped to a 15-point lead over the Republicans in Congress in trust to handle job creation, a sign the beleaguered president’s $450 billion jobs package has hit its mark in public opinion. Fifty-two percent support the plan – and most say it just might work.

For background, see this and this.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Tom Friedman For President >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    From The "Presidential Speeches Don't Matter" File | 57 comments (57 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It just might work... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:51:27 AM EST
    .

    That phrase is usually preceded by "That plan is so crazy..."

    BTW, Reid is blocking the Republican move for an immediate vote on the President's bill.  One wonder's why the Dems in the Senate would block or delay such a popular bill.  

    .

    While the FACT is that neither of them... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:06:01 AM EST
    ...really seems to give a sh*t.  Kabuki at its finest, but it's election season, so, I guess, bring it on.  It is telling beyond any poll or legislative attempt, though, that the President is silent about the Occupy Wall Street movement.  His silence, as the saying goes, speaks volumes.  Then again, a guy who sees Reagan as a role-model isn't going to do much of anything here.  He probably thinks they're all idealistic fools who aren't accomplishing anything, since this is his take on committed activists of all stripes.

    While I'm glad, I suppose, that his yapping "works" the polls, the whole things is a who's-got-bigger-balls-contest between eunuchs.  Count me unimpressed.

    And, obviously, he's in Wall St. pocket (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:07:12 AM EST
    Which renders him all but useless, barring some epiphany I don't think he's even capable of.

    Parent
    Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    [insert what you know I am going to say here.]

    Parent
    When you're already losing the Wall St. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    money race with Romney, it would be bad strategy to say or do anything that might further impede the collection of campaign cash.

    I have no doubt that Geithner is keeping Obama on a short leash where Wall Street is concerned; yes, I know it should be the other way around, but I don't think it is, by any stretch.

    We know Obama's good at talking, at giving speeches, but those speeches have also laid the groundwork for the blame for failure of the AJA to pass to be handed out to the American people, who didn't make enough calls or send enough e-mails, as he's been so passionately urging them to do.  

    Republicans will certainly be entitled to some of the blame, but I keep thinking - wouldn't it be great if the GOP could get the blame for not enacting truly Democratic legislation?  Instead of the half-measures, watered-down, Republican-bargained crap that seems to be all Obama's interested in?  

    I'm pretty sure that when the jobs bill doesn't pass, it will get tinkered with some more, the GOP will pout a little more, Obama will give a little more, and one day, it will pass, and he'll be able to triumphantly claim that he's made history once again.

    Except it won't be as advertised - like a lot of other so-called Democratic legislation - and my hope is that OWS is thriving and calling as much BS on it as it is sure to be.

    Which, along with a still-moribund economy and high unemployment, isn't going to help those pesky poll numbers.

    Parent

    You know something (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    I just can't get down with this Wall Street tossing "O" out of their little club drama. I don't do conspiracy theories too much, but just stop, and take a real close look at what they're trying to get us to believe.

    We all at TL shoot mortars back and forth every day regarding the treacherous sellout Obama became. Now that's not a fantasy, He really did it. He abandoned his constituency, turned his back on those most in need, and works 24/7 dismantling the Covenant democrats have historically had with "The Working Man."

    He literally peeled the quarters off poor people's eyes and groveled over to Jamie Dimon for a pat on the head.

    What dimension of cognitive dissonance are we supposed to accept that....not just a man, but a sitting President, would stoop to this level in return for some sort of psycho dramatic distortion of approval?

    And, after Trillions in homage, and assuming they're all adults and understand the "flexibility" politicians sometime exhibit during campaigns these "Fat cats" consider a little quip a blood libel?
    `
    `there's something else going on; that scenario is just so bizarre as to be clinically impossible.

    Do you understand, that if its true, the macabre fear of the "inmates running the institution" becomes, literally, a fact?


    Parent

    Obama & Wall Street (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by norris morris on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:00:45 PM EST
    Obama has given it up to Geithner and wall Street
    as you so well point out.

    Thanks for your excellent comment on Obama's sell out and calling things as they are. Obama has been kissing Dimon, et al and he hasn't given a damn about the people who elected him and were promised representation by the feckless Obama.

    Yes, the inmates are really running the asylum.

    Parent

    Oh, they're not tossing him out, not now (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 01:38:18 PM EST
    when they need him to keep things as they are; doesn't mean they aren't hedging their bets - hedging is so Wall Street, you know?

    As for abandoning his constituency - which one?  The one he surrounded himself with, even during the campaign, getting the inside scoop on what was about to happen on the Street, and after, as he was staffing up, or the one that was less about a shared ideology and vision and more about the number of votes that would facilitate his election?

    There are a lot of people who believed that they were part of the Obama constituency, but that doesn't mean he shared - or even now shares - that belief.

    Parent

    To your point (none / 0) (#51)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 10:29:16 AM EST
    "As for abandoning his constituency - which one? "

    I wasn't perfectly clear, and was writing under the (false) assumption that Obama=democrat:

    "Covenant democrats have historically had with "The Working Man."

    Parent

    First, you have to believe that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 11:00:49 AM EST
    ever regarded the working man - or woman - as the nexus around which he would move a traditional Democratic agenda - and frankly, I think it would be easier to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

    We've been over this endlessly, that there was nothing in Obama's track record that ever suggested he was going to be anything other than what we're experiencing, but people chose, with the help of the media, including bloggers, to believe that the (D) after his name meant something.  

    I remember saying this back during the 2008 campaign, that Obama is like the guy with a girl in every city, he's told each one that she's the one he really loves, and each one believes it.  And even though they've caught him cheating, they've seen it with their own eyes, they continue to make excuses, to blame themselves, and deny what is blindingly obvious.

    The common folk may think they are Obama's constituents, but it doesn't matter what the common people think, it matters what Obama thinks - and by his actions, that is clear, he's made his choices and they haven't accrued to the benefit of your average person.

    And he can promise the moon, he can stand up and announce millionaire surtaxes, he can sprinkle fairy dust all over his first three years in office, but that will be a political strategy in pursuit of votes.  Period.


    Parent

    Axelrod and Brazile (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 03:44:37 PM EST
    both are on record as stating that working class whites and Hispanics were not part of Obama's New Democratic Party base. I believed them when they said that just like I believed Obama when he stated he was going to put SS on the table.  

    Parent
    [Raising Hand] (none / 0) (#33)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 02:41:17 PM EST
    You start with the idea that everything you believe is a fact and everything that people who disagree with you believe is not a fact.

    That doesn't quite seem fair.

    Parent

    The mind reels (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sj on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 05:00:06 PM EST
    at the cognitive dissonance.

    Parent
    I'm just saying (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    that it is really easy to prevail in debates when the rules require everything you say to be deemed correct without question.

    Parent
    You're under arrest! (none / 0) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 03:29:29 PM EST
    Go down to the precinct and turn yourself in. Just tell them you're following the shooter's orders.

    since I make the roolz, I also give the orders.

    So get going,hurry up, I'm holding my finger on the pepper spray, and i think I'm gonna sneeze.

    "Ah....Ah....Cho.......

    Parent

    U.S. to Latin America governments (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:11:11 PM EST
    "Do as I say and not as I do."

    SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic (AP) -- Poised to expand its free-trade network in Latin America, the United States on Wednesday pressed governments of the region to ensure that all of their citizens benefit from the increased prosperity that expanded commerce offers. The Obama administration offered $17.5 million in American assistance toward that goal.
    ...
    Clinton urged the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean to similarly offer capital and educational opportunities for people "at the lowest levels of the economic ladder" as their economies grow through greater access to global markets. She said the United States would put up the new money for infrastructure assistance, support for female entrepreneurs and other projects aimed at fostering "inclusive economic growth."
    ...
    "My question is: Will that growth include more and more people?" Clinton asked. "Will that prosperity reach down into the middle class and the poor? Will more families realize their own dreams?" link

    My question is: When will the prosperity enjoyed by the 1% reach down into the middle class and the poor here in the U.S.?

    Hope springs eternal! (none / 0) (#1)
    by the capstan on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 10:45:20 AM EST


    That's A Leap (none / 0) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    I think anyone, not just the President who would have pushed a jobs bill would be popular.

    And if you take the number of speeches divided by points, that's less than a point a speech,  probably closer to a half point/speech.  
    But 15 points is 15 points.

    All that aside, why I don't think it matters because the republicans aren't letting this thing out of the House in tact, and the Senate will surely filibuster it until it nothing but tax cuts and those aren't going to create the number of jobs the country needs.

    Without some serious jobs, Obama doesn't get re-elected.

    Unless he can pin the blame on the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:02:40 AM EST


    Parent
    More Likely... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    ... the other way around.

    Parent
    He needs to be able (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 01:44:39 PM EST
    to play that card without overplaying.  I'm not sure that subtlety is his strong point.

    Parent
    Subtlety was His Weakness (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 03:26:44 PM EST
    When he first got in office he did a lot of stuff so subtlety no one knew about.  Not a great quality for a pol.

    Now, well I have to agree, nothing subtle about the local of some of his job speeches.

    Parent

    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by norris morris on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:10:48 PM EST
    Making a speech about jobs that he can't deliver on is just more campaign fluff. Obama is good at promising and not delivering.

    His MO when observed from experience just indicates more BS and in the end his bucks come from the Street and Corporations. Obama is a lame duck and the GOP will never take him seriously unless of course, he has more goodies to give them with the ruse of "compromise"

    Obama's record in office is an embarrassment.

    Now that he finds it convenient to blame the Republicans for obstruction, does it occur to him that we watched him cave in over and over and mishandle the politics of bargaining? That we were sickened by the sight of Junior getting spanked by Boehner and Cantor even after he did their bidding?

    Is it possile anyone is stupid enough to think that Obama can perform at this point, and that it's just all talk?

    Parent

    the Senate will surely filibuster it (none / 0) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:51:11 AM EST
    That will have to be the Dems doing the filibustering as the Reps want an immediate vote now.

    Parent
    So You Keep Claiming (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    Use the link button if you have a link.

    Parent
    Don't need a link (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    The Dems can't filibuster what isn't on the floor yet, and what the GOP wants brought to the floor and when in the Senate is meaningless.

    Parent
    CoralG (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 03:36:52 PM EST
    I asked for the link because I knew this some sort of shenanigans, like everything AAA writes.

    More that once I have chased down one of his claims only to realize he's full of it, just like now.

    No one is filibustering it, apparently anytime Reid holds something up procedurally, it's a filibuster.

    I am pretty sure AAA searches the net until he finds some clown to back his theory, because his links are always very obscure and never the same.

    I do get a kick out of his links, like the filibuster link, bad photo-shopped pic and even worse writing, yet this is fact in his book that we should all buy.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#35)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 02:50:03 PM EST

    The R's want the Presidents bill brought to the floor now, and Harry Reid refuses, an effective filibuster.

    Parent
    That's not a filibuster (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 03:05:52 PM EST
    that's more like filiblowhard

    Parent
    It was a shell game (none / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    Precisely why, after proposing a vote on the bill by attaching it to the China currency bill, McConnell refused Reid's offer of moving to debate the bill immediately.  This would have required the Republicans to agree to not filibuster the jobs bill.  They refused, because they don't really want an up/down vote on the bill without the option to filibuster it if things aren't going their way.

    Parent
    Uh..maybe not? (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 02:39:42 PM EST
    Obama would lose some Dems on the vote and Reid was saving the president from embarrassment.  So sayeth the Daily Beast.

    Barack Obama continued his sales blitz across the country Tuesday, touting his jobs plan and scolding Republicans in Congress more than once to "pass this bill."

    There was only one rather embarrassing problem: his $447 billion proposal was blocked in the Senate--by his fellow Democrats.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stepped up to stop a vote in the Senate on the president's measure, which had been requested by an obviously satisfied Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, because both men knew what the president cannot or will not admit-- that he does not have enough votes within his own party, let alone from Republicans, to pass the bill he's been hyping for weeks.

    The last-minute move by Reid saved Obama from the immediate embarrassment of losing a battle inside the family, but it highlighted the gulf between Obama and Congressional Democrats, who now operate almost entirely apart from the White House and have, in many cases, decided that supporting their unpopular president today is not worth losing their own jobs next November.

    McConnell launched his surprise attack in the afternoon, when it had become clear that a vote on the bill would produce at least a handful of no's from moderate Democrats, who object to tax increases in the bill, especially on oil companies, and a few liberals who have insisted for months that the president increase at least some taxes on millionaires to begin to close the budget gap and finance jobs measures.



    Parent
    Yeah, I heard that (none / 0) (#55)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 06, 2011 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    It's an interesting theory, and while a few Democrats had voiced objections to different parts of the bill, I haven't seen anything offering any evidence that they would lose a vote on it.  It'll be interesting to see if they have to break it up into pieces to get it passed.

    Saw your pics in the other thread - you work at DOJ?

    Parent

    BTW - An "effective" filibuster?1? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    Heh.

    Parent
    Huge problem in the logic (none / 0) (#5)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:03:31 AM EST
    Polls consistently show local support for their individual representatives/senators and vote accordingly regardless of the "overall" dissatisfaction with Congress in general.  Whereas, a Presidential candidate takes the brunt across the spectrum.  Obama's numbers may be better than Congress (all Presidents enjoy that benefit) and even the highly categories "GOP congress" but that doesn't translate to votes for him.

    Obama gained 15 points (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:08:47 AM EST
    Sorry, that can't be explained away.

    Parent
    15 Points?? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by norris morris on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:19:36 PM EST
    These polls change with each speech and events that often can't be controlled. Shifting sands.

    Obama is still in trouble. Recent fundraiser of the Big Boys was missing quite a few donors.The small donations from the Web is down as well.  These kids are now unemployed and they're "bitter".

    The Polls shift and of the moment Obama is swimming upstream. He talks, but there is no stuff, no action behind this. Ultimately his weak Presidency will probably doom his election chances unles the GOP does something monumentally stupid. Which can happen. But Obama is in the trouble of his own making. No big or meaningful jobs program will be handed to him by the GOP.

    I find him embarrassing.

    Parent

    Sorry but he is still underwater (none / 0) (#11)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:18:21 AM EST
    across the spectrum.  That also can't be explained away.

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:20:41 AM EST
    He is at worst in a dead heat.

    I think he is the favorite now.


    Parent

    Read 'em yourself (none / 0) (#15)
    by BTAL on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:35:26 AM EST
    From RCP:

    Job approval

    Direction of country

    WaPo/ABC: Opposition to Obama grows -- strongly

    Too early to even attempt to use any polls against specific candidates.  

    Parent

    Too early because (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    the result contradict your notion I suppose.

    Parent
    problem is (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    national polls show overall popularity; Electoral votes win elections.

    Bloomberg News did a State by State, electoral vote analysis, and integrated historical data for every President since they kept these records. Also, they were about as sympathetic to Obama as "impartiality permits.

    the conclusion was there is zero chance (their words) for an Obama win. mathematically, no matter what combinations the computers tried, there was none that totalled 270 electoral votes.

    Too many "must win" states, and taking every one of those, and superimposing the greatest comeback miracles from Past Presidents, its never been done, and statistically impossible.

    just the messenger

    Parent

    p.s. (none / 0) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:54:06 AM EST
    trying to find a link

    Parent
    A zero chance? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:56:04 AM EST
    Ha!

    Ok.

    Parent

    Please (none / 0) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 12:06:42 PM EST
    point over there >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I bet, oops, "invested" a hundred bucks on Joe Willie -19 in Super Bowl 3.

    I luv a good longshot as much as anyone. And, all I'm saying is that that's what it looks like....a longshot.

    Parent

    What odds are being offered (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    on an Obama win?

    I can assure you that you can get very good odds, from your perspective, on an Obama loss on 2012.

    You won't pay more than 11-10.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    I am going to have to call BS on any analysis that gives the sitting POTUS 0% chance of winning.

    Parent
    At first bounce, I thought (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    he got it from a taxi cab driver, but reading further, I found that Tom Friedman (NYT, Oct 5) actually got his ideas from Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. ..."Obama's decision to respond to GOP extremism, and the failure to conclude a Grand Bargain by moving to the left rather than the center was a huge mistake.

    Tom believes Americans will support a big plan and pines over ignoring Cat Food I so as to cut $3.9 trillion by 2020, through raising tax revenues, cutting defense and increasing the age at which people would qualify for social security and medicare. And, he pines even more so that Christie bowed out because the governor would have backed Cat Food I and would have forced Obama "back to the center."  Tom does like things to come in "Grand" sizes, his wars, his bargains and his politicians.


    Heh (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:20:03 AM EST
    Tom Friedman.

    Parent
    Meh. (none / 0) (#49)
    by norris morris on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 09:22:22 PM EST
    Tom Friedman.

    What a bunch of muddled and inaccurate thinking if one can call it that.

    Parent

    BTD ever the, um, er....optimist? (none / 0) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    I don't know how to respond to this BTD clone that replaced the Angry Birds version from the summer.  That one built up such a following.

    /s

    Seriously tho, thanks the for post highlighting the positive trend.  Were the two posts referenced cross-posted?  I don't remember seeing them here.

    Those were my regular Sunady feature (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 11:55:20 AM EST
    for daily kos.

    Parent
    Is there a schedule for your DK postings? (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 03:11:56 PM EST
    Is there a rhyme/reason some of those postings are not also posted at TL?  Getting dizzy.  Thanks.

    Parent
    Sunday Late afternoon/Evening (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 06:03:17 PM EST
    The rhyme or reason is how I am feeling.

    Parent
    Seems tied to how the Gators fare. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 06:06:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Pretty low bar (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 12:39:50 PM EST
    I mean - most people trust their neighborhood criminal over Congress these days. I certainly trust the local stray cat to have the interests of the country more at the forefront of their minds than I do Congress.

    That many more people now understand and approve of the jobs plan, when a couple of weeks ago everyone hated it?

    Sorry - speeches aren't that good at explaining the plan, nor will these numbers last.

    BTD is on a tear today (none / 0) (#31)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 01:45:58 PM EST
    on the actual topic of this post I have nothing more to say than "duh..."  but that seems nonetheless wiser than arguing that the President can't do X or Y and that speeches don't matter.

    wrong comparison (none / 0) (#45)
    by diogenes on Wed Oct 05, 2011 at 06:08:53 PM EST
    About 11% of people like Congress.  The proper question will be whether people trust Obama or Mitt Romney on job creation.

    From The "Presidential Speeches Don't Matter" File | 57 comments (57 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment