Its Just a Coincidence That Barack Obama Scheduled Joint Session of Congress Speech on Same Date & Time as GOP Debate at Reagan Library … LIARS!!!
This might just be President Barack Obama’s ultimate “Lost in Smallness” moment.
After all the golfing and all the vacations, President Barack Obama picked September 7, 2011 at 8PM to give his Joint Session of Congress speech. There is just one problem, it is the same date and time that the Republicans had long planned their debate in California. But, its an honest mistake says the WH … its just a coincidence.
VIDEO Hat Tip: American Power
As the Washington Post states … “There are no coincidences in presidential politics”.
Does Obama and his minions actually think that people believe them? Are these people capable of telling the truth about anything? Who was the fool who thought that this would be a cute idea to have Obama’s jobs speech on the same night as the GOP debate to take the thunder away from a sinking Obama? Doesn’t this just say it all about Obama, the most divisive President America has ever seen. Obama is a political creature, nothing more. He has no concept how to lead, Obama only knows how to divide.
Barack Obama, what a small, small man
And so, when the White House announced today that President Obama would deliver his much-anticipated jobs speech on Sept. 7 at 8 pm — the exact same day and time that the 2012 Republican candidates are scheduled to debate in California — the idea that the timing was purely coincidental was, well, far-fetched.
It’s clear that this White House saw an opportunity to drive a major — and direct — contrast between President Obama and his potential Republican rivals and took it.
As to whether that’s a good idea, strategists — even within the Democratic party — are divided.
Talk about no class. Wasn’t it Obama who said Washington should stop acting political and do things for the American people? His answer to his own ultimatum is to act politically? Legal Insurection has it correct, “I assume that protocol is that a President gets to give a speech to a Joint Session of Congress whenever he wants, but this is abusive and purely political”. WH Press Secretary Jay Carney actually had the audacity to say, it was just a coincidence. To borrow a phrase from was South Carolina Rep Joe Wilson … YOU LIE!!!
“It is coincidental,” said spokesman Jay Carney at today’s press briefing. “There are a lot of factors that go into scheduling a joint session of Congress for a speech. You can never find a perfect time. … There are many channels to watch the president and to watch the debate.”
No matter when the speech winds up being … who really wants to listen to another Obama speech about jobs and what he is promising to do to create jobs? All I can say is it better be good. You request a speech in front of a Joint Session of Congress … Obama better deliver something or he is totally finished.
UPDATE I: Speaker of the House John Boehner sends letter to Obama requesting he reschedule.
UPDATE II: Obama blinks … changes the date of his all important jobs speech until September 8. Makes you wonder why he did npt make it on 9/11.
The White House just put out a statement that puts the onus for clearing Sept. 7 as a date for President Obama’s ballyhooed jobs speech on House Speaker John Boehner, and says the president will instead “welcome” the chance to speak on Sept. 8.
Barack Obama now looks even smaller than he initially did. Obama loses the game of political chicken with John Boehner. So not only does Obama play this childish game of scheduling his speech on the same day of the GOP debate, he then blinks and reschedules. What an image of strength and leadership. Barack Obama did not have to do this, so it begs the question, why did he? Obama had proclaimed that politicians needed to come together, but as reported at the NY Times, “any hopes that a kinder, gentler bipartisan Washington would surface once Congress returns after Labor Day were summarily dashed by Obama’s “coincidental” actions. However, what does one expect from a President who has been the Incredible Shrinking Job Approval President.
Just the other day Allan Lichtman, the man who gets the elections right, predicted that Barack Obama would win reelection in 2012. However, the premises he used were flawed to say the lest and questionable at best.
One of the conditions that Lichtman used was 5-Short term economy: Undecided, as we don’t know how things will look a year from now. Undecided? If Lichtman stated that the long term economy was a negative for Obama, how could the short term be an undecided? From the Gateway Pundit via Zero Hedge comes the following that many leading economic blogs state that the US is already in a recession … undecided on this, hardly.
While the key market moving event from last Friday may have been Bernanke’s Jackson Hole speech which merely left the door open to future QE episodes, the most important event from an economic standpoint was the first GDP revision Q2, which dropped from preliminary 1.3% to a sub stall speed, in real terms, 1.0%. What is just as important is that as the following chart from Bloomberg demonstrates, the YoY change in real GDP, which is now at 1.5%, is a slam dunk indicator of recession: “Since 1948, every time the four-quarter change has fallen below 2 percent, the economy has entered a recession. It’s hard to argue against an indicator with such a long history of accuracy.”
Let alone the fact that the CBO said that there would be sluggish growth through 2012. Mr. Lichtman, when is the election take place again? You might want to revise your thinking.
Lichtman might also want to hold the phone on 9-Scandal: Obama wins because no major scandals have affected him or his administration. We mentioned it briefly in the other day’s post that “Fast & Furious” is growing legs even with the best attempts by the Obama WH and a complicit lapdog MSM to cover it up. However, this scandal has not even been touched into the deep affects of how this will impact Obama. As mentioned at the Gateway Pundit, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) told Greta Van Susteren last night that the House Oversight Committee is being gamed by the Obama Administration.
There is no way that a border agent gets killed by a foolish illegal immigration program like this and there will not be hell to pay. The only question is how high will this go.
- Nancy Grace to Grace the Stage of DWTS
Daily Commentary – Wednesday, August 31, 2011: Download
America, you know when you have a problem with an over-reaching government … When they interject themselves into date night.Talk about taking the “NANNY” state to the extreme.
So in California, parents are going to be required to provide provide workers’ compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time for … babysitters? What if they are only 13 years old? What is the individual is a retired 67 year old grandmother?
Assembly Bill 889 (authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will require these protections for all “domestic employees,” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers.
The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature – and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor’s desk.
Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers’ compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck.
Talk about the “law of unintended consequences”, or is it intentional on the part of liberals? As stated at The Union, there is no doubt that the result of this foolishness will be to discourage individuals from hiring housekeepers, nannies and babysitters and increase the use of institutionalized care rather than allowing children or the elderly to be cared for in their homes. No Doubt at all.
WIZBANG has it right, looks like the only thing that makes sense is for couples to just stay home and nix the babysitter. Out of control politicians have passed laws that would make it illegal for children to have lemonade stands and now this. When will they stop and better yet, when will “We the People” stand up against this nonsense?
From the pages of US News & World Report comes the following that “never wrong” Allan Lichtman predicts that Barack Obama will win the 2012 Presidential election. Wanna bet Sir? Or as the Lonely Conservative puts it, “there is a first time for everything”. The keys to the Lichtman prediction are as follows.
1-Party mandate: Obama loses due to 2010 loss of the House to the GOP.
2-Contest: Obama wins as there is no serious potential for a Democrat primary.
3-Incumbency: Obama wins for obvious reasons.
4-Third Party: No left wing third party will challenge Obama, so he wins this one.
5-Short term economy: Undecided, as we don’t know how things will look a year from now.
6-Long-term economy: Obama loses for obvious reasons.
7-Policy change: Obama wins for his major policy changes.
8-Social unrest: Obama wins as there is no widespread social unrest.
9-Scandal: Obama wins because no major scandals have affected him or his administration.
10-Foreign/military failure: Obama wins because there are no obvious foreign policy failures.
11-Foreign/military success: Obama wins because Osama bin Laden is dead.
12-Incumbent charisma: Obama loses because he leads from behind.
13-Challenger charisma: Obama wins because nobody great will challenge him
So Obama has 9 wins … 3 loses and 1 undecided and thus a reelection. Not gonna happen. Let alone Lichtman’s analysis is a stretch at best. After the 2012 election, there will be one more sorry individual who hitches his wagon to Obama.
I guess we need to just forget the fact that Obama was a RCP average 43% job approval rating, 53.2% disapproval or a -10.2%. The Rasmussen Employment index has hit the skids. We are also supposed to discount the continual downward trend of all of Obama’s polling numbers with every single demographic. Let’s not forget the
Generic Presidential Ballot that has the GOP at 48% and Obama at 40% and the Congressional Generic ballot at GOP 45% and Democrats at 36%.
At 69.3, the Employment Index is down eight points from the beginning of the year and down 14 points since last November when hiring expectations peaked. Generally speaking, a decline in the Rasmussen Employment Index suggests the upcoming government reports on job creation will be worse than prior months.
Sorry dude, but even your analysis that gives Obama the win is flawed. Just as Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 was historic, so will be his loss in 2012. Lichtman, I do not think I would bet the house on Obama, then again, the mortgage would be underwater anyhow so what’s the difference, right? Then there is Lichtman’s flawed analysis that gives Obama the benefit of the doubt when all economic and key political issue indicators say just the opposite. So let’s review Obama’s so-called positive signs according to Lichtman:
2-Contest: Obama wins as there is no serious potential for a Democrat primary: Seriously? How many primary challenges have there ever been? We live in a different era of partisan party, Kool-aid drinking politics where both sides know that a primary challenge to an incumbent President is certain political suicide. Take this one off the list and irrelevant as even thought some in the Democrat party have asked for a primary challenge to Obama and 47% of Democrats think he should be challenged, it will never happen.