Almost One Year Ago Today

[dbacks fan]

http://www.ktul.com/story/15367769/obama-to-address-congress-next-week-on-jobs?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook

[we vs us]

I think the perception is either he caved or he didn't have control over the whole process.  Either way it doesn't look good.

Also:  I'm disappointed.  He needs to do some of this stuff to re-establish cred, even if it's penny ante jockeying.  He's got to start throwing his weight around.  I thought this was a first step towards that but obviously not.

[Gaspar]

One would think that asking for a joint session of congress and developing this grand jobs plan would involve some serious strategic planning.  That would include date and time planning.

At first I thought this was a strategic move too, and when Carney alluded to the president being "unaware" of the conflict, I thought that was a brilliant move to show that President Obama is not concerned with the Republican candidates.  Now that I understand that a joint session requires a resolution and invitation by congress, I think Carney was actually being very frank.

That's a bit disturbing, that he wouldn't have a single adviser with the simple foresight to tell him that congress would not allow that date. 

It seems he may have simply checked his golf schedule and squeezed it in between Andrews on September 6th with Richard Trumka and Fairmont on September 8th with Ben Finkenbinder.  Of course he can play with Ben any day so it shouldn't be too much of a chore if he needs to shuffle the tee time.  Should be off the course and showered in time to rehearse anyway.

[Conan71]

I think the perception is either he caved or he didn't have control over the whole process.  Either way it doesn't look good.

Also:  I'm disappointed.  He needs to do some of this stuff to re-establish cred, even if it's penny ante jockeying.  He's got to start throwing his weight around.  I thought this was a first step towards that but obviously not.

He doesn't need to jockey. He doesn't need to throw his weight around.  He needs to come up with a way to instill some confidence in the business community and consumers alike.  It's the same thing over and over out of this President.  Does he have Aspergers?

[Townsend]

So what we get out of this:

1. The President is too weak to say "my way" and stick with it. 

2. The Republicans find their group of jesters babbling the main 3 tea party talking points all evening more important than jobs creation.

3. All of us lose.

[Gaspar]

So what we get out of this:

1. The President is too weak to say "my way" and stick with it. 

2. The Republicans find their group of jesters babbling the main 3 tea party talking points all evening more important than jobs creation.

3. All of us lose.

What's wrong with giving the speech tomorrow from the Oval Office? 

In fact he could give it on the 5th in front of a joint session and on national TV if he wants.

No, he has chosen to compete with the NFL season opener game between Green Bay and New Orleans, which will garner far more viewers than a presidential address, or a debate.

It seems that they are either trying to downplay this speech, or just really really stupid.

[Townsend]

really really stupid.

Damn Gaspar, where've you been?  Have you watched US politics for the last 20 years?

[Gaspar]

Damn Gaspar, where've you been?  Have you watched US politics for the last 20 years?

Good point!

[we vs us]

He doesn't need to jockey. He doesn't need to throw his weight around.  He needs to come up with a way to instill some confidence in the business community and consumers alike.  It's the same thing over and over out of this President.  Does he have Aspergers?

He absolutely needs to jockey and throw his weight around.  The problem is that no one is seen to be leading, and Congress's factions are warring.  He has to start being front and center and tamping down the weirdness.  Not limiting debate, but making sure it's orderly and constructive.  Right now it's decidedly not.

[Gaspar]

He absolutely needs to jockey and throw his weight around.  The problem is that no one is seen to be leading, and Congress's factions are warring.  He has to start being front and center and tamping down the weirdness.  Not limiting debate, but making sure it's orderly and constructive.  Right now it's decidedly not.

He has needed to do this from day one.  I think that is the primary problem that many of his followers have had with him.  It's hard to follow when your leader refuses to lead.  I'll say it again, he seems to despise being in a control or leadership position.  He wants others to take the reigns for him and that simply does not work for a president.  It's really hurting him now.

I'm not sure if this is because he has never held a position of leadership in the private sector where he was expected to act as an executive, or if it is because he fears that if he leads that opens him up to the blame for failure, but either way, it shows him as weak.

To his credit, by simply throwing out ideas and relying on others for leadership and execution, he is able to reserve the right to blame others for failure.  This has been his primary strategy over the past three years, but unfortunately that has worn thin, and will not serve him as well in this campaign as in his original run.

[Conan71]

He has needed to do this from day one.  I think that is the primary problem that many of his followers have had with him.  It's hard to follow when your leader refuses to lead.  I'll say it again, he seems to despise being in a control or leadership position.  He wants others to take the reigns for him and that simply does not work for a president.  It's really hurting him now.

I'm not sure if this is because he has never held a position of leadership in the private sector where he was expected to act as an executive, or if it is because he fears that if he leads that opens him up to the blame for failure, but either way, it shows him as weak.

To his credit, by simply throwing out ideas and relying on others for leadership and execution, he is able to reserve the right to blame others for failure.  This has been his primary strategy over the past three years, but unfortunately that has worn thin, and will not serve him as well in this campaign as in his original run.

I can feel a JeffM post coming on and I bet it contains the following:

-Partisan Republican hack
-Reagan raised SS taxes in the 1980s
-Chattering class
-Empty suit
-You don't know Obama like he did when he was living in Chicago and Obama was a community organizer...

IMO- the way in which I interpreted wevus' point of throwing weight around and jockeying was more politics, not real leadership.  Maybe I read him wrong.

I agree with your assessment of his weak or at least negligent leadership style.  We saw this as far back as the Obamacare debates when members of the Democratic leadership in both houses were complaining that they were being forced to lead on the issue with little direction from the president.  It's almost as if he thinks leadership is giving great speeches and taking credit for other's work when things go well and blaming others when it goes to smile.  I loved how Biden was quoted at his Tulsa money grab stop saying the president's decision to go after and kill OBL showed he had a ram-rod straight spine, or something along that nature.  Really? Which president wouldn't have green-lighted an operation like that?  Oh wait, Clinton passed on a similar opportunity, didn't he?  

[Townsend]

I agree with your assessment of his weak or at least negligent leadership style.  We saw this as far back as the Obamacare debates when members of the Democratic leadership in both houses were complaining that they were being forced to lead on the issue with little direction from the president.  It's almost as if he thinks leadership is giving great speeches and taking credit for other's work when things go well and blaming others when it goes to smile.  I loved how Biden was quoted at his Tulsa money grab stop saying the president's decision to go after and kill OBL showed he had a ram-rod straight spine, or something along that nature.  Really? Which president wouldn't have green-lighted an operation like that?  Oh wait, Clinton passed on a similar opportunity, didn't he?

...and that we can't win with any of the republicans running either.  Their talking points make me regurge.  Someone please move on from the Tea Party/conservative Christian BS.   Nauseating.

[we vs us]

He has needed to do this from day one.  I think that is the primary problem that many of his followers have had with him.  It's hard to follow when your leader refuses to lead.  I'll say it again, he seems to despise being in a control or leadership position.  He wants others to take the reigns for him and that simply does not work for a president.  It's really hurting him now.

I'm not sure if this is because he has never held a position of leadership in the private sector where he was expected to act as an executive, or if it is because he fears that if he leads that opens him up to the blame for failure, but either way, it shows him as weak.

To his credit, by simply throwing out ideas and relying on others for leadership and execution, he is able to reserve the right to blame others for failure.  This has been his primary strategy over the past three years, but unfortunately that has worn thin, and will not serve him as well in this campaign as in his original run.

The "not a leader" is malarkey, because he ran one of the most successful campaigns in modern history.  By every account he wasn't simply a bystander:  he controlled the whole thing.  He planned strategically, hired and fired, raised record amounts of capital and then allocated those resources -- the whole enchilada.  Being in charge of a modern campaign is very much like running a business, and he did it really well.  That's indisputable. As a product launch it was one of the best in modern history.

In office he's been much more of a consensus builder (or attempter).  He actually said he was going to do this during the campaign -- and said it even as far back as his speech to Democratic convention in 2004, during Kerry's campaign.  As critical of Bush as he was and has been, he's tried very hard to offer concessions over and over and over again to the GOP.  The problem is that he's put the value of compromise entirely above everything else -- including governing rationally.  

One article I read suggested that we elected a CEO but have been governed by a Constitutional Law professor.  As a scholar he knows and understands how government is supposed to work, but instead of using the machinery to advance an agenda -- which is exactly what the GOP knows how to do -- he's spent his first term keeping the machinery sacrosanct and pristine and bending over backwards to provide some sort of balance to what the GOP is becoming. The Con-Law prof idea works when thinking about his scheduling of his speech to Congress.  Of course he'd want to follow protocol to get Congress back together!  That's how it's done, that's how the institution runs!  But in this context what he needs to do is break into the institution's normal flow and bring it back to a semblance of order.  

[we vs us]

IMO- the way in which I interpreted wevus' point of throwing weight around and jockeying was more politics, not real leadership.  Maybe I read him wrong.

Politics is the way you express leadership.  They're not separate things.

[Gaspar]

The "not a leader" is malarkey, because he ran one of the most successful campaigns in modern history.  By every account he wasn't simply a bystander:  he controlled the whole thing.  He planned strategically, hired and fired, raised record amounts of capital and then allocated those resources -- the whole enchilada.  Being in charge of a modern campaign is very much like running a business, and he did it really well.  That's indisputable. As a product launch it was one of the best in modern history.

In office he's been much more of a consensus builder (or attempter).  He actually said he was going to do this during the campaign -- and said it even as far back as his speech to Democratic convention in 2004, during Kerry's campaign.  As critical of Bush as he was and has been, he's tried very hard to offer concessions over and over and over again to the GOP.  The problem is that he's put the value of compromise entirely above everything else -- including governing rationally.  

One article I read suggested that we elected a CEO but have been governed by a Constitutional Law professor.  As a scholar he knows and understands how government is supposed to work, but instead of using the machinery to advance an agenda -- which is exactly what the GOP knows how to do -- he's spent his first term keeping the machinery sacrosanct and pristine and bending over backwards to provide some sort of balance to what the GOP is becoming. The Con-Law prof idea works when thinking about his scheduling of his speech to Congress.  Of course he'd want to follow protocol to get Congress back together!  That's how it's done, that's how the institution runs!  But in this context what he needs to do is break into the institution's normal flow and bring it back to a semblance of order.  

Interesting.  It seems that you are at battle with yourself on your view of President Obama as a leader.

People don't need an academic to explane and qualify what "leadership" is.  There has been this huge rush qualify this president in the media and academia, and somehow find a way to package his performance in a positive light.  Unfortunately leadership is simple, visceral, and easy to spot.  People naturally seek it either first hand or second.