Mr. Murdoch's incompetent "journalism."

Okay, it's a propagandistic rag. But still, the New York Post's 700,000 or so copies should provide a smidgeon of news on which to base its ceaseless smear of President Obama.

Regarding a speech on job creation to a joint session of Congress that Obama requested of House Speaker John Boehner, the Post is infuratiated with Mr. O's obvious political gambit in initially seeking an 8 p.m. slot next Wednesday.

That happens to when a long-scheduled debate among GOP presidential candidates takes place - the third, I believe. I seem to recall the Dems held 22 or 23 of these in the last cycle. At this early stage, such events are more loke cattle calls than viewable TV, at least until the field narrows.

But never mind, Obama was obviously trying to upstage Bachmann, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman & Co. and, I suppose, subvert the democratic process with "Another cheap stunt."

Here's the Post's take on it, as of - note the time - 9:21 a.m:

Obama needs a campaign platform, and expects Congress to provide it. As it no doubt will -- even though it doesn’t have to. Fine. Respect for the presidency as an institution is a fine thing -- even if the president himself clearly considers Congress to be chopped liver. 

Update your indignant story, Post editors. The MSM has been reporting all morning that Obama consented to Boehner's request for a different day, moving his address to Congress a day forward, to next Thursday. The MSM is correctly reporting that this is the first time a President ever has been denied a request to speak to the American people in its most hallowed forum at a time most convenient to the busy WH.

By speaking on Thursday instead of Wednesday, Mr. O will now be competing for audience with the NFL's opening day. Bottom line: Boehner and the GOP-controlled Congress played politics and won, the WH and the Dems lost. Was that a "cheap stunt?" Certainly its was a classy president or one doing his roll-over thing again, depending on where you are on the progressive spectrum.

U.S. conservatives can't take "yes" for an answer. They're the squawling baby who's been given what it wants and still won't stop complaining. This is the same GOP whose mouthpieces whine everytime Obama dares raise the record of the spectacular failure of a predecessor whose legacy he inherits - though FDR did so for his entire first term.

I sometimes think the Dems at least grasp by now what they're dealing with - uber-partisans acting solely in their own interests, not the country's. They've been doing this since the advent of take-no-prisoners Newt Gingrich. But I'm beginning to doubt we'll ever see Dems - certainly not this administration and Dems on the Hill - treating their adversaries in kind.

There's a line between being "presidential" and appearing to be wimps and losers. That's why for progressives Andrew Shepherd's last-reel speech in The American President is an endless loop. Couldn't Obama administer just one such well-deserved dressing-down?

Update:

A characteristic of this presidency that will occupy the analysis of historians is the dearth of support Obama has had from surrogates, the fellow partisans on the Hill, the statehouses and mayor's chairs. James Carville, the political consultant most credited with the winning strategy of the 1992 Clinton, long since reinvented as a paid talking head, wasted no time this morning in chastising Obama for playing politics with the timing of his speech to Congress, saying he'd rather watch the GOP WH wannabes than a president of his own party addressing the nation on one of its most pressing issues.

Two responses come to mind.

Churchill was told by a friend that "You know that I'll always be with you when you're right." Winnie replied, "I need people with me when I'm wrong."

The other is from a Michigan friend who has lived up to her description of someone you'd want with you in a foxhole. It's a test Carville and so many prominent Dems have failed again and again. They were loud about Carter denying members of Congress use of the WH tennis court, an extravagance in hard times, the president thought. Lieberman was the first senator to rise in that chamber and denounce his president as a moral cripple over Lewinskygate. His punishment was to be chosen Al Gore's ineffectual running mate, and later still to keep a committee chairmanship that Obama intervened with Reid to ensure he held, since stripping him of it would look vindicative. 

In the good old days of LBJ and Nixon, even those partisans suspected of insufficient effusive support of the president - never mind criticism - were ostracized. For the past generation Dems have known they can freelance and shoot their mouths off in ways unhelpful to their own leader and party with no fear of retribution. It's no wonder they've rarely held power in the modern era.

 

Comments

[Darwin O'Connor]

There is a name for what you are arguing for: Democratic Centrism. It is arguably the most destructive political philosophy in history.

[johnnyk]

Its all about the optics down south. Obama is reeling from the debt-ceiling mugging and has been painted as a wimp. This simply builds on that and he comes off poorly on two counts:
He can be painted as trying to usurp the Repubs tv coverage.
And he gives in to Boner, reinforcing the wimp meme.

IMO, he is hoist on his own petard in both nstances.

[André C.]

Maybe Obama should give voters an opportunity to vote for a real Democrat next election by running as a Republican (Just kidding, but not completely)