Sometimes something strikes you as a odd about a a choice someone has made. You find it somehow defines the person making it, even if you’re not sure how, like when a friend who never particularly liked a certain genre of movie suddenly takes an interest in that genre. Or when he stops talking about a subject that once fascinated him.
You think it means something, but you’re just not sure what.
Such was my thought when I had read that the President has scheduled his Thursday speech “shortly after news surfaced that [former Vice President Cheney was planning his. Aides scheduled it for the hour just before the former vice president’s planned appearance at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think thank.” It struck me as oddly reactive that the President of the United States would time an address to coincide with that of a critic.
It seemed more a campaign tactic than a mark of bold or effective leadership. As if he still feels he’s running against someone. But, it seemed there was more to it than that. I just couldn’t quite put my finger on it.
But, where I failed, Toby Harnden and William A. Jacobson succeeded. Building on Harnden’s observation that “the very fact that Obama chose to schedule his speech (Cheney’s was announced first) at exactly the same time as the former veep was a sign of some weakness,” Jacobson offers:
I think it’s more than weakness. Rather, Obama seems uncomfortable with dissenting voices being heard without a rebuttal. The war of words is one Obama is confident he can win if only he is heard, which is why Obama constantly is holding prime time press conferences, giving major speeches, and so on. While the need to counter-schedule a speech to offset Cheney’s previously planned speech reflects weakness for sure, it also reflects a lack of faith on Obama’s part in the ability of the American people to decide important issues.
I don’t think we’ve ever seen a President so ubiquitous. If Obama is constantly preparing for and making public speeches, he necessarily has less time to think seriously about issues and consults with advisors–and even opponents–on the matters facing the country.
There is something more to it than this. It may be that Obama, unlike Reagan, lacks a clear political philosophy which he believes is best for the nation. He can’t just put ideas out there and let the American people consider them on their own. He has to put himself out there.
If he had confidence in his ideas, he would have more faith in the American people. Or maybe he just needs to convince himself. And that’s why, as Jacobson put it, he seems so uncomfortable with dissenting voices. That remind him of his own uncertainty.
Perhaps the meaning of Obama’s timing to try to upstage Cheney can be viewed as a petulant child trying to outdo a parent. Since Obama was abandoned not by one but by two fathers, his actions in scheduling a speech to upstage Cheney, who is very much like a father figure, can be more easily understood.
This is the same guy who, while running, had to start a website to allegedly “counter” the “lies” told about him. I kept wondering, and no liberal could explain to me, what kind of leader thinks he has to spend so much time and effort on trying to refute the “lies”. And let’s not forget about his speech where he threw Rev. Wright under the bus.
Also, you may find that he has speeches timed to coincide with the beginning of the Rush Limbaugh show as well.
I remember liberals being furious that Bush was so confident in his positions. Why wasn’t he open minded, open to others ideas and suggestions. Obama and his Obamaphiles are so righteous, they get no input from anyone else. Remember when it was a strength to get input and to speak truth to power? Obama has had to walk back on 90% of his natl security and terror proclamations. Embarassing and puts into question his judgement. Why aren’t we talking more about the judgement of the man who tapped Biden as VP, 3 Commerce Sec, the vetting team who couldn’t find out half his cabinet owed back taxes. The judgement of the man who is about to pick a Supreme Court judge is seriously in question here.
I continue to be stunned as to just how wrong this blog manages to be.
We had 8 years of an administration that wasn’t interested in debate, never sought dissenting viewpoints and gave a grand total of, what, 2-3 prime time press conferences. And we know where those policies led.
Say what you will about Obama’s policies. A rational person can certainly disagree with them. But rather than hide from debate, he welcomes, encourages and seeks it out. He makes a rational argument for his position and invites the other side to do the same. That’s how good policies get made.
Quashing all debate on a subject, as the previous administration did, is how BAD, indeed DISASTEROUS policies get made.
um wanna name some of Obamas bipartisian bills? Obama is famous when in a meeting to get imput, closes debate by saying “I won”. Where exactly has Obama sought out competing voices on the economy? He’s getting no Republican votes for any of his bills because as John Behner says he’s included not one of their ideas. Not one. Now Obama on GITMO is being rebuked by his own party. He’s much more like a dictator than a bi partisian leader. With a wave of his hand the other day he demanded 39MPG for all American vehicles. How does one man do that and not get called el duche? or der fuheur.
James if you stay around this blog for very long you will find the majority are free thinkers. It is full of gays who don’t vote Democrat. We are not sheep who just follow the crowd without thinking. It is a dynamic blog full of energy and full of questions for the powerful. Unlike some Americans the visiters to this blog push back against conventional wisdom. We think that is fantastic, and holds the powerful to account. Because we can’t be taken for granted. We are died in the wool conservatives, always questioning always probing liberals for why they believe what they believe. We often find them unwilling or unable to explain themselves and their leaders. Liberals are vapid empty headed, mind numbed robots. It is wrong headed and a boring way to live.
James do you call Obamateleprompters pressers “news conferences”? They have a list of reporters that he calls on. They tell the “reporters” ahead of time they will be called on. They rarely allow followups, and if you ll notice the one portable mic has moved on away from the questioner. This is not a man who wants probing followup questions. He does powder puff interviews with only friendly reporters. The reporters know if they are too tough, next time they won’t be on the valued LIST. I’m not sure what kind of press events the old politboro had in the Soviet Union but it had to be close to this. They put the press on notice all the time, that they will freeze them out like they did when Obama was re sworn in with Justice Roberts and no press was there. They intimidate the free press and get away with it.
http://ceo4aday.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/obama-presides-over-scripted-press-conference/
And not a damn one of them can answer why they believe what they believe. Not a DAMN one.
#7 I wonder what James would say if Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin etc. had a front row seat, like Ed Schultz, to Bush’s pressers.
Besides, SOMEBODY has to decipher what the hell that idiot Gibbs is saying. Seriously, Gibbs most likely makes one long for the days of McClellan.
I’m not surprised by this too much. Obama gave O’Reilly an interview during the RNC convention. I’m pretty sure it was the same day McCain accepted the nomination because I remember the contrast of McCain only doing a message of congrats to Obama the day he got his nomination.
Obama on O Reilly was one of the few interviews he gave without a fawning journalist. And O Reilly hammered him on his positions. Obama hasn’t been on FOX News since. And rarely calls on FOX reporters at press events. Obama is a coward and can’t sell and explain his positions either. The Obama administration sunk to the level of producing their own videos of puff events, then they hand out the videos assuming the press will play them as commercials. And of course they do. Again politboro propaganda.