Starting to think they have no idea what they are doing

So earlier today Obama did some flame throwing and said he would give his speech about jobs at the same time the GOP debate was going to start.

Liberals were amused.

Then the Speaker of the House said “ehhhh how about the day after”. Then the White House said that the Speaker’s office originally had no objections to the first time and date.

Then the White House agreed to move the speech to the date that the Speaker suggested.

So here is the question:

Is there some sort of deeper strategy here? Or did Obama’s staffers actually ask the Speakers office if that date was ok, trust the Speakers office when they said “surrrre“, then get spanked when the Speaker’s office said “lol, no, do it the next day” after announcing the original date?

I’m starting to think it is the second and that Obama’s political operation isn’t laying low as much as it is just very naive and still won’t engage in gamesmanship with the GOP.

Then again, this could very well be an extended version of the rope-a-dope designed to cajole the GOP into nominated the most extreme candidate possible by making the White House look weak.

I don’t know anymore, but this whole ordeal was without a doubt pretty stupid and damaging for the White House.


A lot of crazy in one picture

Kos muses

Picture caption: The House GOP’s Trifecta of Crazy: Reps. Louie Gohmert, Michelle Bachmann, and Steve King

“Gohmert: Well it does represent a breach of the oath. This is a president who has done more to undo the very foundation of the country: the rule of law, that no matter who you are, President, member of Congress, whoever it doesn’t matter, the law is to be equally applied across the board. And there’ve been exceptions where people have gotten away with stuff but never to the extent that this guy has pushed, and like you said he’s shown contempt for the lawmaking process”

What’s funny about this is that the Obama Administration, obvious flaws aside, has been one of the most squeaky clean administrations in forever. There have been no major scandals, no indictments, no special prosecutor investigations.

In fact, the administration is so clean, that House Republicans have been unable to mount any real oversight investigations because of a lack of material that “fits their narrative“—that narrative being that they’re engaging in corruption and wrongdoing.

How ’bout dem apples

via Obama jobs speech slated for Sept. 7 before Congress – Jennifer Epstein –

President Barack Obama has asked congressional leaders to convene a joint session next Wednesday night, where he will deliver a major economic speech. …Obama said he plans “to lay out a series of bipartisan proposals that the Congress can take immediately to continue to rebuild the American economy” during the 8 p.m. ET session.


The timing of the speech needles Republicans and some members of the political press. Eight Republican presidential candidates are scheduled to gather at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library at 8 p.m. ET for a two-hour debate sponsored by POLITICO and NBC News.

It’s unlikely that it will actually happen at this time/date. But this is a 100% unsubtle sign that Obama’s campaign team is ramping up and is ready to start fighting and being aggressive. Liberals everywhere are having a good chuckle about this today, and are remembering why they supported Obama in the first place. I like the move.

What can Republicans say back? “Our debate is more important than a jobs bill”? I’d like to see them try.

Perry has his cake and eats it too

So Rick Perry decided to give a speech about foreign policy today. As long as you don’t try to read closely and use logic, there is a little bit of everything for everyone:

I do not believe that America should fall subject to a foreign policy of military adventurism

Anti-Bush Doctrine!

We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened

Pretty much Bush Doctrine neoconism, depending on the definition of threatened!

we should always look to build coalitions among the nations to protect the mutual interests of freedom loving people.

Some Obama-flavor foreign policy! Mixed with a dash of Texas twang.

It’s not our interest to go it alone. We respect our allies, and we must always seek to engage them in military missions.

What a pussy!

At the same time, we must be willing to act when it is time to act. We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multi-lateral debating societies

Oh nevermind! He didn’t really mean what he said about allies. He just kind of sort of meant it because it sounds nice but we can ignore it when we feel like it!

Daniel Foster at NRO’s The Corner reacts:

Like I said, I know there are ways of cashing out these concepts so you get something consistent (e.g. defining our “vital interests” broadly enough to support preemptive war; have a conception of multilateral legitimacy that includes ad hoc “coalitions of the willing” but is agnostic about the U.N.). But the debate on the Right at the moment is, very roughly speaking, between the Bush Doctrine and good ol’ fashioned realism, and Perry certainly sounds like he’s trying to help himself to both.

There is a great female writer/blogger out of Texas named Erica Grieder who has been writing about the inner personality of Rick Perry for a little while. Her main argument is that Rick Perry is primarily a politician at heart, and his purported extremism should be largely ignored because it is a facade.

It is an interesting point of view, even if it is both comforting and scary at the same time. On the one hand, he isn’t batshit insane. On the other hand he is very mold-able, willing to defer to his advisors and/or public opinion for political positions and policies. That sort of thing got Bush in a lot of trouble. Not politically, but in terms of governing. He seemed to trust those around him more than he trusted himself, and people like Rumsfeld and Cheney, who had both been players in Washington since the early 70s, were largely free to pursue the things they had dreamed of accomplishing many decades ago. And that didn’t turn out so great.

To get back on point, Perry’s speech on foreign policy is probably the clearest sign yet that he is not only a too malleable politician but also one that doesn’t have a clear vision about the world, yet. Can one be formed (or coalesced from his consciousness) before the campaign season gets serious? Probably. He’s going to have to do a lot better than “we want coalitions except when we don’t and we want to avoid wars except when we need to go to war”.

Is it possible to read into this at all?

via CFB – USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington battle for SoCal recruits – ESPN.

Southern California always has been an inviting target for college football recruiters, but it might never have been as tempting as it is right now. The talent base is rich and deeper than it has been in a decade, especially with linemen, according to college coaches.

My first instinct is that with obesity on the rise it kind of makes sense that there is a glut of talented linemen. My second instinct is to slap myself for thinking that can be inferred from such a small bit of anecdotal evidence. But I do wonder if there is any statistically significant correlation between rising obesity and the depth of talent at the high school offensive and defensive line positions (or possible to even measure).

Late Night Poetry

I read Jonah Goldberg posts at NRO’s The Corner from time to time when my stress level is low enough to handle the unnatural act. Never have I read such an accurate and elegant characterization of all that is wrong with Jonah’s work as the quote below.

via Whiskey Fire: Jonah Goldberg Tells a Funny Joke.

Reading this column is like watching a crack-addled cat try to fuck its own asshole, only without the gravitas such a spectacle more usually imparts.