So, President Obama wants to speak to a joint session of Congress on the 7th regarding his new push for jobs. Now, the time he requested was at 8pm - the same time as the next GOP debate.

So what does Speaker Boehner do? Request THE PRESIDENT to reschedule.

he should tell them to screw off

He should make it from the ovl office. If he goes small on this and doesn't play hardball, he's going to change his first name to Jimmy.

If you let them push you around on the little things...

...the next thing you know they'll have you jumping through hoops.

Signor V.

Seems like the meeting was more to ruffle feathers than actually wanting to meet at that specific time. Obama wouldn't schedule a joint session during the NFL kickoff game!

msnbc.com news services updated 9/6/2011

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Republican presidential contender Michele Bachmann lost her campaign chief Monday, along with his close deputy, in a campaign shake-up that the Minnesota congresswoman's aides sought to downplay.

Looking more and more like the GOP will nominate either Perry or Romney. Could they run as a ticket?

Perry frightens me. There was an interesting editorial in The Philadelphia Inquirer stating that the Republicans need to pull closer to the center than the right in order to win the independent voters. Instead, they seem to be dialing up the crazy talk, making the following points:

• Declaring that evolution is "just a theory that's out there."

• Insisting that the scientific consensus on climate change is "all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight."

• Decreeing that revenue increases of any kind are unacceptable under any and all circumstances, and signing a pledge to that effect.

• Promising to fill all key Cabinet and executive jobs with foes of abortion, and signing a pledge to that effect.

• Asserting that "it's time for us to just hand (America) over to God and say, 'God, you're going to have to fix this.' "

• Announcing in a book that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and should be scrapped.

• Contending that gay Americans are "part of Satan."

• Dissing the Bush-appointed Federal Reserve chairman as "treasonous."

• Insinuating (yet again) that Obama is insufficiently American and insufficiently in love with America.

Perry's nuts. If they nominate him, my decision gets that much easier. And while President Obama has been a disappointment to me, if the Republicans nominate one of the crazies Obama will get my vote again.

I'm a practicing Catholic/Christian. That said, I'd never, EVER vote for a religious zealot like Perry. The extreme Christians are as hateful as any other extremist group. They're no more truly Christian than the 9/11 hijackers were truly Muslim.

Amen PB.

PB

Ditto here too! Perfectly put.

Btw, I surely can't be the only one who thinks of "W" when I hear Perry speak? (I'd better shut up or I'll go on a rampage.)

TIS

While President Obama has been a little too "let's all sit around the campfire, hold hands and sing Kumbaya together" for my taste, there are worse things.

The article detailed the success of the Reagan campaign, and how abortion and homosexuality weren't even mentioned. Was that more a sign of the times, or a shrewd campaign strategy?

Now keep in mind that this was written by über righty douchebag John Podhoretz of the NY Post, but it seems Perry got very high marks for last night's debate.

A national Republican star is born

John Podhoretz, New York Post

Anyone hoping or fearing that Rick Perry would crash and burn in his first GOP debate last night can either feel depressed or rest easy.

In his debut on the national stage, Perry proved he possesses a somewhat indefinable star quality -- exactly what Republicans were distressed to feel was missing from the field.

That quality emanated from him even when he struggled with difficult questions about his views on climate change and Social Security that present complex electoral challenges for him and his party in a national race. He knew when to speak strongly and when to underplay.


At the outset, he delivered a strong jab to Mitt Romney’s job-creation record in Massachusetts quietly and offhandedly -- his almost diffident demeanor serving as cover for the shiv he was sticking in his rival.

But he was unhesitating when asked by Brian Williams at the end if he lost sleep over the number of people executed in Texas. Perry said plainly that those charged with capital crimes go through the legal process, their cases then go through an appellate process all the way to the Supreme Court -- and if all of that stands, the message is that if you kill a child or a police officer, you will face the ultimate justice.

It was a perfect answer.

What was not a perfect answer was his reply to the gotcha question from John Harris of Politico about which specific scientists he had consulted on the question of whether global warming was man-made. He repeated the contention that the science was not settled, but in speaking on the issue, he looked lost and angry.

More important is that Perry’s entire political rationale is that he is the guy who can get the country’s economy growing again. And said (ineloquently) last night is that the demands of the global-warming crowd make that task all but impossible. And that is unquestionably true.

The real controversy arose from his decision not to run from the attack he launched on Social Security in his 2010 book “Fed Up,” but rather to say that politicians need to be honest about the Ponzi-scheme nature of the old-age pension system.

Romney immediately responded: “You can’t say that” about a system on which so many people depend. Perry answered that it is a Ponzi scheme and we have to stop lying to people in their 20s that all the money they are paying into the system will be there when they retire.

He’s right -- it is a Ponzi scheme. The challenge for Romney now will be making the case to primary voters that it will be fatal for the GOP’s shot at denying Barack Obama a second term to have a candidate who calls it a Ponzi scheme. He’ll have a strong case to make.

But there is something striking in the contrast between the two men. Romney looks like a casting director’s idea of a president, and after running for the office for four years solid now, he has an enviable fluency and command of the stage.

Alas for him, there’s a reason he was unable to solidify his own status as a front-runner: He just doesn’t seem to have “it” -- that elusive quality populist politicians who find a connection with ordinary voters seem to possess.

Whatever his failings, and they may well be vast, Perry does have “it.” In terms of sheer presence, he diminished Romney and everybody else on stage last night -- and he left Michele Bachmann, his only real rival for the Tea Party vote, in the dust.

From here on in, it’s just Perry and Romney. There’s little point in having anyone else on that stage any longer except as comic relief.

jpodhoretz@gmail.com

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/na...M#ixzz1XNFnOEvB

What this author did not comment on was Perry's tame answer to the question about ordering the vaccination of 12 year girls against the papiloma virus. Eventually, someone is going to pin him on it.

Absolutely right, Oli. What I was pointing out by calling John Podhoretz a douchebag , is that the guy's column is far from unbiased.

Perry vs. Paul: A Texas-sized war - Off-camera confrontation captures tension

The scrap between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney may have gotten more attention in Wednesday’s presidential candidates debate, but it was tame compared to the dust-up between Mr. Perry and Rep. Ron Paul, two Texans who apparently have spent plenty of time digging up dirt on each other and aren’t afraid to use it.

At one point when the video cameras weren’t rolling — though the incident was caught by still photographers — Mr. Perry walked over Mr. Paul’s lectern, took hold of the congressman’s wrist and wagged his finger at him.

Two Texas sized egos in the same race. They'll end up tearing the (Tea) party apart.

Looks like Bachmann is the big loser in this thing.

No, the American People seem to be.
God- please send us someone that can fix all this mess!

Well, in a sense I think you're right, because Obama has been disappointing. But if the best the Republicans can do is nominate extremists like Perry or Bachmann, we're better off with the status quo until 2016.

Republicans like Reagan only come along once in a lifetime. And right now they don't have a candidate who can stand in Reagan's shadow.

would anybody be fine with romney as the republican choice to face off against obama?

There is no way in hell that any candidate who tries (or even implies)to eliminate Social Security will EVER be President. If Perry wins the nomination, he just made the Dems political ads for them. Perry didn't back down so I doubt he'll backtrack. I would guess the Dems would be hoping he'll be the winner.

I did watch the whole debate and it was actually between Romney and Perry (as the media was hoping for). Huntsman, although he'll be dropping out soon IMHO, did better in this debate than the first. Bachman is on her way out with her brief climb to the top done. Cain, Gingrich weren't impressive and Poor Ron Paul. I really think he's more popular than the media gives him credit for. I know he has a devoted loyal base. He seems never be taken seriously.

IF we had to have a President only from those that debated last night, and I HAD to choose (or die) As much as I am not a fan of his, I'd have to go with Romney. That being said, and trying to be fair, I'd want to hear Huntsman more, but I do think he's done as well.

TIS

i really hope romney wins just because i have the fear that this country will vote obama out just because nothing is working. pretty much what they did to the house a year or two ago.

Perry calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme will eventually do him in. The guy is fucking crazy.

Romney and Huntsman are the only two Republicans worth a look.

They're the only two who don't belong in the zoo.

Oh, and I hear commentators say that since Romney is Mormon, he is unelectable. You think that's so? Now, I know very little about Mormonism but it's always been my opinion that as long as someone doesn't force his/her religion and/or beliefs on me, I'm ok with whatever faith they are.

I suppose, being Catholic, and remembering how the fact that JFK who was also Catholic, drew such criticism that got blown way out of proportion, makes me double think criticism. You can worship who and whatever you want. I won't force my beliefs on you, and you don't force yours on me.

Reflecting back to 1960, when I was a kid riding my bike down the street, a couple neighborhood kids (knowing I was Catholic) came up to me and started talking trash about JFK and that "The Pope was going to actually run the country cause JFK would do what the church told him to." So totally totally off base. It was so out of hand.

Anyway, as far as religion goes and Romney, do you all think it really is or should be a factor?

TIS

Tis,

That may have been true in years past, but we now have a BLACK President, so I think ethnicity or religion holding someone back is a thing of the past.

I think a Mormon is electable. I do not think a Scientologist
or a Muslim would be, nor do I think an aethiest be electable.

Another interesting thing to ponder. Would an atheist President bother anyone??? Offhand, I say no as long as everyone else can continue to worship as they wish. Then I think BUT.....what if he/she wanted to get rid of "In God We Trust" on our currency or what about the Pledge of Allegiance (On nation under God)???? I admit, that would bother me. Am I alone?


Simply food for thought.

TIS