Will president hit back?

[Doctor_J]

Poll question: Will president hit back?

The president was attacked aggressively last night. Will he fire back, or seek conciliation and common ground with his attackers?

[JoePhilly]

1. What we need is more bluster!!!

[yurbud]

2. what we need is a ball buster--and not the balls of base of supporters.

[emulatorloo]

4. Neither Perry nor Romney are members of the House/Senate

Most people would think Obama is nuts if he went off on them in an address on Jobs to the House and Senate. Maybe he will say something obliquely, but those pissants are irrelevant in this context/.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. It's not bluster if you can back it up.

He can't.

[JoePhilly]

13. Would need the votes to back it up.

[Doctor_J]

16. What we need is more triangulation!

and appeasement! and more liberal-bashing! He's played that tune into a 54% disapproval rating! Go with it!

[emulatorloo]

3. It isn't a campaign speech, so Perry and Romney's bullshit isn't relevant

to an address to Congress.

[Vidar]

5. Obama's first name should be "Neville".

[boxman15]

11. Ridiculous.

Comparisons to Neville Chamberlain are absolutely false.

[tomg]

23. Actually, not so inappropriate, although

Not in terms of simple appeasement. Chamberlain was, by and large, a very bad negotiator. The year before Munich, he had done an equally bad (although far less consequential) negotiation with the irish. Both seem to suffer, or have suffered from, the same problem in negotiation: an inability to recognize when those with whom you are negotiating have the same ends as yourself - the mutual resolution of a problem or the coming to a mutually acceptable solution to a condition - and when those with whom you are negotiating see negotiations as an extension of conflict, and the purpose of the negotiation is simply to gain advantage and simply as a stage in the conflict.

There is also another difference. The vast majority of people at the time supported Chamberlain, particularly British veterans. President Obama, in constantly compromising and seeking bi-partisanship is actually at odds with what the vast majority of the people want.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. Stay classy Dr. J....

:eyes:

[elocs]

9. You said "fire back", but nothing about tonight. Appeasement is the watchword

for this administration along with bipartisanship and compromise. But probably he will consider himself above it all and ignore them personally.

[boxman15]

10. It's not going to be a full-on attack on the GOP.

The focus is on jobs. The details need to be known by the people. Then, once the GOP rejects the bill, they can use public sentiment against the Republicans. He will probably take some jabs at the Republicans, but it won't be a huge partisan attack. Not yet at least.

Expect more of them after the bill gets shot down.

[Hutzpa]

12. He has every right to fight back

and I'm sure he will in the way he has always done it.

At the end of the day he will leave people wondering what just happen.

[elleng]

14. He has started hitting back in his road trips recently,

and I think tonight's speech will become the foundation for hitting back against repugs who fail to negotiate, both in super-committee and in Congress, during the remainder of his term.

Like it or not our form of government requires negotiation/conciliation. Repugs must be seen as the ones making such difficult>impossible, and I think he's on the road to demonstrating that now.

[Tx4obama]

15. Obama will hit back hard, but not tonight. The speech to Congress is to get his jobs bill passed

so he will need the GOP votes to get 'er done.

[Number23]

17. The fact that you obviously think that "firing back" is more important than the content

of his speech renders anything you say on this topic irrelevant imo.

[Doctor_J]

18. Well, his 2.5 years of appeasing has been a disaster for him and the country

so maybe a new approach is in order

[Number23]

19. You obviously missed this point of my post

"renders anything you say on this topic irrelevant imo. "

[Doctor_J]

20. As did you of mine

Your view that appeasement, cowering, and adoption of right-wing policies by the president will help the situation renders anything you say on this topic irrelevant imo

[Number23]

21. The fact that you have to try so hard to put words in my mouth (fingers)

makes you look even more devoid of facts and legitimate perspective.

Your view that appeasement, cowering, and adoption of right-wing policies by the president will help the situation

Since I never said or even implied any of this stupidity, there's no point in engaging you in any further. Sorry your attempt at flamebait and idiocy got so little attention. I have no doubt you'll be trying again soon though.

[bhikkhu]

22. What purpose does that ever serve?

If there is a strategy, it would be to make the asshats on the other side look most clearly like asshats to the people who voted for them. To do that, he just has to forge ahead with his job.