Obama has a PR problem. His marketing SUCKS. Read this before you jump to conclusions on EPA.

[helderheid]

One thing the Whitehouse has a big problem with is PR and framing the issues. Check out this before you judge:

http://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USEOPWHPO/2011/09/02/file_attachments/56091/Letter.pdf

[EFerrari]

1. The one thing I've never understood is what happened to

the brilliant people who promoted the campaign. Did the Pod People get to them or something?

[Confusious]

4. Maybe they weren't so brillant

and bush just sucked that bad.

jebsus himself would have lost if he had run as a republican.

[EFerrari]

6. Well, yeah. The Democrat was going to win, that's true. n/t

[Renew Deal]

20. Obama still beat Hillary

And that was no joke.

[newblewtoo]

31. when I saw President Obama live here in NH

I was impressed and moved to jump ship from Hillary. In the back of my mind I guess I always questioned if Hillary could win with all the Bill baggage. Here was a candidate I knew could win. I overlooked the level of experience and team he would bring with him. I will also admit to some buyer's remorse but we are still ahead of where we would have been if we had allowed Gidget and the Geezer anywhere near the reigns of power.

[Skittles]

14. yeah, they need to start lying again

[Renew Deal]

19. There's a difference between a campaign and governing.

In a campaign you can control everything that you can control. There is really only one boss. Governing requires other people, and many of those people are not on the level. Obama has mostly done a good job on the things that he could control.

Areas that require congress have been disjointed. I think many bad decisions come from those areas (parts of health-care reform, stimulus too small, debt ceiling, and more). It's as if they're afraid of what's going to be said, so they end up all over the place.

[EFerrari]

29. That isn't really true. Campaigns don't happen in a vacuum

but in a social context which involves other people.

And Obama has not done well in areas that he can control, imo. Nobody pushed him to go to war against teachers, for example. Or to open a black site in Mogadishu. Or to punt on foreclosure fraud. Those were all decisions he made.

[geek tragedy]

2. Seems like gobbledygook for "we're punting this

until the Perry administration"

[helderheid]

3. If this is depending on outdated science, it's not gobbledygook.

[geek tragedy]

22. It's not depending on outdated science.

Smog kills people. We don't need another study to prove that.

[Ineeda]

5. Some are so eager to believe the worst. n/t

[johnaries]

7. Agreed. His PR sucks. When you look at all sides, this decision

makes perfect sense. Thank you for the .pdf link.

[helderheid]

17. I just wish he'd explain it in plain English to the general public. GADS!

[treestar]

26. that is not easy to explain in plain English

The substance of it looks like that things can be updated first. How would you put that to make it easy to understand?

But the irony is that the constant critics who never want to find anything right would be saying just exactly what is in that letter had the Administration gone ahead as they now claim they want. The regulations aren't good enough!

[Scurrilous]

8. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[Balbus]

9. Maybe his marketing does suck, but I don't see why it's necessary to blame Puerto Ricans.

[veganlush]

21. lol

[Dragonfli]

10. My god, "Bush had it right and less emissions before 2013 is a bad thing" is hard to sell

Perhaps it is not the marketing but rather the PRODUCT that sucks?

I see, because the science advances every year we should not cut emissions for as long as possible because a new study will come out eventually.

This is such bullshit, I am glad the shitty standards we are using now have such up to date science behind it, (oh wait, it doesn't).

All experts agree less emissions are needed but we should wait to do even the minimal.

Spin is so severe on this one I may rupture my inner ear.

The Chamber of Commerce is applauding this as well they should be.

What a traitor to the environment, a Democrat can't (actually WONT) do better than Bush, it is pretty much what Perry would have done and I am supposed to vote for this shite even tho I would never vote for Perry? why?

[Raine]

15. On point nt

[dionysus]

33. then don't. vote for whoever you want to.

:shrug:

[Dragonfli]

35. I take it you applaud the reversal of the Democratic "vision" from pro-environment to pro-smog

Nice try at the obvious "who else are you going to vote for" message in your post.

I have to tell you, I respect the honesty of "we don't give a shit about the health hazards of smog, so don't vote for these policies if you don't want to" approach.

I am glad you are at least honest about not needing or caring about the vote from those that think the environment and survival are important. I at least respect you for being honest. You are right, I wasn't entirely sure if I should continue trying to pressure the Administration to care about environmental issues or just vote green for top of the ticket. I guess I needed the honesty of a supporter to realize that the Democratic candidate for president will sacrifice the environmental vote for campaign cash from polluters, if only Obama was as honest, I would not have wasted my time struggling over which way to go, but they have sent signals, and their supporters are providing the honesty.

Thank you for helping to make up my mind once and for all.

I will still however lobby and protest against this corporate shite because it is very harmful to the health of all of us, so shutting me up about it is not going to happen, I just realize now that there is no use trying to get this group of neo-liberals to see sense. I will spend less time writing the white house and more time actively protesting against them in any way possible.

There are still some Democrats I can support down ticket so that will be all the support the party will get from me, those that are fighting the good fight will get support, those that are looking for big contributions from polluters will not.

An honest man is hard to find these days, I am glad I read your post! :hi:

[arcane1]

11. Could someone please help me with verifying this??

I can understand the reasoning in this letter, and could agree with it. But I'm clueless when it comes to how executive orders work. I downloaded what I think are both of them, and did a search on the quotes contained in the letter. They aren't there. Do I have the right documents???

Order 13563:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf

Order 12866:
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/populartopics/regulations/eo12866.pdf

on edit: I admit I haven't actually read the damned things yet, I just did a phrase search. I'll read them after dinner is done :)

[KT2000]

12. This is BS

EPA was probably trying to fix weak regs left by the Bush administration with the updated order. I can't imagine they went to bat for the health of the citizens. That is not the way they do things.

The out-dated science is a cannard offered up by corporations every day of the week. It means nothing. Today's science will be outdated in 2013 when a repub president decides it is time to disband the EPA entirely.
This is Obama trying to make the corporations happy. He is telling Lisa Jackson - enough. This is not a PR problem. This is a health problem.

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. Gosh, if they change the marketing, I'm sure to be happy about the betrayals

WTF are you people smoking?

[helderheid]

18. Did you read the PDF? Or are YOU smoking it?

[MadHound]

16. In other words, they're kicking this can down the road.

Yep, great marketing there.

[Robb]

23. It's quite simple. The GOP own EVERY media outlet.

Every single one.

Leftist comment is permitted only at the pleasure of the right-wing ownership -- e.g. only when it benefits them. Choose your favorite pundit, and ask who owns the studio they sit in, the camera recording them. Ask yourself if a Greenwald or a Maddow would receive a drop of ink or an instant of airtime if there was the slightest possibility doing so would actually help progressives. Then ask yourself what happened to Olberman.

... Did any of you think any of this magically changed in 2008? Every single news story is slanted to do one of two things: divide the left and embolden the right. It has been this way since 1980. Alas, it seems forgotten.

[Number23]

32. That same sentiment is also at play with black commentators/pundits

If you're a black commentator/academic/etc. and want to get your name out there quick and fast? Disparage this president. It doesn't matter how ignorant, bigoted or embarrassing your critique is.

Black folks and liberals are EXPECTED to support this president. If anyone goes against that they are instantly given the spotlight whether they deserve it or not.

[treestar]

24. Thank you!

Whoever thought one should inform oneself before having an opinion!

Around here there are people determined to find wrong in the Administration, so they had no intention of telling us anything but putting the most negative spin possible on it.

This is what I've come to expect, so I'm never ready to jump on the condemnation bandwagon immediately.

[helderheid]

28. It's easy to have a knee jerk reaction. I did too. I was fortunate enough to see a link to this on

facebook. Unfortunately, we're the ones handed the responsibility of being the media.

[WI_DEM]

25. Yes, that is true.

[HappyMe]

27. k&r nt

[Rex]

30. I will read the article, but don't need to to agree with you 100%.

They have a HUGE PR problem! It can be fixed before 2012 imo.

[helderheid]

34. I hope so!