Why do people keep demanding the President speak, and then ignore when he does?

[ProSense]

Joan Walsh:

There are two pressing reasons that I find Obama's current stasis so worrisome. One is that we're at a dangerous time, given the world economy, and on the right, Obama's election has worsened a 20-year pattern of Republican obstruction and destruction (and it's got an undercurrent of hate and demonization that can't be denied.) At the same time, Obama has an incredible moment to articulate what Democratic leadership stands for: Improving the lives of ordinary Americans, protecting the country from the unbridled, deregulated dangerous corporate excess, and moving boldly on problems, like climate change, that require boldness and leadership. Between the BP oil disaster and the near-collapse of the world economy thanks to the finance industry – both have in common a corporate arrogance that big risks to make big money were worth taking, no matter the impact on the rest of us – Obama has the perfect context for laying out why government matters, and why Democrats run the government best. Instead he's carping about "folks up there" in Washington and complaining that if he'd tried to regulate the oil industry before the spill, people would have said bad things about him. Grow up, Mr. President.

Here are major speeches, all well-received and covered in the press, delivered by the President since late April:

Obama to Use New York Speech to Press for Financial Reform. (speech)

Obama Defends Government Action in Michigan Speech (speech)

President Obama sounds energy alert (Carnegie speech)

[bluestateguy]

1. They demand that he speak

Then he does

and then they accuse him of just making speeches.

I'm about ready to say that every critic of his can grab a mop, put on their boots and get down to the Gulf themselves to start helping out or they can STFU.

[demtenjeep]

4. that would render this forum pretty much empty

but I like the sentiment!

[EffieBlack]

9. Bingo!

He's been belittled, smeared, attacked and maligned for giving powerful speeches because those are "just words," etc. Yet now he's being belitted, smeared, attacked and maligned for not giving a speech (or at least not enough of them, because he's obviously giving them) and saying the right words.

Unbelievable.

[vaberella]

23. +Infinity. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. It's ridiculous isn't it? (nt)

[vaberella]

22. +Infinity. n/t

[Cha]

29. They're so sorry..they can't grab a mop..

the ignorant hate glues them to their computer chair and won't let them do anything but whine and spew ugly hate outta their keyboard.

They are ever so "smart" and no one in this admin knows anything.

[Jennicut]

2. Well, do we want him to address the nation or not? Some of us do and some

here don't.
Also, expectations were that Obama would come in and dominate Congress and get everything passed that progressives wanted. He has not (and he is too moderate for some)...hence he is now seen by some as weak, vapid, too "transcendent". And his personality is "too cold". I may disagree with the President on a few things but once again the theme is his personality.

[ProSense]

5. Frankly, I'm amazed the President get's anything done

with a Democratic majority like this one.

Murkowski resolution goes down to defeat in stupid episode that means nothing

The Murkowski "Resolution of Disapproval" to overturn the EPA's endangerment finding on carbon pollution was defeated in the Senate today by a vote of 53-47. Every one of the Senate's 41 Republicans -- including "moderates" considered possible "Yes" votes for climate legislation -- voted in favor of it, along with six Democrats: Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Ben Nelson (N.D.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.).

Everything about the Murky Resolution episode has been, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. Start with the resolution itself: It would have overturned the EPA's scientific judgment that carbon pollution is a threat to public health and welfare. That is a direct assault, by Congress, on the findings of agency scientists echoing a broad scientific consensus. Our legislature voting to reject scientific findings ... wonder how that looks to our international allies.

<...>

Senator after senator called EPA carbon regulations a case of unjustified "overreach" born out of Obama administration and/or EPA "ambition." But EPA isn't regulating carbon pollution for kicks. It's doing so because the Supreme Court said it had a legal obligation to determine whether carbon pollution is a danger to public health, and if it is, regulate it. SCOTUS, not the EPA, put this in motion; the EPA is now bound by law to do what it's doing. Pro-Murky senators just pretended SCOTUS doesn't exist. Only Rockfeller let slip the true feelings of the EPA haters: "I don't care about the Supreme Court," declared the U.S. senator.

<...>

It's quite a spectacle: Senators who oppose congressional effort on climate voting against an agency effort to address climate because they think Congress should address climate. Meanwhile all this titular support for Congress is taken by the media as a sign that there's no will in Congress to address climate. It's like reading entrails. What does the Murkowski vote "mean"? It means the Senate is a dysfunctional institution and the climate movement in the U.S. is fatally weak. What does it mean for the climate and energy bill that's coming in July? Not much. That vote will be determined by the shape of the bill, the state of the economy, and the level of public anger on the oil spill. This was just a sideshow, a waste of everyone's time and energy.

I'd say that he can count of 50 to 54 Senators most of the time; Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, almost never.

[Jennicut]

8. But...he could just tell them what to do! Or threaten...or bribe.

After all, Bush (I mean Cheney) did it so why can't Obama? :sarcasm:

[stevenleser]

19. And the scary thing is that Murkowski is one of the least loony of them all...

She is one of the few that stood up to Palin et. al. when they were lying about Death Panels.

[patrice]

3. Why? So they can criticize him.

[jaxx]

6. They just want to tell him what to do.....

Since really they were all elected to the presidency and he is just a butler at the WH. :sarcasm:

If he's looking for asses to kick.....wellllllllll

[AtomicKitten]

7. It's quintessential criticism for criticism's sake, by some never meant to be constructive. nt

[sandnsea]

10. Adrenalin Addicts

I'm convinced there are people who have a penchant to be mired in shit. There is just nothing that explains this constant search for failure and disaster. Maybe it is just a human trait and the only way to cope with it is to just walk right by it and move on and try to get something done. You sure won't accomplish anything if you sit on the pot and stir the shit with the rest of the gloom and doomers.

[ProSense]

12. I've got a different theory.

The BP crisis seems to have mobilized critics of the administration, and from people who are still advocating drilling.

It seems weird that all of a sudden people are making excuses for Bush. That Dickinson article is suspect. Joan Walsh calling it damning. Seriously, WTF?

Frankly, I think a lot of people in the media, among the wealth and connected to special interests don't like the direction Obama is going in. It's all I can come up with because the disconnect between the OP statement and reality is very strange.

[sandnsea]

18. If it bleeds, it leads

Even on DU, the more sensationalist the post, the more hits and replies. Post something informative with facts and analysis, it drops like a rock. It's just the way people are. Half of them probably are reporters who need Obama to fail to please their corporate overseers; but I don't think that's the case for people like Joan Walsh. I think she just thinks she has to pile on or risk ridicule from her peers.

[polichick]

11. People are demanding ACTION, not speeches. nt

[ProSense]

13. " articulate "

Speak!

[polichick]

14. Which part of that post didn't you understand? nt

[bluestateguy]

15. Oh here

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/12/focusing-gulf

[Jennicut]

17. No, people want both.

I seem to remember quite a few here on DU that wanted a prime time speech.
The speech is to address some specific things, like the possible escrow account.

[ProSense]

21. Exactly,

It's not either or.

[vaberella]

25. And from what I can see Obama is delivering on both.

When these people say action they want Obama to jump down into the ocean and plug the well himself.

[amborin]

33. +1000 "speak" really means "act," & in a way that helps ordinary Amerians, not Big corps & Wall ST

[volvoblue]

16. seems to me that everyone from the media to the left have done nothing but.

They demand he do this or that. Attend to their personal agendas. The pundits and the newspapers and cable empty heads all bloviate about how he is doing this or that or both wrong and they know personally that is not what the people want - or do want.
The left has been having hissy fits since day one because the president is not addressing their personal issue and doing it overnight.
And all he has gotten is dumped on and accused of all kinds of bad things - and we have not even gotten to the rightwing.

On top of that he has been tasked with the most desperate condition this country has been in.
FDR has a depression but, not foreign policy promblems until the end of the second term - beginning of the thrid.
Lincoln had a war.
Obama has both. And the world spinning out of control, crisis every week, everything falling apart and all government agencies gutted from the inside, an ecomony going into depression with the debt at record levels - all before he even got sworn in.

And yet, we have heard nothing but demands, foot stomping and accusations, as well as calls of him being an abject failure - after he passed health care and saved us from that depression.

What he never has gotten from the press, from the left is credit for a damn thing.

[Clio the Leo]

20. Excellent question. NT

[vaberella]

24. Remember Prosense it's like that negativ article on Obama not going through the right channels.

It doesn't make sense. His quotes were enough to answer the bloody question of the OP and even the article and yet---they said Obama didn't do enough in regards to the oil spill. I hated the fact we had a spill, but I can't say that our President didn't do anything, before and after, within his power to prevent this disaster and stem it from getting worse. However, it seems like so many on this board are all over the place.

It's like I remember a poster saying that Obama needs to go out to push health reform and make his speeches. When he did do that---the exact same poster was like we know where you stand Obama, just stay on capitol hill. <---He can't win and it's because they're haters.

On the negative threads of Obama you'll find the same people as you'll find on the "benefit of the doubt" threads. However, what I have been noticing on the negative threads---they are getting articles from right wing newspapers or people or blogs in order to push that agenda here. Makes no sense.

[amborin]

26. no one really wants Obama to 'speak'; that's a metaphor for: ACT, as in RECEIVERSHIP

[ProSense]

27. He's doing both, but here

Video of the COP's June report

Warren says that the government should have acted much earlier, long before September 2008, to effect a private rescue, which she said could have been difficult or impossible, but definitely worth trying. The decision to rescue was made in a panic, but the actions were a success, although the victory came at an enormous cost.

Also, note her point on taking over AIG, and consider the calls to put BP into receivership. To quote Theda Skocpol, Reich's calls are "sheer lunacy."

From the report (PDF):

The rescue of AIG distorted the marketplace by transforming highly risky derivative bets into fully guaranteed payment obligations. In the ordinary course of business, the costs of AIG‟s inability to meet its derivative obligations would have been borne entirely by AIG‟s shareholders and creditors under the well-established rules of bankruptcy. But rather than sharing the pain among AIG‟s creditors – an outcome that would have maintained the market discipline associated with credit risks – the government instead shifted those costs in full onto taxpayers out of a belief that demanding sacrifice from creditors would have destabilized the markets. The result was that the government backed up the entire derivatives market, as if these trades deserved the same taxpayer backstop as savings deposits and checking accounts.

One consequence of this approach was that every counterparty received exactly the same deal: a complete rescue at taxpayer expense. Among the beneficiaries of this rescue were parties whom taxpayers might have been willing to support, such as pension funds for retired workers and individual insurance policy holders. But the across-the-board rescue also benefitted far less sympathetic players, such as sophisticated investors who had profited handsomely from playing a risky game and who had no reason to expect that they would be paid in full in the event of AIG‟s failure. Other beneficiaries included foreign banks that were dependent on contracts with AIG to maintain required regulatory capital reserves. Some of those same banks were also counterparties to other AIG CDSs.

<...>

Through a series of actions, including the rescue of AIG, the government succeeded in averting a financial collapse, and nothing in this report takes away from that accomplishment. But this victory came at an enormous cost. Billions of taxpayer dollars were put at risk, a marketplace was forever changed, and the confidence of the American people was badly shaken. How the government will manage those costs, both in the specific case of AIG and in the more general case of TARP, remains a central challenge – one the Panel will continue to review.

People are complaining about the losses the government incurred by taking over AIG. That's just what the President needs to do: put BP into receivorship so that any losses incurred during the process can be blamed on the takeover while the screams about the government's close relationship to BP escalates.

[amborin]

28. i already addressed the Skocpol nonsense; understand her pol expediency position to see why

she would say that

Reich is right, Theda is WRONG

[ProSense]

31. What about Warren's point? n/t

[amborin]

32. don't see anything by Warren; but take Wall St. "reform", e.g., it is toothless & won't prevent cri

another crisis

[Enrique]

30. because they hate him

everyone hates Obama, poor guy. :-(

[politicasista]

35. They are arrogant and think they are smarter than Obama n/t