Will Obama go to Wisconsin and rally for the public employees? n/t

LOL! Unless I just killed it, that is.

Never mind the fact that the excuse makers would be standing in their chairs cheering if he did.

They have to pretend it's not a good idea b/c they KNOW he will do no such thing, and they dont want to be caught dissenting for once.

Why should he go: to give another "pretty speech"?

Do you think that will prevent another line of criticism aimed at the Presidnt about Wisconsin?

My goal is to come up with WAYS to highlight this issue and help the Unions. I think getting top-name DEMS in front of cameras would be one method. We agree that it cant just be speeches- there must be follow up action as well.

What are some of your ideas for WAYS that Obama can help us in this fight?

Bogus claims are on the way? Could be. Feel free to identify them as you see them.

Start with former Senator Feingold and former Congressman Obey, both high-profile Wisconsinites who could speak passionately about what this is doing to their state.

B/c above in post #4 you seemed to say that I was silly for wanting DEMS to make "pretty" speeches about this.

I guess you just meant currently elected DEMS.

I agree with you that the more high-profile DEMS who give speeches, followed by ACTION- the better. Obama is better than Feingold, b/c he is more famous, networks will cover more of his speech, and he actually has the power to follow up with federal action.

So no currently ELECTED DEMS should put their necks on the line and pledge action & follow up over this?

"Pretty" speeches from former statesmen who no longer have power is the answer? You think that will work?

I asked you what actions you think Obama could take to help out, not what former statesmen should do. Your answer?

n/t

Why do you get to ask me questions b/f you answer mine?

I've asked you like 3 times now- tell us what Obama should do, or just say he should do nothing. It's not a trick question.

Please follow DU rules by sticking to the OP's orignal thread topic- the OP is about a hypothetical Obama speech- not your hypothetical speech made by Ex-Senators who do not hold office.

You:



My response: Start with former Senator Feingold and former Congressman Obey, both high-profile Wisconsinites who could speak passionately about what this is doing to their state.

You, however, can't seem to answer my question: Feingold is powerless?

That is certainly what I asked- it's even in your own re-posting of my quote.

Your answer had nothing to do with what Obama should do or say.

Feingold? He is not in office, Obama is. If you think Feingold as PAC leader has more gravitas than the currently elected President, then I guess that is your right to think such nonsense.

This thread is about a possible speech by Obama- not former office holders like Feingold.

answer mine?

"What are some of your ideas for WAYS that Obama can help us in this fight?"

Some of the ways in which he has helped:

Obama voices strong support for Wisconsin public employees

OFA has been organizing protests in Wisconsin

DNC Expands Role In Labor Protests To Ohio, Indiana

Obama rallies union base as budget standoff grips Wisconsin (He could push for measures like the legislation mentioned there)

Now, your turn: Feingold is "powerless"?

I guess you win the day. Feingold is all mighty and oh so powerful! Obama need not make a speech, so long as he does.

So you agree with what is already being done. Me too. I was just hoping we could work even harder. If you think the current action is enough, then that is fair. I beleive you are wrong, but fair enough.

I still say that getting Obama in front of a crowd would get more results than getting the ALL POWERFUL, former Sen. Feingold up there.

Do you have some inside word about Obama sending Feingold to make a speech?

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

I'm all for action instead of just whining & talking.

What are some of your ideas for ways that elected DEMS can join in this fight and help the unions?

????

DNC including his official campaign organization to organize protests not only in Wisconsin but also Ohio and Indiana?

perched on a literal soap box, therefore the facts you mention do not count, don't you understand that?

the bad guys.

...EXCUSE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

like he has done?

Show us the exact quote where he pledges to fight for new federal laws that will strengthen Unions, in a way to avoid situations like WS in the futute. Like I suggested in my post.

Your link notes past failures, not any new pledges to keep fighting for such a law.

Plus, the OP is about him giving a speech about it in WS. I still believe a speech in WS would be the best way to expose this new law you say he pledges to fight for.

What is our excuse for him not giving the speech in WS, in front of his loyal base?

He fought for a federal law to strengthen unions.

"What is our excuse for him not giving the speech in WS, in front of his loyal base?"

Giving critics something to live for.

His "loyal base" are the ones currently supporting the President, not moving the goal posts while pretending that whatever he does is irrelevant.

We can agree to disagree on that.

Yes- when I said he should go to WS and "pledge to support" strong laws- I was speaking about future or continuing acts, not about previous efforts.

Yes- his loyal base- as in the Unions who backed him with votes & money.

Like I said, his "loyal base" are the ones who acknowledge, not ignore his efforts

This thread is not about his previous efforts- it is about whether there should be even more work done- namely whether he should give a speech in WS or not.

Many think he should, and I wonder whether the Unions on the whole would agree with us.

Right, the only thing that matters is you determining his schedule.

n/t

Sometimes you don't get what you want. That's life.

n/t

I hope you are right- that this is enough to strengthen unions in the US, and to keep this type of thing from happening again.

You dont have any extra suggestions? Your position is that whatever he does or does not do must be the correct course? Okay.

I think getting top name DEMS in front of cameras and pledging action & follow up would be cool too.

made statements in support for the employees and unions as did his press secretary.

To do so would reduce them to mere community organizers.

Forget the fact that he campaigned on the fact that he could utilize his experiences as a Community organizer while in office.

Still, not bad as far as excuses go. Keep 'em comming!

he was a community organizer. He spoke out strongly on the side of the workers. But keep your baseless criticisms coming!

n/t

just "giving Bush a medal." :eyes:

Lets say it takes 5 -6 hours total of travel time, if that. He has time, if it is important to him.

You are the one who seemed to suggest that he had no extra time to get in front of the cameras for political PR, not me.

about all those he honored. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/02/15/2010-presidential-medal-freedom-ceremony 5-6 hours plus tons of preparation is on a whole different level. Yes, I suggested he didn't have the time to go to WI to speak out in support of those he supports and said he supports.

n/t

It's just THIS ONE that he does not have time for.

I understand now.

You seem to claim he has time for other events but not this one, and I am doubting that claim.

I think he could and should make time, we can agree to disagree- but you seem reluctant to assert that he should not travel 5-6 hours for other events & speeches. You seem to be reserving a travel time restriction for this PR event but not for others.

the Medals of Freedom ceremony took 40 min. Then you tried comparing a hypothetical 5-6 hour trip to WI to other speaking events.

I thought your position is that he does not has a spare 5 hours to fly somewhere to make a quick appearance or speech. Seems to me that he often finds time for such things.

to speak in support of the workers in that state. He has spoken out in support of them as did his press secretary. When he does other events, it's to do things like sell people on his legislative agenda.

A Pro-Union legislative agenda. I've said this in other posts as well- that he should be talking about laws he would fight for in the speech.

Therefore, under your criteria, he now has time for it.

Thanks for the correction on the WS vs. the WI, BTW.

it's tens of thousands of people in the streets-not somewhere he should go (especially with teabaggers starting to counter-protest according to Ed Schultz). There's a lot more to it than just flying there and back, including writing the speech, all the security challenges, etc. Giving statements in support of the people seems like the appropriate thing to do.

n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x450121

So much for the standard "he does not have time" excuse.

in order to find ways to be creative and create jobs in America.

n/t

First you said that he should only travel for speeches about legislative policy.

After I shot that one down- you said it was too far, and 5 hours was too long.

After I shot that down, you now claim that security is the real issue at hand.

I could correctly assert that this rally has essentially the same security threats present at other events Obama has been to, and then I'm guessing you would just find another excuse after that.

I predicted this thread would be like an excuse clearing house. Looks like I was onto something.

He should only travel to give speeches when they're for trying to sell his legislative policies. A demonstration by tens of thousands of people is not the place to go to give a speech. YOU kept giving reasons why YOU thought my logic wasn't valid and I went with it.

n/t

that his daily schedule is planned well in advance, don't you? Are you saying he should cancel his entire schedule, drop everything else, and travel to WI for a speech when he has already addressed the union members? As jen said...he is the president now...not a community organizer. I'm willing to bet the people on the ground in WI are more than happy with his support. They are not expecting him to go there to make a speech.

If he went to Wisconsin you would ask, "why isn't Obama staging a sit in and being arrested for civil disobedience?"

If he did that, it would be "Why isn't Obama resisting arrest?"

if he did that, it would be "why didn't Obama allow himself to get beaten more by the police until his ribs were broken?"

And on and on,

n/t

n/t

It's already begun above.

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

????

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

Wait- is it not the JOB of elected DEMS to represent us in such matters?

Dont we PAY them, give them HC, etc?

Oh- I forgot- in "centrist" land, we are not allowed to demand that elected DEMS do their jobs unless we are willing to take time off from work and go do it for them.

Apparently I'm supposed to take 6 months off from work per year so I can attend rallies where I BEG DEMS to fight for me and their party.

Nor do you understand the Democratic walk-out in the Wisconsin Senate?

If your argumument is that whatever you see DEMS doing is always enough, then we just agree to disagree.

Some times when I hear the "Chill Out- Obama's Got this" crowd assure me that DEMS are doing all they can, it turns out that they were wrong. I hope this is not one of those times.

For instance-I dont have jet to fly to WS like many elected DEMS do. I wont get sound bytes on TV like elected DEMS could, etc, etc.

Why are we so opposed to making elected DEMS do a little EXTRA work all of a sudden? We have to do ALL of it?

What is wrong wtih getting even MORE exposure?

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

n/t

n/t

It's what Democrats do.

If I were him, I'd do something with this smorgasbord of possibility.

And all of a sudden, a speech will be the most wonderful idea they ever heard of, as opposed to it being some cranky far left idea?

LOL!

Something tells me that if he does give a speech, a lot of the passionate excuse makers will all of a sudden have to change their arguments as they will have to agree with the so called "bashers" who called for it.


If he does give a speech- the anti-speech crowd here at DU will be forced to either ignore or contridict their previous arguments.

It would be cool if you are right...

No. But this thread will be a clearing house of excuses for why he will not/cannot/should not.

If it's true, were you wrong?

I'm not wrong about predicting that excuses would appear in this thread- There was one saying that he does not have time, another suggesting that he already did enough. Not an excuse per se- but others seemed to suggest that cash strapped voters on DU should fly there and appear instead of Obama.

OP question: Will Obama go to Wisconsin and rally for the public employees? n/t

Your response: No. But this thread will be a clearing house of excuses for why he will not/cannot/should not.

If it's true, were you wrong?

I'm believe I'm right about both.

Excuses were made in this thread from the POV that Obama either should not or would not appear, just as I predicted. You your self warned me that I may not always get what I want. (Post #68)

I also believe that I am right to suggest that Obama give a speech.

If he does it means he agreed with me, not with the folks arguing from the POV that he would not or should not, has no time, should send others, etc.

OP question: Will Obama go to Wisconsin and rally for the public employees? n/t

Your response: No...

...too funny!

"Wrong about what...?"

Oh, nothing.

:rofl:

And if I'm wrong about that, I'll happily admit it.

Will the folks arguing against such a speech still oppose it if he does give one? My guess is no, they will all of a sudden be in agreement with me- that it is proper course.

He has yet to give a speech in WI, so you may want to hold off with the laughy rolly guy just yet.

I hope you are right- that he does give the speech you have been calling for! Errrr, wait.. ;)

"I hope you are right- that he does give the speech you have been calling for! "

I said nothing about him giving a speech. That tweet is also not a confirmation that he will.

n/t

the speech will not be anywhere near good enough. He won't say anything that he should have said, and he surely will not have said it with the right tone of voice!

And I don't think he needs to show up.

He needs to DEMAND that Walker step down immediately!!!

Not as cute as your strawman, I admit, but it would certainly rally his base.

And let's say he makes that speech you suggest.

Does he need to do it in WI? Or will his doing it from another location be tomorrow's outrage?

As usually, with the far right and parts of the left, this is a no-win situation for Obama. Regardless of what he does. Its too much or too little.

But I note that you need to compare their concerns to those on the "far right" in order to look like you are on the right side of the issue.

I think Unions would love it if he made such a speech.

As far as your accusations of me moving the goal posts, I have not done so. Feel free to provide exmamples of where I did.

If he gave a speech in WI and I still complained, you would be right. He did not, and I did not, so you are not.

He said nothing in his post about Union members. And he certainly did not equate union members with teabaggers.

If he wants to qualify his statement and assert that unlike the "parts of the left", the Unions will generally be happy with whatever Obama does- a win-win if you will, then I wont stop him.

Joe sez:

"As usually, with the far right and parts of the left, this is a no-win situation for Obama."

The topic of this thread is unions & their supporters, so I'm sorry if Joe was off topic and refering to other "parts of the left."

... Obama can both support unions, and yet also not fly to WI and demand that their (sadly) elected Governor, do anything.

If you read the many posts in the thread, there are many demands that he GO. Or that he must or should go.

And by not going, he is (secretly) anti-union.

Now, he may or may not go. And he may make statements as things there go forward. No matter what he does, the kind of screaming I described, will continue.

As for being off topic, I don't think so. On EVERY issue, no matter what he does, the right wing screams that he is like Hitler, Mao or Stalin, and parts of the left scream almost as loud, that he hates (depending on the issue) unions, gays, the poor, teachers, the middle class, the left handed, so on.

Go back a week or two, according to some, he was secretly working to keep Mubarak in power. When Mubarak stepped down, THAT outrage shifted away quickly.

And when this situation starts to resolve, the outrage will again shift.

The OP starts with a question "Will Obama go and ... blah blah blah", and then the OP takes no position on whether he should or not.

Although, given the question, and the lack of any follow up in the OP text, one can guess what the OP wants Obama to do. Why ask that question if you think the answer is "NO".

And then ... we have 84 posts before mine. The OP is in none of those and does not show up again until #106.

During the prior 84, what do we see ... ?? Demands that Obama has to GO, and arguments why he probably should not as well. The intended debate has started!!!!

Personally, I see the original question as one of the knee-jerk questions that have become very common here. Some event happens, if Obama didn't do what some one wanted "knee-jerk". And if he just did do what they wanted, he clearly should have done that months ago ... "knee-jerk"

My simple response "The BASTARD!!!" was simply a response to the endless knee-jerking that goes on day in and day out.

And my comments on what SHAPE Obama's statements should take and from where he should make them, is the same.

If he goes to WI next week ... and he says what those demanding he go wants, it will have taken too long for him to do it. Or he wont have used a certain word that was required. Or he used some other word that is CODE for hating unions.

Or is that not a silly enough strawman for ya?

You'd bitch about that

That is why I said the speech should be about HOW he is going to fight.

If the speech was not followed by action, I would voice disagreement- absolutely.

If Obama actually gave the speech, acted on it and then I bitched about it, you would be right. But he has not and I have not, so you are not.

it would kind of stupid for Obama to not do as much as he can for Wisconsin's public sector unions.

Unless, of course, you consider the permanent minority status of the Democratic party "garbage".

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

And he is still involved in epic battles to make double sure it will never happen again either. Uhh-huh.

As if having Obama swim in the ocean was some major solution suggested by the left. What a joke.

LOL! No one is asking that he do something impossible- this thread more or less asks for a speech in WI telling us what he is going to do to help unions.

You guys are acting like this is some outrageous request- to suggest that he speak in front of his loyal, union base.

:popcorn:

.

Who cares? Union members for one.

Union members support such a speech to rally any boots on the ground. I could be wrong, but I have yet to hear a union rep. say he wants Obama to steer clear...

he SHOULD GO and make a speech of support. Of course, I'm old, so probably don't know what I'm talking about.
If the people were protesting about possible cuts in SS, would he go? He seems to be able to go to lots of
places, so not sure why he wouldn't want to go and show his support.....but, that's just me. Not getting into
an argument with anyone. I think we still have free speech.......

n workers? Surely, if he doesn't go (like now), he sucks really bad... or something.

Seriously, I doubt POTUS will make the trip. He's already made statements in support and if he went, the whole thing would be twisted into a referendum on him rather than focused on the actual issue of labor rights.