Chalk Up Another One for President #Compromise

For the first time in history, a U.S. House Speaker has publicly rebuffed -- or at least moved to rebuff -- a request from the President of the United States to address a joint session of Congress.

The unexpected request, and unprecedented diss, have touched off a round of public partisan sniping so bitter, it's been at least since debt limit negotiations broke down waaaaay back in July that we've seen anything like it.

TPM

Aw, come on, Josh. Boehner has been sniping and dissing President #Compromise for many, many moons. He just gets bolder as #Compromise lets him get away with it. There is nothing unexpected or unprecedented about this particular “request.”

"No one in the Speaker's office - not the Speaker, not any staff - signed off on the date the White House announced today," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner. "Unfortunately we weren't even asked if that date worked for the House. Shortly before it arrived this morning, we were simply informed that a letter was coming. It's unfortunate the White House ignored decades - if not centuries - of the protocol of working out a mutually agreeable date and time before making any public announcement."

[...]

But the broader point, according to the same source, and as confirmed by both House and Senate historians, is that the President has always been allowed to convene a joint session at his pleasure.

Apparently not this time, bub. And the fact that he chose the GOP primary date says one of two things: 1) He wanted to stick a thumb in their eye, but wimped out when called on it. 2) He knew he’d be called on it and he wanted to show them just one more time how willing he is to work with them, and surely, if he tries that just one more time, they’ll work with him in return. Could he possibly be that thick-headed? Does he really think people like him because he’s always compromising, as he proudly and stubbornly claims? Does he really think that’s presidential? Practical? Good for the country?

The timing of a jobs speech this late in the game is not anything like an issue on which to make a stand. And then back down. It strikes me as a most ridiculously petty thing to do, not to mention a huge political mistake. There was no way on earth choosing the same date as the GOP primary debate could have come out looking good. Not even if he didn’t back down. The man has turned himself into a dildo.

"The childish behavior coming out of the Speaker's office today is truly historic," said another senior Dem aide. "It is unprecedented to reject the date that a President wants to address a Joint Session of the Congress. People die and state funerals are held with less fuss, so the logistics excuse by the Speaker's office is laughable. Yes, consultation always occurs, but the President always gets the date he wants."

Yeah? Then what happened?

After squaring off with House Speaker John Boehner over when President Barack Obama could address Congress on his job plan, the White House announced late Wednesday that they'll move the speech back a day to Thursday, Sept. 8.

TPM

And on a related note…

Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-AL) appeared Wednesday on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show to discuss the unprecedented push to create new obstacles to voting.

“There is something in the air looking to disenfranchise and make sure certain segments of the population don’t get out to vote,” she told MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry.

“I find it very curious that lately we’ve seen across the United States — especially in states run by the GOP — an effort to systematically try to find these voter suppression laws, that will actually discourage voter participation.”

Raw Story

They shouldn’t need to worry about laws that discourage voting. The lack of decent choices and the overwhelming corporate influence should be sufficient.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.