Whadda Ya Want? Just Words? Pretty Speeches?

[FrenchieCat]

At this time, from this President in reference to this oil spill?

Apparently so!

At a slightly different place in time however, whenever this President spoke, he was panned as ineffectual and lacking when his words were weighted against what many felt he needed to do; take action. "This President is very good at giving speeches," some said, "but that's not what we need! We need him to act!"

But now that we have this never ending spill in the Gulf, some of the same people are demanding that, Public Relations wise, words from this President are exactly what the American people need and want to hear; updates straight from the President's mouth, at primetime preferably. And of course, all of the bets are that if he doesn't address the situation soon, all is lost for him.

So, on the one hand, this President has been routinely ridiculed by many on the Left (the Right doesn't count, as they have never really bothered to listen to him anyways) for giving speeches when many have felt that words didn't matter. Some even said they had stopped listening to him speak, cause it got on their nerves. A few even said that as soon as he comes on, they turn their television off. In fact, whenever he has given a speech, folks minimized anything about it, if they even bothered to pay attention. All of this of course has resulted in a wide swath of folks letting this President know that action counts; words, not so much.

I dare guess then that consistency must not be one of our good point, and that we have the right to be fickle, and to change our minds and adjust our mindset as to what is important depending on the occasion. Hey...there's nothing wrong with that I guess, as we have the right to be however demanding about whatever as we decide at the time.

It is also true that some of us, instead of staying truly informed about what is being done (action), we have decided to ignore such, and instead are demanding words of reassurement or something to help us cope with the uncopable. We now feel that leadership of this situation will only happen if we hear the President directly talking to us about this. Of course, this most likely won't stop the leak...but hey, we know what we want and need right now, and whatever that is, it may not be what we wanted just right before.

Reminds me of the media going on how the President was taking on too much, and then not doing enough, then giving too many press conferences, and then not enough press conferences, then not moving fast enough, and then moving too fast, then appearing on television too much, and then not using his bully pulpit, then being too bipartisan, and then not being partisan enough, and then not talking about race, and then being called a racist for daring to comment on a racial issue, and then seeming to be in-charge cool, to also not seeming to be emotional enough, etc, etc, etc...

Bottomline Message: We reserve the right to move the goalpost as we sit fit, and ain't shit anyone can do about it. We don't know what we want or don't want until we want or don't want it...but it is a fact that we know what we want as long as we're not getting it, and we know what we don't want as long as we are getting it.

The American people understand well the art of the possible, especially when the impossible is the issue.

Makes perfect sense to me! :thumbsup:

[phleshdef]

1. This is exactly what I was addressing in a thread I made a little earlier.

Some people are more than willing to redefine their own personal meaning of "leadership" in order to fit whatever criticisms they are able to think up to match the situation.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

33. I saw that. I wanted to link to Frenchie's thread from yesterday

in your OP because it was a great complement to your OP but I forgot.

This one is a great match too. Kicked and rec'd.

[DevonRex]

2. Some folks will say he's wrong no matter what. If goes there, they say it's a photo op.

If he talks, they'll say he didn't talk loudly enough or that it was just words. They just criticize him from the opposite side of whatever he does or says or doesn't do or doesn't say.

See how easy that is for them?

[ProSense]

3. Yup. Also,

the media and Republicans are desperately trying to pin the disaster on the administration.

They can't do that if he continues to hold BP accountable. It's their spill, and as Sylvia Earle points out:

the industry, the oil industry, has the best technology presently in the world, except maybe certain navies, for actually observing and working in the sea. link

The President should absolutely not take on BP's liability.

[Karenina]

31. BINGO!

Seems folks are all up in that "vigilante funk."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4395387

After they REFUSED Federal assistance...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/24/earlyshow/main6513824.shtml

And jurisdiction may not end with the feds: "CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric reported that the mayor of Grand Isle, La., objected to the Coast Guard, saying they did not want oil containment booms used around the beach because it would be "unsightly" for beachgoers. Rear Admiral Mary Landry told Couric that they have to respect the wishes of local leaders.

[Number23]

34. thanks for the links and info, Ms. K!

:hi:

[Karenina]

35. Some folks done gone stark-raving mad, eh?

:hug:

[Number23]

36. Yep! Happened about 16 months ago!

:pals:

[bluestateguy]

4. If there has ever been a more aggressive federal response to an oil spill, I have not seen it

I really would like to hear about it, if such an example actually exists.

[FrenchieCat]

6. But we want him to speak on this!

and we wanted that yesterday! Doncha know?

[Enrique]

5. press conferences, not speeches

with real answers.

[FrenchieCat]

7. What questions do you want answered?

[freddie mertz]

21. Here's one!

How much oil is actually spilling out of the leak?

We have heard reports from 2-5,000 barrels p to 50,000 or more a day.

Is the government monitoring the site?

Have they measured the amount spewing forth?

Can we get some kind of objective estimate of the amount now, after 35 freaking days!

[ProSense]

9. Yeah, look

how well received the President's weekly address was. <<<sarcasm.

The President is going to be ridiculed by some no matter what he does.

[Lerkfish]

11. So, does that mean you suggest he do nothing?

it appears to be what you guys are aiming towards.

[ProSense]

12. Are you suggesting that he's doing nothing?

Because I sure as hell suggested no such thing.

The President has been on top of this disaster from day one.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arkana]

13. Oh yeah, I forgot all about that talking point.

People bitch constantly about "pretty speeches" but it seems to me that that's exactly what some of those same folks are calling for--and they're angry that they're not getting it.

Barack's fucked if he does and fucked if he doesn't.

[zipplewrath]

14. The situation is not static

What was "right" to do on the first day, isn't necessarily the right thing to do on the 14th day. The information stream has become highly polluted, not surprising considering this mess stretches literally and figuratively to the Atlantic Ocean. There are a variety of ways to "stay out in front" of this issue. He has allowed the networks to take control of the "message" and he has to get that back. And he must maintain the reality that as the problem continues, his administration takes greater and greater control of the problem.

Quite honestly, there was too much hope allowed to build on the "top hats" and other quick fixes. They were "shots in the dark" to some extent and never should have been allowed to be presented as anything other than desperation efforts. We're at the point now where he is going to need someone to coordinate a wide range of issues, and maintain the information flow. And that can be someone with BP on their shirt.

[FrenchieCat]

16. "There are a variety of ways to "stay out in front" of this issue".

Obviously not.

[zipplewrath]

18. There are

They are missing many of them however.

[freddie mertz]

23. Can't you admit that the message has not been well communicated?

We still do not know how much oil is gushing out there.

Estimates are all over the map.

People need to know they are being told the truth, however unpleasant that truth may be.

We have the right to demand it, no matter what you want to call us.

[NJmaverick]

15. K & R!

[uponit7771]

17. The bashing stays overt in the face of being called out for their stupid

[treestar]

19. Amen and this one is worse than Haiti

Here there is only so much that can be done and it is a new problem.

When they bashed the Administration over Haiti, at least they could maybe argue logistics.

But nothing will satisfy them. Their criticism is not in good faith.

[Lerkfish]

20. The mistake you make... among many

is that to you, the criticism is based solely on Obama's PR, while to us its about the gulf.

You can only perceive crticisms of policy as something personal against Obama. And because of that inability to see it any other way, you are not discussing these issues in good faith.

[treestar]

37. False

these criticisms are in bad faith. As they were with Haiti.

I do not have to accept bad faith criticism of the President on the grounds that trashing someone is always the better way to go (as the snide and superior must always do to others).

Liberals and progressives are no judgmental. That is to be left to conservatives.

Obama is doing the best that can be done with this. It's like a doctor saying you have an incurable disease and screaming at the doctor that he's not doing enough.

It's hard to believe such people are "liberal" or "progressive." Liberals and progressives are tolerant.

[Lerkfish]

38. are liberals supposed to be tolerant of things like torture?

I don't think you mean tolerant, I think you mean complacent. A liberal's job is to speak truth to power, not to unconditionally accept that power is always correct.

That's sycophancy. That is different from tolerance... and I"m not really sure you understand the concept of tolerance, frankly.

[EFerrari]

22. If you don't really know the difference between pretty speeches and good communication

then you probably aren't a good advocate for this president.

[FrenchieCat]

24. The same people calling his words pretty speeches,

are not the same people who might call those exact same words good communications.
It appears that the difference between the two is still an open question without a definite answer,
only opinions on such.

As for me being an advocate for this President;
that's accidental....although I did write him a scathing letter
earlier this morning....so I guess an advocate is not all that I am.

[EFerrari]

25. That doesn't even make sense.

[damntexdem]

26. I would like just words -- we need words supporting justice.

If they're just, they need not be pretty.

[freddie mertz]

27. How about some straight answers?

How much oil is spewing out everyday, for starters?

The reports are all over the map on that one.

What are the likely log-term effects of the spill?

What about the dispersal chemicals they are using?

Is the "moratorium" real, or not?

What further assets can we mobilize, from the US or abroad, that we haven't yet asked for or accepted?

There are a few I'd like to ask.

[Dr Fate]

28. I want him to threaten to end all of Big Oil's subsidies, tax breaks & no-bid contracts.

Unless they all get together & get this plugged & cleaned up w/i-say 3 months or whatever a reasonable period is.

And no, he does not have to scream or get red-faced while he makes the threat. He can be as calm and pleasant as he likes- so long as he backs it up.

LOL! I know, I know, that wont happen because (Insert excuse, worn out talking point, soon to be worn out talking point, cutesy "you want a pony" insult, strawman, accusation of being too "far left", etc here.)

[PurityOfEssence]

29. Having endlessly carried water for the administration, now it's time to carry oil

Just as a sports-medicine doctor will tell you that pain isn't necessarily damage, those of us skeptics remind that criticism isn't necessarily an attempt at destruction.

Many of us who have problems with our President's tactics or values do not dismiss him wholly, but rather want our influence heard and brought to bear. Remember: he's UNCOMMONLY given to accommodation, so that literally invites input.

The bottom line is that leadership is hard, and it's different than campaigning.

It's one thing to rage at any dissent, but when the environment is so seriously at risk, that kind of hero-worship is as tacky as gulf-coast sand.

[tledford]

30. "Bottomline Message: We reserve the right to move the goalpost as we sit fit, [...]"

"<...> and ain't shit anyone can do about it."

Who decides where the goalposts go, if not us? Welcome to the planet Earth in the early Twenty-first Century.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Which us? this us, or that us.....or maybe the media us.

Welcome to "the polarized politics of the United States of America".
When folks can't even agree on what is considered proof of naturally born citizenship,
guess "us" depends on who has the goalposts and which direction they are running with them.