[Amilam]

also

Honk honk!

[CanadianJeff]

You know it really does cheapen the presidency but I think the bigger worry is that it sets the stage for this to be "ok" in the future. It also opens the door that if you get enough lobbyists to press the president to advertise for a product he may go ahead and do so.

The question I find myself asking is simple:

Does this open the door to companies with monetary wealth having more power over presidential affairs?

[Kjorteo]

CanadianJeff wrote:

Does this open the door to companies with monetary wealth having more power over presidential affairs?

What, being on Leno? No. Not any more than they already do, anyway.

Oh, and being included as a guest character in this strip sort of reminded me about how absurd the obviously metaphorical scenarios presented in typical political cartoons would be if taken literally, so allow me to just add: I don't care if it would cheapen the Presidency; if I had Psudo standing right next to me and Obama just across the street in a giant chicken suit with a "Honk if you love bagels!" sign, that would be awesome. In fact, I'm going to preemptively blame JJ if I ever start having dreams to that effect.

[CanadianJeff]

Now if only we could have put Bush in a giant chicken suit we would have had his presidency captured in a single glorious photo...

[Gelmax]

Cheapening the presidency? What's that supposed to mean? Did you guys sleep through the election or what? There's a very significant chunk of rhetoric out there about "elitist lawmakers who sit up in their ivory towers lording it over the common folk" that was a large part of, for instance, Palin's support; if he wants to win support from his foes, he's going to have to be on TV. And in Obama's particular situation, he very much needs to appear to be reaching out to the public and having public support, because it's a way to prod Congress without unnecessarily wasting precious, precious political capital - which he needs to use as carefully as possible considering how little cooperation he's getting from Congress. There's nothing holding Senators and Representatives responsible for the nation as a whole, only to the states and districts that actually vote for them - when things get bad, like now, some of them would prefer to keep their own voters happy enough to reelect them while watching the rest of the nation collapse rather than taking action for the sake of the nation as a whole (while increasing the chance that anything bad that happens gets blamed on them, hurting their reelection chances). People laugh about things like Senators loudly opposing Obama's bailouts and stimuluses while quietly inserting earmarks and pork destined for their voters in case the bills pass, but the truth is that it's a symptom of a problem that can make it very hard to work with Congress at a time when doubletalk and counterproductive posturing can be a serious problem. The fact that he's been stepping up the PR lately shows that he's no longer satisfied trying to work out Congress' issues with him through sheer political wheeling&dealing - he's taking this to the court of public opinion in order to hit Congress the only way he can hurt them: with their voters.

Aside from all that, what's wrong with Obama appearing on a talk show? No one, supporter or opponent, can deny that he's a celebrity. As for the dignity of the Presidency or whatever, let's be fair - it's a political office, and an elected position no less. "Dignity" is in short supply up on Capitol Hill, and you'd better bring a dictionary with you if you plan to use the word in front of a member of Congress. At least he's just appearing on talk shows, which isn't even notable compared to some of Bush's bigger humiliations (like the whole shoe-throwing thing). And every election cycle the position itself is dragged through the mud by everyone from the voters to the party head honchos to the candidates themselves; now that the election is over we're supposed to forget all that till the next circus four years later? Having a sense of shame basically disqualifies one for running for high office.

[Donny_Brasco]

Or he could do what Bush did:

Don't read the papers

Don't watch the polls

Do whatever your gut tells you

Translation: does not know what Americans think and does not give a fuck.

Do you want a leader like that or someone willing to sit down and talk and listen?

[Amilam]

CanadianJeff wrote:

You know it really does cheapen the presidency but I think the bigger worry is that it sets the stage for this to be "ok" in the future. It also opens the door that if you get enough lobbyists to press the president to advertise for a product he may go ahead and do so.

The question I find myself asking is simple:

Does this open the door to companies with monetary wealth having more power over presidential affairs?

There is no logical progression from appearing on Leno to hawking goods. What a bizarre concern. I mean it would be outlets like Leno that would satire him the hardest if he ever did such a thing. Additionally, as JJ noted, the "stage" has already been set by past presidents.

[nerdy_girl]

I think Obama is trying to reach a different audience. One that might not like to watch the news. Going on Leno can not cheapen the presidency any more then many sinanigan's of Bush. Mabey if he went on John Stewart again. Obama just wants everyone to hear his message. He is finally giving people something to believe in. After being ignored by government for 8 years. He many have a lot of work to do with economy and wars etc. but he also is getting people back involved in government. I think going on Leno will help with that.

[Geryon]

nerdy_girl wrote:

Going on Leno can not cheapen the presidency any more then many sinanigan's of Bush.

Although I personally agree that in principal going on Leno does not cheapen the presidency, only in principal because as I said before I have not seen the segment, the logic of comparing it to how you felt Bush cheapened the presidency is not quite there. If Bush cheapened the position then hooly haw for him. It's bad but it's in the past and if Obama does anything currently to cheapen the presidency then it should be judged on its own, not next to Bush, because by that logic everyone but the worst president is good, or at least adequate simply because they were not quite as bad. Lastly if you simply mean that after what Bush did there could be little done to make the position of President less respected, I don't think this was your intended meaning but just in case, then Obama should not be doing anything to reaffirm that belief.

[Donny_Brasco]

This just in:

"Obama turns down Letteramn"

Right wing papers go mad! "Obama 'too good' to talk to Americans now!"

[KrytenKoro]

Quote:

Don't watch the polls

I've never understood this - why would it be a good thing for the President to be a slave to public opinion? The public as a whole, quite frankly, doesn't have anything that could be called expertise in foreign relations, economic policy, or even basic management.

Isn't the whole problem with pork and earmarks that politicians are paying too much attention to the polls?

Personally, the important poll is over. I'd much rather have a president that actually commits to their campaign promises, than one that commits to the changing tide of fads and bad ideas known as public opinion.

Of course, he should still know what the general opinion is, via the news, etc. But he absolutely should not just follow the polls.

Quote:

There's a very significant chunk of rhetoric out there about "elitist lawmakers who sit up in their ivory towers lording it over the common folk" that was a large part of, for instance, Palin's support;

That's really not at all what was meant by those complaints. Stuff like, I don't know, throwing parties on the tax payer's dime, telling everyone to turn down their thermostats for green concerns (during deadly freezes) while he pumps it up to 80* - stuff that actually gives the impression that he feels its all for him. If he's doing this kind of stuff for attention, then well, the Leno thing is ''that'' kind of thing. There's a huge difference between being an elitist, and just stopping the "Look at me!" and getting down to work.

And that's just him. There was plenty of other stuff like one of the cabinet claiming that the crisis was a good tool to get people to go along with whatever the administration thinks up, and that one congressman who called the voters that disagreed with the stimulus the "chattering classes". (Sorry, not good with names).

Quote:

At least he's just appearing on talk shows, which isn't even notable compared to some of Bush's bigger humiliations (like the whole shoe-throwing thing).

Wait, so being disliked means that the President is humiliating himself?

[Donny_Brasco]

KrytenKoro wrote:

Quote:

Don't watch the polls

I've never understood this - why would it be a good thing for the President to be a slave to public opinion? The public as a whole, quite frankly, doesn't have anything that could be called expertise in foreign relations, economic policy, or even basic management.

Yes, but the president is a PUBLIC SERVENT.

Therefore what you said is an oxymoron. And if he wants to get re-elected or if he wants his party to have a chance at re-election then he better listen to the will of the people.

[Ramsey]

It kind of seems to me he's trying to be the anti-Bush in the sense that Bush was never too good at the whole "public relations" thing. Realizing that Bush wasn't a popular president, Obama seems to be trying to make sure that he maintains his public image.

I do agree that this seems to be a bit too trivial of a public appearance as far as presidential responsibilities are concerned.

[CKASlacker]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

KrytenKoro wrote:

I've never understood this - why would it be a good thing for the President to be a slave to public opinion? The public as a whole, quite frankly, doesn't have anything that could be called expertise in foreign relations, economic policy, or even basic management.

Yes, but the president is a PUBLIC SERVENT.

Therefore what you said is an oxymoron. And if he wants to get re-elected or if he wants his party to have a chance at re-election then he better listen to the will of the people.

The point of the presidency isn't to get RE-elected -- he's been elected, and been given a mandate based on his campaign and election promises over the next four years. That's his job - if what he's proposed and executed by 2012 looks like it's been a good thing, he'll have a good chance of being re-elected.

There's a reason the founding fathers set up the US as a republic with elected representatives, and not a true democracy. You don't want public policy to change with the whim of the people on a daily basis -- willy-nilly changes are no way to run a country.

Yes the president is a public servant, but he's not a windsock, changing his viewpoints to whatever's fashionable that day. Of course there's certainly a fine line to be balance between shifting your views based on public opinion, and taking criticism and factoring those into your overall plan -- but that's a matter for Obama to sort out case by case.

[HotLed]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

KrytenKoro wrote:

Quote:

Don't watch the polls

I've never understood this - why would it be a good thing for the President to be a slave to public opinion? The public as a whole, quite frankly, doesn't have anything that could be called expertise in foreign relations, economic policy, or even basic management.

Yes, but the president is a PUBLIC SERVENT.

Therefore what you said is an oxymoron. And if he wants to get re-elected or if he wants his party to have a chance at re-election then he better listen to the will of the people.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this country was founded as a republic, which changed over time to a democracy which gives the people more power than in a republic. This ISN'T a populist or anarchist government where the people vote on every issue, simply because they don't have the time to study the issues nor are they trustworthy enough to handle the most sensitive information in government and foreign affairs. The people elect a representative based on character and his core values/views/beliefs and are sent to the state capitol or Washington to make the BEST possible decision for America. They don't always get it right, neither do they always get it wrong. If we disagree with our representatives, we can tell them that we do and why, but it is still their decision since they have all the experts and research at their disposal.

Senators and Representatives aren't so much servants as they are the managers we trust to handle things while we go and do our thing. Policemen, public school teachers, mailmen, prosecutors, they are public servants, not the President, or the Congressmen, or any judge.

As for sitting on Leno's show, whether or not he's trying to "modernize" the Presidency is a question that can't be answered except by historians looking back at our time. That aside, I think it was a stupid idea and opened himself up to the possibility to look like an idiot in front of the whole world. It's one thing when someone makes fun of you behind your back, and it's quite another when someone "insults" you to your face and you take it, laughing. The respect due to the President of the US in his presence (and any other national leader for that matter) is equal to the kind of respect due to the Pope. Not all cultures have a similar "sense of humor" as we do, and that is what Obama should have had in mind when considering his appearance on Leno. It's not only the American voter who has their eye on him but the whole world. How do you think leaders in more militant countries view him after seeing Pres. Obama insulted on prime time TV. Or even leaders of industrial countries, do you think their level of respect for him went up or down?

Our respect for the offices of the Presidency and of Congress are dropping rapidly. Soon we'll think of the man/woman who carries the burdens of the entire nation on their shoulders as simply being "one of us" and that is something I worry about.