Compromise? Pettiness? HUH?

White House OVER-willingness to compromise and GOP pettiness? HUH? Here's the story (from the 'sold out to progressives' MSNBC of course) and then I have some comments:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/01/7554287-first-thoughts-picking-up-where-they-left-off

The White House spokesman said, when asked about the conflict arising from Obama wanting his national address at the same time as a major Republican presidential debate, "well, people will just have to decide which one they want to watch". HUH?

Pardon me, but BOTH events are important to our nation and are of national interest. We The People shouldn't be put in the position of having to chose only one or the other. Sure, Obama's people changed his date but why did he have to wait until there was a national uproar over a scheduling that would obviously(!) cause this problem? What kind of person does that? And to what ends?

Doesn't President Obama remember that he's the president of ALL the people and should therefore proactively take into consideration the trouble such a conflict would cause? The obvious answer is that he believes he's the president of only those who voted for him.

It's fundamental to the difference between democracy and republic; between those who believe that the majority calls the shots, period (end of subject!), and those who believe that the interests of the minority party matter (especially when that 'minority' is nearly half the country). In fact our founders expressly avoided making this a democracy for that very reason. We were consiciously(!) founded as a republic rather than a democracy but liberals in general and progressives in particular are bent on our being turned into(!) a democracy.

As for the president's press secretary saying Republicans should just change their date if they don't like the conflict, consider how much planning and expense had gone into the Republican debate at that point only one week prior to it. The Reagan Library calendar had been cleared for it. Most hotel and travel reservations had already been made. Some of the Republican candidates are also members of congress so they'd have to choose whether to attend the debate or the president's congressional appearance. Why put ANY group of politicians in that predicament if not to intentionally welcome the opportunity to cause them problems during their run for his job? The TV network covering the debate would have to change everything they'd planned. Is it really "petty" for Republicans to object to have all this expense and planning purposely(!) disrupted by the president? How would you react to someone doing that to you? Especially if they worked for you as the president works for us?

Disrupting Republican debates is the obvious objective of the president's administration. It was also an arrogant power trip. It was no accident. The Republican debate had been scheduled for a long time and only a complete idiot would think a presidential address would have no effect on it. That the press secretary thinks we're stupid enough to belief it was "an accident" says a lot about the disdain this administration has for us. Such disrespect toward a large percentage of the population (ie, of his employers!) is unbecoming a president of our country.

Presidential debates are a normal part of our national election process. It's a key element of presidential elections. It ought to be encouraged and supported. An incumbent who doesn't need to campaign until after the primaries has no business interfering with primary campaigning of the opposition party. Would he have scheduled an address on top of a Democratic candidate debate? Can you honestly say yes to that?

So, he and The Media call his changing the date of his address a compromise! That's incredible to me. He screwed up and it falls on him to correct his conscious(!) error in judgement. And Republicans are "petty" for wanting to conduct their debates without purposeful interference from the president?

The disdain, dishonesty, arrogance, and extreme partisanship demonstrated by this president in scheduling his address at the same time as a long-planned Republican debate disgusts me. No president has any business purposely interfering with normal American political processes of any political party, most assuredly not for purely partisan political purposes. This man is not the king of America although it often appears that he thinks and acts like he is.