My computer has contracted one of those viruses that mask themselves as a security alert and are a major pain in the ass to remove. The virus disables all other anti-virus software and make the computer inoperable until such time as it is completely removed.
Let me put my current frame of mind in terms that anyone can understand. Were I to have the person or persons responsible for this kind of computer virus in front of me now, and I were handed a firearm and given the opportunity to execute those individuals, I would not hesitate for a second. No remorse, no guilt. That kind of random vandalism is every bit as malicious and hateful as child abuse or drug dealing or terrorism, in my opinion. I would gladly pull that trigger until all those responsible were dead or every round of ammunition available to me was expended... which ever came first.
In a world were so much of our society is based on-line and is conducted electronically, this kind of malicious activity should be prosecuted as nothing less than TERRORISM, with no regard to intent or context of action. If someone is creating these sorts of programs KNOWING they do nothing but interrupt routine operations, then they are committing a crime by their actions and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law... just as you would for someone robbing a bank or hijacking a plane or bus. It should be prosecuted at least as vigorously as crimes involving the trafficking of illegal drugs to unknowing children.
Anyway, rant over... but I WOULD pull that trigger, I swear it. I'd pull it and smile.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
A lead from the British ...
Here is what I would like to see.
Prior to Woodrow Wilson, whom moved it to a radio broadcast, the State of the Union was submitted in writing to congress. I advocate we return to that format and instead use the national, prime time hour or so to host a "Question Time With The President", much the same way the Brits have question and answer time with their PM. This recent Q & A with the House GOP was a model on how this can be conducted. I saw many clips, including the Paul Ryan exchange, and I agree with Titus ... this is a useful exercise for the Republic. It clearly can be done in a civilized manner, so if Obama fancies himself a president of precedents let him institutionalize this format as a replacement for the pomp & circumstance surrounding a televised SoTU address which is nothing more than 3 minutes worth of information jam packed into 70 (after all, a written SoTU would satisfy the Constitutional requirement while the Q & A would do more to further the public's knowledge of where our leaders stand).
So I agree, I liked it. It cut through pundits and editorials and we as a viewing public gained as much from what questions the president didn't answer as the one in which he did. In fact, now that I think about it, lets make it a monthly occurrence ... I can't see a downside to that.
Prior to Woodrow Wilson, whom moved it to a radio broadcast, the State of the Union was submitted in writing to congress. I advocate we return to that format and instead use the national, prime time hour or so to host a "Question Time With The President", much the same way the Brits have question and answer time with their PM. This recent Q & A with the House GOP was a model on how this can be conducted. I saw many clips, including the Paul Ryan exchange, and I agree with Titus ... this is a useful exercise for the Republic. It clearly can be done in a civilized manner, so if Obama fancies himself a president of precedents let him institutionalize this format as a replacement for the pomp & circumstance surrounding a televised SoTU address which is nothing more than 3 minutes worth of information jam packed into 70 (after all, a written SoTU would satisfy the Constitutional requirement while the Q & A would do more to further the public's knowledge of where our leaders stand).
So I agree, I liked it. It cut through pundits and editorials and we as a viewing public gained as much from what questions the president didn't answer as the one in which he did. In fact, now that I think about it, lets make it a monthly occurrence ... I can't see a downside to that.
Its amazing what some people will buy...
The Washington Post is running an editorial tomorrow (found HERE) that actually presents the case that the 111th Congress has been the most successful and productive Congress in 40 years... and the column is so popular with the editorial staff at the Post that they put it online a full day early.
With an approval rating of less than 24% and a confidences estimate even lower, the 111th Congress has, in my opinion, brought the US to a new level in bureaucratic partisan politics. Yes, they have put their super-majority to good use and passed much of what was on their legislative agenda for the last 6 months, but where is the evidence that the deficit they have compounded (by a factor of 270%, even by their own estimations) has benefited the country at all? Interest rates are still high, banks still aren't loaning money in volumes that will promote growth and economic expansion, unemployment is still rising across the nation, and the nation is still facing a near-crisis in regards to infrastructure and domestic industrial means. What have we gained?
Unemployment benefits have been extended! Great! That is good news for me, since I am still unemployed myself... but an additional six months of benefits does nothing to put me back to work, and gets me no closer to a job NOW, does it?
$70 billion was spent on green energy development and "smart-grid" electrical technologies so far, and not one penny of that investment is evident in the manner or means by which we continue to produce and distribute power in this country... NOT ONE PENNY'S WORTH! That is some successful legislating, yes sir! To the best of my knowledge, that money didn't slow unemployment, it didn't promote business growth, and it CERTAINLY hasn't reduced the cost of energy in the country, has it?
$7 billion was spent on further development of broadband Internet access across the nation... $7 billion dollars that has moved the estimated completion of "universal Internet access" ahead so that now we can expect that coverage to be complete by 2021 instead of 2030. Fantastic! So kids NOW can look forward to mobile Internet access that is coast-to-coast by the time they are 21 years old rather than 30 years old... how many jobs has that advancement generated?
Unbelievable.
With an approval rating of less than 24% and a confidences estimate even lower, the 111th Congress has, in my opinion, brought the US to a new level in bureaucratic partisan politics. Yes, they have put their super-majority to good use and passed much of what was on their legislative agenda for the last 6 months, but where is the evidence that the deficit they have compounded (by a factor of 270%, even by their own estimations) has benefited the country at all? Interest rates are still high, banks still aren't loaning money in volumes that will promote growth and economic expansion, unemployment is still rising across the nation, and the nation is still facing a near-crisis in regards to infrastructure and domestic industrial means. What have we gained?
Unemployment benefits have been extended! Great! That is good news for me, since I am still unemployed myself... but an additional six months of benefits does nothing to put me back to work, and gets me no closer to a job NOW, does it?
$70 billion was spent on green energy development and "smart-grid" electrical technologies so far, and not one penny of that investment is evident in the manner or means by which we continue to produce and distribute power in this country... NOT ONE PENNY'S WORTH! That is some successful legislating, yes sir! To the best of my knowledge, that money didn't slow unemployment, it didn't promote business growth, and it CERTAINLY hasn't reduced the cost of energy in the country, has it?
$7 billion was spent on further development of broadband Internet access across the nation... $7 billion dollars that has moved the estimated completion of "universal Internet access" ahead so that now we can expect that coverage to be complete by 2021 instead of 2030. Fantastic! So kids NOW can look forward to mobile Internet access that is coast-to-coast by the time they are 21 years old rather than 30 years old... how many jobs has that advancement generated?
Unbelievable.
Call Obama what you want...
... but he isn't stupid, is he?
On the heels of his State of the Union speech, he takes the GOP invitation to come to the caucus retreat in Baltimore, MD and do a Q&A meeting with the Republican leaders of the House. He gives a 19 minute speech, and follows it with a long and uninterrupted "dialogue" (his words, not mine)... and all of it broadcast on C-Span Network. You can watch the whole thing on YouTube, should you care to do so. I did...
The meeting was telling, to say the least. First of all, it gives a clear view of WHY Obama uses a teleprompter so much. He isn't any better of a speaker "off-the-cuff" than Bush was. It is only when he is pushed by the GOP members that he puts aside the fluff and gets to the heart of the matter in question. I mention this not because I think it is a character flaw or that it is a mark against the man... that is simply silly to think. I mention this because I have a sneaking suspicion that this is something that Obama and his staff could use to their benefit later on. He IS capable of clear and unambiguous statements when it comes to his policy ideals, and when pushed, he will give it. If the policy in question proves sound, this can be used to show he stuck to his guns and WAS RIGHT. This is only one-half of the coin, I know... but in today's political climate, just being right once could be enough to swing popular opinion back towards Obama's initial agenda.
He squared off against some tough questions, not the least of which came from some up-and-coming GOP "rock stars". Paul Ryan (R-WI) hit him with a tough budgetary question as a ranking member of the Budgetary Committee... and Obama was forced to defer the meat of his answer to another date. One of the toughest questions came from Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) about the failure of both Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration to operate according to the promised "change" in how Washington was going to work in a more bipartisan manner. He stated quite clearly that he didn't feel he or any of his House Republican members were being "obstructionist"... but that they were routinely labeled as such by Democrats, when THEY (Dems) were the obstructionist factor in policy planning and implementation over the last year. Obama did take some responsibility for these failings, and deferred some blame to the GOP too.
These are the kinds of tough questions that are going to make or break the Obama White House over the next year... and I applaud Obama for having the hutzpah to do this meeting. I don't think it will happen too many more times, unless the Dems can make sure that the President is a little more prepared for the questions, but it might... it just might.
More importantly, though, I think this meeting gives credibility to the "town hall" movement that so many Democrats and liberal pundits have been dismissing across the nation. This was a "Congressional town hall meeting" and it shows what good can come from these sorts of meetings. I'd LOVE to see Senators and Governors forced by such precedents to have to attend and participate in these sorts of meetings, and even if these meetings don't end up gaining the ends I would personally want to see achieved, just knowing a debate occurred would make me feel a whole lot better about the effort. THIS is a good way to get the conservative message out there to the general public that normally refuses to listen to typical conservative outlets or speakers... and it is an opportunity for Obama and the Dems to actually defend their positions, should they choose to do so.
Now, before I close, I don't want anyone to think I LIKE what Obama said (ahem... RYAN). He did far too much of the now nearly ritual "It's not my fault" blame deferral, and kept talking about the "mess" he walked into. However, this is easily countered when he is talking to freshman Representatives and Senators who can also say exactly the same thing, and call for answers as to how the problems are going to be FIXED, rather than who casued them. I'm simply saying that this is a GOOD forum for clear and open debate, and that the American public can gain plain insight into the political machinations of "life on the Hill" through such forums.
This kind of debate and discussion should be a focus for the conservative movement, meaning we should call for more of this from all corners of the Government, and that more efforts to expand the "town hall" movement should be made in every state.
On the heels of his State of the Union speech, he takes the GOP invitation to come to the caucus retreat in Baltimore, MD and do a Q&A meeting with the Republican leaders of the House. He gives a 19 minute speech, and follows it with a long and uninterrupted "dialogue" (his words, not mine)... and all of it broadcast on C-Span Network. You can watch the whole thing on YouTube, should you care to do so. I did...
The meeting was telling, to say the least. First of all, it gives a clear view of WHY Obama uses a teleprompter so much. He isn't any better of a speaker "off-the-cuff" than Bush was. It is only when he is pushed by the GOP members that he puts aside the fluff and gets to the heart of the matter in question. I mention this not because I think it is a character flaw or that it is a mark against the man... that is simply silly to think. I mention this because I have a sneaking suspicion that this is something that Obama and his staff could use to their benefit later on. He IS capable of clear and unambiguous statements when it comes to his policy ideals, and when pushed, he will give it. If the policy in question proves sound, this can be used to show he stuck to his guns and WAS RIGHT. This is only one-half of the coin, I know... but in today's political climate, just being right once could be enough to swing popular opinion back towards Obama's initial agenda.
He squared off against some tough questions, not the least of which came from some up-and-coming GOP "rock stars". Paul Ryan (R-WI) hit him with a tough budgetary question as a ranking member of the Budgetary Committee... and Obama was forced to defer the meat of his answer to another date. One of the toughest questions came from Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) about the failure of both Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration to operate according to the promised "change" in how Washington was going to work in a more bipartisan manner. He stated quite clearly that he didn't feel he or any of his House Republican members were being "obstructionist"... but that they were routinely labeled as such by Democrats, when THEY (Dems) were the obstructionist factor in policy planning and implementation over the last year. Obama did take some responsibility for these failings, and deferred some blame to the GOP too.
These are the kinds of tough questions that are going to make or break the Obama White House over the next year... and I applaud Obama for having the hutzpah to do this meeting. I don't think it will happen too many more times, unless the Dems can make sure that the President is a little more prepared for the questions, but it might... it just might.
More importantly, though, I think this meeting gives credibility to the "town hall" movement that so many Democrats and liberal pundits have been dismissing across the nation. This was a "Congressional town hall meeting" and it shows what good can come from these sorts of meetings. I'd LOVE to see Senators and Governors forced by such precedents to have to attend and participate in these sorts of meetings, and even if these meetings don't end up gaining the ends I would personally want to see achieved, just knowing a debate occurred would make me feel a whole lot better about the effort. THIS is a good way to get the conservative message out there to the general public that normally refuses to listen to typical conservative outlets or speakers... and it is an opportunity for Obama and the Dems to actually defend their positions, should they choose to do so.
Now, before I close, I don't want anyone to think I LIKE what Obama said (ahem... RYAN). He did far too much of the now nearly ritual "It's not my fault" blame deferral, and kept talking about the "mess" he walked into. However, this is easily countered when he is talking to freshman Representatives and Senators who can also say exactly the same thing, and call for answers as to how the problems are going to be FIXED, rather than who casued them. I'm simply saying that this is a GOOD forum for clear and open debate, and that the American public can gain plain insight into the political machinations of "life on the Hill" through such forums.
This kind of debate and discussion should be a focus for the conservative movement, meaning we should call for more of this from all corners of the Government, and that more efforts to expand the "town hall" movement should be made in every state.
Friday, January 29, 2010
J D Salinger
I was surprised at how bad I felt when I read that Salinger was dead at 91 years of age. I wasn't a huge fan of "Catcher in the Rye" but I'm the first to admit that the man hit a home run with his first book, and I agree that it was a defining work in the "genre" of teenage coming-of-age books.
His life, to me, seemed filled with a longing he couldn't satisfy. His relationships with women were unsuccessful and he always seemed to be trying to find some new and fulfilling religious path to happiness... without ever doing so. More sad than that, though, was that he simply was never left alone by the "pseudo-intellectual" world that thought him some mad genius with a hidden knowledge of secret wisdom that would explain his literary success.
Holden Caulfield is an iconic literary figure... he will live through the ages, no doubt. He is one of those fictional characters that, once you have "met" him, you never really forget him. I always wondered how much of J D was in Holden, and upon reading several biographical articles, it seems even Salinger admitted that the book was very "autobiographical".
Anyway... rest in peace, Mr. Salinger. You stormed Utah Beach, you fought at the Bulge, and you wrote one of the most enduring classics in all of American literature... you've earned your peace at last.
His life, to me, seemed filled with a longing he couldn't satisfy. His relationships with women were unsuccessful and he always seemed to be trying to find some new and fulfilling religious path to happiness... without ever doing so. More sad than that, though, was that he simply was never left alone by the "pseudo-intellectual" world that thought him some mad genius with a hidden knowledge of secret wisdom that would explain his literary success.
Holden Caulfield is an iconic literary figure... he will live through the ages, no doubt. He is one of those fictional characters that, once you have "met" him, you never really forget him. I always wondered how much of J D was in Holden, and upon reading several biographical articles, it seems even Salinger admitted that the book was very "autobiographical".
Anyway... rest in peace, Mr. Salinger. You stormed Utah Beach, you fought at the Bulge, and you wrote one of the most enduring classics in all of American literature... you've earned your peace at last.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Well ... ALF was on.
Kidding. Yes, of course I watched. I vowed not to, Titus is correct but given it was replayed multiple times I couldn't avoid it when flipping through the channels near bed (although I caught it out of order between 2 airings). And not so coincidentally I was struck by many of the same things you were ...
First, the spending freeze is ludicrous. It is the proverbial drop in the bucket in the era of Obama. A few billion (15 if remember correctly from an online article) a year, within trillions of red ink being thrown around? Please, huh. How about not passing a trillion dollar health package if you're so worried about deficits? I mean this is maddening. In addition he called for a "Jobs Bill." Put aside the fact that government does not create jobs (no matter what you call the bill), this is tantamount to a SECOND stimulus package. Again, its going to be near another $800 billion spent. Because the first one worked so well, right? Like I said, ludicrous. The idea that THIS president is going to speak to fiscal responsibility, with a straight face, may be a tribute to his acting chops but does nothing for our national debt.
Second. I have no problem with calling out the Supreme Court, that's fine, under normal circumstances. But to do it in a SoTU address when the members are prevented from responding is the actions of a little man with little respect for decorum. HE did the equivalent of shouting, "you lie!" this time. The Supreme Court members are sitting RIGHT THERE, up front, and to their face, with no ability to respond or refute he calls them out. Unbelievable - this is a COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. And to simply state you disagree with them would have been one thing, but to cite a specific ruling they decided fewer than 10 days ago and state that as such they have damaged our Republic is outrageous. Alito was left shaking his head, as Titus pointed out.
Third. Energy and other machinations ... Basically his plan is to allow "some" offshore drilling and nuclear power plant construction, BUT ONLY in conjunction with a "comprehensive cap and trade" program, as he put it. Exactly how does that work? Allow the drilling but make it so expensive that no body does? This is mania. As I mentioned in a text message recently I watched a clip of the President on CBS. In it he flatly admitted that "I'd rather be a good one term president then a mediocre two term president." Now for an entire year people have shook their head when I explained that he isn't in this to be just another president. That he's not playing for a second term, he is a committed ideologue. During the campaign no 2 phrases sent a cold chill down my spine more than, "We're going to fundamentally transform the nation", and "We've tried it their way." See, you have to believe there is a fundamental problem with the nation as Constituted if you are seeking to "fundamentally transform" it. And while most people assumed "their way" referred to George Bush and the Republicans, I was convinced he meant George Washington and the Republic. I posted in this very blog the audio of his describing the Constitution as "fundamentally flawed." Now he as all but admitted in the CBS clip that I am right in my opinion, and last night he stepped on the accelerator.
Fourth. The most telling aspect to me, in terms of where this president finds himself 1 year in, is when he discussed lobbyists. He vowed, reiterating a campaign promise, that NO lobbyists have been allowed to hold cabinet positions, chair departments, etc as part of his efforts to "close the credibility gap", as he put it. In translation he simply means lobbyists have none of the "top jobs" in his administration. This is a flat lie. You can read the entire list of prominent lobbyists within his administration HERE, which include the deputy SecDef, the AG, the chief of staff to the Treasury Secretary, and the list goes on and on. What's worse is they didn't simply "slip by." He issued an executive order banning lobbyists from consideration when he was staffing his administration. So how did they get in you ask? He issued another executive document - waivers, signed by his own hand. So why do I find this the most telling? It was the reaction of the chamber. They didn't exactly "boo", but rather it was a sort of group chuckle, a quasi grumbling laugh if you will - on both sides of the aisle (literally & figuratively). It was symbolic to me. He was telling a bald face lie and he knew it. Yet he fully expected to get away with it. And that's where he is at now - he is charting a domestic and foreign policy course that has his own Party looking at each other as if to say, "is he serious?" It was a "The Emperor Has No Clothes" moment. And the only thing worse than being hated as a leader is not being taken seriously. And he is rapidly descending into rhetoric so out of touch with what's going on, so out of touch with the mood of the nation and the direction and leadership they want to see, that 365 days in he is rendering himself the quintessential lame duck, and I think he is oblivious to it.
In summary I simply do not know how he expects to get away with the massive gap between his rhetoric and his actions. Between where he wants to take the nation and where the nation is willing to go. Between who we are as a people and who is ideology tells us we should be. My prediction is these gaps will only increase until he is turned out under the same mantra in which he was installed - the desire for change.
First, the spending freeze is ludicrous. It is the proverbial drop in the bucket in the era of Obama. A few billion (15 if remember correctly from an online article) a year, within trillions of red ink being thrown around? Please, huh. How about not passing a trillion dollar health package if you're so worried about deficits? I mean this is maddening. In addition he called for a "Jobs Bill." Put aside the fact that government does not create jobs (no matter what you call the bill), this is tantamount to a SECOND stimulus package. Again, its going to be near another $800 billion spent. Because the first one worked so well, right? Like I said, ludicrous. The idea that THIS president is going to speak to fiscal responsibility, with a straight face, may be a tribute to his acting chops but does nothing for our national debt.
Second. I have no problem with calling out the Supreme Court, that's fine, under normal circumstances. But to do it in a SoTU address when the members are prevented from responding is the actions of a little man with little respect for decorum. HE did the equivalent of shouting, "you lie!" this time. The Supreme Court members are sitting RIGHT THERE, up front, and to their face, with no ability to respond or refute he calls them out. Unbelievable - this is a COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. And to simply state you disagree with them would have been one thing, but to cite a specific ruling they decided fewer than 10 days ago and state that as such they have damaged our Republic is outrageous. Alito was left shaking his head, as Titus pointed out.
Third. Energy and other machinations ... Basically his plan is to allow "some" offshore drilling and nuclear power plant construction, BUT ONLY in conjunction with a "comprehensive cap and trade" program, as he put it. Exactly how does that work? Allow the drilling but make it so expensive that no body does? This is mania. As I mentioned in a text message recently I watched a clip of the President on CBS. In it he flatly admitted that "I'd rather be a good one term president then a mediocre two term president." Now for an entire year people have shook their head when I explained that he isn't in this to be just another president. That he's not playing for a second term, he is a committed ideologue. During the campaign no 2 phrases sent a cold chill down my spine more than, "We're going to fundamentally transform the nation", and "We've tried it their way." See, you have to believe there is a fundamental problem with the nation as Constituted if you are seeking to "fundamentally transform" it. And while most people assumed "their way" referred to George Bush and the Republicans, I was convinced he meant George Washington and the Republic. I posted in this very blog the audio of his describing the Constitution as "fundamentally flawed." Now he as all but admitted in the CBS clip that I am right in my opinion, and last night he stepped on the accelerator.
Fourth. The most telling aspect to me, in terms of where this president finds himself 1 year in, is when he discussed lobbyists. He vowed, reiterating a campaign promise, that NO lobbyists have been allowed to hold cabinet positions, chair departments, etc as part of his efforts to "close the credibility gap", as he put it. In translation he simply means lobbyists have none of the "top jobs" in his administration. This is a flat lie. You can read the entire list of prominent lobbyists within his administration HERE, which include the deputy SecDef, the AG, the chief of staff to the Treasury Secretary, and the list goes on and on. What's worse is they didn't simply "slip by." He issued an executive order banning lobbyists from consideration when he was staffing his administration. So how did they get in you ask? He issued another executive document - waivers, signed by his own hand. So why do I find this the most telling? It was the reaction of the chamber. They didn't exactly "boo", but rather it was a sort of group chuckle, a quasi grumbling laugh if you will - on both sides of the aisle (literally & figuratively). It was symbolic to me. He was telling a bald face lie and he knew it. Yet he fully expected to get away with it. And that's where he is at now - he is charting a domestic and foreign policy course that has his own Party looking at each other as if to say, "is he serious?" It was a "The Emperor Has No Clothes" moment. And the only thing worse than being hated as a leader is not being taken seriously. And he is rapidly descending into rhetoric so out of touch with what's going on, so out of touch with the mood of the nation and the direction and leadership they want to see, that 365 days in he is rendering himself the quintessential lame duck, and I think he is oblivious to it.
In summary I simply do not know how he expects to get away with the massive gap between his rhetoric and his actions. Between where he wants to take the nation and where the nation is willing to go. Between who we are as a people and who is ideology tells us we should be. My prediction is these gaps will only increase until he is turned out under the same mantra in which he was installed - the desire for change.
Can't believe I'm the first...
... to comment on the State of the Union Address here at the Bund.
I got a text from Ryan explaining that he refused to watch the speech because Obama was irrelevant and that the GOP would sweep back into control come November. I'm not sure that two Governors and one freshman Senator are indicative of the end of the Democrat's control of American government, though... so perhaps his position is a bit premature. We'll see...
What I do know is that Ryan missed a hell of a show. Some surprises, much more of the same old crap, and some telling examples of where the Democrats see themselves right now in American politics.
Obama's address ran about 70 minutes, and I can tell you that the first 20 minutes of it was almost completely "This isn't my fault" dribble. An entire litany of all the things that the "previous" Administration did wrong and left for Obama when he came into office. That was his first mistake, in my opinion... starting off with another excuse as to why the state of the nation is Bush's fault and not his. We listened to his (undoubtedly) unsupportable numbers pointing to the multi-billion dollar surplus of 1999-2000 and the trillion dollar deficit of 2008. He pointed to the cause as being two wars that weren't being paid for, a far-too expensive prescription drug plan, the de-regulation of Wall Street and "Corporate America", and the huge tax breaks for the rich and powerful "less-than-one-percent" of Americans that pulled the strings of the "previous administrations".
Nothing he said struck me as particularly impressive or "new". I was initially very surprised at the three-year spending freeze he promised to implement, but that surprise was dampened a bit when he explained why it wouldn't go into effect until 2011, and that the $906 billion dollar deficit that we are running right now is the NORM for the rest of this term. He certainly wasn't "tough" on Iran or North Korea, and he didn't mention any specific terror threats at all.
I won't re-hash the entire speech... if you heard, you heard it. If you didn't, it doesn't matter. Obama had a chance to use this speech, more than any other he has given, to show that he really is aware of the public's desire for real change and that he is ready to respond... but he didn't take that chance. He pandered to the Dems and liberals by promising to remove all US forces from Iraq by the end of August (more on this later). He pandered to special interests by vowing to open the military to all comers, regardless of sexual orientation. He pandered to the GOP and the military by promising to focus attention on veteran's benefits. He pandered to foreign powers by promising that American foreign policy would never again be "unilateral" and that he would always seek the advice and council (I took this to mean "permission") of such bodies as the UN, NATO and the EU before making broad and sweeping moves in foreign policy. More of the same, as far as I am concerned.
I will touch on what I think was different about this speech now, though... (in no particular order, mind you)
I never saw Harry Reid more than once after the speech started. The face I did see more than any other was a very junior Senator who was seated right behind the Joint Chiefs and had more face time than any other Senator in the room... Al Franken. Next in "face time" would have been Leahy (D-VT) (Sorry, Jambo... I said Illinois last night), and he was NOT happy with the announcement of the spending freeze at all. I believe he offered the only "boo" to be heard the entire speech (surprising, given the GOPs history of booing rather loudly during Clinton's SotU Addresses). Is this coincidence, or is this indicative of a change in how (and WHO) the DNC wants the party to be associated with in the public's eye? Reid is "lame duck" no question... but an "old guard" Dem like Leahy and the upstart from Minnesota as the focal points of the DNC representation? Perhaps Leahy is the obvious visual replacement for Teddy... and perhaps Franken is the freshest face in the bunch... but neither is very photogenic and both are troublesome names in their own rights. Something to think about...
Another thing I noticed... when did the Joint Chiefs get so "stacked" with Navy personnel? I didn't see one Marine uniform there, and only one Army. Did Obama start from scratch with the JCoS? I'll have to look into that.
I'm also trying to recall when the last time a sitting President of the United States ever took such a blatant shot at the Supreme Court... and I think we have to go all the way back to FDR. He called the recent over-turning of the McCain-Feingold Act as "wrong" and called on Congress to enact legislation that would "right that wrong" to thunderous applause from the Left. This "slap in the face" of one of the THREE main branches of our Government prompted the typically Stoic Supreme Court bench to actually REACT! Sam Alito actually said (you could clearly read his lips) "No, that's not true" while he shook his head... and Ginsberg (one of the most liberal Justices in history, in my opinion) raised her head high and shook it in the negative as well!!!
Add to this the fact that the point Obama was making was basically that the American public is INCAPABLE of casting an election choice outside of what the TV, radio and newspaper adds tell them is FACT, and I think that we see where Obama and the DNC put their opinion of the American electorate's capacity to make a "good choice". Why are the dollars spent by corporations or "special interests" a factor if the platform of the candidate is sound? Why are the "opinions" voiced in adds a factor if the message and background of the person running for election are without reproach?
This was an "eye opening" speech NOT because of what he said, but because of how he said it and the manner in which it was received. I also thought it was telling that at the end, ALL the GOP members walked out immediately while the liberals hung around like groupies waiting for autographs in the aisles. Where is the dignity of the Chamber? This isn't "backstage" at an Obama show, for Pete sake... it is one of the most historic rooms in all the world, and these people are making it look like the back door to Madison Square Gardens after a Rob Zombie show.
Yes, a very telling speech, to be sure.
I got a text from Ryan explaining that he refused to watch the speech because Obama was irrelevant and that the GOP would sweep back into control come November. I'm not sure that two Governors and one freshman Senator are indicative of the end of the Democrat's control of American government, though... so perhaps his position is a bit premature. We'll see...
What I do know is that Ryan missed a hell of a show. Some surprises, much more of the same old crap, and some telling examples of where the Democrats see themselves right now in American politics.
Obama's address ran about 70 minutes, and I can tell you that the first 20 minutes of it was almost completely "This isn't my fault" dribble. An entire litany of all the things that the "previous" Administration did wrong and left for Obama when he came into office. That was his first mistake, in my opinion... starting off with another excuse as to why the state of the nation is Bush's fault and not his. We listened to his (undoubtedly) unsupportable numbers pointing to the multi-billion dollar surplus of 1999-2000 and the trillion dollar deficit of 2008. He pointed to the cause as being two wars that weren't being paid for, a far-too expensive prescription drug plan, the de-regulation of Wall Street and "Corporate America", and the huge tax breaks for the rich and powerful "less-than-one-percent" of Americans that pulled the strings of the "previous administrations".
Nothing he said struck me as particularly impressive or "new". I was initially very surprised at the three-year spending freeze he promised to implement, but that surprise was dampened a bit when he explained why it wouldn't go into effect until 2011, and that the $906 billion dollar deficit that we are running right now is the NORM for the rest of this term. He certainly wasn't "tough" on Iran or North Korea, and he didn't mention any specific terror threats at all.
I won't re-hash the entire speech... if you heard, you heard it. If you didn't, it doesn't matter. Obama had a chance to use this speech, more than any other he has given, to show that he really is aware of the public's desire for real change and that he is ready to respond... but he didn't take that chance. He pandered to the Dems and liberals by promising to remove all US forces from Iraq by the end of August (more on this later). He pandered to special interests by vowing to open the military to all comers, regardless of sexual orientation. He pandered to the GOP and the military by promising to focus attention on veteran's benefits. He pandered to foreign powers by promising that American foreign policy would never again be "unilateral" and that he would always seek the advice and council (I took this to mean "permission") of such bodies as the UN, NATO and the EU before making broad and sweeping moves in foreign policy. More of the same, as far as I am concerned.
I will touch on what I think was different about this speech now, though... (in no particular order, mind you)
I never saw Harry Reid more than once after the speech started. The face I did see more than any other was a very junior Senator who was seated right behind the Joint Chiefs and had more face time than any other Senator in the room... Al Franken. Next in "face time" would have been Leahy (D-VT) (Sorry, Jambo... I said Illinois last night), and he was NOT happy with the announcement of the spending freeze at all. I believe he offered the only "boo" to be heard the entire speech (surprising, given the GOPs history of booing rather loudly during Clinton's SotU Addresses). Is this coincidence, or is this indicative of a change in how (and WHO) the DNC wants the party to be associated with in the public's eye? Reid is "lame duck" no question... but an "old guard" Dem like Leahy and the upstart from Minnesota as the focal points of the DNC representation? Perhaps Leahy is the obvious visual replacement for Teddy... and perhaps Franken is the freshest face in the bunch... but neither is very photogenic and both are troublesome names in their own rights. Something to think about...
Another thing I noticed... when did the Joint Chiefs get so "stacked" with Navy personnel? I didn't see one Marine uniform there, and only one Army. Did Obama start from scratch with the JCoS? I'll have to look into that.
I'm also trying to recall when the last time a sitting President of the United States ever took such a blatant shot at the Supreme Court... and I think we have to go all the way back to FDR. He called the recent over-turning of the McCain-Feingold Act as "wrong" and called on Congress to enact legislation that would "right that wrong" to thunderous applause from the Left. This "slap in the face" of one of the THREE main branches of our Government prompted the typically Stoic Supreme Court bench to actually REACT! Sam Alito actually said (you could clearly read his lips) "No, that's not true" while he shook his head... and Ginsberg (one of the most liberal Justices in history, in my opinion) raised her head high and shook it in the negative as well!!!
Add to this the fact that the point Obama was making was basically that the American public is INCAPABLE of casting an election choice outside of what the TV, radio and newspaper adds tell them is FACT, and I think that we see where Obama and the DNC put their opinion of the American electorate's capacity to make a "good choice". Why are the dollars spent by corporations or "special interests" a factor if the platform of the candidate is sound? Why are the "opinions" voiced in adds a factor if the message and background of the person running for election are without reproach?
This was an "eye opening" speech NOT because of what he said, but because of how he said it and the manner in which it was received. I also thought it was telling that at the end, ALL the GOP members walked out immediately while the liberals hung around like groupies waiting for autographs in the aisles. Where is the dignity of the Chamber? This isn't "backstage" at an Obama show, for Pete sake... it is one of the most historic rooms in all the world, and these people are making it look like the back door to Madison Square Gardens after a Rob Zombie show.
Yes, a very telling speech, to be sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
