WHAT PLANET HAS OBAMA BEEN VISITING THE LAST YEAR?
It should be said at the top that the constitutionally mandated State of the Union message (delivered in letter form until quite recently) does not lend itself to inspired rhetoric, soaring imagery, or pungent analogies. Indeed, reading a dictionary might seem gloriously rousing by comparison.
A great speechmaker like Obama then, is hog tied. Aside from the peroration, the president didn’t get much of a chance to stretch his rhetorical chops. It was like he went into battle with one hand tied behind his back and his effort suffered because of it.
I was more interested in how the president sees the problems he faces and what he proposed to do about them. As the speech droned on, I was struck time and time again with Obama’s curious detachment from the effects of his policies and, more importantly, the people’s perception of those policies.
It was surreal at times. Michael Gerson at WaPo felt pretty much the same way:
Obama’s problem is not primarily political — though he seems in complete denial about the political dangers he faces. (He amazingly blamed his health-care failure on “not explaining it more clearly.”) Obama’s problem is not a vice president behind his right shoulder who can’t stop his distracting, sycophantic nodding — though it was certainly annoying.
Obama has a reality problem.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that unemployment will average more than 10 percent for the first half of this year, before declining at a slower pace than in past recoveries. On this economic path, Obama’s presidency will fail. Many Democrats in the House chamber tonight will lose their jobs. And the nation will enter a Carter-like period of stagnation and self-doubt.
Every element of the president’s speech tonight should be considered in this light.
I want to give the president his due here; in his heart, I really think he wants to change Washington, change government, and by doing so, change the country. That’s what he was elected to do. That is the broad mandate he possessed this time last year when he took the oath of office.
So what happened? Despite possessing the most lopsided majorities in the House and Senate in a generation, very little has been done. He has squandered most if not all of that mandate by appearing to be indecisive (Afghanistan), unable to lead effectively (health care), and by demonstrating a capability to be just as partisan as any other Washington insider.
The president has lost his mojo and his attempt to get it back last night revealed a man out of touch with the realities in the country, and unable to come to grips with ordinary people’s concerns about jobs and the economy.
Richard Grenell writing at Huffpo:
It is hard to believe a President that says “…I am not interested in re-litigating the past” after he just spent 60 minutes of his First State of the Union Address re-litigating the past and blaming Bush for his problems.
It is hard to take a President seriously when he speaks 116 words describing how he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons but only 38 words uttered on the biggest violator of those principles: Iran. It is hard to understand why Obama and his Administration have wasted this past year by not increasing the sanctions on Iran and building on the Bush Administration’s 3 UN resolutions sanctioning Iran for their continued illegal uranium enrichment.
It’s hard to take a President seriously when he says we will take the fight to al Qaeda but then brings al Qaeda to the U.S. to be tried in an American court. It’s hard to understand a President who sends the lawyers to a terrorist to tell him that he has the right to remain silent but then brags that he is tough on terrorists.
And if you thought Obama had learned a lesson from the recent Scott Brown election in Massachusetts, think again. From the moment he started his address to the Nation, Obama made it perfectly clear that all of his problems were Bush’s fault.
Let us, for the sake of argument, grant Obama and the Democrats their point that it is indeed, all Bush’s fault. The question I and most voters want answered is this; have the president’s policies made things better? Despite all the spin about “jobs saved,;” despite the nonsense about not explaining his health care plan better; despite the rhetoric about protecting America from terrorists; Barack Obama’s policies have not worked.
It’s easy to talk about “jobs saved” when there is no benchmark you can use to prove it. It’s easy to say that without acting, we would have had a depression when your only evidence is the musings of a few economists. And it’s extremely easy to talk tough about deficits when your own policies have contributed so much to them being out of control. All you have to do is ignore reality and substitute some whopping lies and a gimmicky spending “freeze” that doesn’t fool anybody and only adds to the perception that you are divorced from what real people think.
Peter Wehner’s take is a little harsh but underscores the president’s discombobulation:
If substance was the main take-away of this address, it would have been merely mediocre. But what made it downright harmful for Obama and Democrats was its tone. The speech was defensive and petulant, backward-looking and condescending, petty and graceless. He didn’t persuade people; he lectured them. What was on display last night was a man of unsurpassed self-righteousness engaged in constant self-justification. His first year in office has been, by almost every measure, a failure – and it is perceived as a failure by much of the public. Mr. Obama cannot stand this fact; it is clearly eating away at him. So he decided to use his first State of the Union to press his case. What he did was to set back his cause.
What made the speech a bit bizarre, and somewhat alarming, is how detached from reality the president is. After having spent much of his time blaming his predecessor for his own failures, he said he was “not interested in re-litigating the past.” Barack Obama lamented waging a “perpetual campaign” – even though that is what the president, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs and others in his employ do on a daily basis. He said, “Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game” – yet his White House has played that very game with zest and delight.
And here is the kicker:
The president criticized the “outsized influence of lobbyists in Washington” – as though he had no memory of the squalid backroom deals that were cut in order to try to secure passage of health care legislation but that helped lead to its demise. He spoke of the need to “do our work openly,” even though Obama broke his promise to allow health care negotiations to appear on C-SPAN and who worked with the House and Senate leadership behind closed doors. He called on Congress to “continue down the path of earmark reform” – even though he eagerly signed legislation that contained around 8,500 earmarks. He claimed he is ending American involvement in the Iraq war – even though the Status of Forces Agreement that will end American involvement in the Iraq war was signed by President Bush. He said the United States must “always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity” – even as he and his secretary of state have consciously downplayed our commitment to both, whether in our dealings with Iran or China or any of a number of other nations.
On and on this game went, late into the night.
Why the disconnect between rhetoric and reality? Some might say the president is so immersed in his own narcissistic, self-referential world that he actually believes that if he says something, it must be true. Those that try and make that point usually aren’t psychiatrists or mental health professionals, so while not dismissing the possibility entirely, I think we can tentatively conclude that such is not the case.
But the alternative explanation isn’t much better; that the president is a coldly calculating politician who knows that his sycophants in the press, and the millions who still believe in the Promise of Obama, can easily be taken in by such rhetorical tricks, not to mention the great bulk of the electorate who doesn’t pay close attention to what is happening in the country. For all of those, the president can talk “bi-partisanship” while confident that no one will recall, or has never heard of his brutal attacks on the opposition to his health care reform and other measures.
And what of the president’s unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court? There is an argument to be made against the Citizens United decision but this isn’t it:
Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”
Pure, unadulterated demagoguery. Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith:
The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”
This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demagoguery of the worst kind.
It’s not just Smith, of course. Dozens of blog posts from right and left point out the same thing. Whoever vetted that speech either was not on the ball, or the president simply didn’t care and wanted to have his straw man villain in order to buttress his credentials as a populist fighter for the little guy.
For someone who denigrated millions of little people by criticizing them for clinging to their guns and bibles, this “New, improved Obama (now with Average Voter Appeal)” can’t be taken very seriously. But if President Obama now sees that playing the class warrior card as his only option, he will continue to browbeat bankers, insurance companies, and other stock characters in the Karl Marx collection of one act plays. Eventually, he will run out of people to blame - perhaps even George Bush whose policies he continues to follow and promote - and then where will he be?
Our country is in a tough spot. Judging by what we heard last night, there is little hope that policies which have proven to be ineffective will be changed and leadership which has been shown to be non-existent will be found.
Earth to Obama…where are you?
As far as I can tell, he’s hard at work fixing the problem George Bush caused. He pile $1 trillion on top of the $7,000,000,000,000 your boy racked up before leaving office to save us from financial Armageddon and now he’s owrking to pay it back.
Stock market, up thousands of points, interest rates still practically zero, two major auto companies saves, Iraq almost done, and Afghanistan 15,000 troops larger with more on the way.
We’ve one failed attack, but prevented several more and we’re blowing the hell out of Bin Laden’s people.
Health care reform is on the verge of passing after 100 years and veterans are finally getting the attention they deserve.
Sounds like a record of failure to me.
Not.
His only failing was in reachin gout a hand to the party of No, again. But I understnd why. Because when the economy does turn around and the troops start coming home the GOP will have nothing to run on except bile and birth certificates.
Yeah, he’s boring. And a smart manager. I know we’ve lacked the latter for eight years and maybe the former’s not so bad.
Comment by Richard Bottoms — 1/28/2010 @ 10:05 am
My favorite part was when Obama called for more Pell grants, and half the room full of rich old men sat on their hands in stone silence. Smells like America!
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 1/28/2010 @ 10:44 am
“As far as I can tell, he’s hard at work fixing the problem George Bush caused.”
Yo, Dick, for a Partisan Hack, you don’t even make a good argument when you bastardize the facts to fit your agenda.
“He pile $1 trillion on top of the $7,000,000,000,000 your boy racked up before leaving office to save us from financial Armageddon and now he’s owrking to pay it back.”
Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but the Con Law professor may want to retake his high-school civics class. Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from Democrats. In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years. And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.
“Stock market, up thousands of points, interest rates still practically zero, two major auto companies saves, Iraq almost done, and Afghanistan 15,000 troops larger with more on the way.”
Show me the way Obambi pushed the stock Market - LOL. Interest rates are near zero because the fed, under Obama, keeps buying their own treasury notes in order to keep the rates low. Two major auto company saves that will continue to cost the American taxpayer more and more billions of dollars in the future to continue to keep them afloat - all to pay off the Unions. Iraq was almost done when Obambi came to court due to a surge he insisted would fail and following a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) on the drawdown signed by George Bush! And you folks on the left are so enamored of more troops on their way to Afghanistan!
“Health care reform is on the verge of passing after 100 years and veterans are finally getting the attention they deserve.”
Health Care is on a death watch with the Democrats still holding a supermajority in the Senate - Scoot Brown has yet to be sworn in. A Death watch because even with a SuperMajority, Obama couldn’t lead his way out of a paper bag to get the Dems accross the finish line. And the Democrat support for the veterans is only because they are now under their watch and it is no longer good form for the Dems to applaud those that carry “We support the troops when they shoot their officers” signs anymore.
It is interesting to me that Rick, in his takedown of SOTU, referenced of all places a HuffPo diarist. For someone who expects the GOP to disappear into the history books, I find it hunorous to see your own side slipping the salamy to Obamba!
Failure is being far too kind!
Comment by SShiell — 1/28/2010 @ 11:03 am
But if President Obama now sees that playing the class warrior card as his only option, he will continue to browbeat bankers, insurance companies, and other stock characters in the Karl Marx collection of one act plays. Eventually, he will run out of people to blame - perhaps even George Bush whose policies he continues to follow and promote - and then where will he be?
Basically waiting for the Republicans to take back at least one house of Congress, so he can attempt to triangulate against them in his bid for re-election in 2012 in the same way Bill Clinton used Newt Gingrich and the GOP Congress as his foil in 1995-96.
Obama’s populist strategy would love to go after the Republican power brokers right now if he could, but with Nancy Pelosi running the House and Harry Reid in charge of the Senate, the only conservatives with power in D.C. he can go after right now are the five members of the Supreme Court. So Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy become the ones with the targets on their backs, along with banks and big business, because Obama can’t attack Congress (or, rather, doesn’t have the guts to attack Congress) as long as his party’s in power.
Comment by John — 1/28/2010 @ 11:13 am
Stay alert.Obama is merely the figure -head. Behind him are the Clintons, the
Kennedy acolytes. the Pelosis and Reids and their ilk AND the major propaganda machinery and “elite” educational institution managers
Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, nor others of history acted alone.Eternal vigilance IS the cost of liberty.Had that vigilance been exercised for the past 40 plus years, this could not have happened.
Comment by snowball — 1/28/2010 @ 11:17 am
I hear bankers are real popular these days. What is the president thinking with a strategy of forcing the GOP to defend AIG and Citigroup.
The American public will rise up as one to defend the perks and salaries of the country’s financial wizards by damn.
Comment by Richard Bottoms — 1/28/2010 @ 11:21 am
The Two Ricks:
#1 The tedious predictable hack.
#2 The ghost of Rick Moran who occasionally haunts the blog long enough to utter some truth.
Being #1 no doubt brings readers and pacifies the paymasters at PJM.
Being #2 allows Rick some self-respect.
We get this kind of transparent partisan drivel. Then Rick reads the comments and sees that the ones who agree with him are idiots and he dies a little inside. So we get a touch of #2.
But with each cycle it’s more #1 and less #2. Because that’s how moral and intellectual corruption work. Like an addiction. A downward spiral as Rick surrenders little bits of his soul to toady the teabaggers he despises.
At current rates of decline I’d guess we’re no more than a few months away from Rick telling us how much Sarah Palin has grown.
It’s the same path followed by the former Captain Ed, now Cabin Boy Ed of the Wacky Ship Malkin.
My PJM “paymasters?” What the hell do they have to do with this blog? They don’t even know it exists?
That alone proves how terribly flawed your analysis of me is concerned. Face it; you only like it when I bash Republicans. Anything else and I am somehow pandering. You simply don’t have the ability to see beyond your own rank partisanship and acknowledge that my criticisms of Obama have any merit and your belief that I am only doing it to get audience.
To what end? The right gave up on me two years ago and nothing I say will bring them back - not that I have any desire that they do. Those few that stray here hear it from me when they criticize my critiques of their balmy worldview. I have no motivation on this site except to put my thoughts down on a page. Nothing I write here affects my pay from AT or PJM. And if you read the comments section at either site when I write a column for them, you would know that I harbor no illusion about getting back in their good graces.
You owe me an apology for your stupid, simpering, inaccurate, and deliberately false analysis.
ed.
Comment by michael reynolds — 1/28/2010 @ 11:55 am
I believe that our country is lost the lack of respect given to the President is disgusting. This is why our comunitys are falling apart no one gives respect to anyone. It seems if we are rude and dismissive we can make points with OUR TEAM be it Republicans, Demecrats or Liberals. The man realy seems to care and all we can do to help is complain about our precived issues.
Comment by Alfred DiGiacomo — 1/28/2010 @ 11:58 am
“So what happened? Despite possessing the most lopsided majorities in the House and Senate in a generation, very little has been done.”
I really think that some of the stuff he has been trying to do is just too extreme left. I mean, there are tons of RINO’s in Congress, they really aren’t that hard for Democrats to get along with. But he went so far left he couldn’t even get people like McCain and Lindsey Graham to side with him.
Comment by Scott — 1/28/2010 @ 12:02 pm
They’re not going to jump up and down for them — and I’m sure most believe Obama’s sincere in his hatred for banks and big business. But with Obama targeting them while still going to the mat for Geithner and Bernanke, and not mentioning Word One about the problems caused by Congressional Democrats like Barney Frank in running interference for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the housing collapse, I doubt people are going to see Barack as wanting equal justice for all here, and will just figure he’s trolling for a suitable scapegoat until he can get John Boehner as House Speark and/or Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader in January of 2011.
Comment by John — 1/28/2010 @ 12:04 pm
Rick,
I am a righty and you haven’t lost me. Sure, I think you have said some ridiculous things, but it is your blog. That said, I think Reynolds screed is contemptible even though entirely predictable. Lefties only love us when we are bashing our own. They quickly lie and demonize when you have the temerity to criticize them and their ilk.
Comment by Bruceinsocal — 1/28/2010 @ 1:08 pm
Rick,
He’s doing what Reagan did: bash your predecessor till the economy improves and take the credit.
But as a strong Obama supporter I will let myself “be taken in” for one more year. The next SOTU will have to show a year of follow-through to this year’s speech.
Comment by Mike — 1/28/2010 @ 1:17 pm
Except that Obama doesn’t hate banks or business. Just customer gouging that would make Tony Soprano envious and business practices that would be applauded by the Yakuza.
Miss a payment and your interest rate jumps to 33%? Pay late on one card and all your other cards jump their rates too? Returned check fees of $30 or more?
I know the Libertarian view that whatever the market will bear should be the bottom, but is there nothing short of ordering a hit that would make you accept some role o the government in regulating business practices?
The GOP has as it’s mantra whatever is good for the Fortune 500 is okay with us and the little guy should stop complaining.
Why should a company that ships jobs overseas get government welfare? Why not make the banks, whom we just saved with taxpayer money pay at back with interest?
Obama wants $30 billion in support for loans to small business and the Republicans sit like they are chiseled in stone.
One would suspect the only agenda the GOP has is to oppose everything and try to reap the rewards in November. That may actually work this year but in 2012, I suspect the American public will question four full years of legislative obstruction.
Comment by Richard Bottoms — 1/28/2010 @ 1:24 pm
To follow up, I agree with Andrew Sullivan: http://tinyurl.com/ye9qeu3
Comment by Mike — 1/28/2010 @ 1:45 pm
…in his heart, I really think he wants to change Washington, change government, and by doing so, change the country. That’s what he was elected to do. That is the broad mandate he possessed this time last year when he took the oath of office.
Dear Rick
After the 2008 campaign and President Obama’s firs year in office, you think this or you are hoping that it is true.
I do not live in Illinois and have no connection to the ways of politics in Chicago but I read the thoughts of another blogger who lives near Chicago who describes the Daly machine as the “Squid” and the President was part of the machinery of the Daly machine. Perhaps he was “going along to get along”, but the characters around him suggest he knows where the bodies are buried.
Turning to the substance of the speech and the policies implemented, when has the President implemented anything and stuck around long enough to see it through besides the current health care plan and climate change?
He is becoming a disaster as President and as I have said before the options to replace him in 2012 are thin.
Comment by Kevin Brown — 1/28/2010 @ 1:57 pm
go sleep it off reynolds.
Comment by anselm — 1/28/2010 @ 2:51 pm
You know things are bad when you lose your cheerleader …
Comment by Neo — 1/28/2010 @ 4:02 pm
Michael Reynolds said:
I’m so excited about this essay that I can hardly stand it! It’s about time Palin got some respek.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 1/28/2010 @ 4:49 pm
RE…#10
“not mentioning Word One about the problems caused by Congressional Democrats like Barney Frank in running interference for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the housing collapse”
Congratulations! You have successfully ingested the AM radio talking points, and have brilliantly narrowed your perception so as to be oblivious to 30 years of toxic deregulation that took our economy to the brink of ruin…AGAIN!
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history…
DEE
Comment by Dee — 1/28/2010 @ 8:10 pm
It should be very clear to the President why he has been a dismal failure. People want smaller, less intrusive government. They want to begin to pay down the outrageous debt and stop the over-the-top deficit spending. They want job creation that can only happen when government gets off the backs of small business. Capitalism is largely a good force in America and the world. Stop attacking it Mr. President - give up the socialism and pivot to the middle or you and your party will be thrown out in massive landslides in 2010 and 2012. Also, nice try on the terrorist publicity trials in New York - the country is dead set against you on that as well.
Comment by buquet — 1/28/2010 @ 10:44 pm
Frankly, I think Obama did a pretty good job Wednesday night, but I have no idea why anybody on the right or left should be surprised by any speech given by Obama and I say that with all due respect to the man. Sure he’s attempting to create his own version of America and spinning a narrative of how great things will be if only congress would go along with him, but I fully expected that. Bush did that for 8 years with his SOTU addresses, and Clinton for 8 years before that. Our President is just following in their rhetorical footsteps; the only question is how many Americans will either drink his kool-aid or will accept what he does with passivity.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 1/28/2010 @ 11:40 pm
As an Obama supporter I am disappointed that he hasn’t run to the middle, where most American’s ideology resides.But still Rick, what does the gop stand for? Is bashing Obama on everything a way to govern?If the gop is so smart who will they run in 2012 for president? As far as I see there is no one.As far as the midterms, will my life be better with Boehner and McConnel, 2 political hacks, being in power.Yes people have no faith in the Democrats leading America, but they have no faith in gop leadership also.Unless the 2 sides can work together on helping mainstreet were doomed.
Comment by Joe — 1/29/2010 @ 6:20 am
Which part of John’s assertion do you have qualms about? That Fannie and Freddie played a big part in the collapse of the housing market? Or that Barney Frank (and others) ran interference for them?
In both cases, it’s not simply “AM radio talking points” that make that argument.
Comment by sota — 1/29/2010 @ 6:55 am
Rick, great post as always. I’m to the right of center and becoming a libertarian since the GOP has become the Democrat-Lite party of only slightly smaller government. I don’t know how you suffer idiot koolaid drinkers on both fringes, like reynolds. Its futile in the extreme to engage far left morons like reynolds. His post betrays his lack of intellect and is but another pathetic example that the Left has nothing but a singular ability to attack and belittle people who they disagree with. Reynolds and his ilk need to loosen their tinfoil hats, up their meds, change their diapers and put the bottle of vodka away.
Comment by Richard — 1/29/2010 @ 7:01 am
RE #23…
At the risk of being redundant, you need to look at:
The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, signed into law by Carter.
The Depository Institutions Act of 1982, signed into law by Reagan.
In 1988, the Basel Accord, Reagan.
U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) of 1989, and the exemption of swaps and derivatives from all regulation.
(…a Phil and Wendy Gramm production). Mrs. Gramm later went on to a seat on the Enron Corp. board as a member of its audit committee.
1998, Glass-Steagall and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 were scrapped by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. (Travelers purchase of Citibank played a role here).
Then in 2004, the SEC ruling on investment banks and determination of net capital.
You could also look into the deregulation of the S&L’s in the late 70’s and 1980’s, the S&L failures of the 80’s, Enron, and start adding up what all of this deregulation has cost the American taxpayers in the last 30 years. It’s a little complicated, but it’s all right there.
DEE
Comment by Dee — 1/29/2010 @ 7:38 am
“And what of the president’s unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court?”
America will never be whole as long as the right to life granted by our Creator is denied to the unborn.
For the rest of my time, I shall do what I can to see that this wound is one day healed.
Ronald Reagan
State of the Union
2/4/1986
“…and we must give back to our children their lost right to acknowledge God in their classroom.”
Ronald Reagan
State of the Union
2/4/1986
*sounds like a frontal assault on the school prayer decision by SCOTUS and the Roe v Wade decision.
I searched in vain for Republican outrage at the presidents careless disregard for Seperation of Powers, but none was to be found. I think the authors use of the word “unprecedented”
is in error.
DEE
Can you say “false equivalency?”
ed.
Comment by Dee — 1/29/2010 @ 8:25 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Raz Shafer, Chris, Rhetorican, Mark, Matthew Burtner and others. Matthew Burtner said: Socratic! | @rickmoran_rwnh asks: "Have the president’s policies made things better?" - http://bit.ly/douiv8 /via @adamsbaldwin Amazing spin [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention Right Wing Nut House » WHAT PLANET HAS OBAMA BEEN VISITING THE LAST YEAR? -- Topsy.com — 1/30/2010 @ 10:52 am
I will admit from the outset that I did not vote for Obama, but I have little use for the far right wing (and far left wing for that matter) and their white noise, which I view as counterproductive. Additionally, the SOTU speech didn’t move the needle for me one way or the other. But, after watching the President go one on one with the house GOP in Baltimore yesterday…I have to admit that more of that would probably serve him well. Without the TelePrompTer, the use of which the right seems to believe he pioneered, I think he came off very well; while too many of the Republicans sounded petulant, and looked a little bewildered as they read from their notes. If the GOP is still looking for a national face man…they can skip over the House of Reps and search elsewhere. The unscripted event we saw yesterday may be just what Obama needs if he is to get his “mojo” back.
DEE
Comment by Dee — 1/30/2010 @ 11:11 am
The reality here is that Obama is still well liked, but his policies and proposed legislation is not. The SOTU performed exactly what Bill Clinton tried to do.
The SOTU made Obama look once again like the “good guy” but voters are a little bit smarter than the average Democratic Congress-critter thinks, so they aren’t blaming Bush for Obama’s policies and proposed legislation, they are going to blame Congress. Obama’s “detachment” from the legislative process frames Congress as the “bad guys” as well.
Yeah. It’s triangulation at it’s best.
Comment by Neo — 1/31/2010 @ 6:51 pm