Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[moe.ron]

I finally got around to watch Jindal's response. Wow, can you say major fail with a capital F? Sounds like he was teaching 2nd Graders.

I actually thought that he ws a great public speaker and a debater. What happen? Did Palin's camp decided to become his handler.

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

I finally got around to watch Jindal's response. Wow, can you say major fail with a capital F? Sounds like he was teaching 2nd Graders.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that. He sounded like he was talking to small children and just generally came across as the biggest tool ever.

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

I think you hit the nail on the head with that. He sounded like he was talking to small children and just generally came across as the biggest tool ever.

Ok good to hear - I thought it was just me that felt this way.

[PJS]

I find it interesting that the only commentary on the speeches last night had to do with style. Any interest in what was actually said?

Obama, true to form, reminded me of a fat person who is promising to go on a starvation diet. . . just as soon as he eats 8000 calories at Thanksiving dinner. I suppose that's why the Dow is down 150 as I write this, despite international markets being up overnight. People with skin in the game actually listened to what Obama said. He is promising huge increases in entitlements and spending. And the only increases in taxes will be on people making over $250K. Yea, right. He flat out lied about the stimulus package not having earmarks (remember Chuck Schumer's comment about the porky little amendments?). Sorry, the math just doesn't add up. $780+ BILLION for a stimulus package, $410 BILLION for an omnibus spending bill FULL of pork, a housing bailout, a car company bailout, Geitner talked about another $2 TRILLION to stabilize the markets. Anyone have an adding machine? His talk of cutting the deficit is analagous to an exclusive store marking up merchandise 4x, then putting it on a 50% sale. Obama may cut the deficit, but only after he balloons it to unimaginable levels.

I do think the market will go up at some point, if for no other reason than the treasury is printing money faster than a drunken sailor can spend it. Of course, even if it does go up, the dollar won't be worth a plug nickel by then because inflation will have eaten up its value and foreign coutries won't be willing to fund our spending orgy anymore. I think, if Obama really believes this wll work, he is the one living in Happy Pony Rainbow Land.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PJS

I find it interesting that the only commentary on the speeches last night had to do with style. Any interest in what was actually said?

No.

[RaggedyAnn]

Originally Posted by PJS

I find it interesting that the only commentary on the speeches last night had to do with style. Any interest in what was actually said?

The Daily Buzz counted him using the word recovery 22 times in his speech. I know that's not really what you meant, but I found that interesting.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

That being said, I understood what he was saying but I don't see why it was necessary to do it in that format. I don't think I've ever seen a speech by a President where immediately after they have an official response speech from the other party (I'm not talking about reactions on CNN/Fox/etc). It all seemed very odd to me.

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

They do it every year after the State of the Union address.

True, they do do it after every State of the Union (and after the weekly radio address and after other speeches as well). But whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats doing it, it has always struck me as very odd and, for want of a better word, inappropriate to do it after the State of the Union.

The State of the Union isn't just any speech, it's a constitutionally-required address. (Granted, for 100 years or so, it was delivered in writing rather than in person.) I've just never seen the value in a "response" to the State of the Union address.

Perhaps that's part of the reason I can be counted in with those who were not favorably impressed by Jindal.

[jwright25]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I've just never seen the value in a "response" to the State of the Union address.

Agreed. And I also agree with your calling it a "response." I've always wondered how the opposing party can deliver a rehearsed, telepromptered "response" to something that just ended 10 minutes earlier. Yes, by and large we all know what the President is going to say (which IMO makes the whole thing nothing more than political grandstanding), and we get hints from his staff in advance. But I am waiting for the day when a President "leaks" something and then says the complete opposite - just to trip up the "response."