Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[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."

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by jwright25

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."

Doing a little research, I found out a few things worth noting (some of which, I guess, partly correct what I said earlier):

• This was not considered a formal "State of the Union" address, which I guess is why the media kept calling it "The President's speech/address to a joint session of Congress." A new president doesn't give a "State of the Union," since his tenure as president has been short enough that he can't comment, as president at least, on the previous year.
• The first "response" to the State of the Union was in 1966. It has been done ever since.
• Apparently, written copies of the speech are distributed beforehand. That's what so many members of Congress, Democratic and Republican, were asking him to autograph Tuesday night.

I still think it's a bit odd. Not that much odder, though, than the constant standing ovations. (Does anyone else remember that SNL skit where they had Michael J. Fox playing Dan Quayle, and he couldn't figure out when to stand? That's all I can think of watching SotU addresses now.)

[AGDee]

I thought the whole thing was odd. I like Obama and believe he's trying to do what's will help the most people in this country. However, I am not a fan of hijacking prime time TV for these things. I don't ever feel like I'm hearing anything new and if I want to watch this stuff, I'll watch CSPAN. I surely hope this does not become a regular thing.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I surely hope this does not become a regular thing.

It already is a regular thing. The State of the Union Address/first speech of a President to a joint session of Congress has been highjacking prime time TV for decades.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

• Apparently, written copies of the speech are distributed beforehand. That's what so many members of Congress, Democratic and Republican, were asking him to autograph Tuesday night.

This seems laughably inappropriate - a member of Congress acting starstruck by the President? Seriously?

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This seems laughably inappropriate - a member of Congress acting starstruck by the President? Seriously?

He is a BARACK STAR!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This seems laughably inappropriate - a member of Congress acting starstruck by the President? Seriously?

Yeah, it seems incredibly inappropriate. Members of Congress asking for autographs? So bizarre....

As for Obama's speech; it was ok I guess. I think it's tough for him to say he's against bigger government what with the stimulus packages and the Biden-led task force, but I understand that he needed to say something like that as an answer to those of us who are anti-big government.

[sugar and spice]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This seems laughably inappropriate - a member of Congress acting starstruck by the President? Seriously?

I buy it. Some news story I read said that representatives often stand in line for hours to get aisle seats for the address--if they're sitting in the aisle, they're more likely to get a hand shake or a hello from the president than if they're in the middle. So it's not just an Obama thing, but a general starstruck-by-the-president thing. "Congress, they're just like us!"

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This seems laughably inappropriate - a member of Congress acting starstruck by the President? Seriously?

So what? Members of Congress are human too. They aren't cold, lifeless, stiff people who don't have any emotion. I can only imagine that many of them would like to receive an autograph from the first AA president.

Besides, I'm sure there have been members of Congress in the past who have asked for autographs from sitting presidents. It's what people do when they meet someone famous.


I have to admit I don't understand why people are so upset or concerned about his celebrity status. Whether people treat him like a rock star or not has nothing to do with his ability to serve as president.