On Originality"The future is ours to win" was a phrase used in Obama's speech last night and the word on the street is that this particular phrase is the new theme for the Administration as it begins its association with the 112th Congress. But the wording is not original with Bararck. Not at all. Just four years ago, Newt Gingrich published a best seller entitled Winning the Future.
And we have this statement written into the speech last night: “Let’s make sure what we’re cutting is really excess weight. Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact.” Problem with this comment it that, it too, is not original for the sake of this State of the Union. The words come from a speech Obama made last month in North Carolina. (Understand that at this point, Obama is saying that spending or "investment" is that which drives the economy.)
He has spoken of "freezes" before, as well. His 5 year freeze on non-discretionary spending is similar to his two year freeze on non-discretionary spending, back in August of 2009, and his announced two year pay freeze on civilian federal workers last November. Let's not forget his 2010 State of the Union, in which Obama called for a 3 year freeze on budgetary spending. He obviously thinks this "preaches" well, but has shown no desire to actually get this done.
State of Obama or State of the Union?
His use of "I" is a hallmark of nearly all his speeches. In the State of the Union on Tuesday, we have this comparison:
| Word | Washington | Lincoln | Roosevelt | Kennedy | Reagan | GW Bush | Obama |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 8 | 46 | 28 | 41 | 43 | 35 | 67 |
(Source: the very interesting American Presidency Project out of the University of California, Santa Barbara)
Contradictions and Inconsistencies
I. On being bipartisan
In his speech, he made this point about the midterm elections and the future of American: "With their votes, they've determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all . . ."
Two points: his use of the word "now" indicates that he is fully aware that "shared responsibility" was not a part of his administration during the first two years. Understand that the health care bill passed without the vote of a single Republican in either house of Congress. Obama met with House and Senate GOP leadership only three times in the first two years of his presidency, running rough shod over that party and the expressed will of the American people. "Now" that he actually has legislative opposition, he makes an appeal for bipartisanship.
II. On childish views of economic measurement
We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.
What we have here is an anecdotal declaration of a growing economy. The fact of the matter is quite different: economic growth is measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2009, there was virtually no growth in GDP and in 2010, the growth rate was 1.8 % over the course of year. Jobs are created and the nation is prospering when GDP percentages are at 2.5 and higher. That has not happened. Indeed, corporate profits are up and the Market is doing quite well for itself. But, unemployment remains at 9.4%, there were fewer new homes purchased last month than in a decade or more, bankruptcies are at a record high and foreclosures have set new records. Recovery? What stinking recovery??
III On day dreaming about the future
In the speech, he set a goal of 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015, just three model years from now. Not going to happen.
A second impossible goal is his intention to see 80% of this country's energy supply coming from green energy in its several forms by 2035. Again, an absolutely impossible idea. For starters, we do not have the infrastructure necessary for this to happen. We are talking about factories and machinery and trained workers. Workers an be trained and machinery can be made, but new factories in the numbers necessary to get this down will take 20 years to plan, permit and construct.
And here is the really bad news: The energy produced by green sources will cost the consumer 3 times current rates. Boone Pickens had to rescind a wind farm investment plan because of the more than expected expense, a decades long prospect of expenditure reimbursement, and the impossible regulatory and environmental permit process.
This energy goal is on the same plane as "I want world peace" or "I intend to be the most transparent president of all time. "
IV The ridiculous nature of his spending cut totals.
As relates to cuts, Obama spoke of cutting/saving $500,000 billion dollars over the course of the next ten years; that's 50 billion per year against an annual deficit of 1.3 trillion. Seriously, the reader needs to divide 50 billion by 1.3 trillion (that's 50,000,000,000 divided by 1,300, 000,000,000) to see just what a joke the Obama's suggestion really is.
V. His oil policy.
On one hand, his permitting policy is so restrictive, that drilling is nearly at a stand still in the Gulf. In last night's speech, he called for an end to oil subsidies. On the other hand, he has given 10 billion to Brazil for the expansion of their oil industry and has stood by as Viet Nam and China make deals with Cuba to drill for oil near its shores, less than 90 miles from Florida.
Final Comments.
In the end, this speech fell flat on its rhetorical face, offering nothing new in terms of ideas, full of contradictions and stressing impossible dreams as Obama sought to recast himself as the man in the middle, bringing opposing parties and peoples together.
Network news and print media are in full attack, asserting the popularity of the Obama speech. They have their surveys (ABC and CNN), taken immediately after the speech. In the ABC poll, 92% thought the speech was a wonderful event; CNN had similar numbers with more than 80% approving. Midknight Review believes the very opposite is true. Understand that "92" and "80" are absolutely impossible numbers when it comes to survey results. If true, these would be the highest presidential approval numbers of all time, and that includes anything Santa Clause might say.
We will make further comment on this by the end of the week, when legitimate polling firms including Rasmussen release their polling data regarding this State of the Union address. Know this, when the lie is as preposterous as this one, it is indicative of a "preemptive strike" in an effort to get ahead of the bad news that may follow the speech. We expect his improving numbers to experience a slowing, even a reversal, of his approval numbers and his Marxist media is working to influence that outcome. Look, if I thought the speech stunk, but I am being told that 90 people out of a 100 like the thing, I might conclude that I was wrong. . . . . . . . . that is what is going on here.
In the end, this speech makes it clear that the man has run out of ideas and catchy phraseology. If he cannot reclaim the magic of his 2008 oratorical dominance, he is in more elective trouble than one would have concluded just a few months ago.
Update: hey !! Did US News and World Report build off my idea in this article. Their article is great, but "palgiarism" was my idea early today. Of well. Such may just be my fantasy. Read their article entitled "Obama's State of the Union was Tantamount to Plagiarism."
n
No comments:
Post a Comment