Obama Bombs Again
Bensblurb # 588 1/26/11
State of the Union...
A flop. Even for someone who enjoys the politics of Washington, the President’s speech last night was boring and off the mark. Yes, things might be slowly getting better, but not unemployment, the housing market, or the Afghanistan venture. He avoided the issues--like, for instance, a deadlocked Congress. Were your reactions similar?
Whatever, here’s a sampling of columnists’ reactions:
Robert Scheer, in Huffington Post: What nonsense to insist that low public school test scores hobbled our economy when it was the highest-achieving graduates of our elite colleges who designed and sold the financial gimmicks that created this crisis...A pioneer in the securitization of mortgage debt, as well as exporting jobs abroad, was one Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE, whom Obama recently appointed to head his new job creation panel.
That the financial meltdown at the heart of our economic crisis was "avoidable" and not the result of long-run economic problems related to education and foreign competition is detailed in a sweeping report by the Democratic majority on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to be released as a 576-page book on Thursday....the commission concluded: "The greatest tragedy would be to accept the refrain that no one could have seen this coming and thus nothing could have been done. If we accept this notion, it will happen again."
Just the warning that Obama has ignored by continually appointing the very people who engineered this crisis, mostly Clinton alums...
Ben Stein, in American Spectator-- My pal, a frequent Spectator contributor and a super smart guy, Aram Bakshian, summed it up perfectly after Barack Obama's State of the Union address.
"Obama does not seem like a leader anymore."
It is sadly true. This was painfully apparent in tonight's speech. It was as if the Bodysnatchers had gotten hold of Mr. Obama and put a sixth grader's brain in him. There were only a few glimpses of Obama the "intellectual" socialist on display tonight. Mostly, his speech sounded as if it could have been given by any 1958 Republican elementary school student. The problem is that this is not 1958 America.
This is a much changed America, and one that has put itself into a terribly confining box.
When Mr. Obama talks about reducing the deficit, it's almost comical. The changes he proposes are so minuscule in terms of their effect on the budget that it's as if he is saying he can throw a rock to the moon. This country's deficit is spectacularly beyond his control. Only really painful surgery -- drastic, draconian cuts in Social Security and in Medicare, and wildly higher taxes on upper income people -- will come even close to fixing the problem.
The GOP has succeeded in making the tax part of these off limits, which makes certain the problem will get even worse. Mr. Obama did not come within a mile of telling the truth about it. He has been completely boxed in by the GOP, to an extent he would find deeply upsetting if he ever admitted it to himself.
When Mr. Obama says he's going to reform American education by setting higher standards, he is just baying at the moon...
There were two glimpses of the old Obama -- when he slammed "subsidies" for oil companies, which of course do not get any subsidies, but have business deductions the way every other business does, he sounded every bit like the envious skinny Harvard man he once was. When he railed against tax breaks that he considered identical to government spending, that was outright socialism. That concept implies that all the income in the nation belongs to the state, and that if we let working people keep any of it, that is the same as a government expenditure. The opposite is true. The income belongs to the people, and they allow government to have some of it. But, of course, the servant has become the master now.
One final note: in its lack of eloquence, its complete absence of high points, its elementary school pedagogy, its complete absence of any interesting or memorable phrases, it was possibly the lamest SOTU speech I have ever heard.
Jonah Goldberg, in National Review...Yes, the mixed-seating of the audience definitely worked against him because the birds of a feather weren’t flocked together. But this simply wasn’t an inspiring speech. I don’t think his naked calls for what amounts to industrial policy excite anybody who won’t get a check if they’re enacted...I wouldn’t be surprised if he got a bump in the polls, but if I were a GOP strategist I’d take some solace in the fact that this is a guy who has, once again, misread the political moment.
As for Ryan, I thought he was really very good, particularly in the second half of his blessedly brief remarks. My only complaint is that he was a bit too un-threatening. We are in an awful mess, and a bit more passion would suit me better.
Mark Hemingway, in Washington Examiner:--Their egregious pomp and length have long made State of the Union Speeches a chore. Last night's longer than average speech did no one any favors, least of all the President. Or as a friend of mine and former presidential speechwriter put it, "How can we trust a man to cut spending when he can't even cut words from a bloated and boring speech?"
...This was supposed to mark his big turn to the center and while the whole thing wasn't terrible, it was just flat. Since he's been President, Obama has a history of needing to rise to the occasion and just not coming through (see underwear bomber, BP oil spill, Ft. Hood shooting etc).
--When the President spoke about "corporate profits" and other supposedly positive economic indicators being up early in the speech, he didn't really talk about how severe the unemployment problem is. As someone with a number of close family members looking for jobs...it was frankly angering that he did not acknowledge this problem more severely.
--Ben Blankenship
##############
State of the Union...
A flop. Even for someone who enjoys the politics of Washington, the President’s speech last night was boring and off the mark. Yes, things might be slowly getting better, but not unemployment, the housing market, or the Afghanistan venture. He avoided the issues--like, for instance, a deadlocked Congress. Were your reactions similar?
Whatever, here’s a sampling of columnists’ reactions:
Robert Scheer, in Huffington Post: What nonsense to insist that low public school test scores hobbled our economy when it was the highest-achieving graduates of our elite colleges who designed and sold the financial gimmicks that created this crisis...A pioneer in the securitization of mortgage debt, as well as exporting jobs abroad, was one Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE, whom Obama recently appointed to head his new job creation panel.
That the financial meltdown at the heart of our economic crisis was "avoidable" and not the result of long-run economic problems related to education and foreign competition is detailed in a sweeping report by the Democratic majority on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to be released as a 576-page book on Thursday....the commission concluded: "The greatest tragedy would be to accept the refrain that no one could have seen this coming and thus nothing could have been done. If we accept this notion, it will happen again."
Just the warning that Obama has ignored by continually appointing the very people who engineered this crisis, mostly Clinton alums...
Ben Stein, in American Spectator-- My pal, a frequent Spectator contributor and a super smart guy, Aram Bakshian, summed it up perfectly after Barack Obama's State of the Union address.
"Obama does not seem like a leader anymore."
It is sadly true. This was painfully apparent in tonight's speech. It was as if the Bodysnatchers had gotten hold of Mr. Obama and put a sixth grader's brain in him. There were only a few glimpses of Obama the "intellectual" socialist on display tonight. Mostly, his speech sounded as if it could have been given by any 1958 Republican elementary school student. The problem is that this is not 1958 America.
This is a much changed America, and one that has put itself into a terribly confining box.
When Mr. Obama talks about reducing the deficit, it's almost comical. The changes he proposes are so minuscule in terms of their effect on the budget that it's as if he is saying he can throw a rock to the moon. This country's deficit is spectacularly beyond his control. Only really painful surgery -- drastic, draconian cuts in Social Security and in Medicare, and wildly higher taxes on upper income people -- will come even close to fixing the problem.
The GOP has succeeded in making the tax part of these off limits, which makes certain the problem will get even worse. Mr. Obama did not come within a mile of telling the truth about it. He has been completely boxed in by the GOP, to an extent he would find deeply upsetting if he ever admitted it to himself.
When Mr. Obama says he's going to reform American education by setting higher standards, he is just baying at the moon...
There were two glimpses of the old Obama -- when he slammed "subsidies" for oil companies, which of course do not get any subsidies, but have business deductions the way every other business does, he sounded every bit like the envious skinny Harvard man he once was. When he railed against tax breaks that he considered identical to government spending, that was outright socialism. That concept implies that all the income in the nation belongs to the state, and that if we let working people keep any of it, that is the same as a government expenditure. The opposite is true. The income belongs to the people, and they allow government to have some of it. But, of course, the servant has become the master now.
One final note: in its lack of eloquence, its complete absence of high points, its elementary school pedagogy, its complete absence of any interesting or memorable phrases, it was possibly the lamest SOTU speech I have ever heard.
Jonah Goldberg, in National Review...Yes, the mixed-seating of the audience definitely worked against him because the birds of a feather weren’t flocked together. But this simply wasn’t an inspiring speech. I don’t think his naked calls for what amounts to industrial policy excite anybody who won’t get a check if they’re enacted...I wouldn’t be surprised if he got a bump in the polls, but if I were a GOP strategist I’d take some solace in the fact that this is a guy who has, once again, misread the political moment.
As for Ryan, I thought he was really very good, particularly in the second half of his blessedly brief remarks. My only complaint is that he was a bit too un-threatening. We are in an awful mess, and a bit more passion would suit me better.
Mark Hemingway, in Washington Examiner:--Their egregious pomp and length have long made State of the Union Speeches a chore. Last night's longer than average speech did no one any favors, least of all the President. Or as a friend of mine and former presidential speechwriter put it, "How can we trust a man to cut spending when he can't even cut words from a bloated and boring speech?"
...This was supposed to mark his big turn to the center and while the whole thing wasn't terrible, it was just flat. Since he's been President, Obama has a history of needing to rise to the occasion and just not coming through (see underwear bomber, BP oil spill, Ft. Hood shooting etc).
--When the President spoke about "corporate profits" and other supposedly positive economic indicators being up early in the speech, he didn't really talk about how severe the unemployment problem is. As someone with a number of close family members looking for jobs...it was frankly angering that he did not acknowledge this problem more severely.
--Ben Blankenship
##############
posted by Ben Blankenship at
10:24 AM
