Obama’s SOTU Address – One Of The Worst

Loading

Krauthammer – this was one of his weakest speeches

Ok, the SOTU is done and here are my thoughts.

It sucked. I mean big time. One of the worst I have seen in a long long time.

The bulk of this speech was about going “green” energy and rah rah rah. More money for infrastructure, more money for education….and then he threw in some Rodney King “can’t we all just get along” crapola.

It didn’t do what it was supposed to do…tell the American people the state of the union. It’s in trouble and most of us aren’t worrying about windmills and electric cars. On top of all that he appeared to be quite enamored with the for-profit police state in China making some cool solar panels.

They’re investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer.

All in all, not much added up during this speech.

The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other. Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech.

He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed “we redouble these efforts.” He coupled this with a call to “freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.”

But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.

For example, he said he wants to eliminate “billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies.” Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.

Obama also argued that tackling the deficit means furthering reducing health care costs. He believes repealing ObamaCare would add a trillion dollars to our deficit and doesn’t acknowledge the harm it will do to our economy if we DONT repeal it.

Earmarks

Obama then

“Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination,”

Obama now during the SOTU –

And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren’t larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.

But the fact of the matter is that Boehner already pledged no bills with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Hell, just a few short month ago, when Democrats held both chambers, Obama continued on signing those earmark-laden spending bills with glee.

Not now apparently….amazing what an election can do.

Then you just knew he would bring some class warfare into the mix:

And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools, or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break.

It’s not a matter of punishing their success. It’s about promoting America’s success.

Baloney. It is in fact a matter of punishing those who succeed. Plain and simple.

Congressman Tim Griffin:

I think about his inaugural speech and what he said about living within our means. That was before record deficits that added $3 trillion to the debt. The tough part comes with the actual proposals. The challenge we face in terms of the debt is so great that tweaking at the edges is not going to do the trick. We need bold ideas, not only from the President but from the House and Senate.”

Oh, and when he did finally get on to foreign policy he spoke about his diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nukes. He even had the gall to say that the Iranian government “faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before.”

Wow….tough talk tough guy. That’ll show em. We know how well those sanctions worked against Saddam eh?

Jonah Goldberg:

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. And the theme “winning the future” sounds even more focused grouped than it did when Newt Gingrich came out with a book by that title a few years ago. 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.

Finally, I’ll leave you with Rep. Paul Ryan and his response to this speech:

Full transcript below:

Good evening. I’m Congressman Paul Ryan from Janesville, Wisconsin — and Chairman here at the House Budget Committee.

President Obama just addressed a Congressional chamber filled with many new faces. One face we did not see tonight was that of our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. We all miss Gabby and her cheerful spirit; and we are praying for her return to the House Chamber.

Earlier this month, President Obama spoke movingly at a memorial event for the six people who died on that violent morning in Tucson. Still, there are no words that can lift the sorrow that now engulfs the families and friends of the fallen.

What we can do is assure them that the nation is praying for them; that, in the words of the Psalmist, the Lord heals the broken-hearted and binds up their wounds; and that over time grace will replace grief.

As Gabby continues to make encouraging progress, we must keep her and the others in our thoughts as we attend to the work now before us.

Tonight, the President focused a lot of attention on our economy in general — and on our deficit and debt in particular.

He was right to do so, and some of his words were reassuring. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I assure you that we want to work with the President to restrain federal spending.

In one of our first acts in the new majority, House Republicans voted to cut Congress’s own budget. And just today, the House voted to restore the spending discipline that Washington sorely needs.

The reason is simple.

A few years ago, reducing spending was important. Today, it’s imperative. Here’s why.

We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead.

On this current path, when my three children — who are now 6, 7, and 8 years old — are raising their own children, the federal government will double in size, and so will the taxes they pay.

No economy can sustain such high levels of debt and taxation. The next generation will inherit a stagnant economy and a diminished country.

Frankly, it’s one of my greatest concerns as a parent — and I know many of you feel the same way.

Our debt is the product of acts by many presidents and many Congresses over many years. No one person or party is responsible for it.

There is no doubt the President came into office facing a severe fiscal and economic situation.

Unfortunately, instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth, he engaged in a stimulus spending spree that not only failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs, but also plunged us even deeper into debt.

The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies — an 84 percent increase when you include the failed stimulus.

All of this new government spending was sold as “investment.” Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9% and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt.

Then the President and his party made matters even worse, by creating a new open-ended health care entitlement.

What we already know about the President’s health care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees.

Businesses and unions from around the country are asking the Obama Administration for waivers from the mandates. Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. The President mentioned the need for regulatory reform to ease the burden on American businesses. We agree — and we think his health care law would be a great place to start.

Last week, House Republicans voted for a full repeal of this law, as we pledged to do, and we will work to replace it with fiscally responsible, patient-centered reforms that actually reduce costs and expand coverage.

Health care spending is driving the explosive growth of our debt. And the President’s law is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy.

Our debt is out of control. What was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis.

We cannot deny it; instead we must, as Americans, confront it responsibly.

And that is exactly what Republicans pledge to do.

Americans are skeptical of both political parties, and that skepticism is justified — especially when it comes to spending. So hold all of us accountable.

­­In this very room, the House will produce, debate, and advance a budget. Last year — in an unprecedented failure — Congress chose not to pass, or even propose a budget. The spending spree continued unchecked.

We owe you a better choice and a different vision.

Our forthcoming budget is our obligation to you — to show you how we intend to do things differently … how we will cut spending to get the debt down… help create jobs and prosperity … and reform government programs. If we act soon, and if we act responsibly, people in and near retirement will be protected.

These budget debates are not just about the programs of government; they’re also about the purpose of government.

So I’d like to share with you the principles that guide us. They are anchored in the wisdom of the founders; in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence; and in the words of the American Constitution.

They have to do with the importance of limited government; and with the blessing of self-government.

We believe government’s role is both vital and limited — to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense … to secure our borders … to protect innocent life … to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights … to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity … and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.

We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.

We believe, as our founders did, that “the pursuit of happiness” depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.

Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn’t do any of them very well. It’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.

The President and the Democratic Leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase its size and its reach, its price tag and its power.

Whether sold as “stimulus” or repackaged as “investment,” their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much; taxes too much; and spends too much in order to do too much.

And during the last two years, that is exactly what we have gotten — along with record deficits and debt — to the point where the President is now urging Congress to increase the debt limit.

We believe the days of business as usual must come to an end. We hold to a couple of simple convictions: Endless borrowing is not a strategy; spending cuts have to come first.

Our nation is approaching a tipping point.

We are at a moment, where if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America’s best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.

Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness, and wise consumer choices has never worked — and it won’t work now.

We need to chart a new course.

Speaking candidly, as one citizen to another: We still have time … but not much time. If we continue down our current path, we know what our future will be.

Just take a look at what’s happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn’t act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody.

Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner. That is why we must act now.

Some people will back away from this challenge. But I see this challenge as an opportunity to rebuild what Lincoln called the “central ideas” of the Republic.

We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative — not political clout — determines who succeeds.

Millions of families have fallen on hard times not because of our ideals of free enterprise — but because our leaders failed to live up to those ideals; because of poor decisions made in Washington and Wall Street that caused a financial crisis, squandered our savings, broke our trust, and crippled our economy.

Today, a similar kind of irresponsibility threatens not only our livelihoods but our way of life.

We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations, and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That’s the real secret to job creation — not borrowing and spending more money in Washington.

Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.

These are not easy times, but America is an exceptional nation. In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like America. The American story has been cherished, advanced, and defended over the centuries.

And it now falls to this generation to pass on to our children a nation that is stronger, more vibrant, more decent, and better than the one we inherited.

Thank you and good night.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
106 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@AdrianS:

Most people take the birthers about as seriously as we do those who claim 9/11 was an inside job. Even if I disagree with Mata on certain things, I’d never say she was lost. You’re not shedding light on anything new or interesting yourself, and you’ll end up as disappointed as the other nutcases who blamed Bush for bringing down the towers. Of course, I’m sure I can now expect a hyperbolic personal attack on me….

@MataHarley: Re the Cheney /Veep aspect of the comparison with Immelt, it is not that Immelt is or is not Veep, but that his ties with a corporate giant with obvious conflicts of interest has a position, (paid OR unpaid) at the WH would, IF IT HAD BEEN Cheney and Haliburton, would have made the libbies more rabid than ever, and, IMO, justifibly so.
After all, this is a clear conflict of interest.

@Cary: It was more show than substance, and the speech was a farce in asking for a “freeze” on spending, “at current levels”, since he had pumped up the spending approx. 84% in the past two years- and freezing spending at that level is akin to having three scoops of ice cream, then declaring that I am going to cut back on ice cream by having no more than three scoops ever again- it is STILL too darn much ice cream, and will do nothing to trim the fat.
What we need is to reform the entitlements completely, and eliminate the Dept. of Education, and the EPA, and return them to state control, where they should have stayed.
Reduddant bureaucracies need to be eliminated, not merged.
We need tough love if this country is to survive.

Funny, but I thought most polls reported that most people liked Obama’s SOTU speech. Oh well, I’ve learned not to argue with people who think Sarah Palin is intelligent.

@liberal1:

Heh,

Eliot Spitzer’s CNN colleagues say he’s trying to steamroll management. The “Parker Spitzer” co-host responded nastily to a mass e-mail from CNN’s News Standards and Practices chief Rick Davis that offered guidance on how to report a poll on reaction to the State of the Union address. Shortly before the poll results aired Tuesday night, Davis advised CNN personnel to preface them with the expectation that there would be a positive reaction because more Democrats tend to watch a speech by a Democratic president than Republicans. But after the poll aired, Spitzer shot back in his own mass e-mail, “This poll is totally misleading and should not be aired as one who has studied these polls I woukd [sic] be embarassed to put these numbers on the air.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/spitzer_blasts_cnn_poll_akVnzBCOc4iu030Ls3qO1K#ixzz1CGVxKWFV

Is Obama America’s WTF president.

I have a simple question about Obama’s WTF speech … why doesn’t he tell you what the green pixie dust is going to cost?

@Missy:

More by the Jammie Wearing Fool here.

What a skewed sample!

Ummmm liberal #2, Missy, Nan and JWF just proved you aren’t even as smart as Sara Palin…whom you look down your nose at.

Lookie here. People didn’t completely fall for O’s BS.
Rasmussen on SOTU speech: No sale
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/27/rasmussen-on-sotu-speech-no-sale/

@Hard Right:

Rasmussen polled 1,000 Likely Voters, the others just grabbed “people who planned on watching” the majority being democrats.

@Nan G:

Both the CBS and CNN polsters pulled the same trick. Guess they think they can get that nonsense out early and hope they have enough believers before the truth catches up to them.

A psychiatrist listened to Obama with his ”third ear,”

[P]sychiatrists call a “third ear”—listening to myself listening, polling my gut for when it alerted me to true or false notes.
In my office, it is this “third ear” that allows me to ask questions that get past a person’s more superficial stories, to the heart of that person.
In other words, I was paying as much attention to whether I sensed the President believed what he was saying, as to whether I agreed with what he was saying.

What an excellent job this shrink did taking apart Obama’s speech.

Dr. Ablow concludes:

As a psychiatrist, here’s my unsolicited advice to the president:
Explain to the American people how and why you have changed your tone and agenda so dramatically.
Share with us the moments of epiphany that convinced you that the path you so boldly took us on for two years was ill conceived.
Make yourself believable so that we can believe we are worthy of more than manipulation.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/27/dr-keith-ablow-president-obama/#ixzz1CI3cpthh

@Nan G, #64:

Dr. Ablow’s “third ear” must be a tin ear. He seems to miss all the obvious signs of a full-blown martyr complex.

If Ablow were a fireman, he’d probably attempt to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it.

@Nan G: #64

I first want to remind everyone that I don’t belong to any political party, so I don’t care what party a politician belongs to, and I don’t have to try to defend any politician because they belong to a certain party.

What Dr. Keith Ablow is suggesting is that Obama would first have to admit he was wrong. Can anyone remember when a liberal admitted they were wrong?

So, here’s what I heard Tuesday night: I heard a man reading a script, acting out a part.

I guess I would make a good psychiatrist. For a long time I have been saying that Obama probably doesn’t even read the script before the TOTUS displays it. Remember when he read the Irish Prime Minister’s speech all the way through without realizing it, even when he thanked President Obama for inviting everybody over?

The two of them were going to two different events that day and the PM was going to read the same speech he had given at the first even, so Obama had already heard it once. If you only have to appear at events and read something on the TOTUS, then you have a lot of extra free time for vacations, golf trips, etc.

In the speech Obama even thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over. If you read a speech, and in it you thanked yourself, wouldn’t you think something was wrong? If Obama had rehearsed his speech, wouldn’t he know from the beginning that that wasn’t the speech he had been rehearsing. I haven’t given any major speeches, but I would think that I would know the first sentence by heart, since it would set the tone for the rest of the speech. This guy read the whole speech and didn’t know it wasn’t his, even after he heard the Irish PM give it earlier. Did he even listen to what the PM was saying, or was he thinking about his next vacation or golfing trip. Maybe he was just sitting there idealizing himself like he likes to.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/obama-thanks-irish-pm-repeats-speech-teleprompter-meltdown/

@Smorgasbord: Buddy, I think oyu’ve just hit on how Obama could make the claim he never noticed all of the racism and hatred from the mouth of ”Rev.” Wright all those years Obama sat in his church.
He must be thinking about something else.
(I wonder what it is.)

One thing I had cross my mind during the SOTU was that it sounded like the work of several different writers after many, many rewrites.
It just did not hang together.

Nan G and Smorgasbord. It was Obama’s usual speechwriter, Jon Favreau who penned the 2011 SOTU. Obama’s Tucson speech was actually *not* the product of Favreau, who after two years has gotten repetitive. Probably why that speech was more well received. SOTU? I thought it sounded exactly like young Jon… boring, stale, same stuff with a few terms switched out. I think he’s getting burnt out.

Smorgasbord, he had to know what was in it… the WH even released a behind the scenes of the SOTU video this year. Then again, maybe they were looking over the hotel accommodations for their next vacation, and not the speech. Who knows.

Aye

Again, Rich, I strongly encourage you to go re-read what I said about his Tucson speech because, my friend, you foggy memory is doing you no favors and, as a result, you’re bearing false witness against me.

I remember. That was the speech where you pompously told us all how cartoon villian Obama handed out campaign t-shirts and lied about Gifford’s eyes opening (Eyegate?). Some might say you backed down to challenges to your assumptions, but some say a lot.

@Nan G: #67

You reminded me that I stumbled on this story when I was looking for stuff for my last post. The speech writer put in several quotes from other people without giving them credit.

Keep in mind that this is from the Los Angeles Times.

Was that plagiarism in Obama’s State of the Union?

@MataHarley: #70

…the WH even released a behind the scenes of the SOTU video this year.

I am guessing this is one of those instances where a politician was told when to be at a certain place at a certain time, then told what to do. He could have been in complete control of the whole event, but my feeling is that he just showed up for this event too and did what he was told to do and said what he was told to say. That is just my feeling.

I have no doubt that the Illegal-in-Chief PROBABLY read this speech before he read it to us. I will have to admit that I was tired when I listened to him and fell asleep at least twice. As I have mentioned different times, it would help if he showed ANY emotion when he reads his speeches. Looking at it from a different angle, I would have a hard time showing any enthusiasm while reading a speech I didn’t believe in. I wonder if he shows any emotions at any of his many parties.

@Tom:

That was the speech where you pompously told us all how cartoon villian Obama handed out campaign t-shirts and lied about Gifford’s eyes opening (Eyegate?)

Really Tom? You really want to continue beating that drum?

You’ve lied about things I’ve said before and now you’re coming over here to lie some more?

Never once did I say that Obie “handed out campaign t-shirts” in Tucson.

Never. Once.

As to Obie’s statement in his speech, that was clearly proven false by taking information coming from Ms. Giffords’ medical team and comparing/contrasting it to the words that passed across Obie’s lips.

Now, if you can find where Obie said “she opened her eyes for the first time on her own or, alternately, information from her physicians stating that she opened her eyes for the first time on Wednesday of that week rather than the preceding Sunday then we’ll have something further to discuss on this topic.

So, there’s your assignment… three simple words from the president or a different day of the week from her physicians. That’s all you need. So tantalizingly close…yet, so very far away.

Stay focused…. Keep your eyes on the prize….

Ready? Set…. GO!

Tom the lying troll returns to get smacked down once again. Tom, “I don’t care if the left is slandering Conservatives, how dare you defend yourselves”.

Aye, I see his reading comprehension and honesty haven’t improved any.

@Aye:

So now you’re trying to redefine the argument? Not so fast there, buddy. I am not disputing your carefully parsed clinical definition of when her eye opened. I am asking you to prove that Obama lied about it, something you refuse to address, as I helpfully pointed our here.

Even if your ridiculously technical interpretation of “opening eyes” is true, you’ve still failed to establish (or even address) the most critical element of your argument: Obama’s knowledge of what allegedly happened on Sunday.

@Tom:

I am asking you to prove that Obama lied about it

Tom…you dumb ass…did you listen to what Obie said in his speech? Did you read what the physicians said?

Did you?

Hell, I’ve linked it for you. I’ve embedded it for you. I’ve done everything short of driving over there to click the “Play” icon for you.

The physicians said Sunday. Obie said Wednesday.

There’s no parsing there. Obie lied and got caught.

@Aye:

Wow. Your lack of understanding of a basic English language word is truly stunning. I guess I’ll have to drag out the old (online) Websters:

lie : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Where have you proven intent? You haven’t even proven he had the knowledge necessary for intent. You have nothing, but your compulsive cartoonish belief that behind each Obama action and statement lies malevolent purpose. That’s just not enough, my friend.

@Tommy boy:

I’ve looked through your most recent scribbling and I didn’t find “three simple words from the president or a different day of the week from her physicians.”

So very close….yet, so far away.

As to intent or motivation, it’s very clear that he was searching for a heart-string tugging emotional line for his speech.

Too bad he couldn’t do it honestly.

@Aye:

I will give you one thing: you clearly have a high tolerance for humiliation in front of your peers.

Um, I’m not talking about the intent of the speech. I’m explaining to you, as I would a child, the definition of the word “lie”. For Obama to have lied about Gifford’s eyes opening, it would require, by definition, intent on his part to deceive. Just because he may have been mistaken about a medical technicality isn’t enough for it to be a “lie”. Get it? You have not supplied said evidence of intent, thus you are wrong. (Does it every get old?)

No gold star for you on this vocabulary test, I’m afraid.

Look Aye, another wannabe lawyer. Tom doesn’t seem to understand this isn’t a courtroom or that his BS won’t fly here as a result.

I’m a wanna be lawyer because I think words have definable meanings?

You’re a wannabe because you think you can play games and split hairs and get away with it.

As for dishonesty, you’re guilty of it. You claimed you knew what was going on with B-rob being banned and implied we were hypocritical for doing so.
If you knew why he was banned then you would have known he had been calling everyone on the site racist for some time. So either you didn’t know, or you were defending him simply because he was a fellow leftist. Either way-dishonest.

@Tom:

Tom, I agree with you regarding that speech, especially your point about her husband going along with it. But this is this speech. Treating this speech as an issue in and of itself, do you think it was his greatest speech? I’m an Obama supporter, and I was disappointed. What’s your opinion, aside from comparing it to others, and in spite of what others think?

@Hard Right:

You have not supplied said evidence of intent, thus you are wrong.

Poor Tom…not even smart enough to read the words on the page in front of him.

Many people strive to expand their intelligence in order to better themselves. Others become blind supporters of the TelePromTer Jesus.

@Tom: You keep at this mantra, “You have to prove INTENT to lie, for it to be a lie.”
Gee, that is a high bar to set, for you would need to be God to truly KNOW his intent.
However, you can look through all his speeches, and find a clear and present use of obfuscation, prevarication, misuse of the truth, and other dimensions of “Honesty”- so I feel very confident that accusing him of lying would fall under the lower bar of knowing in my heart that he has no truth in him.
Nor does he have any reality in him- or he wouldn’t keep trying to fool the American People by replacing the clear and simple word,”spending”, with the (as he might think, more clever) word,”Investment”.
I mean, here he clearly shows his contempt for the American mind, feeling that substituting words will make them more palatable.
If the American People fall for THAT, then they truly deserve this FUBAR president.

What’s funny Aye, is that he called you a liar. By his own standard he cannot prove you INTENDED to lie. Therefore he’s wrong.
He’s probably off chugging more kool by his obama shrine.

Wow, AT has a real eyebrow burner up today, it includes a mention of the SOTU so we will not veer to far off topic, anyway, much closer than what Tom is offering this morninghas been offered this morning:

Yet there does not appear to be any real effort to change course. Instead and despite many underlying factors, such as a stubbornly high unemployment rate, real estate values still declining, a potential stock market bubble due to too many dollars looking for a home, and inflation that the government refuses to recognize, there no indication that Washington D.C. — particularly after the State of the Union speech — is taking the current state of affairs seriously.

Here’s the write up:

The Rest of the World and Obama
Steve McCann

One of the primary narratives of the Democrats and the media during the entire tenure of the George W. Bush’s term was that the United States was held in historically low regard throughout the rest of the world. This became, after “Bush lied,” the second-most frequently repeated talking point. Whether there was any basis for this claim was immaterial; it was a handy cudgel for defeating and humiliating the president.

For the past twenty-five-plus years, I have been involved in the international marketplace, having dealt in countries as varied as the United Kingdom, China, and Ghana. Never in that period of time, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, have I found it more difficult to defend the polices of the United States and listen to more overt criticism of any sitting president than I do today.

Over the years, it has been my experience that at nearly all business meetings or conversations, domestic politics, either in the United States or any other country, is rarely discussed unless there has been a major event such as an election or a natural disaster. Normally, all focus is on the transaction at hand. At times, there has been good-natured banter about the generic American character, but that is more reflective of the fact the United States has, for nearly seventy years, overwhelmingly dominated the world scene. When one is at the top of the heap, an element of envy mingled with grudging respect is to be expected.

During the Bush years, while encountering some criticism of the Iraq war decision and a media-driven reflexive belief in Bush’s “cowboy mentality” (promoted to some degree by his Texas drawl and demeanor), there was no noticeable difference in the conversations and attitudes of the many people I met overseas.

By stark contrast, today, virtually every conversation includes a variation of the following: “Do you people have any idea of what you are doing?” The primary reason for this reaction is the stark reality that the current world order, which has been historically successful and dominated by the United States, is beginning to unravel. That unraveling is primarily because of American government-induced financial policies that triggered a worldwide catastrophic collapse in 2008 and the nearly incomprehensible economic policies pursued since.

Over the past two years and into 2011, the United States has gone on the most astounding spending and money-printing binge in the history of mankind. From the end of 2008 through the end of 2011, over $4.3 trillion will have been added to the national debt. That is the same as the annual Gross Domestic Product of the third-largest economy in the world: Japan. Further, the Federal Reserve has increased the money supply by an equally astounding $1.5 trillion, engulfing the world in dollars and thereby triggering inflation, disrupting the normal flow of capital, and promoting additional apprehension of the future.

Yet there does not appear to be any real effort to change course. Instead and despite many underlying factors, such as a stubbornly high unemployment rate, real estate values still declining, a potential stock market bubble due to too many dollars looking for a home, and inflation that the government refuses to recognize, there no indication that Washington D.C. — particularly after the State of the Union speech — is taking the current state of affairs seriously.

Despite the obligatory bows to Beijing, the international marketplace does not want to see China replace the United States as the preeminent economic and military power in the world. China is inherently unstable with its population time bomb, and its government cannot be considered benign based on its human rights abuses, totalitarian governing philosophy, and overt desire to dominate the planet.

If the United States collapses under its own weight, the world will be thrown into chaos, and many in the international marketplace recognize that very real possibility.

Thus, in my many conversations with those overseas, the subject matter turns quickly to Barack Obama. The most frequent adjectives used to describe our current president are “incompetent,” “amateurish,” “narcissistic,” “inexperienced,” and “haughty.” This is often followed by a confession that accusers too were impressed with Obama during his campaign and fell for his smooth delivery, rhetoric, and appearance.

They felt, along with many Americans, that no one could possibly do this much damage in such a short time, considering the sheer size of the United States and its economy. Barack Obama has become the butt of many jokes and satire. Virtually everyone I talk to wants to discuss his failings. Recently, the Swiss Marc Faber, an internationally renowned investor and author whom I have met, said the following on Bloomberg TV’s “Street Smart”: “Obama has done a horrible job. He’s dishonest … Foreigners laugh at him … He’s like a prostitute.”

Mr. Faber is not alone in his sentiment; it has become common not only in the boardrooms, but also the halls of government. I was told by an acquaintance that during the recent G-20 Summit in Seoul, South Korea, there was near-open mocking of Obama behind the scenes. It is not a coincidence that the number of Mr. Obama’s trips overseas has been curtailed.

The most telling comment made to me was by a business associate in London when he said, “When the world needs a firm hand and competent leadership, we are given a fool whose only interest is himself and his ideology. His level of incompetence knows no bounds, yet we all must suffer for it.”

Throughout the world today, strategies and plans are being put in place on how to survive and prosper without the United States as the major global player if America does not come to its senses, reverse course, and change leadership. Never has worldwide esteem for the United States fallen to such a low point.

As for me, I can only tell those I deal with that I still have faith in the American people — their determination, their ingenuity, and their ability to finally wake up to reality and change course. I firmly believe that they will. The response when I say those things? “We hope you are right; the world needs your country to be strong and resolute.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/the_rest_of_the_world_and_obam.html

@Cary:

Cary, assuming you are referring to the State of the Union, I agree with you that it didn’t knock my socks off. I think the speech was intentionally drier and filled with less rhetorical flourishes than other speeches by him. I expect next year’s to be more stirring, as the election season kicks in. That being said, certain parts of it, I thought, were quite effective. I loved how he positioned himself for the coming healthcare debate. He indicated a willingness to improve healthcare, but he isn’t going to go backwards. That’s just smart, because it puts the opposition in the uncomfortable role of being spoilers and obstructionists if they don’t accept the olive branch. Overall, I think he’s trying to appeal to the sane center of the country, those of us who just want to see things get done. He’s positioning himself as the grownup, the non-extremist, in what is likely to be a very contentious political year. So, yeah, not a speech to remember, but probably effective in strategic political ways.

@Blake:

I think your argument is with Webster: I didn’t define the word lie. How is intent a high bar? In your student days, did you ever get an answer wrong on a test? If so, are you a liar? Was George Bush a liar when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? if the weather man tells you it’s going to rain tomorrow and it doesn’t, did he lie to you? This isn’t very difficult to understand.

@Missy: Steve McCann, in his write-up, says that people can’t believe that so much bad has happened i such a short time, but when the Congress is one party, and the Executive is of the same party, then you can and often do, have very flawed policy, much like kids running the candy shop- not much business gets done, and everyone winds up with a stomachache.
The reason that the rest of the world is in flux is that you have more coordination between the various factions of socialists, and that everyone has, in the past, been able to follow America’s lead in business.
But this time the world was misled, as greedy people from both parties used loopholes in the law to drain the housing business of all credibility.
This was led by Democrats, but participated in by all- and now we are here.
And Obama wants to double down on SPENDING? How insane is that?

@Tom:

I loved how he positioned himself for the coming healthcare debate. He indicated a willingness to improve healthcare, but he isn’t going to go backwards. That’s just smart, because it puts the opposition in the uncomfortable role of being spoilers and obstructionists if they don’t accept the olive branch.

After he and his cohorts spent the better part of a year blocking each and every idea and proposal that was put forward by “the opposition” we’re supposed to suddenly accept an olive branch?

@Tom: No, Tom, but I fear you have missed the point, or just reinforced mine, which was that while truly only God knows for SURE, we can look at a man’s past statements and actions, and get a sense of what his “truthfulness” factor might be, and Obama’s is fairly low.

After all, for three years and two SOTU speeches, he has promised to “focus like a laser” on jobs and the economy, and while we all ffroze in our places and held our breath waiting for him to KEEP HIS WORD, he went, like some child with ADD, off on his progressive tangents that added not one new, permanent new PRIVATE SECTOR job- not ONE!
And this is someone we should believe in? After three years? How long do YOU wait for results?

@Blake:

Blake, I have no issue with your gut-level belief that President Obama is a liar, but you can’t possible expect others to buy into what you think without facts, can you? This debate was about one statement that was made that has no basis in fact. If it does, prove it, don’t tell me that because you think he’s lied before that proves everything he says is a lie.

Here’s a fun question for you: if everything Obama says is a lie, what would he mean if he said, “I am a liar”?

As to lying and Obama, Obama is a lawyer, even taught law.
He parses.
So, instead of finding out-and-out egregious lies out of his mouth we find prevarication, dissembling, hedging, leaving out a few facts and such-like things.

During his campaign mode, however, we find real lies, like “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Yeah, right.
In his first few months in office Obama signed a new cigarette tax into law.
That tax increase disproportionately hits the poor (Gallup reported last year that 34 percent of people earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers, while only 13 percent of people earning $90,000 or more were smokers), producing the exact opposite in income distribution of what Obama promised.

The new federal tax of 62 cents per pack, to $1.01.
For a couple smoking a pack a day each, that’s a tax hike of $452.60 a year.

(Glad we don’t smoke!)

And that’s just ONE lie.
One out and out lie.

The increased taxes on tobacco are an indirect tax, Nan G. The taxes Obama cited as “under his plan” were direct taxes. Two different critters. No one who doesn’t smoke pays that tax… it can be avoided by not smoking, which inherently makes it different from direct taxation. So that’s not a “lie” based on the citations he made. Congress gave themselves full taxation powers via Constitutional amendment, albeit IMHO as I pointed out to Larry when using the term “stealing, under quasi questionable Constitutional means.

INRE Obama and half truths…. he did ultimately “lie” via a half truth. Altho he did a pittance “tax cut”, and did extend the Bush tax code rates, he (via Pelosi/Reid) has levied a “direct tax” – or a *no* sales tax – via O’healthcare mandates, but decided to call the that rose a petunia instead. Flaw in their legislation, as you know, is Congress cited their Commerce power and not the General Welfare taxation power in the bill itself.

@Nan G:

The cigarette tax is not the only taxation example:

@Aye:
Thanks, Aye.
I only wanted to point out one example of how Obama lies.
Most of his lies are much more couched.
Like when he promised, if we passed the ”Stimulus,” he had tons of ”shovel-ready jobs” just waiting for the cash infusion.
He came clean to NYTimes writer, David Brooks.
Then Brooks told us…..if we read the NYTimes or watch PBS’s Newshour, that is.

Transcript:

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of President Obama, there is this big piece in your newspaper’s Sunday magazine that’s already been read by everybody, at least anybody who has got an advanced company and who is interested in politics, about President Obama.

What do you think of piece?

…MARK SHIELDS: He didn’t have to do this. What he is doing, a retrospective before the election.

I mean, we have gone from perhaps the least introspective president to the most introspective president. I mean, he sits there and talks about what it means to him and all this. For goodness’ sakes, he’s got a responsibility to his party.

How would you like to be a Democratic member of the House fighting for your life right now, getting hit over the head for having voted for the stimulus bill, and have the president say in The New York Times Sunday magazine, there’s no such thing as a shovel-ready project?

JIM LEHRER: Yes. That was — that’s the piece that’s been — that particular quote has really been drawing the flies — the fleas, has it not?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, I shouldn’t have confessed this. He said this to me off the record about a year ago. But it hasn’t…

JIM LEHRER: Off the record? So, then you can’t talk about it.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, because Peter Baker is a better than I am, because I couldn’t get him to go on the record with that thing.

(LAUGHTER)

JIM LEHRER: He said this to you a year ago?

DAVID BROOKS: It was obvious. I mean, you are trying to build a stimulus package. And when they were trying to build it, believe me, they would have loved to have filled it with infrastructure jobs. But the projects just didn’t exist. They couldn’t do it. They couldn’t find them.

See it on video here.

OOPS!

Tom #93 Shades of “The Princess Bride” Love it!

EGYPT:
Mubarak sent out the military because the police are so violent.
The protesters are embracing the military, they are joining together as one.
Alexandria is on fire …. again.
Mubarak’s political party offices are on fire.
The curfew is being ignored.

@Aye:

Truthfully, I think Obama went too far in his efforts to accommodate Republicans and have a bipartisan bill. In my view, there weren’t any signs that any Republican would ever vote for healthcare, so the whole exercise seemed pointless and ended up only hurting Obama politically as it dragged the entire process out to the end. I likewise don’t expect a sincere effort on the part of Republican’s to tinker with the current state of healthcare, as repeal is their stated goal. That’s why I think it was a good move by Obama to put it out there and let the public decide for themselves whether or not Republicans are accepting the offer.

Rather a tunnel vision view, Tom. The GOP is well aware that the medicare spending is unsustainable. There is too little in the current law to redeem, and nothing about it addresses the real problem… the out of control costs of administering medical care to patients. That’s the reason the mantra is to “repeal and replace”, but the blind O’faithful just like to leave off the “replace” bit.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid did nothing to “accommodate” Republicans. Televising a summit for political purposes of ridicule is not “accommodation”. They rejected hundreds of amendments, and refused to let alternative GOP bill out of committees to the floor. You’re dreaming.

@Tom:

Truthfully, I think Obama went too far in his efforts to accommodate Republicans and have a bipartisan bill.

Really?

What, pray tell, did Obie do to accommodate Republicans and their ideas? Yes, he held some meetings and discussions…then dismissed each and every idea that was presented by the other side.

I likewise don’t expect a sincere effort on the part of Republican’s to tinker with the current state of healthcare, as repeal is their stated goal.

No, “repeal and replace” is their stated goal.

That’s why I think it was a good move by Obama to put it out there and let the public decide for themselves whether or not Republicans are accepting the offer.

Therein lies the rub.

There is no genuine “offer” there. After they spent the better part of a year fending of each and every suggestion, contribution, and amendment presented by the Republicans and cramming the bill down the throats of the American People suddenly they want to re-negotiate?

The American People are not that stupid.

Mata, Tom isn’t dreaming. He’s high on the kool-aid. How else do you explain someone who thinks obama went too far in trying to accomodate Republicans?

Mata, Tom isn’t dreaming. He’s high on the kool-aid. How else do you explain someone who thinks obama went too far in trying to accomodate Republicans?

Here we have a perfect example of the kind of pointless responses that add nothing to the discussion and only help to bog it down. Unfortunately, this is far too close to what I’ve come to expect every time I post.

@Mata and Aye,

I’m pretty narrowly responding to my impression of the SOTU speech, not really trying to re-litigate the entire healthcare debate. I think he put the healthcare bit in there for the exact purpose I described above. Furthermore, by proposing the concrete idea of malpractice reform – something that traditionally appeals to Republicans- he’s put the ball right back in their court. It will be interesting to see how they respond. I agree that Obama probably doesn’t really want to let the Republicans remake his entire healthcare policy. Why would he? What president wants to let the opposition set the agenda? But he, and the Republicans, both know that the public wants to see cooperation. If Obama can get what he wants by giving up a little, why wouldn’t he? He will get most of the credit for anything getting done. The Republicans are in a much trickier situation. How do they appear to be non-obstructionist while not giving Obama what he wants? They don’t have the votes to repeal healthcare, so what do they do? It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I think Obama played that particular hand quite well.

That from the guy calling Aye a liar, and taking up most of a thread to do so. You should have looked up the definition of hypocrite too.

Now you want to claim obama accomodated the Reps in his speech? Kool-aid poisoning for sure.

@Tom: First, Tom- Obie believes that most Americans are stupid cattle that need to be led- AND he is contemptuous enough of the majority of Americans as to actually tell us, albeit with “code talk”, exactly what he is doing- transform America indeed.
Even in the SOTU he believes that the power of his voice will overcome all opposition- and what the Republicans need to do is explain to the public (they have done a dismal job of it so far) in clear AND concise terms, exactly how badly our health plan will suck under the Obiecare plan.
Then they need to lay out their plan for what they think needs to be done- clearly.
There IS a lot that could be done with little or no money, and that IS exactly what the American People have to spare- little or nothing.
When you can’t pay for something, you shouldn’t get it- and contrary to Andy Griffith, you do not get “FREE” checkups, or anything else- someone ALWAYS pays.