Richard Fernandez:
Jaime Fuller of the Washington Post [1] explains why none of the major broadcast networks are covering the speech where president Obama is scheduled to announce amnesty for up to 5 million illegals. ”ABC, NBC, Fox and CBS knew that their customers would not be happy if the President ate into time reserved for some of the most popular shows on television, including “The Big Bang Theory” and “Bones.” (Editor’s Note: If I wasn’t watching Obama’s speech, I’d be watching “The This Old House Hour.”)”
It would be possible to respond symmetrically; to respond to lawbreaking in kind. But to do that would rip the whole fabric of law to pieces. Short of that, the most effective response to Obama’s to what some commentators have characterized as an act of lawlessness is to snub it deliberately. The non-coverage by the networks, though perhaps accidental, is a start. It’s almost as if some people had independently come to the conclusion attributed to Eamon de Valera. Pondering the problem of Irish independence he says (in the movie Michael Collins at least) that “we must act as if the Republic is a fact. We defeat the British Empire by ignoring it”.
Bob Corker of Tennessee [2] argues that Obama desperately wants to be noticed.
“This president is not acting in strength, he is acting in weakness. Unless lightning strikes, it will be the worst presidency in modern history.
“There has to be a response, no question. But it has to be a response that enables us to continue to move our nation ahead, remembering that this president will be gone in two years. He’s incredibly weak, and candidly, he is doing these things because he doesn’t have the ability to lead and is not willing to put the effort out to do the work to actually cause things to pass in Congress.”
The danger to being content with this conclusion is passivity. What the Valera ‘quote’ failed to emphasize, is that in order to “ignore” someone effectively you do so obviously. Ignoring someone has no effect unless you do it insultingly. The act of overtly and publicly ignoring a person is called ‘scorn’.
Scorn works best when the person to be ignored provides an object of scorn. That way there is something to overtly ignore. One of the most famous historical examples of a scorn-objecct wasGessler’s Hat [3].
Well if Obama doesn’t have to follow the law of the land why should anyone else?
Come to think of it, that little 67 senate votes to convict on impeachment is just too inconvenient and keeps us from getting the job done. Let’s make it a simple majority like Harry Reid did with Obama’s appointments. After all if it’s a “living document” and only a suggestion like the Democrats want it to be.
People already had been ignoring Obama.
He and Michelle had faced many empty chairs during their most recent public performances.
Obama faced the indignity of people walking out on him, too.
There is a move afoot to prevent Obama giving a SOTU speech in the Congress this January.
But all these acts of turning our backs to Obama have simply made him madder.
Remember Obama has a frail ego.
He needs constant ”Yes men” telling him he’s great around him to buck him up.
He can’t abide a real debate or disagreement.
His ”czars” are Yes Men and his Cabinet members keep quiet of meet rarely with him.
Because of this he is on track to be our worst president ever.
Both domestically and in foreign policy he is showing his personality cracks.
I wonder if he could be accessed by a mental health doctor and, at least, temporarily removed from office?
@Nanny:
I don’t think a suggested “boycott” of the SOTU speech will work, as Democrats will only stack the empty seats with Obama supporters and turn it into a propaganda event. We could fantasize about letting Obama appear, only to be arrested by the Sargent of Arms, but it would probably be best just not to allow the tyrant in the door. If the weak-kneed RINO’s fold (which they will,) and let him in, I think that every Republican should simply stand and turn their backs on Obama for the entirety of his speech and continually “boo” him.