The President has read a very well written campaign speech again, courtesy of his top aides, teleprompter L and teleprompter R. As he eloquently read the words (rehashed from his last two addresses) to congress by his finest speech writers, I get the feeling that nobody has taken the happy rose colored glasses off of his blinded eyes. While the President claims to "know the difficult times of the American people", I can't help but wonder if he knows of our pain while he is body surfing in Hawaii. Or playing 18 holes in Virgina. Does he know what it is like to look for jobs that just aren't out there as he holds his White House cocktail parties? Does he anguish over how to pay the bills as he takes Michelle out for a night on the town, compliments of the American taxpayer? As he addressed congress for the third time, does he really see the anger over his and their wasting tax dollars on no bid government contracts given to Democratic party donors behind closed doors? Does he realize that most of us would be happier to have a job that provides private health coverage, over being unemployed with a government plan...that we are required by law to pay into...even when the money isn't coming in? Does he see the irony in his taxing people that earn over 250k to cover his social programs, while in the same speech, trying to motivate those same people to create more jobs?
As for President Obama's plea for bipartisanship, he should probably ask a non-partisan person what that means. He seems to think it means everyone should follow his misguided path in lockstep. We have yet to see any evidence to show why Republicans agreeing with any of his destructive plans would be better than just saying 'no' and being obstructive. Millions of Americans across the country have risen up to protest in support of putting the breaks on President Obama's programs.
This State of the Union was supposed to be about JOBS. But the jobs won't materialize unless an environment is created free of the fear of massive taxes, government control and government mandates. Jobs won't be created unless consumer spending increases. Again, that won't happen in an environment of fear. The fear of losing ones job, having ones pay cut, or having ones taxes increased to pay for a health care system that mandates fines and fees, created in closed door session and presented in thousands of pages of government lingo and red tape and that few Americans want.
The State of the Union is a state of polarized fear. And while FDR may have claimed that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself", he didn't know the fear of a nation struggling to keep their heads afloat while an incompetent political party in power puts their personal agendas above doing whats best for the country.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
It's the Arrogance Stupid!
As the White House and the Democratic party leaders are spinning their heads trying to make up excuses and find someone to blame for Martha Coakley losing the Senate seat thought to be owned by the Kennedy family, I can give them a one word answer; Arrogance.
First off we have the arrogance of the late Ted Kennedy, who, rather than resign to retire when he found out he had a terminal illness, seemed to believe he was some sort of pope. Had Ted stepped down he would probably have had the ability to choose his own successor. At the time of his announcing he had cancer the Massachusetts electorate was much less volatile. His ensconced choice would have easily been elected. Probably long before Ted expired.
Next, we have the arrogance of Martha Coakley. She felt so confident that the seat was solidly in Democrat hands that she didn't need to campaign. Even as Scott Brown stood outside of factories shaking hands and talking to the people of his state, Martha waited until her 30 point lead evaporated into nothing to hit the pavement. Even now she points the finger at Washington.
And then there is the arrogance of President Obama. Still believing he's been anointed to reinvent government with failed socialist policies, he still can't seem to get the message that three consecutive losses ARE a referendum on his direction. He and his mouthpieces are trying to claim a still angry electorate left over from the 2008 vote. They still don't get the Tea Parties do they?
Of course there is the queen of arrogance, Nancy Pelosi, who plans go ahead with her behind-closed-doors meetings before ramming any kind of expensive health care overhaul package through congress. Nancy is very good at getting others in her party to lay down in front of the Obama bus while she is safe on her San Francisco curb. I wonder how many Dems will be tossed out before they realize their first mistake was making her Speaker. Perhaps her having to handle the gavel to Mr. Boehner will be the sign they need.
First off we have the arrogance of the late Ted Kennedy, who, rather than resign to retire when he found out he had a terminal illness, seemed to believe he was some sort of pope. Had Ted stepped down he would probably have had the ability to choose his own successor. At the time of his announcing he had cancer the Massachusetts electorate was much less volatile. His ensconced choice would have easily been elected. Probably long before Ted expired.
Next, we have the arrogance of Martha Coakley. She felt so confident that the seat was solidly in Democrat hands that she didn't need to campaign. Even as Scott Brown stood outside of factories shaking hands and talking to the people of his state, Martha waited until her 30 point lead evaporated into nothing to hit the pavement. Even now she points the finger at Washington.
And then there is the arrogance of President Obama. Still believing he's been anointed to reinvent government with failed socialist policies, he still can't seem to get the message that three consecutive losses ARE a referendum on his direction. He and his mouthpieces are trying to claim a still angry electorate left over from the 2008 vote. They still don't get the Tea Parties do they?
Of course there is the queen of arrogance, Nancy Pelosi, who plans go ahead with her behind-closed-doors meetings before ramming any kind of expensive health care overhaul package through congress. Nancy is very good at getting others in her party to lay down in front of the Obama bus while she is safe on her San Francisco curb. I wonder how many Dems will be tossed out before they realize their first mistake was making her Speaker. Perhaps her having to handle the gavel to Mr. Boehner will be the sign they need.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Trouble With Harry
Harry Reid's comments about President Obama during the 2008 campaign as told in the book "Game Change" are no surprise to me. As a Detroiter I see the Reid attitude all the time from the Democrats in our state toward their fellow party members. It's the attitude that 'We'll overlook the fact that this person has no experience or qualifications because they are clean and speak well.' You remember that adjective "clean" don't you? It's why Joe Biden felt Obama was qualified to be president.
What baffles me about the Reid argument is that the Democrats are spinning it to make it look like critics are being too politically correct. They wrote the book on PC and now they are trying to play the other side of the coin. If what Harry said is not a problem then I suggest everyone try this experiment: Compliment an African American by telling them you are impressed with how they can "turn on their negro dialect when they need to". I am sure their reaction will be very telling. Of course, if your a Republican they will probably call you a racist.
As the members of the black congressional caucus put on their best Uncle Tom smiles and proudly defend Massa Harry, we get a realistic look at how the Democrat party works. The party leadership, who propped up a first term senator (who had not done anything but run for office) as a presidential candidate because he was "light skinned", "clean" and could "turn on the negro dialect when he needed to" is now calling in their favor. It's the "You owe us" moment.
I am sure when Harry called President Obama it wasn't to apologize. It was to remind Obama of how much he owed Harry. After all, "A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee". (Bill Clinton's words.) The problem with Harry is that he is a party leader who was just saying what the rest of the white members of his party were thinking. But he wasn't smart enough to keep his mouth shut.
What baffles me about the Reid argument is that the Democrats are spinning it to make it look like critics are being too politically correct. They wrote the book on PC and now they are trying to play the other side of the coin. If what Harry said is not a problem then I suggest everyone try this experiment: Compliment an African American by telling them you are impressed with how they can "turn on their negro dialect when they need to". I am sure their reaction will be very telling. Of course, if your a Republican they will probably call you a racist.
As the members of the black congressional caucus put on their best Uncle Tom smiles and proudly defend Massa Harry, we get a realistic look at how the Democrat party works. The party leadership, who propped up a first term senator (who had not done anything but run for office) as a presidential candidate because he was "light skinned", "clean" and could "turn on the negro dialect when he needed to" is now calling in their favor. It's the "You owe us" moment.
I am sure when Harry called President Obama it wasn't to apologize. It was to remind Obama of how much he owed Harry. After all, "A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee". (Bill Clinton's words.) The problem with Harry is that he is a party leader who was just saying what the rest of the white members of his party were thinking. But he wasn't smart enough to keep his mouth shut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)