STATE OF THE UNION PART 2
I am not even sure where to start. Part 1 encompassed most of the meat of the SOTU address and the speech itself has been analyzed to death. In the days leading up to the address there was speculation about whether or not he would do a Clintonian move to center or dig in his heels. I think all media agrees he did not move center even though he is being given credit for extending what appears on the surface to be a few olive branches. So I would like to look instead at the heavy handed politics and misleading rhetoric that appears to be an olive branch.
Playing politics & Campaigning. Obama said he they were there to work and not run for re-election. Then he went back into campaign mode. When he was running for President I always felt the overall sense of distrust and disbelief in what he said but there was not a lot of concrete policies or stands he made to which I disagreed. Now that we know what to expect and to watch for it is easier to see the same political rhetoric with ambiguous wording, undetailed plans and misleading information. Here is the wording and the actual meaning of some of his campaign rhetoric:
– He ran on a campaign of “change” even using the words “radical transformation”. People were not happy after the last President so change sounded good. Most interpreted it as change from the Bush administration. Lets see, three of the most unpopular things Bush did: 1) the War – Obama just sent more troops. 2) the deficit – Obama has increased the deficit more than Bush did in any one year in his first year of office 3) the stimulus – it was proposed under Bush but Obama VOTED for it in Congress and passed it when he became President… and now is pushing for another one. No the change he meant was a “radical transformation” where he would challenge the powers of Congress and the Supreme Court, force through his issues an will, install revolutionary people in policymaking levels of government, expand government powers exponentially and seek to change the constitution and fundamental beliefs on which this country was founded. When he said “Change” and “radical transformation” no one understood the full extend of his statements.
– He ran on a platform he was going to be different from the Washington bureaucrats and transparency would prevail. Most took this to mean that he was as frustrated as the American people about things getting hung up and red tape. That there would be no more closed door deals. No one imagined his real intent was to usurp power from the other two branches to force his agenda.
– He ran on a campaign to reduce taxes. Of course no one believed this. He will claim success because he used stimulus to offer some credits and last year he reduced the amount taken out of paychecks weekly – but this was not a tax credit… this was a tax deferral. Those taxes will be due this year when you file. You will owe more or get les back.
This is the type of rhetoric he used then. How does this compare to now? Here is some of his rhetoric and my interpretation.
– he blames the Bush Administration for the debt. He has proposed a budget this year that will get us further in debt, not even flat. That doesn’t include the next stimulus he is proposing. What is the real meaning? This means that he is ignoring any debt when he entered office and any debt associated with things in the works when he entered office – even if he increased them and he will be counting his deficit only on his new policies justifying the healthcare cost (even though it is supposed to be neutral).
– he blames the Republics for playing politics and challenges them not to hold up the process. The republicans can not hold up the process. Until Scott Brown is seated they hold super-majorities in Congress. It is intra-party bickering causing the delays. If it were any different, why would they be buying democratic senators with the Louisiana Purchase, etc to get healthcare passed? It is the Progressive Democrats verses the Blue Dog Democrats but that is not what you hear. What is the real meaning – this is the scapegoat for anything he doesn’t get through and fails on his promises.
– He says he is listening to the American People and jobs is his #1 focus. He even demanded a jobs bill and mentioned the jobs bill that has passed the house. Never mind that the House jobs bill is filled with so many earmarks and BS it will not help. And he will pass another stimulus even though many other proposals would have created many more jobs than stimulus 1. He even promotes a high speed train, which won’t begin to have jobs outside of engineers and government planners for 5 years. The true meaning – he plans to force through some form of Cap & Trade under the guise of green jobs. Have us pay restitution increasing our debt while increasing the cost of electricity and any product that will need upgrades at rates the American people cannot afford – requiring more government programs. And this is an increase in government regulation, government control and government jobs.
– He says we are going to increase our exports 50%. Since it costs us more to make most items in both labor and materials I have no idea how we are going to accomplish this. But this must be something associated with “Workers of the World Unit” and Unions. Watch Andy Stern.
– He is instituting a government budget freeze – forget the fact that the freeze is in areas of government that have seen huge increases in the past year and the proposed freeze will save less than 1% over 10 years. What is the real meaning? This is another slight of hand trick to appear accommodating and achieving some of the items the American Public is demanding.
– Earmark reform. He has more earmarks in his legislation and can because the democrats have a super majority so they can pass anything without Republican opposition. The real meaning? He isn’t trying to tie democratic hands, he is worried now that the new republican senator from Massachusetts can hold things up and the republicans will now have an ability to stop legislation or tack on earmarks to a bill the democrats want passed.
– Lobbyist transparency. This is more slight of hand. He has more than 30 former lobbyists in his cabinets and close influential positions. This legislation will apply to current lobbyists only. I am sure that two old colleagues going to dinner is not a business meeting and will never be listed on the website. This is a slight of hand for transparency. The real meaning. Weaken the opposition and limit their ability to put out a contradicting message and/or to minimize the legitimacy or affect of the message.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. See how it plays out? Think back to wording he carefully selected and used over and over during the election and the first 12 months. Can you see the underlying meanings. Everything he said was well planned and the words were carefully chosen . Pay attention!
Heavy Handed Politics: If there was ever any doubt Obama was wrapped up in the corrupt political machine in Chicago or used there tactics that should be laid to rest. Unfortunately, he is very much a part of it. Not just bringing some of the more corrupt politicians with him but in the heavy handed approach he took. In his speech he did the following:
– He said that the citizens would want the healthcare bill if he explained it better, as if we were too stupid the first time. No Mr President. I understand your proposal and DISAGREE. Telling me another 5 or 10 times will not change my opinion
– He offended and challenged the Supreme Court asking Congress to send him a bill to sign to overrule their decision
– He challenged the republican congressmen and congresswomen as if their vote has made any difference since the democrats have had a super majority.
– He challenged his own party to get done what he wanted at any cost
– He stated he would overrule Congress. He actually stated “ the Senate blocked a bill so I issued an executive order”. This is separate from him wanting Cap & Trade passed but has already had the EPA rule carbon-dioxide an emission falling under their jurisdiction which means he doesn’t have to pass anything in Congress for the EPA to change standards and regulation to effect the changes he wants.
– And he accused the “pundants” of skewing the facts for good sound bytes. Isn’t he one of our most “sound byte” presidents in recent history making more speeches than any prior president with quip lines and jabs? Is this the proverbial pot calling the kettle black?
Overall, does this sound like a president who is attempting to work with Congress and the Supreme Court for the people or is running roughshod over them? This is heavy handed force politics typical of old days political machines and Union Bosses. With his radical ideas, radical people he places in as his czars and the domination he has in Congress we need to brace ourselves and watch out – he promised transformation and change – its coming!No tags for this post.