🚀 go-pugleaf

The president has only a few opportunities to speak to the 
nation, and he blew this one.

If the State of the Union address Tuesday night is any 
indication, it appears President Obama's chief speechwriter has 
been replaced by a clich�-generator circa 1960. His erstwhile 
oratory was a melee of cringe-inducing lines ripped straight 
from a sit-in.

The commander in chief waxed about children being important for 
our future and how we should be a country where "if you work 
hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead." Which 
we are for the most part, anyway. Also, isn't there a rule about 
how many times you can use the same line in a speech? Doesn't 
basic etiquette and decency prevent us from ever hearing this 
again: "A tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered 
accountants can't pay a lower rate than their hard-working 
secretaries." Yes, we know: Warren Buffett is your friend and 
his secretary pays a higher tax rate that he does. Is this 
really the only way to demonstrate the tax code needs to be 
reformed?

The president has only a few opportunities to speak to the 
nation, and he blew this one. It was so hackish, so devoid of 
any theme or purpose, that it makes one wonder whether part of 
Obama just wants to see how bad he can be before his cultists in 
the news media can see it. Every speech is exactly what they 
wish it to be, regardless of reality. His mainstream inaugural 
speech was treated as a liberal call to arms when it was no such 
thing. Of course, conservatives thought that. If Obama had 
announced he just joined the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh would have 
seen it as proof that he was a socialist. But why liberals would 
confuse a boilerplate middle-of-the-road inaugural speech with 
Das Kapital will be forever befuddling.

Contrary to the claims of both sides, Obama is not a liberal 
visionary with deep desires to institute a progressive agenda. 
If he is, he's a miserable failure. You need look no further 
than his own record (starting with foreign policy) and then 
Tuesday night's speech for evidence. Banalities and tropes are 
not a governing philosophy or a plan. The immigration piece was 
good, but hardly a profile in courage. After all, even the GOP 
wants immigration reform now. There is also the small fact that 
Obama promised to deal with immigration in his first term.

The edict on climate change was despotic, not liberal. I believe 
climate change is a problem and humans contribute to it. 
However, 'either do what I say or I will just start issuing 
executive orders' that make green energy companies rich is not 
the kind of governing we should be lauding, regardless of party 
or ideological bent.

His plea on gun control was manipulative and empty. It worked 
thematically, but failed on substance. The only point was to 
make Republicans look bad, while simultaneously lecturing about 
compromise and the importance of working together.

Finally, he said the word "deficit," but don't hold your breath 
for anything there. He spoke of it as if it had just magically 
appeared yesterday when, in fact, he has been ignoring it for 
four years while running it up. In that way, he's just like 
George W. Bush and the GOP-run Congress of yore.

That this underwhelming State of the Union � substantively and 
stylistically � will be treated as a serious effort reveals the 
bad shape our country is really in.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/13/kirsten-powers-
state-of-the-union/1914215/

--
Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed 
liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the 
outlaw Obama administration?

No.  Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in 
the back while you are defending yourself, then return a 
controlled rate of aimed fire.  ��

��