The Speech

As usual, Obama's rhetoric is so disjointed and all over the map it allows him to say everything to everyone depending upon what they want to hear. But the collectivist reality of Obama is there if you want to parse it out.

Having read Obama's speech, it seems to me that if you are at all Right-leaning, you must be crazy if you want this guy to "succeed." That doesn't mean trying to destroy him personally, or wanting him to fail at protecting America but this rhetoric should be a red flag, if anything. It isn't a good America Obama is tuned into. He fails to appreciate the good will and tremendous industry of the American people when left to their own affairs as much as possible.

Let's cut right to the Carter, shall we:

Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

And what is Obama's solution for this? Not to ask Americans to ask themselves what they can do for the country, but to ask them to want what government can do for them.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

This is contrary to everything the Founding Fathers stood for. They understood the need for limited government and feared its growth and power more than anything else. Obama has no such concerns. Just as we have seen when he's gotten testy with hard questions and questioners, what Obama fears most is substantive public dissent.

I hope for America's sake there's more than enough of it to keep him occupied and away from implementing his nanny state agenda. We certainly can't look for the media to provide it.

Comments

[jharp]

"This is contrary to everything the Founding Fathers stood for."

So our founders were in favor of dis functional and incompetent leaders?

I don't think so.

And keep in mid our founders also stood for slavery and denying women the right to vote.

[Fred Beloit]

I came here armed with this in my electronic pocket from MSNBC (feh):

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

It is the same sentence that interested you, Dan. The question is NOT whether the government works, but what it works on. And what it works on and what it should be working on is what political argument in America is about. Obama seems to think the government is a combination employment agency, price-setting agency, and kind of Calpers combined. Personally, I disagree.

"And keep in mid our founders also stood for slavery and denying women the right to vote.
Some people think all the founders were slave holders and misogynists. These people are ignorant of history, and people who are ignorant of history should restrain themselves from making pronouncements about history.

[SacTownMan]

Oh quit being cynical and "put some skin in the game" will ya!

Reading this speech makes my skin crawl. It's almost akin to the "Communist Manifesto"

All fluff and symbolism aside, this guy wants to take the country down the socialist "do gooder" path.

I don't know what's bigger, his ego or the spending spree he thinks he's entitled too!

[Anon]

Good speech, says nothing. I give him a lot of props for resisting the urge to mention MLK and racism in a larger way. Distilled down though, it is basically spend, spend, spend, not only the U.S. but the rest of the West I guess has to spend, spend, spend to help the rest of the world.

[Jake]

Good speech, not supposed to say much. He also mentioned getting rid of government that didn't work. I'll save my cynicism for later.

[Lala]

Jive talk from a President

[IslamoLlama]

Breaking! Breaking! Justice Roberts Flubs Oath of Office. *Insert Drudge Siren Here*

"-- But when Roberts swore in Obama, he flipped some of the words, saying: "I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully." --"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/01/the-inuagural-o.html

Is Justice Roberts fit to be Chief Justice? Was Justice Robert's misreading of the Constitution a casual slip or the first motion in an activist judge's power grab? Should we investigate now or go straight to impeachment proceedings?

[North Dallas Thirty]

Notice, again, how Obama says nothing about actual performance.

According to Barack Obama, no matter how uneducated, lazy, and self-destructive you choose to be, you should have a job that pays the same, healthcare that costs the same, and equal retirement amounts as someone who educates themselves, works hard, and takes care of their health.

Barack Obama's social theories have been discredited in the Soviet Union, Cuba, and in every public housing project around the nation -- and yet he still pushes them. Astonishing.

[Jake]

"you should have a job that pays the same, healthcare that costs the same, and equal retirement amounts as someone who educates themselves, works hard, and takes care of their health."

He did not indicate people would be equalized by the great hand of government. It was all about taking risks and taking responsibility...... hardly a call to line up for a handout.

[mark l.]

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."

(Thomas Jefferson)

The founding fathers sought to set men free as possible from govt, in contrast to Obama's words:

"that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."

thomas jefferson.

[Anon]

I guess that is why Obama doesn't bother invoking Thomas Jefferson but sticks with Abe Lincoln, he who first overturned habeus corpus and did numerous other things clearly unconstitutional and not in line w/the founding fathers view of government.

Obama thinks he has a mandate for big government, and he probably does, the fact that bigger government is the one thing that will guarantee long term ruin of the country is beside the point, the fact that government expansion almost universally results in private sector compression, beside the point, history of failure for top down governments, also beside the point. All that matters to America right now is that he sounds good and he's telling them what they want to hear: he can fix everything, no worries, yes we can, all I need is a couple a trillion dollars and its all good. This country deserves Obama just as we deserved George W. Bush. We don't elect credible people to the presidency anymore because we, as a country, are too stupid, too lazy and too selfish.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"It was all about taking risks and taking responsibility...... hardly a call to line up for a handout."

LOL...except you don't have to do either, because Barack Obama's government will guarantee you a job, free healthcare, and retirement, no matter what you do. He said so.

Oh, and Obama's minister just said white people are always wrong. Chew on that.

[mark l.]

"I guess that is why Obama doesn't bother invoking Thomas Jefferson but sticks with Abe Lincoln"

I'm surprised Bush never used FDR quotes regarding the need to take every means necessary to protect the 'homeland'.

I'll bet FDR had some real good quotes in explaining 100k Japanese American being placed in internment centers, the surprise of Pearl Harbor, and the justification of fire bombing civilians in Dresden and Japan. I guess in some ways, Bush does pale in comparison to FDR.

[Anon]

You crack me up. You know what they say, history is written by the winners. FDR was nothing if not a genius at PR! I'm surprised you forgot to include his threat to expand the size of the supreme court if they ruled any of his unconstitutional government programs as unconstitutional. Truth be told, FDR makes Dick Cheney look like a sissy. LOL. I do think he was a great president though, and I kind of doubt that FDR himself would have approved to what his New Deal has morphed into...

[jharp]

"sticks with Abe Lincoln, he who first overturned habeus corpus and did numerous other things clearly unconstitutional"

Anon, are you joking or are you really that ignorant.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. He didn't overturn it.

And he followed the law. We were in the middle of the Civil War.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- LOL...except you don't have to do either, because Barack Obama's government will guarantee you a job, free healthcare, and retirement, no matter what you do. He said so. --"

Quote please.

[Anon]

Word games. What Lincoln did was unconstitutional...overturned or suspended, it amounts to the same thing...he did many things that were unconstitutional.

So, if you want to say that what Lincoln did that was unconstitutional was 'okay' because he was fighting a war then you have to give the same leeway to George Bush and all the unconstitutional things he did. Either you support the constitution or you don't.

[Jack Tanner]

The only thing more cliched, banal and meaningless than Obama's speech is his sycophants reaction to it.

[jharp]

"What Lincoln did was unconstitutional...overturned or suspended"

No. That is exactly my point. Lincoln followed the law.

[mark l.]

"I do think he was a great president though, and I kind of doubt that FDR himself would have approved to what his New Deal has morphed into..."

"morphed" is a beautiful way of looking at his legacy.

I like the guy I learned about in history class, thought he was great, but the dems have created their own 'sanitized version' of fdr, that detracts from what he accomplished.

The dems have made a career and a party on a guy whose actions and decisions are diometrically opposed to what they now, in many cases, believe. The complete ignorance that they display towards their role model is tragic.

[Anon]

No, he didn't, he did exactly what Bush did, which was decide that he could interpret the law in any way he wanted.

Suspending habeus corpus and arresting and imprisoning people for speaking out against his policies and having them imprisoned by the military is in violation of the constition and everything it stands for.

So, if you are going to say that Lincoln acted within the law then you have to say the same about Bush. Me, I prefer consistency to ideology and so I say they both acted in an unconstitional and illegal manner.

[Anon]

The dems have made a career and a party on a guy whose actions and decisions are diometrically opposed to what they now, in many cases, believe. The complete ignorance that they display towards their role model is tragic
______________________________________________________

That's true, but the whole country is pretty ignorant of our past in anything other than the sweeping generalities we get from Hollywood. Lincoln freed the slaves. Well, yeah, he did, but he only wanted to give 'intelligent' blacks and union army veterans the right to vote, but nobody teaches that in history class. So, FDR won WWII and ended the Great Depression with the New Deal. Dresden, concentration camps and unconstitutional maneuvering are left out, so is caving into Stalin on everything you can think of. The whole picture of both men and their times should increase understanding of the complexity of life and government, only the very ends of the spectrum are black and white, almost everything is some shade or other of gray. But, instead of subtlety, we instead have whitewashing. I would still think FDR was great even if I knew for a fact that he knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and let it happen, which I personally believe to be true, but there isn't any real evidence. That doesn't mean I have to agree w/Dresden or Japanese concentration camps.

But America today doesn't appreciate or even recognize shades of gray. We want it all black/white good/evil right/wrong...the only hope I have for Obama is that he does appreciate shades of gray, but I don't know if that is because it helps him as a politician be all things to all people or if he is going to govern in a more nuanced fashion that Bush did.

[Sean Silberescher]

"And what is Obama's solution for this? Not to ask Americans to ask themselves what they can do for the country, but to ask them to want what government can do for them."

This is terrible. When will liberals learn that in a democracy, the government is supposed to control the people, and not the other way around?

[North Dallas Thirty]

Quote please.

Right here, leftist.

"whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

Nowhere in there does it mention personal responsibility or achievement. It's all about government dependency.