First, he is an effective speaker – his delivery is fine, even though he was noticeably more subdued than in past speeches or on the campaign trail. It is the content, however, that gives me pause. We were hoping for a move to the right, not a mere head fake. Such a move would have been understandable and appropriate for a politician who was not so narcissistic that he cannot see the obvious. Instead, we got a less-than-impassioned defense of failed policy.
Defiant He tried to offer a defiant tone, but his defiance was only of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the will of the people. The Supreme Court’s recent decision was a strong defense of the First Amendment, which no fair-minded constitutional scholar could fault. Every election of substance since his inauguration has been a clear statement of opposition to his big government, big spending, leftist policies. Does he not see that the people overwhelmingly disapprove of his primary goals of healthcare “reform” and cap-and-trade initiatives? Is it not clear to everyone that these major moves toward a socialized command economy are anathema to all but those who would trade liberty for security?
Resolute His “we don’t quit – I don’t quit” line was more recalcitrant, truculent, and naïve than it was resolute. This kind of willful ignorance in the face of the obvious would be laughable if he weren’t holding the job he holds. It is strangely incongruent to use America’s history of resolution in the face of great threats as a basis for policy initiatives designed to destroy that fiber, and leave us all dependent social democrats hoping for favors from the government.
Mea Culpa Even here, where he has obviously screwed up, losing key elections and watching key initiatives die a slow death while he fails to show real leadership, he can’t bring himself to admit that he failed. He offers instead that “he failed to explain it well enough.” That is no admission, and it doesn’t fly anyway. Does he think voters don’t know what his cobbled-together policy will do to this country? His alibi is much like the guy who robbed the grocery store saying, upon his conviction, that he did nothing wrong – he simply didn’t explain to the jury well enough why he needed that money more than the store owner.
Populist Whenever a politician is losing ground, there is always the populist approach. This elitist Ivy Leaguer vainly attempted a Trumanesque approach, against Wall Street and in defense of the middle class. As to the former, he has surrounded himself with former Goldman Sachs and Wall Street executives who have protected these greed-mongers from the effects of their own failures, at the expense of taxpayers. By giving huge bailouts to political cronies on Wall Street, he has saddled future generations with the cost of their gambles and patent disregard of risk. And his keystone agenda items promise to saddle the middle class with more taxes, more costs, fewer jobs, and a failed healthcare system – hardly a defense of middle class security or prosperity.
Patriotic It is this affront, when Presidents throw out their obligatory statements about the strength, decency and courage of this country and its people, that most offends me. As a soldier, I was prepared to fight and even die to defend those great principles upon which this country was founded and thrived. But there is no copyright on the use of patriotic phrases, so politicians who would intentionally destroy all we have built not only trot them out, but are actually “offended” if their patriotism is questioned. Does he not know that we did not succeed by punishing the producers, nor by failing to protect our vital national security interests both here and overseas? Does he not understand that we rose to world prominence by renouncing the repeated attempts of elitists to socialize every aspect of our economy and social policy? He says he wants to “carry the dream forward”, but I would ask – just what dream is he talking about? That America will take its place as yet another weak or failed social democracy? He says he will “never accept second place for America”, so I ask – is third place better? Fourth? We have lost freedoms sufficiently in this country under his watch that we now rank below the top ten countries in liberty and freedom – what is it that he thinks we should accept – a failed state, soaked with debt and defaulting, in order to pay for his dreams of wealth distribution and government largesse? Having defended the principles of individual liberty, a market economy, and small government most of my life, I am both afraid of and offended by “patriots” who would give all that away for their own grandiose visions of statism. His is not the America I defended, and it is not the America I want.
Side note: Southern Girl apologizes for neglecting Bless Our Hearts. It is not intentional. Life has snuck up on the both of us--and we had to choose our priorities. Unfortunately, Bless Our Hearts fell to the bottom of the list. We both hope to improve our presence in 2010.