1. By now we have heard the full range of opinions on the Obama second state of the union speech ranging from the loony left claims that we have a god, we have a father, he was so good we forgot he was black, etc. to the critiques which labelled it narcissistic, disjointed and condescending toward the American People. I would like to offer a third perspective. I think the speech succeed in its objective which was to reinforce the base and to bring back the independents, some of whom are now saying we need to give him more time. At the same time it gave those of us who are determined to defeat him a more effective way forward than pretending this is some kind of Oxford debate only to find out later that we were dealing with a dangerous thug who never read Roberts rules of parliamentary procedure.

2. Let me give you my theory now in a nutshell. Obama is not a democratic leader. He is a dictator. His speech was i) a direct repudiation of the electorate, ii) a statement of intent to implement it over their objections and, iii) the opening salvo in a bid to manipulate the emotions of the electorate. Thus, he governs by celebrity status plus smoke and mirrors.

3. Here is the governing formula that I see with Obama:

step 1: determine the emotional hot buttons of independent voters are

step 2: formulate big government solution proposals to the underlying problems–to win their support

step 4: introduce these programs with the full support of sycophantic big media–cheering and rave reviews

step 5: when these solutions fail, blame others, and swear you will never give up–more media cheers

step 6: have big media portray you in a Kennedy-esq language and Newsweek photos–headlines it is a tough job

4. Can a strategy such as this succeed when it fails to produce results, only excuses? The answer is yes. Why? Because we live in an age dominated by celebrity, which is governed by perception rather than reality, and does not want to face difficult decisions. If their own lives are okay most people do not think that far ahead. They are suckers for an emotional appeal and Plouffe like Goebbels is an expert on that.

5. Then what can we do? Simple. Instead of arguing the merits of the issues which people will never understand, you show them the game that is being played on them. It is a charade which is not designed to solve problems but to create chaos and to keep Obama and his henchmen in power. This is not an Oxxford debating society, it is a game of power.

6. To put a somewhat finer point on it you would begin with the following question: how could a president with a high approval rating, a super majority in congress, full media support and the political wind at his back fail to pass a single piece of legislation in his first year to help the American People? (Note: it is common wisdom the first year is when any Administration must pass its agenda–Reagan had most of his passed in the first ninety days, according to what one of his cabinet members told me a few months ago.) The answer to that question is that Obama has no grasp of the governing process. Rather, his entire approach to is smoke and mirrors–to wit: the six step formula above. I would end by saying that this process is calculated to keep him in power, but it cannot solve the dire problems confronting this nation.

7. If you want a concrete example of this, consider the promise he made in his State of the Union to provide student loan guarantees. Many people have defaulted on those loans over the years due to circumstances beyond their control. Therefore the need is real, and there are many independent voters who have been in that situation. So good old Obama floats the idea that students would have 10 years to pay off those loans and any amount not repaid would be absorbed by the federal government. People applaud his high mindedness and call him the education president.

8. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. If you are going to a state school which costs $10,000 per year and you make $40,000 per year then the loan will be paid off at the end of that period and the federal government will have no obligation to guarantee. But suppose yo go to Harvard which costs over $50,000 per year and you make $40,000 per year then at the end of 10 years you will owe $200,000 and the government would have to absorb that amount. When Congress deliberates over that proposal and finds we do not have the funds, Obama can scapegoat them for the failure.

9. That is why we must shine a light on the game he is playing. It is the game that ruins nations.

Confloyd

I agree with most of that article. I grew up in the manufacturing belt in the Midwest.Hundreds of mammoth factories closed… leaving a rust belt. They (manufacturing) took their jobs to the cheapest bidder and dammed the American worker and the American way of life. My fathers factory, Allen Bradley once employed over 10,000 people, and it was just one of many…now all but gone. Lives destroyed still.

That is how we got those wonderful pictures of 3 year old children sewing Nike soccer ball’s in the dirt over in Indonesia (in between being sexually abused by the foreigners for ten cents a day, after of course being sold into slavery by their beloved parents…second job for them…don’t American 3 year olds routinely hold two jobs, one being sexual?)) I fu*king hate Nike, but it unfortunately is only one of tens of thousands manufacturing pimpbasTards.

*If she gets there and does an immensely better job than her predecessor, what will be the reactions from a media who refuses to let go of the idiot strings of their master and what will be the reactions of the koolaid drinkers who would jump off cliffs like lemmings rather than admit they are wrong?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

* I know you agree with me, it’s a fools errand commenting on hypotheticals.

~~~~~~~~~

*Will the political climate be any different if she does run again?

I believe Hillary when she says, she has no intention of running again.

—————-

2 scenarios:

*If she gets there and does an immensely better job than her predecessor, what will be the reactions from a media who refuses to let go of the idiot strings of their master and what will be the reactions of the koolaid drinkers who would jump off cliffs like lemmings rather than admit they are wrong?

*Will the political climate be any different if she does run again?

Mrs. Smith, this tension between theory and practice is a touchy point in diplomacy. It comes close to Hillary’s statement re her life-long interest in realpolitik … if I understand that concept. And I thought her mentioning it as a continuing interest after she retires from State, (Smiley interview) is an intriguing clue to her view of her future. What do you think?

~~~~~~~~~~~

The presidency would be the perfect venue to expand the philosophy of realpolitick into inclusionary global politics. Somehow, she has got to get there-

Picture MO before Obama called on her. Althouse has a post to go with it here:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-want-to-acknowledge-our-first-lady.html

I saw this as it happened and MO took a while to smile as if she was upset he called on her (which Althouse also recognized as it was happening). BTW, she said “sit down” gesturing to all the congresspeople. She did not get up or wave or say thank you or not even please sit down.

Video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/michelle-obama-tells-cong_n_439673.html

If my husband had said “she gets embarrassed” like he did and everybody laughing at that, I would not have liked it.