This is our, not even half-hearted, attempt to keep our promise from yesterday and discuss the Obama speech. Frankly, we don’t give a damn. We’ve heard it all before and we have responded and pre-responded before – with these self-evident truths:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
As to this particular publicity stunt – Uppity Woman pretty much skimmed the scum of ennui, we along with just about everyone else feel, regarding what Barack Obama says about anything. Uppity Woman is not alone in her wish to do something productive instead of listening to Obama boobery. Joe Biden could not keep his eye lids from rebellion either.
You can’t blame Biden for snoozing. It’s like listening to Oprah talk about her new miracle diet. She’ll say how remarkable the new diet is. She’ll say how she expects to shed those pounds. But in the end you know, when all is said and done, the only thing that will happen is that Oprah will be the size of a shed.
We’re not making fat jokes here or mocking those struggling to lose weight or dealing with weight “issues”. It’s just that Obama loving Oprah and her diet foolery reminds us of Obama in oh so many ways. Remember when in 2009 Obama promised to halve the deficit by the end of his four year term? Whether you think the deficit is an issue that must be addressed or an issue that must be ignored – the bottom line is whatever Obama says cannot be trusted.
Before the speech the ‘watch for list’ was composed of “details, details, details”, “tax talk”, and “tone”. Afterwards, the struggle was to keep eyes open and head away from pillows.
The ever gullible (“It’s funny how clear Krugman’s vision is when it comes to Republicans …. and how gullible he is when considering Democrats and their motives. In fact, Corrente calls them “category errors” and has been documenting them for a long time.”) Paul Krugman said nice things about the speech:
“Style: I liked the way Obama made a case for government at the beginning. I liked the way he accused Republicans of pessimism, of abandoning a hopeful vision of America. Good that he went after the Ryan plan — and good that he went after the cruelty of that plan. If you ask me, too many percentages. Oh, and whichever speechwriter came up with “win the future” should be sent to count yurts in Outer Mongolia.”
What gullible Paul Krugman missed is that Obama was “borrowing” extensively from “racist” “turn the page” on him – Bill Clinton. Obama JournoLister Ben Smith cites the case (it’s as close as Smith and JournoLister Greg Sargent can come to calling Obama a plagiarist) made by Greg Sargent:
“Greg Sargent recently recalled Bill Clinton’s decision to engage the budget battle as a moral and philosophical one, saying in 1995:
I believe this budget debate is about two very different futures for America: About whether we will continue to go forward under our motto, E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one; whether we will continue to unite and grow; or whether we will become a more divided, winner-take-all society.
Obama seemed to echo that approach at the beginning of today’s speech:
This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want. It’s about the kind of country we believe in.
The difference between those two versions is more interesting than the echo, though. Missing from Obama’s is the note of confrontation.“
Obama is a plagiarist and a helpless weakling unable and unwilling to fight for anything other than his career advancement. If he does have scars on his head it is probable that they came from muscular Michelle beatings. But we digress.
Greg Sargent will be remembered as the Hillary Hater that protected Obama at every turn. Greg Sargent continues to do so. But now Sargent heaps praise on Bill Clinton after smearing Bill as a racist. Sargent now wants Obama to be more like Bill Clinton:
“So maybe we should recall the forgotten lesson of Clinton’s victory: He won in no small part because he drew a very hard line against Medicare cuts, and used that battle to articulate an expansive vision of Democratic governance, which he contrasted with the GOP’s vision of a “winner-take-all society.”
I just got off the phone with Michael Waldman, who was Clinton’s chief speechwriter throughout much of that battle, and he told me that a crucial piece of the historical record is being lost. While Clinton, a New Democrat, did push for welfare reform and call for a balanced budget to restore his fiscal credibility, the former president pivoted from there to a major, protracted public fight over Medicare — and an unabashed defense of a liberal role for government — that was crucial in restoring his public standing.
Few remember this part of the story, but Waldman notes that Clinton seized on the Medicare standoff to reaffirm his support for the social contract as embodied in Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare promise to America, frequently referring to proposals to cut Medicare as an affront to our “values.” Clinton even used Johnson’s pen to veto the GOP’s budget.
In a speech on November 10, 1995, Clinton cast the battle as one over his belief that government’s role is to guard against the excesses of a cutthroat society: [snip]
Several days later, Clinton added: “I believe we have a duty to care for our parents so that they can live their lives in dignity. That duty includes securing Medicare.” He also warned that the GOP’s budget “violates our values.”
And when Clinton vetoed the GOP proposal, he held up Johson’s pen. “Three decades ago, this pen you see here was used to honor our values when President Johnson used it to sign Medicare into law,” Clinton said, adding: “I am using this pen to preserve our commitment to our parents.”
Now JournoLister Sargent wants Obama to be racist Clinton. Too late bub. You’re stuck with the boob. He’s your mistake. Shove him up your, um, website.
There was a time when Democrats could run an advertisement like this:
There was a time in the 90s that Democrats had the fiscal probity high ground:
“With Obama’s recently-expressed regrets about a vote against raising the federal debt limit, and Chuck Schumer’s warning that those who oppose it are playing with fire, a source reminds me that Schumer was one of the 44 Democrats who, in a party-line vote, voted against raising the debt limit in 2006.
That year, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — which Schumer chaired — aired the attack above on Ohio’s Mike DeWine.
“Did you know Mike DeWine voted to raise the national debt to $9 trillion?” the ad’s narrator asks puzzled and alarmed Cincinnatians. “Did you know that we’re borrowing $2 billion a day from China and other countries to pay for that?”
It is, safe to say, an ad the DSCC likely won’t be running this year.”
Foolish Republicans are learning “Obama cannot be trusted.” Foolish Obama Dimocrats and JournoListers don’t want to believe us when we say “Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends.”
Obama simply cannot be trusted.
May we join Joe Biden and go to sleep now?