My Critique of the President's Speech

I think Thom Hartman just called Wayne La Pierre as “Wayne Little-peter”.  That’s pretty good.  I did good last night on cigarettes.   I smoked a cigarette right after the sun went down about five twenty.  I watched a lot of the ABC network news on early.  At ten to six I knew I better get in the med line even though it was really long and around the corner.  I was right behind Larry Cramer.  Fortunately the line moved quickly and there was not one snag in the line the entire time.  I was up to the counter with Yadera on the stroke of six.  I got my meds and peanut butter sandwich and back to my room just at the very start of TV coverage of the President’s speech.  They had the procession of government officials in.   

The President’s speech began at the stroke of six fifteen and lasted exactly 65 minutes to 7:20.   I would give the President an A minus and I’ll tell you why it’s that high.  It’s because of the situation he was facing with this congress and the political climate.  He knew he would gain nothing by either pleading or reciting a list of congressional failures because they would only call the President “comative”.  He has this “Angry Nigger” image to contend with, even though it’s always been the farthest thing from reality.  It’s analogus to me and my family and the harassment and threats and other bullshit such as destruction of property and the like and the gross misuse of mental illness terms and the rank hypocracy and all.  Neil of KFI says “There are no do overs in life” and I don’t “need a do-over”.  Because for what small inkling I might improve or “try another tack” knowing the future- - for what little I’d gain from a “do-over” I’d run the risk of losing a lot more.  This is the case the President faced.  He did the smart thing.  First of all the President’s speech was more highly typically organized than I’ve ever seen, each topic flowing in perfect logical progression from one thing to the other.  The first part of the speech was “jobs, jobs, jobs” and he trotted out countless personal examples and permutations and student loans and the whole nine yards.  Much as Pat Buchannon advised, the president didn’t get on to foreign policy and military security till 45 minutes into the speech.  The President was cleaver in working the immigration thing under the heading of “improving the economy” because the economic experts say that the Immigration Bill passages would in fact cut the deficit and stimulate the economy and make it all together healthier.  It would bring younger people into the FICA pool to keep social security more solvent longer.  The danger again was that he’d say too much and remind the republicans of area that were sore points with them.  I myself don’t go for these “personal testimonies”.  I would be very leary about using such “props’ in a speech I as president would give.  President Obama gave a better speech than I would have given.  That’s why I gave him an A - .   I would have altogether more berading of congress and my expressing my complete contempt for them, and remind the people where Congress stands in the polls.  I would have hauled out countless facts and statistics, and “headed them off at the pass” bringing up rebuttals to arguments they haven’t even made yet, but might think of making.  But despite my favorable view of the speech there are certain items that kept the speech from complete perfection.  First of all the President not once mentioned the travesty of a Citizen’s United ruling and how this is what put the tea party in power to begin with.  I would have singled out individual tea party members by name.  I would have called on the Supreme Court to overturn this ruling “with all deliberate speed” to use their own words.   The Pacific Rim Trade treaty was never mentioned.  Maybe this was smart.  But does that mean the President intends to be so stealth about this treaty he’s not going to dare even hold a public discussion of it??  I would have addressed this Sarah Palin bit about “free stuff” or the adage “It’s not free if your neighbor has to pay for it”.   I would have perhaps letting my ID loose a little- - pointed out the farcical nonsense of the idea that the Republicans are reaching out to the women and the poor.  I would have said “Mr Boehner, if you think that helping out a few government contractors would do little to “Help”, then if you really want to “Help” does that mean you want to PASS a minimum wage agreement for everybody, not just government workers?”   I also would have said something about how it’s the rich who live in this “corporate welfare state” and remind congress that the Wall Street bail out was “trusting that the banks would take this money and lend it out to stimulate the economy and not just squirrel it away.  So much for this “other people’s money” allegation.  I would also mention that if anything the Clinton years show that a tax HIKE actually STIMULATES the economy because in fact, the companies will now have the added carrot and stick needed- - to expand their business Assets and they get to take Depreciation deductions on these, and the more workers they hire the more Expense deductions they can make- - and if they pay them more- this too increases their deductions of the taxes they WON’T have to pay that they think are so high.  I would stress to the Republicans how much their own inaction has kept the economy from growing- - and they are the ones who do and always have held the purse strings, and in the end this economy for good or bad, can largely be said to be a result of policies and bills they either did pass, or failed to pass.  I would say something like ‘It’s the tea party that has essentially set the course the last five years”.   I double dog dare you to find ANY set of economic statistics that IN ANY WAY – that the acts of this Administration has made the economic inequity between the sexes or between rich and poor or black and white or whatever- worse in the past five years.  Snow me the charts and graphs.  Snow me the “Nexis” of cause and effect.  You can’t do it!

Rush Limbaugh is a first rate hypocrite and I'll tell you why.  One person yesterday aptly said "FOX news does not want you to BE informed.  Rather their job as they see it is to make people who already agree with them FEEL informed.  There's your "feelings" again.   Randy Rhodes was once on with a 24 year old radio comentator who prided himself as "the youngest talk show host" and Randy asked this host "Well if you're so gung ho on all these wars why don't You enlist?"   Randy tired of people questioning HER patriotism when SHE'S the vetteran and THEY aren't.  Randy was never invited on that show again.  Some FBI agent congressman from New York - - threatens people with violence if they dare embarrass him with a question he can't answer.  Reporters sometimes "get weary in well doing".  They may know how to do that job and even be "seasoned veterans in their line of work, but often let "the flesh" dictate how hard in the future they will work at their duties.  (Selah)  I'm not that kind of "vetteran" but I have referred to my fight on the Christian front in years gone by as my "spiritual Viet Nam" and I resent people who haven't spend a quarter of the time "in the trenches' as I have in this area- - that somehow "I've never met anyone who I can't discover knows NOTHING about Christianity - in a pretty big hurry and therefore aren't qualified to comment on it.  Then they will say "You wouldn't simplify astronomy down to "Twinkle, twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are".   First of all people like Neil won't even debate the Bible.  If given a polygraph test he'd probably admit to believing "Anyone who places more credence in the Bible than in my words over the radio is guilty of idolitry or something".   Despotic evangelicals such as Jim Jones even have a word for people who quote the Bible.  They are called "Biblotrists".   They also are called "Letterists", which is a word that isn't even in the dictionary.  I checked.  But the whole premise of the statement is wrong in a whole other way.  If you eat food at a resturant that tastes like it's been laced with Drano or something, you'll balk at it.  If your plumber says he unclogged your pipes and he didn't - - you have Every Right to say the guy knows nothing about plumbing - - even if you yourself are not a plumber.  You have the right via contract to EXPECT that He knows his trade.   These Republican "response" people don't know THEIR trade, because they are economically completely empty headed.  At times I think "I'm the smartest economist I know.  If I were another- - I'd hire Me".   The darkest view of these tea party republicans is that they Enjoy sabotaging the economy - - because for something reason they are still "trying to bring Obama down" even though Obama will never run again.