HARPER ON OBAMA: PARTISANSHIP ON STEROIDS

 

President Obama's second inaugural address was an exercise in partisanship, cultural revolution and narcissism wrapped in patriotic slogans and references to the Founding Fathers that will have some among them turning over in their graves. After a brief opening paean to the Founders, President Obama proceeded to spell out a very partisan agenda, based on radical reforms of our educational system, our tax code, deep cuts in our healthcare system, climate change and gay rights. Some clever speechwriter finally figured out that the overwrought use of the imperial "I" which has regularly dominated President Obama's rhetoric, was inappropriate for the occasion. Yet every time he called on Americans to pull together and work towards "our" common goals, he set out a very narrow set of acceptable policies. Never mind that the President declared that we are now in the midst of an economic recovery and the end of perpetual wars--two highly dubious propositions. The President event told us that the oath that he took today was to "God and country, not party or faction." Why is it that I remain unconvinced? - Harper

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/21/transcript-president-obama-inaugural-address/

Comments

[Fred]

He irritated me with the second paragraph but really got me with this one:
“OBAMA: This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience.”

What tests were these? The tax cut test? The big bank bail out test? The cut a deal with BP quick test? The hold rich and powerful executives accountable for financial risks that jeopardize both their shareholders and the taxpayers of our Republic?

We, he sure has that last one covered with this later remark:
“OBAMA: America's possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: ... of endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention.”

Yep, we sure reinvented executive compensation and accountability. At least under Bush Ken Lay got indicted. Who has Barrack indicted?

As to his oath, is he calling on God to witness his oath or making his oath to God? Since when has an oath of office been a sacramental oath?

[kao_hsien_chih]

Funny thing. That was my first reaction, and perhaps it reflects badly on my kind--the academics--that I apparently astonished everyone around me by describing the speech as a hyperpartisan hackjob that fails to reach out to anyone who didn't already love Obama....

[William R. Cumming]

The Presidential oath is encased in the Constitution! No deviations allowed.

More and more it appears that the Obama Presidency will stand out as a fluke of history and emotion. A Presidency that dug Americans further into the hole of destroying what America meant to the world and itself as of August 1945!

The fluke being the inability of the REPUBLICANS to put forth a ticket that is not less attractive than the DEMOCRATIC ticket.

[r whitman]

Every election has its winner and its loser. Yesterday we heard from thev winner. The losers are dispirited and in dissaray. The best they can hope for is to either delay and obstruct some of this change or they could sign on and attempt to influence it.

The MSM use the term "bitterly divided country" to describe the current situation, but in actuality we are not. There is a broad consensus that we have to do something about government spending, health care, firearms, and immigration. We are argueing over the details and who gets credit for what.

[jon]

Some partisanship would do Obama well. He's spent the past four years developing some new yoga moves as the Compromiser in Chief, only to have the House refuse precisely what they had asked for. And no credit for trying. Given that Obama is politically to the right of Eisenhower, I can't see things changing very much or very fast.

What was partisan was for the House Republicans to decide that denying Obama a chance for a second term was more important than carrying out the business of the United States of America. Obama has earned the right to celebrate his electoral success - with a better vote than any post WWII second term president except Reagan.

Let's also ponder for just a moment, the likelihood that a Romney inaugural address would have been a glorious kumbaya moment of national unification and putting aside of partisan differences.

[William R. Cumming]

I meant to point out that the speech had almost no discussion of the use of the military overseas, military intervention, or foreign affairs. Oblious or ignorance that foreign affairs may well determine the fate of the USA in the world? I choose ignorance, hubris, and ego.

Has any formal speech of the President stated what he thinks he learned or what influence growing up abroad for a substantial period of time had on his world view? All the Islands of the nation-state of Indonesia are majority ISLAMIC followers except for Bali IMO! Was not the Model 1911 .45 caliber pistol a product of fighting Islamic radicals in the war against the MOROs?

No wonder FDR was so careful in the runup to WWII in helping the Americans to understand the issues. Was the Declaration of War against the USA by Hitler 4 days after Pearl Harbor in reality the most brilliant British INTEL/Covert action of all time? After all even Adi Shickelgruber understood that the Americans had put over 2 million men into FRANCE after the Declaration of War against Germany in 1917! Can he totally have discounted the world's leading industrial power?

And where is the Presidential vision with respect to the world's 1.8 billion followers of ISLAM?

After all in 2032 it will only be 1400 years since the Battle of Poitiers in 732!

[Anna-Marina]

On one hand we have this: "In September 2012, the Federal Reserve started its 3rd QE economic stimulus program. Under this program Federal Reserve will for the rest of 2012 buy $40 Billion a month, each month, in MBS (home-backed loans) from the market, by so infusing new money into the economy (actually into the Wall Street's banksters' pockets). Moreover, "When the Justice Department recently closed its criminal investigation of Goldman Sachs, it became all but certain that no major American banks or their top executives would ever face criminal charges for their role in the financial crisis."
And on the other hand is this: "Life expectancy is worse in the U.S. than in most of the developed nations; the infant mortality rate is the worst."
Should we call this state of the nation a case in inhumanity?

[turcopolier]

All

i watched CNBC's rebroadcast of 60 Minutes shows on the economic catastrophe yesterday morning. The appalling conditions under which people, including a lot of Black people, are valiantly paying mortgages for houses that are under water was wrenching. Obama's has 45 billion dollars that were appropriated in the TARP deal to help such people and he has done nothing with the money. It will be returned to the treasury if it is not used. That was probably the idea from the beginning. "Limousine Liberal" is a term designed to describe Obama. pl

[Walrus]

I wouldn't worry too much Harper, Obama won't deliver. Obamas preferred clientele is the big end of town. He is about to throw the poor under the bus, yet again, via healthcare cuts. The excuse for cutting and running will be " mid term elections".

[Matthew]

Col: Although I voted for Obama twice, I did it with no illusions the second time. The President protected Wall Street when had a majority in the House and 59 Democratic Senators. Now, with a weakened Congressional hand and a track record of abandoning lower income voters, we are to believe that "he really means it this time."

BTW, I quibble with your labeling the President a "limousine liberal." He actually something more sinister: an Ivy League careerist. He only cares about the people who attend those cocktail partiers.

[harry]

Beating up on Barky is feeding from the lowest of low hanging fruit. Its too easy and I dont want to get involved. He is a dreadful choice of leader and I suspect a poor fellow in many ways, but that doesnt reflect badly on him but rather on the people who elected him. He has proved the most able huckster and fraud of a generation of hucksters and frauds. Jamie Dimon? Dont make me laugh. Lanny Brewer? A man who has never known shame. David Petraeus? I cant be bothered to waste words on him.

Col. Lang rightly draws attention to the looting which has recieved official blessing on Barky's watch. I have nothing but contempt for him, but I dont blame him. I blame those who voted for him. He is not a Limousine Liberal cos he is not a Liberal. He is a Affluent Apparatchik playing the system like a pro, and milking it to enrich Barack and his Buddies. You should all seek to take back your Republic. His administration is nothing but a continuation of the Administration of Greed first initiated by GW.

[dpclark]

I think it's more realistic to dismiss the whole speech as empty. The inauguration is a party and this is a speech that you present at a party, to one specific Party. Nothing to wring your hands over.

[Laura Wilson]

You are correct. Every single poll indicates that well over 50% of Americans agree on where the country should be headed...on abortion, on gun control, on soc sec, medicare, infrastructure, space exploration, health care, etc.

And, logically enough, the candidate who ran on what those 50+% citizens agree on, WON the election.

We are not divided...the GOP is deluding only itself.

[Tyler]

If Eisenhower had talked about gays being the next "civil rights struggle" or threatened to use Executive Actions to overturn the Constitution, he would have been run out of town on a rail.

Let us also remember Eisenhower was the same President who deported Mexican illegals en masse via OPERATION WETBACK, as opposed to going on about "undocument immigrants".

Right of Eisenhower? Please. Right of Trotsky, maybe.

[Edward Amame]

David Brooks would disagree with the poster: “The best Inaugural Addresses make an argument for something. President Obama’s second one, which surely has to rank among the best of the past half-century, makes an argument for a pragmatic and patriotic progressivism.” That sounds about right to me.

As for "the exercise in partisanship." Based on what happened during the previous 4 years, Obama just acknowledged the obvious: bi-partisanship is not longer possible in DC. Not when one side equates "compromise" with "date rape" or, like the current Speaker of the House, even refuses to acknowledge the word. The GOP is implacably opposed to Obama and just about all he has proposed, including cabinet nominations. It seems obvious by now that Obama can't work with or win over the TeaParty/GOP. He'll have to defeat them if he wants to accomplish what he was elected to do.

[turcopolier]

Edward Amame

And how will he do that? The GOP can tie him in knots if they wish to do so and it seems they do wish that. He will win control of Congress in 2014 and then have it all his way? We will see. pl

[turcopolier]

LW

You, too, have lost track of the fact that this is a federal republic with three branches of government. The Republicans hold the House and many of his "progressive" proposals will cost him Democratic votes in both houses, Then, there is SCOTUS... pl

[Medicine Man]

I agree with (yet again) Walrus. Red meat for the Dem base which will be largely unrealized. Ironically, he gets all the political cover he needs from his opponents. All he has to do is accept that the deficit is the most imminent danger the US faces and the reasons for shafting the public write themselves.

[walrus]

How can you blame people for voting for the lesser of the Two evils? Both the Democrats and Republicans are run by and for the pleasure of millionaires. The candidates they endorse are not beholden to "the prople who elected them" they are beholden to the donors and the pary apparatchiks.

While I'm sure it is possible in theory to form new political parties in America with any prospect of fielding credible Presidential and Congressional Candidates, how easy might that be in practice?

My own suspicion is that those at the top of both parties like things just as they are.

[r whitman]

The GOP house has already caved in three times in the last thirty days, on the tax raise on the fiscaal cliff, the Sandy appropriation vote and on postponing the decision on raising the debt ceiling. They have turned into a bunch of laughable pussy cats always whining about the cost of everthing, while Obama is out there selling benefits and goodies for all.

[Matthew]

Col: Obama was stymied when he had 59 Senators and a House Majority. Unlike 2009, he doesn't have a Democratic majority in the House. See http://uspolitics.about.com/od/elections/tp/2010_congressional_election.htm

[Edward Amame]

Obama will not likely win control of Congress in 2014. There is no way to reconcile conflict between branches of government. You're right. What happens is anybody's guess.

But make no mistake, it is documented. The Party of No was birthed on the evening of Obama's first inauguration when Frank Luntz, Newt Gingrich and GOP leaders of the House and Senate decided that the path to GOP electoral victory in 2012 was by "united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies." See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obama

[turcopolier]

Edward Amame

"... make no mistake, it is documented" So what? pl

[Lars]

One constant during Mr. Obama's first term was that his opponents continued to underestimate him. I would also suggest that presidents have much less power than both sides of any issue may think.

To their considerable dismay and surprise, the GOP decisively lost the recent election and only have a majority in the House because they are essentially cheating by way of redistricting but it appears that at least some of them now realize that their options are much more limited. When you find out that head lice, cockroaches and colonoscopies are more popular, you do indeed have a serious problem, since politics is now mainly a matter of perception.

It is becoming more clear that the cost of obstruction has risen substantially and Mr. Obama is well aware of it and he would not be much of a politician if he did not take advantage of it.

[turcopolier]

lars

"... only have a majority in the House because they are essentially cheating by way of redistricting." That's funny. You do know that Democratic safe districts are equally gerrymandered? BHO's agenda is going nowhere. pl