Obama's State of the Union is tonight and we are wondering today which Obama is going to show up to read the teleprompter. What will his demeanor be like tonight? Will he be angry as we keep reading in various articles? Another questions being asked is if he going to wear a tie tonight or will it be the casual look he is now using? Only time will tell which Obama shows up to read and if the tie shows up as well.
We sure hope the teleprompter technicians are checking the teleprompters that he is going to be using tonight at least several times to make sure they won't fail. We would hate to see him standing in the House staring at a blank screen waiting for words to appear. Anyone who needs a teleprompter to talk to 6th graders definitely needs them to give the State of the Union. He even used them in the White House recently to speak to his own small group of people. Is Obama incapable now of speaking without teleprompters? If so, why?
We know he is going to read words on the teleprompter written by someone else who most likely won't put in "Let Me Be Clear" which is a favorite of Obama's. If Obama shows up angry, is he going to blame Republicans for obstructing his programs to spend more money, take over more chunks of the economy, and raise taxes? Could he possibly 'blame Bush' which is a favorite mantra of the Dems? Is Obama going to move more to the center and make his liberal base really mad? The articles are all over the board this morning on what to expect him to say.
We know one thing and that is the love affair with most of the mainstream media is coming to an end. From the Washington Times article today Jennifer Harper, Obama's honeymoon with media is over:
He has an official pre-presidential logo and a dramatic custom-built dais — with columns — even before he arrived at the White House. President Obama drew instant love from the press, who were captivated by the image before them.With all the media spin and cover-up for Obama for years, they have had to face reality that what he said on the campaign trail is not how he governs as he has turned out to be a liberal bordering on socialist in his attempts to remake America. In fact, his pledge of transparency has been just the opposite. The media has 'now' discovered or are now reporting (we are guessing it is the latter) his anger streak which makes him look like a spoiled brat who didn't get his way. More positive coverage by far then any other President, but he never took advantage as Obama and his Chicago White House never learned how to deal with people only how to use thug tactics to get them to bend to their will.
Mr. Obama garnered more coverage — and more positive coverage — than former Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan during their comparable times in office, according to a study released Monday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).
Much of the Obama coverage was breathlessly positive, even melodramatic. But then something happened.
"The press stopped covering President Obama the historical figure, and started covering President Obama the politician. It took a few months, but many journalists started returning to their old critical ways, and the coverage went negative," said CMPA Director Robert Lichter, who conducted the research in conjunction with George Mason and Chapman universities.
Note to all: Never vote for someone from Chicago for President no matter which Party they belong.
Next we found on the Washington Times an Editorial: Obama's loose grip on reality with the comment The state of the union isn't what he pretends which is very telling especially when you read the first few paragraphs and you see his comments (highlighted) comparing 1994 to 2010. In some ways, it sends a chill up your spine to realize that this man who is President may be this out of touch with reality not to realize his governing and policies are the problem.
President Obama's response to the catastrophic political failures of his freshman year in office is to fight harder for more of the same. Presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett made the point explicitly on Sunday, asserting that the White House is "not hitting a reset button at all." That reflects the kind of political savvy that handed the safest Democratic Senate seat in America to a Republican.
Mr. Obama seems unaware that he is part of the problem. The president credited Scott Brown's historic Senate-race victory in Massachusetts last week to the same voter frustration that swept him into office in 2008. The glitch in that worldview is that Mr. Brown ran explicitly against the Obama agenda.
Mr. Obama's response to comparisons to 1994, when Democrats lost control of both the House and Senate, is that "the big difference here and in '94 was you've got me." Mr. Obama certainly is making a big difference, but none that should give comfort to his party.
To be fair to this Administration, we also visited the Washington Post, the White House paper of choice, and found these articles:
Transparency faltersWe have articles from two inside the beltway newspapers -- Washington Times which trends more conservative and the Washington Post which is liberal by any account. When the Washington Post quits spinning for Obama, he is in bad shape. For months, very little criticism came out of the Post, but now the day of the State of the Union we have an article about lack of transparency by this Administration and Americans disapproval of Obama.
More than 300 individuals and groups have sued the government to get records in the year since President Obama pledged that his administration would be the most open in history. Transparency advocates express "disappointment" with the figure, which is similar to numbers from the Bush era.
• VIDEO: Records still hard to get
American disapproval of Obama is on the rise
By Joel Achenbach
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 27, 2010Excerpt:
Consider the poll last week by The Washington Post and ABC News. People were asked a standard question about how much confidence they had in President Obama to "make the right decisions" for the nation's future. A majority -- 53 percent -- gave the two most dismal of the four possible responses: "just some" and "none at all." The same question had been asked a year earlier; in just 12 months, the "none at all" camp had tripled, from 9 percent to 27 percent.
What has caused the changed? Was the election of Senator-Elect Scott Brown so earth shattering after Republicans winning back Governorships in New Jersey and Virginia that the mainstream media is waking up to the fact that Obama's promises on the campaign trail were hollow.
Could it have been the attempt by a terrorist to take down a Northwest Airlines plane enroute to Detroit and then have this Administration stop the questioning and read him his rights so the Federal Law Enforcement could ask no more questions and thus gain no more information. The question still out there is why? Obama, who was on his $4,000 a night vacation in Hawaii, a few days to say anything meaningful on the terrorism incident. Guess his golfing got in the way of his making comments.
Maybe it was the Muslim Major who went on a killing rampage at Fort Hood who has ties in the terrorist community. Obama rushed out to say not to jump to conclusions about terrorist ties even though all the evidence gathered by the media pointed in that direction.
Then we had what we consider to be one of the worst mistakes of this Administration in their announcing the terrorists at GITMO who planned the WTC and Pentagon attacks would be brought to NYC to be tried in Federal Court. How dare they bring these terrorists to NYC who suffered so much during the 9/11 attacks? How can they even consider trying them in Federal Court and having a lot of evidence thrown out? How can Obama and AG Holder defend this action? Most important question is WHY are they doing this to Americans by putting a target on the City of New York for terrorists revenge? None of those questions have been answered by this Administration to date.
Obama has been in office for over a year and the American people know no more about his background then we did before he was elected. Why isn't this President an open book? What are they hiding and why? To date, we have seen no birth records except forgeries, no school records, no papers he has written, no medical records, no passport records, no adoption records, no comment that he used foreign student status to get aid at Columbia,and to top it off no one remembers Obama at Columbia even though they would have been in the same clases.
His two books so highly touted by the media turned out to be written by others and how much are facts about Obama or someone else we may never know. How can you believe anything he has to say when he took credit for writing the books and you discover later he didn't write them. In fact, some of the passages pertain to Bill Ayers who ghost wrote the first book not Obama. The first tip off he didn't write the books should have come from how he speaks without a teleprompter not to mention we don't see any of his recent writings if he has done any. He taught constitutional law as an adjunct professor but preferred to talk about sports not law.
Why the secrecy? We are not even saying he wasn't born in the United States, but we do have a right to know who is this President and what is his background? Why did the media choose to ignore Obama's background when they delved into McCain's including where he was born with tenacity.
Is the reason that Obama is talking about being a one term President because states like Oklahoma are in the process of changing the laws to make a candidate for President provide proof they are a natural born citizen to get on their ballot for President?
So many questions and so few answers about the man who became President based on so little experience and voting 'present' most of his elected career. One thing that was evident during the campaign was the mantra that if you didn't vote for Obama then you must be racist totally ignoring the fact many people will not vote for a Democrat for President because they are too liberal.
We are sure tonight we will be left shaking our head as his head bounces from teleprompter to teleprompter trying to figure out what he means versus what he says. How much is he going to promise that he won't deliver on this year?
Today's commentary from Abe Greemwald of the New York Times sums up Obama perfectly:
Nowhere to HideWe will have reports tomorrow from various sources around the Net on the Obama reading the State of the Union from his loyal teleprompters as well as our own comments. We leave you today with this political cartoon from Lucianne.com which sums what is expected from Obama and his teleprompters tonight:
Abe Greenwald - 01.27.2010 - 11:27 AM
The New York Times asks, “Are the missteps at the White House rooted in message or substance?”
The question is not quite right. A better one is: Was there ever substance behind the message? Every talking point Barack Obama has attempted to turn into policy went to dust in his hands. His missteps came from thinking that message is substance.
The funny thing is that the White House plans to make a comeback by digging in on the message front. The Times reports on tonight’s State of the Union address: “The speech will be punctuated with a handful of new ideas — calling for a spending freeze on a portion of the domestic budget — but aides said it would largely be an opportunity for Mr. Obama to return to the proposals that swept him into office.”
What proposals? To close Gitmo, ram through universal health care, rally against Wall Street, dismantle the War on Terror, apologize for America’s sins at every turn, and blame George W. Bush for everything? He can’t very well “return to” the bad ideas he’s held fast to all along. The problem is that what swept him into office is exactly what fails as policy: vague, naive, left-wing children’s stories
Excerpt: Read More at New York Times
Raw Story 
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment