The Obama speech: Whatever happened to easy answers?
Me and the guys, we stop off for a quick one the other night after softball practice, and there’s absolutely nothing worth watching, so they put on Obama, and we watch Obama.
Personally, I’d rather just have it off, but it must be a rule or something—if you’re a bar, the TV’s always going no matter what—so Obama’s on, and he’s talking about Libya, and we’re all listening to him explain everything.
“The Professor” is what Joey calls him, which is exactly right as far as I’m concerned, so The Professor is talking about what we’re doing over there and why, and everybody gets quiet so they can hear.
See, that’s your first problem right off the bat: a president you have to be quiet to hear. We need a guy who can shout! And after that, you need a guy you can understand—not later, after everybody analyzes him, but right now, while he’s talking to you. But to do that, you need a guy who can say things straight up—“Gadhafi’s a murderer—we’re taking him out.” Or “Listen up, dictators—you clean up your act or we’ll clean it up for you.”
Instead, all you get from Obama is “We’re doing this, but we’re not doing that.” Or “Before we do an invasion, here’s what we have to think about.” Or—and this is the one that really burns me—“We need to consult with our partners.”
We don’t need to consult with our partners, because we don’t have any partners! We don’t need any partners! We’re the freaking United States of Freaking America!!! We do what we need to do, and everybody else is just the hired help.
See how easy that is? But Obama, he never says anything like that. It’s all this other stuff about what the “conditions” are, and what the “circumstances” are, and how these “conditions” aren’t the same as those “conditions,” and these “circumstances” aren’t the same as those “circumstances,” so how he looks at Libya, say, isn’t how he has to look at everywhere else, and maybe somewhere else he’ll decide to go in, or maybe he won’t, or maybe he’ll just go partway.
And he’s explaining all this in a speech—like we care—instead of just doing it first and sorting out the problems afterward. Or maybe there won’t even be any problems, but unless you go and do it, how do you know?
Terry, he’s our military expert—he wasn’t ever in, but he gets all these magazines—anyway, he figures Obama doesn’t really want to go to war, but if you twist his arm or back him in a corner because of some massacre or humanitarian whatever, then fine—but only after he thinks about all the nuances and stuff.
You think Bush ever thought about all the nuances? Don’t be ridiculous! With Bush, you got something you could put on a bumper sticker—maybe even a tattoo!—and that made it easier for everyone.
“Nuance”—isn’t that like a French word? I’m pretty sure it’s a French word.
Which tells you everything you need to know about this guy. An American president sends American troops into battle, he should be thinking American! And talking American!
It’s just that simple.
Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.
Apr 5, 2011 at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Actually SuperDave there are two major differences between the parties. If you were to take a poll I think you'd find overwhelming support for lower taxes across the board. I think you’d also find overwhelming support for a strong national defense, safe neighborhoods, up to date transportation infrastructure and services that provide care for our elderly, mentally or physically challenged, sick and poor. Republicans favor reducing taxes at the expense of social services while Democrats promote social programs on the backs of tax increases. Both parties are guilty of wasteful spending, pandering to special interests and suffer from an inability to ignore their ideology when it comes to creating and passing legislation. The following fact may surprise many voters. Based on the Bureau of Economic Analysis data (a unit of the Dept. of Commerce) collected over a period of 80 years, the average growth of GDP was 5.1% with a Democrat in the White House while Republican Presidents averaged a GDP growth rate of 1.8%. Moving forward, however, I completely agree with your last statement. The average person in America is doomed until we eliminate special interests from the political system.
Apr 3, 2011 at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Panama: I see little difference in the two big money parties. Mr. Obama might have you convinced he is doing a wonderful job, but I look at it more objectively and must respectfully disagree.
Moreover, I find it amusing that liberals have attacked conservatives for the eight years of GWB's presidency, but now scream bloody murder when the same criticisms can now be leveled at their precious messiah.
Once again (and I hate repeating myself but so many do not get it, I will) everything is not always about D vs. R. The solutions to this country's problems lie in the pragmatic acceptance of reality. Don't let the powers that be, whether they are elected officials or those programming their teleprompters, split us into bickering factions of fools, while they (D and R) continue the fiscal rape of America.
Apr 1, 2011 at 2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
C"mon SuperDave, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realize that the Democrats did not lead us into THREE UNFUNDED WARS! I mean you are, aren't you? You know full well Big Oil companies wouldn't allow any sitting U.S. President to sit on their hands where there is fighting above the ground where there is oil under the ground. Besides it was Republicans that decided we didn't need any additional tax revenue to fund the war. In fact, Bush decided we could actually REDUCE tax revenue and STILL pay for the war and then even start a 2nd war, except he kept forgetting to put ANY of the war spending measures IN the budget. Buy hey relax, the Democrats have it under control. In less than 4 years they have eliminated most of the troops in Iraq, stabilized Afghanistan (as much as Afghanistan could ever be considered stable) and are seeing their stimulus efforts pay off with consistent economic growth. And while our current economic growth seems anemic when compared to prior growth spurts, it's sure better than where it was over 3 years ago. Thats why H.L views Obama as a "brilliant prophet and messiah"!!!
Mar 30, 2011 at 10:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes. THREE UNFUNDED WARS! Because they supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now are also starting a new war in Libya.
Mar 30, 2011 at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Democrats got us into three unfunded wars?
Mar 30, 2011 at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
I keep telling folks that Eysteritis is contageous.
Mar 30, 2011 at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yep, Obama is a true leader. He really explained himself well. Thoughtful, compassionate, war-mongerer. Whoops, scratch that last word.
How about this: three unfunded wars! Three unfunded wars! THREE UNFUNDED WARS!!! The Democrats have us in THREE UNFUNDED WARS!!!!
(wow, I'm starting to write like a combination of Red Herring and EYE-Stair) :)
Mar 30, 2011 at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'm guessing that he hits pretty close to home.
A little too close for comfort?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.