As IF Times

DRUDGE: PRESIDENTS STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.

After listening to the recent State Of The Union Address by President Obama, excerpts of which are in the link above, I am struck at how incongruous the message delivered is to the actions taken by this administration over this first year in office.  When you brush aside the expected rhetoric about this “this great nation”, “our collective love for America and American values”, words that are standard in the speech of any U.S. president, you are left with the issues and principles that are dear to the particular incumbent.

In this case, the theme of “change”, the buzzword of his victorious election campaign remained through his 70 minute address.   Again he asks Americans to embrace his notion that America needs to change and in particular change towards his vision of what America will look like after the transformation.  It doesn’t seem to have dawned upon him that the change he envisions is not in tune with the vision of America held by the majority of the people.  This was most clearly evident by the stunning rebuke of the Democratic candidate in Massechussets, a heretofore Democratic stronghold for over 50 years.

Clearly, the president was swept in to office as a backlash to the perceived shortcomings and failings of the previous administration as well as the perfect storm of profile, of organization and of public anger and frustration.  It is clear that in observing the actions of this administration over the past year, the players in the administration and the general direction of domestic and foreign policies, Americans are retracting their mandate for most of Obama’s policies.  To be fair to the president, he was thrust into a position to which he could not win.  The unrealistic objectives that were proffered during the campaign which, while melifluous to the ears of his supporters and to the uncommitted, were idealistic at best, naive at worst.  For an individual with very little real life experience in administration of any kind to suddenly have the controls of the world’s greatest economy, its mightiest military and arguably most influential culture was a role he was woefully unprepared for.  The theories of the classroom, even at Harvard (some would say especially at Harvard) are not adequate to steer the complex ship which is the United States.  The other factor working against him is the conspicuous lack of talent in his cabinet to fill the roles required of government.

But if all of this sounds like a partisan rant, let’s assess this solely by the numbers as they say.  As we all know, all politicians lie, it’s a career requirement.  Some are white lies, some are lies of ommission, some are lies of expedience and some are just big fat whoppers.  Without regard to which party he is affiliated with, let’s take an admittedly quick review of what was promised and what was delivered.  This short list has been gone over ad nauseum by the conservative writers, but they do speak to credibility.

As a candidate: Against lobbyists in adminstration    In office:  More lobbyists than previous administration.

As a candidate: We don’t want to run auto companies.  In office: Government owns GM and Chrysler.

As a candidate: Criticized deficit spending.  In office: Quadrupled size of government debt.

As a candidate:  Criticized lengthy bills that were hard to understand.  In Office: Health care bill over 2000 pages long.

As a candidate: Promised transparency, even C span coverage of process.  In Office, all negotiations behind closed doors, no C span

As a candidate: CIA agents would not be prosecuted for jobs.  In Office, doing just that.

As a candidate: Vow to keep America safe and to fight terrorists.  In Office, civilian trials for 9-11 antagonist.

As a candidate: Emphatically stated no new taxes for sub  $200,000 earners.  In Office, new taxes to pay for healthcare plan.

This has all happened in only one year.  It is truly alarming to listen to speeches in which what he champions is exactly the opposite of what is implemented.   I love to invoke George Orwell in my commentaries and truly this guy is a textbook example of opposite speak.  Any rational person comparing words to deeds would have to doubt seriously any action by this administration but more importantly should be very skeptical of what is promised going forward.  It has little to do with partisanship and everything to do with credibility.  It appears that most Americans have become wiser to the agenda, however many have not.  The old stock market saw is, watch what they do, not what they say.  Wise words.

link Mass. Senate candidate looks for boost from ‘rock star’ Bill Clinton – Local News Updates – The Boston Globe

Widely seen as a referendum on the current administration, the incumbent Democrats are bringing in the “big guns” to try to rally any waffling democratic voters in the state by-election. The vote should not even be that close given that the Massachusetts seat is as much a Kennedy heirloom as a Democratic stronghold.

Somehow, the natives appear to be a bit restless and the unthinkable has a possibility of happening. They may lose this iconic seat to the Republicans. This is akin to news that Warren Beatty was now sleeping with men. Well, you win some, you lose some I guess, but the strategy of the incumbent party is amusing as well as perplexing.

Because the race is so close, the rock star Bill Clinton and Obama himself are popping in to sway the hesitant. The Barrack and Rock tour will lend badly needed support for the Democrat Coakley. I’m unsure of the logic here. President Clinton is a great humanitarian and still commands audiences everywhere he goes. However, his ignominious exit from office had a lot to do with being a little less than forthright in his versions of events. President Obama is arguably the reason why the electoral race is as close as it is, so another serving of him would not seem to be of help to Coakley. These guys are as useful as body hair at a porn shoot. If we’re just bringing people with recognition to the race, why not bring in Rod Blagojevich?

Politics is a pretty rough contact sport and Bill’s willingness to stump with someone who recently put the knife into his wife’s back as a Presidential contender last year is that hardball game on full display. Winning is the only objective and loyalties are often confused at best, twisted at worst, but always about expedience. It’s just business. But if you have to bring in the “big guns” to a tight race which historically has been a stronghold for your party, MAYBE SOMETHING’S WRONG WITH YOUR POLICIES.

Meanwhile the challenger, Scott Brown, has Rudy Giuliani stumping for him. Isn’t Rudy the guy that once wore a ballgown, wig and full makeup smooching Donald Trump at a roast? If this election is lost to the incumbents it’ll be to a team with a guy who once wore a dress in public! And they say republicans are no fun.