I actually had been thinking about a forum devoted to demagogic speeches by the President since his ridiculous slandering of Paul Ryan after making sure to get him a front row seat a few weeks ago. In fact, I was going to start compiling them and post them here.
Thankfully, Charles Krauthammer beat me to the punch:
Why do I dislike the President so intensely? It's not just because of his politics, though I don't like them much. It has nothing to do with his race, although many of his supporters will immediately accuse his opponents of having some racial motive. It's not because I'm rich and he's threatening me.
It's because he tries to appear so above the fray while throwing elbows and kicking shins with the best of them. He is, in my opinion, the uber-demagogue. Many of his speeches are laced with the inherent contradictions Krauthammer points to--he wants to solve problems, the President says, and he understands (of course) that reasonable people can disagree. However, as he wipes a tear from his eye, his opponents, while occasionally well-intentioned, don't understand their desires will lead to old people starving to death and handicapped kids getting warehoused.
He professes to love openness, while his Administration denies FOIA after FOIA. He wants a more democratic process, but when that fails (as in he can't get campaign finance reform passed even though his party had both houses), he'll just create the law by fiat (even Steny Hoyer opposes him on this).
The President says the border is secure. Really? Then maybe he can explain the violence along the border that's in the news nearly every day? I'm sure he can explain the mass of illegals in border state prison and jail systems. The fact that it's possible that some choose not to sneak in right now because the economy is down does not mean the border is secure. I don't think it unreasonable to say that if unemployment was 5% we would have a lot more folks coming here.
Why not create a tamper-proof ID first? Why not make sure illegal aliens cannot work before establishing amnesty? Why not ask the border governors to certify the border is secure before creating an amnesty program?
Because this isn't about security. It's about politics. It's exactly what he did with his budget outline (note well: there is still no genuine "budget" other than the one he released early this year that offered no cuts of any substance). It's what he did on healthcare. This is his MO.
With this President, it's always politics. "So what?" some will say.
So this: all politicians play this game to some extent or another. However, this man said he would not. He promised "hope" and "change." His presidency has become the most cynical and dishonest since Nixon. Give him four more years and he might beat out old Tricky.
As his demagoguery continues, I'll post it right here.
Thankfully, Charles Krauthammer beat me to the punch:
Constructive and civil debate — like the one Obama initiated just four weeks ago on deficit reduction? The speech in which he accused the Republicans of abandoning families of kids with autism and Down syndrome? The debate in which Obama’s secretary of health and human services said that the Republican plan would make old folks “die sooner”?
In this same spirit of comity and mutual respect, Obama’s most recent invitation to civil discourse — on immigration — came just eleven minutes after he accused opponents of moving the goal posts on border enforcement. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said sarcastically. “Maybe they want alligators in the moat.”
Nice touch. Looks like the Tucson truce — no demonization, no cross-hairs metaphors — is officially over. After all, the Republicans want to kill off the elderly, throw the disabled in the snow, and watch alligators lunch on illegal immigrants.
The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration, but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith. “They’ll never be satisfied,” said Obama about border control. “And I understand that. That’s politics.”
How understanding. The other side plays “politics,” Obama acts in the public interest. Their eyes are on poll numbers, political power, the next election; Obama’s rest fixedly on the little children.
This impugning of motives is an Obama constant. “They” play politics with deficit reduction, with government shutdowns, with health care. And now immigration. It is ironic that such a charge should be made in a speech that is nothing but politics. There is zero chance of any immigration legislation passing Congress in the next two years. El Paso was simply an attempt to gin up the Hispanic vote as part of an openly political two-city, three-event campaign swing in preparation for 2012.
Why do I dislike the President so intensely? It's not just because of his politics, though I don't like them much. It has nothing to do with his race, although many of his supporters will immediately accuse his opponents of having some racial motive. It's not because I'm rich and he's threatening me.
It's because he tries to appear so above the fray while throwing elbows and kicking shins with the best of them. He is, in my opinion, the uber-demagogue. Many of his speeches are laced with the inherent contradictions Krauthammer points to--he wants to solve problems, the President says, and he understands (of course) that reasonable people can disagree. However, as he wipes a tear from his eye, his opponents, while occasionally well-intentioned, don't understand their desires will lead to old people starving to death and handicapped kids getting warehoused.
He professes to love openness, while his Administration denies FOIA after FOIA. He wants a more democratic process, but when that fails (as in he can't get campaign finance reform passed even though his party had both houses), he'll just create the law by fiat (even Steny Hoyer opposes him on this).
The President says the border is secure. Really? Then maybe he can explain the violence along the border that's in the news nearly every day? I'm sure he can explain the mass of illegals in border state prison and jail systems. The fact that it's possible that some choose not to sneak in right now because the economy is down does not mean the border is secure. I don't think it unreasonable to say that if unemployment was 5% we would have a lot more folks coming here.
Why not create a tamper-proof ID first? Why not make sure illegal aliens cannot work before establishing amnesty? Why not ask the border governors to certify the border is secure before creating an amnesty program?
Because this isn't about security. It's about politics. It's exactly what he did with his budget outline (note well: there is still no genuine "budget" other than the one he released early this year that offered no cuts of any substance). It's what he did on healthcare. This is his MO.
With this President, it's always politics. "So what?" some will say.
So this: all politicians play this game to some extent or another. However, this man said he would not. He promised "hope" and "change." His presidency has become the most cynical and dishonest since Nixon. Give him four more years and he might beat out old Tricky.
As his demagoguery continues, I'll post it right here.