Obama: "If you want change, follow me"
Last night, Barack Obama took another step toward the Democratic nomination, winning Wisconsin and Hawaii by substancial margins. He then proceeded to rub it in on Hillary by pre-empting her speech in Ohio with his own in Houston rather than engage in the customary courtesy of waiting until her speech was done.
Hillary's appearance in Youngstown, Ohio came as she learned that she had lost big in Wisconsin. She was obviously down in her spirits as she spoke. She offered no public congratulations to Obama for his victory in Wisconsin-not even acknowledging the results. On the other side, to add insult to injury, Obama began his speech in Houston while Hillary was still speaking in Youngstown causing network coverage to break off to Obama.
Obama's speech was not only long, more appropriate to a convention speech or state of the union, but it was heavy on promises of government cheese for all. Of course, the usual cries of hope and change were there, but also promises of universal health care for all. Invoking the usual cry of 47 million people without health insurance, he, as the liberals all do, ignored the fact that some 12 million of those are illegal aliens. Millions more are young people who decide they don't need insurance at this time in their lives. Yet Obama talked about bringing health insurance to everyone. He even promised huge reductions in premiums for those who already have insurance. He also conveniently ignored the fact that millions of people (largely illegal aliens) routinely go to hospital emergency rooms when they get sick, get treated and don't pay the bills.
Of course, the crowd in Houston loved everything they heard, cheering loudly over and over.
But in response, the question must always be asked: Mr Obama- who is going to pay for all of this? The obvious answer is that taxes will be raised on the "rich". How rich? People making over $200,000? $100,000? Corporations? It is easy to state that only the "fat cats" will have to pay higher taxes. We see this over and over in our state of California. What happens is that when the government runs out of income in taxes to satisfy their spending, they lower the bar. Then they will raise taxes on those earning $75,000, or $50,000. After all, it all depends on what the definition of "rich" is.
The point is this: When voters who depend on government benefits outnumber those who foot the bill, people like Obama and Clinton get elected. When the unproductive folks in society start to outnumber the productive folks-who foot the bill- the Obamas and Clintons get elected. In California, we are starting to see the balance being tipped toward the recipients of government help-including illegal aliens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are appealing to these very folks, engaging in demogogery in the process.
One of the biggest criticisms of Obama and his rhetoric is that, behind all the great oratory, there is nothing there beyond words. I would add one other thing that is in Obama's speeches: promises of government largesse.
As expected, the mainstream news media is slow to pin Obama down on his words and qualifications for the highest office in the land. Most of the MSM is downright enamored of the man. Ask yourself how much coverage we have seen in the past week of Michelle Obama's statements about her past lack of pride in America. How many MSM reporters have actually raised the question of Barack Obama's qualifications and political accomplishments? I have heard Sean Hannity (not MSM) of Fox News ask Obama supporters to list the senator's accomplishments-and they can't-beyond statements about his inspirational qualities. Similarly (and this is an exception to the MSM), Chris Matthews, who seems to be enamored of Obama, pointedly asked a Texas Democratic State Senator this week who supports Obama what Obama's political accomplishments were. The pol tried to change the subject, then danced all over the place as Matthews (to his credit) refused to let him evade the question. The man could not give a specific answer-other than to quote Obama's inspirational qualities.
At this point, it appears that Barack Obama is headed toward the Democratic nomination for president. More than ever, his qualifications and the content behind his soaring oratory need to be examined. The question is whether the mainstream news media (who will be supporting his candidacy) will lead the way. I, for one, am sceptical.
4 comments:
It's interesting. I've noticed that when you critique the Democrats, I'm pretty much in agreement. I just don't get when you defend the Republicans. Am I too young to be so jaded?
I agree that Obama sure knows how to give a speech full of promises. You're right though - how will it be paid for? Don't we still have a war to pay for as well? Where's all this money going to come from?
Still, it would be nice to at least have a president who can pronounce "nuclear." (Tongue firmly in cheek there - sorta.)
I defend Republicans when they are wrong? I am not a Republican. I am a conservative, and I have criticized Republicans plenty of times when they have abandoned conservative principles, which they have done.
I am willing to pay for the War on Terror because we are,indeed, at war, and that is one of the top legimitite functions of government-to protect us. I am not so willing to pay for others making their way through life except when they are truly unable to fend for themselves. Unless you are physically or mentally unable to care for yourself, why should I have to pay for your expenses?
Your final point about a president unable to pronouce "nuclear"- what has that got to do with anything?
Okay, okay, Uncle! You'll critique republicans on certain issues, but I think that you are too generous to the rhetoric of somebody like Mitt Romney while being able to point out the bologna in what Obama says. They both seem full of crap to me.
I wasn't implying that we shouldn't pay for the War on Terror (although I don't think that Iraq was a prime target in this one - should have gone after Saudi Arabia first). I was actually trying to back your point in saying that we're already racking up the bills with this war - how is Obama planning on adding even more expenses?
As for the nuclear thing, I did say that my tongue was in my cheek, so it wasn't really trying to be a serious point. (But you do know how Bush pronounces it "NOO-kuh-ler", right?) Geez, weren't you accusing liberals of not having a sense of humor? Just playin' around, Gary! Am I going to have to send some homebrews down there?
Check out my blog on Romney (Mitt Romney for president?) I think it was pretty objective. I had sort of leaned toward him during the campaign, but was still undecided when he dropped out. His dropping out speech to me was the best I have heard from any of the contenders, and I commented that he should have been saying those things earlier. I know you don't agree on all the things he said, but I did.
Do you really want to invade Saudi Arabia? I am no admirer of that government- I think they play a double game, but let's at least wait until the crazies take over that country first.
I will have you know that I have a great sense of humor, but being ex-law enforcement, it is kind of a sick, sarcastic humor that you may not get.
Did you say, "home brew"?
PS Did you see Krazy Keith last night on Meltdown? Half the show was dedicated to this vague story about McCain in the NYT, and then of course, Bill O'Reilly was the worst person in the world for using the expression, "lynching" (in a totally innocuous way)in connection with the Michelle Obama flap. Objectively speaking, isn't it unseemly to see the News channels going after each other?
Post a Comment