Skip to comments.State of the Union? Or 'State of the Campaign?'
Posted on 01/25/2012 5:02:56 AM PST by statestreet
With bland, hapless Michigan-born Mitt Romney betraying a greater likeness each day to bland, hapless Michigan-born Thomas E. Dewey, the comparisons of 2012s presidential marathon to 1948s Dewey-Truman match-up slog steadily forwardwith the latest installment arriving on our doorstep in the form of tonights State of the Union Address.
Like many a politician before him, Barack Obama preaches a lilting bi-partisanship but practices a harsh partisanship. Predictions that his 2012 State of the Union Address will in reality be a campaign roadmap are near universal.
In this instance, once again, Give Em Hell Barry, scold of the Do Nothing 112th Congress, may very well emulate his come-from-behind predecessor Harry S Truman.
Nineteen-forty-eight began like 2012: a president in deep trouble, mired in bad poll numbers, his charm eroded.
Truman too recognized the necessity of jump starting his listless campaign through the mechanism of delivering his ostensibly non-political annual State of the Union Address before a national audience.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
That’s it in a nutshell- I have heard this expression all over this morning- “State of the Campaign”
I even thought those exact words as I was listening to the “empty, stupid, happy-talk” from the campaigner-in-chief
No one with an ounce of shame could say some of those words after his 3 years in office.
Quoting Republican Lingon about the government doing what it can “AND NO MORE” (I think someone needs to explain to him what “no more” means)
It is clear that no one has ever taught Obama HOW to thin, only WHAT to think.
He reads words put in front of him with no clue as to their meaning.
Even NBC News this morning was critical of 0bamas State of his Campaign speech.
Never—never—never listen to what Obama says.
Watch what he does.
His whole speech last night was Bullsheet.
He went on and on promising and talking ,but he does the exact opposite of what he said in every instance.
Only a damned fool would believe a third of what he said last night.
Mitch Daniells speech was terrific!
If only he could employ better delivery.
Needed variation in tone or passion or something.
And don’t forget in 1948 the Establishment Republicans put up Dewey, who was simply Truman lite.
For that you have to actually believe what you are reading.
But the examples in view contradict that position.
Obama had passion, yet there's no way he believes his own rhetoric.
I'm convinced Mitch Daniels absolutely believes the content of his speech.
-- B. H. Obama Pres.
Obama does believe in what he is saying-he believes in Socialism.
The crap in last nights speech was wrapped in his lie of supporting capitalism and the constitution.
That’s why I know he doesn’t believe it.
Most of the lefties will vote for Obama like conservatives voting for Bush. They know that they don’t agree 100 percent with Obama, but they are determined to view him as the lesser of two evils when faced with a decision between him and someone else. Hollywood will do it, plenty of racial minorities will likely do it, and the liberal establishment will do it.
He believes the Socialism part.
I didn’t mind that part of the speech, especially when he droned on and on about the SEAL team getting bin Laden. I lost interest from his droning to the point that I couldn’t remember all the groups he mentioned, I felt like, “look Mr. President, I get the point, you’re losing me on this speech.” It just felt like a drone compared to the rest.
Really, don't ever post to me again.