Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama to offer same old/same old* in his speech tonight

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:12 pm - September 8, 2011.
Filed under: Big Government Follies

At some level,” Jennifer Rubin writes, the president’s latest “high-profile speech” offering proposals similar to those he offered “in his first joint-session address, a month after taking office” is “comical“:

We have a 9.1 percent unemployment rate, have spent trillions (between the Bush and Obama administrations) in stimulus money, have near-zero interest rates, and he wants to spend another $300 billion in money we don’t have to “create” jobs.

Even after Republican victories in last fall’s elections in large part by opposing the Democrats’ big government policies and his own expressed concern for the burgeoning burden of federal debt, the president proposes more spending.    That is, the only policies the president can offer are effectively the same ones long since enacted, policies which have been tried and failed.

“What he has tried,” Rubin quips in a question, “hasn’t worked, so he’ll do more of the same?”

This is a political speech intended to lay the foundation for “Congress won’t cooperate with me” excuse- mongering. But frankly, the public doesn’t want more boondoggle spending either.

Read the whole thing.

* (more…)

On Republican refusal to offer official response to Obama speech

Article 2 of the United States Constitution specifies that the “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”   (No, Vice President Biden, Article 1 does not define the executive branch.)

We have just one president.  While we may not always agree with the incumbent, the same article (i.e., 2) grants him a term of four years.  And Barack Obama was elected to a just such a term.  Given that we have only one president, it always seemed a little odd that our media have long allowed the opposition party to offer a response to presidential addresses.  (Wonder if this process started in the Reagan era.)

Well, to his credit, House Speaker John Boehner declined to choose a fellow partisan to offer the Republican response and this has upset his predecessor:

Republicans also announced that they would not prepare an on-air response to the president’s proposal immediately following the speech, a decision House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said was “disrespectful.”

“Listen, this is not the State of the Union address,” Boehner said when asked Thursday why Republicans would not give an official televised response. “The American people shouldn’t be forced to watch some politician they don’t want to listen to. And frankly, most of them would rather watch the football game.”

Sorry, Nancy, it’s hardly disrespectful.  Instead, the Republican refusal honors the office of the presidency and the meaning of the federal constitution.