Gay Patriot Header Image

Why did Obama feel it necessary to politicize his energy addresses??

In a campaign speech cleverly disguised as his Weekly Address to the nation,” writes Joe Newby of the Spokane Conservative Examiner, the president rehashed “his Miami campaign speech”, the self-proclaimed post-partisan politician engaged in partisan posturing:

Now, some politicians always see this as a political opportunity.  And since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas.  I’ll save you the suspense:  Step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling.  We hear the same thing every year.

Well the American people aren’t stupid.  You know that’s not a plan – especially since we’re already drilling.  It’s a bumper sticker.  It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge.  It’s a strategy to get politicians through an election.

That’s rich.  He launches a partisan broadside in a policy speech while attacking his opponents for playing politics.

Why did the incumbent president feel it incumbent upon himself to attack his partisan adversaries in a policy speech?  Couldn’t he just have put forward his energy policy (which, if you just remove the algae and other green subsidies, contains proposals similar to those put forward by Republicans) without the partisan attacks?  Isn’t that what a “post-partisan” politician would do?

Did his predecessor, often faulted for his divisiveness engage in such partisan attacks in his policy speeches?

The president would have served himself better — and sounded more presidential — had he simply acknowledged the problem of higher gas prices and then articulated what his administration had done– and was planning to do — to address the problem.

The question remains:  why can’t Obama deliver a policy address without launching a partisan attack?

Republican Senators lose Presidential Elections

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:48 pm - February 26, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Strong Women

A number of my conservative friends have been wringing their hands about the GOP’s possible nomination of Mitt Romney as its presidential contender.  They fear that, like past mealy-mouthed nominees, he will flounder when facing the fierce power of the Democratic attack machine as did such recent nominees as Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008.

In recent days, two smart conservative women have addressed this concern, one, Jennifer Rubin, by quoting one of her blog readers:

A sharp reader, William from Delaware, e-mails me: “The GOP should never nominate a senator for president. In post WW II America, whenever the GOP nominates a senator (Goldwater, Dole, McCain), they lose. Whenever the GOP nominates a governor (Reagan, Bush 43) or a vice president (Nixon, Bush 41), they win the presidency. Why? First, the American people are looking for executive leadership from a governor or VP – not a DC insider from Capitol Hill. Second, each of these GOP senators carries the burden of a congressional voting record that is distorted and picked to death. Where David Axelrod leaves off, the MSM will continue the assault.”

The problem with Dole and McCain was not their moderation, but their legislative background.  When Dole secured the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, he had been serving in the Senate for nearly 28 years, having spent the previous eight years in the U.S. House.  At the time of McCain’s nomination, he had served nearly 22 years in the Senate, having spent the previous four years in the House.

By the time each man had become the GOP standard bearer, he had served well over a quarter century in the federal legislature.

In a more detailed piece, Noemie Emery challenges “the myth of a powerful Republican establishment“: (more…)