“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?