State of the Union: Prepared Remarks
Because of the length and drek density of the Obamination, I will spread my disrespectful discourse over several blog posts. The first eight paragraphs of the prepared remarks allude to and tangentially rehash the blood tinged partisan acrimony that has hung like a polluted haze in the atmosphere in the weeks following the 'Tucson Massacre. I take that as my starting point.
"It’s no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that’s a good thing. That’s what a robust democracy demands. That’s what helps set us apart as a nation."
The last two years? As if only President Obama has had opposition, and contention is monopolar. Does anyone remember what the nattering nabobs of negativism said about Nixon, Goldwater, Reagan, Bush Clinton & Shrub? Assertions of warmongering extremism cost Goldwater his hope of election. Does anyone remember the vitreol spewed at the judicial nominees of Reagan, Bush & Shrub?
A book and movie about assassinating Shrub and an on the air rant about marching on Congressman Henry Hyde's home and stoning him to death stand out as examples of partisan hate speech. But now they accuse those who voice principled criticism of Obama's policies & actions of inspiring the detestable act of a madman whose political leanings are closer to those of Obama than of his critics. Indeed, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and Obamination won't let one pass unexploited.
A fight for beliefs? Yeah, right. The mission of political parties is to obtain, retain and expand political power, which they translate into cash flow for themselves and their allies.
Beliefs? What beliefs?? Candidates are packaged, branded, promoted & marketed, usually without making clear declarations of political principles. The concept of pandering to the left in the primaries & caucuses before "moving to the center" in the general election and following a defeat in the mid term elections should be sufficient to disabuse any thinking mind of the 'fighting for our beliefs' shibboleth.
"Now, by itself, this simple recognition won’t usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow."
Cooperation = bipartisanship = Republicans surrender their 'principles' and "go along to get along". Mixed seating is a matter of symbolism: symbolic of a fallacy. When one side wants more of the poison that made the nation ill and the other wants a cure, there is no practical compromise. If a husband wants to use hydrochloric acid to clear a drain and his wife wants to use sodium hydroxide, mixing the two may poison them both by releasing chlorine. Some things should not be compromised. "Work together" is another expression of the same dishonest concept.
"I believe we can. I believe we must. That’s what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they’ve determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all – for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics. "
Expectations? Sixty percent of the electorate cast their votes for congressional candidates who they believed were most likely to assist in the repeal of Obama Don't Care. Governing responsibly involves simple and direct solutions, not 2700 pages of convoluted bafflegab.
We face the threat of a greater depression; the total ruination of the economy. We face the threat of national insolvency; the prospect of eroded faith & credit. We face the threat of rationing of medical tests & treatments;' of bureaucrats making arbitrary life or death decisions. We face increased costs and prices that will make medical goods and services beyond the reach of a growing mass of citizens. We face the prospect of more businesses closing as insurance premiums become unbearable.
New laws should only pass on their merits, not based on which party proposes or opposes them. Content, substance & effects, including unanticipated consequences and diseconomies must be considered above partisan advantage through emotive nomenclature & propaganda.
|