Many pundits, even on the left, have characterized President Barack Obama’s Inaugural address as pedestrian, or, at best “just fine.”
Charles Krauthammer today, suggests that Obama intentionally bombed:
It was so rhetorically flat, so lacking in rhythm and cadence, one almost has to believe he did it on purpose. Best not to dazzle on Opening Day. Otherwise, they’ll expect magic all the time.
I disagree. The tepid response to Obama’s speech was the continuation of a trend that dates back to weeks and months before the election, interrupted only by the orgasmic reaction to his Election Night acceptance speech.
This is the effect of a two year campaign filled with vacuous, meaningless hope and change rhetoric and human nature’s tendency to boredom with the same old, same old.
Like a drug, one can only get the endorphins going with increasing doses. Maybe if he had boogied with Ellen and Michelle between Inaugural clauses, a mosh pit would have formed?
In many ways, it seems Obama has already been President for a year or so, given the ubiquitous media coverage. In fact, I think the honeymoon ended late last summer, with the financial crisis and McCain’s feckless response turning the election back to Obama after the Sarah Palin (pictured) bump had threatened the perfect environment for Democrats for a short time.
Palin continues to get raucous reponses to her recent speeches. She hasn’t been campaigning for 24 months like Obama.
Obama tried to get the crowd going. He paused often, seeming to expect applause, only to be disappointed. This occurred often last Summer and into the Fall.
Obama will have to actually deliver the promised goods of prosperity now due to the other factor that has contributed to declining ratings of “The Obama Show”: the deepening recession.
Words alone, just won’t do.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
There is a lot of truth in your post Gamecock. One can only run on change once. Yes, Mr. Obama appealed to young people. Let’s see if he appeals to the young people four years from now who are currently 14-17.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Many young people get bored rather quickly celebrities and have to move on to the next high.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Take the test.
FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?
ANSWER: Joe Biden
Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)
This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.
SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?
ANSWER: Hillary Clinton
One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.
THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?
ANSWER: Yet undetermined.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Ted #3,
After Obama is dethroned, will he be whisked away on the NAFTA Super Highway to one of those FEMA concentration camps where freedom can only be bought with America’s new currency, the “Amero”?
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Ted,
Give it a rest man.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I don’t know. I kinda liked the speech. A good speaker knows when to address a crowd in a serious somber tone, and when to rouse them up like MLK. Obama’s words spoke to the crises we are facing at this time, and I took his quieter, less rhetorical tone to be reflective of that.
Also don’t assume that because you couldn’t hear the crowds during pauses in his speech that they weren’t cheering. Directional audio mics placed near one’s mouth are designed specifically to block out surrounding noise. There were several times where the television production crews adjusted their mic levels so crowd noise would be more, or less, audible when the occasion warranted.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Ted. . . Which Constitution do you read? Does it also have color-by-number pictures for your entertainment?
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
You’re certainly right that “words alone won’t do”. The unemployment rate in 2010 and 2012 is going to be what determines whether Obama sinks or swims. That, and any sort of geopolitical conflict of any importance.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Ted. . . By your creative interpretation, Biden is not the 44th president. He would be something like 88th. You see, every VP has taken the oath of office before the president, which means that every VP was president for a few minutes before the actually elected president took office, at least according to your warped logic.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
#6 I like much of the speech as well, as I mentioned here, yesterday:
It was also passing strange that in the last few days leading up to Inauguration Day, Obama’s speeches and the Inaugural speech itself, contained voluminous praise for the values, principles and courage of the Founders; wisdom of the framers of the Constitution; reviews of the vast panoply of American history as heroic; as well as praise for the “doers and makers of things” in a paean to free market capitalism.
We give a tip of the hat to the President for all that, as it is all anathema to his far left supporters in the Democratic Party, that are also funded to a large degree by those whose greatest victory was Roe v. Wade. Their kind are the ones that regularly trash America as land of racists that have raped the poor. They have poisoned our school children’s minds for 40 years with a trashing of America’s founders as just slaveholders whose monuments should be torn down.
We are happy that a liberal Democrat descended from an African father could look past the fact that our founders were born into a world in which slavery existed, to see their great wisdom that made his prosperity and success possible. We will be sure to quote you to school children when your ideological allies contradict you in academia, film and the press.
http://race42008.com/2009/01/22/11092/
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
#8 agreed
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
alaska jake: Don’t laugh to hard, I once met a man who said that Mr. Bush was actually the 50th President or something like that and that there were Presidents in the first United States before George Washington came on the scene. He further told me “you would be an idiot to believe that George Washington was our first President.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Obama to lift restrictions on abortion funding
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE50M4WJ20090123?sp=true
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
alaska jake, while you’re that the VP oath goes first, HOWEVER, BOTH ARE REGULARLY DONE BEFORE 12:00 NOON ON INAUGURATION DAY. Here, the VP’s was done before 12:00 noon and Obama’s WAS NOT UNTIL AT LEAST 5 MINUTES AFTER NOON.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Thus, there WAS at least the 5 minute hiatus WHEN BIDEN WAS ACTING PRES.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Ted, are you ready to demonstrate that both parents are required to be citizens before a person is deemed “natural born?”
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Adam, the Supreme Court has NOT “given it a rest” so why should I? A number of cases are STILL PENDING THERE (only the injunctive relief has been denied, they’ve yet to rule on the merits — AND THE DAY WILL COME WHEN THEY DO RULE ON THE MERITS). and when they DO rule on the merits, there’s NO WAY Obama can be deemed a “natural born citizen” under Article 2.
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Richard, while I do deem that to be the case, WE NEEDN’T EVEN GET THERE BECAUSE WHEN OBAMA IS COMPELLED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, OR THE EVIDENCE OTHERWISE COMES OUT — and that day WILL come — Obama will be shown NOT born in Hawaii (because obviously if he was, he already would have provided the documentation).
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Lol Ted DO YOU NEED TO SPEAK IN ALL CAPS?
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Ted = Rabid lunatic
Man, there are quite a few characters on this site, and I must say you top them all
January 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Seems to me all the “criticism” of my posting is stuff like “all caps” criticism, “rabid lunatic”, “LOL”, etc. etc. etc., while avoiding any and all substance.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
#21 “Seems to me all the “criticism” of my posting is stuff like “all caps” criticism, “rabid lunatic”, “LOL”, etc. etc. etc., while avoiding any and all substance.”
Ted, all you do is post declarative statements (Pres Obama was not born in Hawaii, for instance). When someone (such as myself) asks you to support your statement, you give another declarative statement and avoid proving the first. I’ve tried discussing the issues with you (such as the SCOTUS just isn’t going to invalidate the election without substantial proof, and if the best that can be brought is a lack of proof, they will probably throw the case out), but to no avail. Most don’t have that kind of patience, and so resort to calling you a lunatic. Sometimes it’s hard to argue with them.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
What in the heck does Sarah Palin have to do with Obama’s inauguration? Sheesh. A picture, too.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Well GC Obama did more than talk today when he recinded the ban on funding overseas abortion and counseling etc. I am agrieved of spirit. I had been praying God would speak to Him, evidently Mr Obama was not listening. Does he not realize there are countries like China that force women to have abortions. I am sorry this is a deal breaker for me. Today’s order and yesterday’s suspension of military tribunals for Gitmo detainees suspected of terrorism is apparently Obama’s way of listening to the American people and working in a bipartisan spirit. If these actions and decisions are any indication of what is to come folks In the words of a now well known pilot who took a skid on the Hudson a couple of weeks back. Folks, “Brace for Impact”. God Bless.
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Richard M:–
Obama has provided ABSOULTELY NO WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION ESTABLISHING BORN IN HAWAII, or ANY WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION responding to the reasonable questions in light of other facts and statements — yet supposedly such documents exists yet HE STEADFASTLY REFUSES TO PRESENT THEM. Under res ipsa loquitur, that speaks for itself or at the least, DOES shift the burden to Obama.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
And Obama steasdfastly refuseses to provide ANY DOCUMENTATION WHATSOEVER RE HIS ADMISSION AND ATTENDANCE AT Occidental College, Columbia University or Harvard Law School (showing he entered as a foreign, Indonesian, student) and has blocked all access to his passport records (showing Indonesian citizenship as well, as when he travelled to Pakistan on the Indonesian passport at a time when no Americans were allowed there, because of Pakistan war with India.)
No one thinks that is odd? Absolutely NOTHING from college and law school — and the media lets him get away with it, while at the same time sending zillions of reporters up to Wasilla Alaska and 24/7 reporting on Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:33 pm
#24 I agree 100%.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Ted, I for one, think you have made a number of excellent points over the last few months. I wish that others on here would not treat you as a kook. If they disagree, why don’t they present the facts instead of attempting to belittle you? Personally, I don’t think its all that obvious that he meets the criteria to be President.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Ohio Joe #12. . . regarding presidents before George Washington. . . You might be surprised that I actually agree that GW was not our first president. Many historians, myself included, believe that Washington was only the first president who served under the US Constitution in use today. But it was the Articles of Confederation, our first national Constitution, adopted in 1777 in my hometown of York PA (“Our Nation’s First Capital”) and put into effect a few years later, which united the Colonies into a unified, sovereign nation known as the United States (in Congress Assembled).
The Articles specifically declared that we were a Union of States, a “Confederation” able to wage war and negotiate with foreign nations as one united government. The failure of the Articles is that because it was a “Confederation” it lacked a national budgetary framework, meaning it had no power to tax the people to raise operating funds. Instead, the national government was required to ask the states for money. This made success impossible. The second major reason for failure was that the states were burdened with high debt from the War years and could not survive on their own. It was decided, after much debate, to hold a new Convention, which ultimately led to our current Constitution, providing a “Federation” style government of tightly joined states rather than the loose union of the old Confederation, which could levy taxes and which would assume all debts incurred by the states.
During the period of the Articles, 10 men served as “President of the United States in Congress Assembled.” They were not chief executives like our current presidents, meaning they did not serve as Head of State and did not lead an Executive Branch of government. Rather, they were the leaders of the Congress, more like a Prime Minister or Head of Government.
I consider Washington to be our 11th president, though it can be argued (quite well) that the five men who served as President of the Continental Congress before the Articles were adopted could also conceivably be listed as US Presidents, meaning Washington was perhaps the 60th President. Even this number is debatable, as not all who acted as President were actually called President, and one who was called President never acted as such but was replaced by two men at once.
Much like designating Pluto a planet or dwarf planet or planetino, this is really, when it comes down to it, a meaningless argument enjoyed only by history geeks like myself.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Illinois. . . You should know by now that many people here, including Ted, never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. That you and he choose not to accept those facts does not negate their existence.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Dude, Obama’s a good speaker. He’s charismatic. Let’s not deny the obvious, shall we?
January 24th, 2009 at 2:13 am
#31 I don’t deny it, and it could be a great asset if employed for good policy, but the fact is that I was moe moved by his speech than the lib crowd there.
Events could help or hurt him.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:44 am
Alaska Jake:
Thanks for the history lesson. It was a unique perspective.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:57 am
Illinoisguy, not to be smart alec, but I was not there when Mr. Obama was born so I do not know the facts. Yes we have seen various evidence, but in the end, the electoral college voted for him and the Supreme Court Chief Justice swore him in, so yes he is my President. Do I like the fact that our President is among other things, a Radical Socialistic Community Organizer? No. Do I think that he is capable of the job? No, but hey perhaps not everybody thinks I am capable of my job, but I’m still here. Yes, it will be a tough 4 years, (or perhaps
but our strong country will survive this period of history.
To be sure, some people have been quite harsh against Ted. There certainly are at least a few characters around here that are certainly more nutty than Ted, (perhaps even you and I, haha) but I think some people are getting tired of the same person saying the same thing.