A 'make or break moment' - coming in November 2012, people!

They called it a make or break speech for Obama. It felt to me like the promo for the next episode of a failing TV drama. 

I think it is clear that the Kansas campaign speech -- uh, err, presidential address! -- given by Obama recently left all but his team and sickest fans with question marks over their heads. His words were open to gross interpretation. This is his campaign mode, his tell-nothing-and-do-so-with-pleasant-platitudes mode.

So, it's 2008 again, only this time, the Democrat has an actual record to look at. (Still no college record, but so what, right? That's not weird -- wait, yes it is. It's very odd for a POTUS to lock up his school history. Where was I...?) 

It was a taxpayer-paid campaign stump speech by our divisive, happily obscure Campaigner-in-Chief. 

His team is correct: it was a make or break speech. The issue to me, though, is this: Will pretty words that mean plenty of different things to different people satiate enough national voters again in 2012 to give the "O-TelePrompTer" the podium for another four?

While Team Obama -- or the "The O-Team," as we'll call them -- insists this was NOT a campaign speech, Mr. Obama's CAMPAIGN team said this related to the recent speech in Kansas: "the other side's candidates all want to let Wall Street write its own rules and give more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires." 

Yet, in the speech, Obama said the ideals of which he was bellowing were not ones exclusively of the 1 percent or of the 99 percent, not DNC nor GOP. Hmm. What values are those? 

So, from his words to The O-Team's words, we get differing, uhh, interpretations. But The O-Team clearly thinks the Republicans are pro-rich and anti-middle class. 

That's not class warfare. That is totally factual, not ridiculous or divisive at all. What a make or break speech it was!

Coincidentally, not Wall Street, but the formerly Democratic-locked Senate did write new rules for financial institutions. But they went even bigger -- for big gov fans, BETTER -- creating a BRAND NEW BUREAUCRACY to serve those rules. They didn't want to fix the SEC or other bureaucracies that should or could have been more functional, no. Left them alone, it seems, and created moooore bureaucracyyyyy. THAT's what Obama's people did. 

Why just come up with rules when you can create a new agency, and one that answers ONLY to the Executive Branch?

I can hear the public sector workers, the half of Americans who pay no taxes, and those who prefer being on the government dole, cheering: four more years! Four more years! 

Read his words, or watch it, here:http://www.barackobama.com/fair-shot/full
(Or, you could decide right just how easy it will be to give another guy, or gal, a try in 2012. Leaves a lot of time free from all this election hoo-hah. Just saying to consider it!) 

- jR (aka @AirFarceOne) 
(And not a damned troll, you leftist blowhard tweet sissies)

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Post a Comment