Sarah Palin on Obama’s State of the Union Speech: WTF?

Gateway Pundit: “Well, speaking of last night, that was a tough speech to sit through and try to stomach because the president is so off base in his ideas in how it is he believes government is going to create jobs. Obviously, government growth won’t create any jobs. It’s the private sector that can create the jobs. His theme last night in the State of the Union was the WTF, you know, “Winning the Future,” and I thought OK, that acronym, spot on. There were a lot of WTF moments throughout that speech.”

Sarah Palin must have read several million minds last night with that line. 

The left is trying to make February “a Palin Free Month”. Um, good luck with that one.  The time for them to have ignored Palin came and went two years ago. The left is seriously addicted to Palin and trying to ignore her now is like a hardcore crackhead trying to go cold turkey.

The second Sarah Palin makes a comment like this one next month, the left will abandon their Palin embargo and go right back to spewing their bile all over the place.  Oh well, at least they were smart enough to pick the shortest month out of the year to attempt their hopeless endeavor.

To see Palin’s full interview with Greta head on over to The Right Scoop.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Gateway Pundit

Via: The Washington Post

Via: The Right Scoop

Notes on Obama’s SOTU and the responses from Ryan and Bachmann

I just finished watching Obama’s second State of the Union address, along with the GOP’s response by Rep. Paul Ryan and Rep. Michele Bachmann’s response to the Tea Party Express.  Of the three, Paul Ryan was clearly the best because it seemed like the one speech that addressed the true reality of the state of our union.  In short, we are broke and we need to address it now.

Obama’s speech

Obama’s speech sounded like it was best suited for the Clinton era when the nation was running surpluses. Obama’s call for investments seems so bizarre given that we are currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we are spending.  Furthermore, I found so much of Obama’s rhetoric not credible given his actions over the last two years.

Case in point, I laughed out loud over these lines.

For example, over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change. (Applause.)

So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years –- without adding to our deficit. It can be done. (Applause.)

This coming from a man and his party that promised repeatedly to go through the budget line by line to find savings, yet when given the chance he and his party never passed a budget at all.  Sorry Obama, fool us once ….

Since the Shellacking, Obama has been pulling out all the smoke and mirrors he can to cloak himself in centrist clothing.  This SOTU speech seems like it undid a lot of the cloaking.  All that talk of “investment” (i.e. spending) with little next to no realistic ideas on cutting spending, seems to have exposed big spending liberal Obama once again.

By the way, did you catch Obama’s TSA joke?

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail. (Applause.) This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying –- without the pat-down. (Laughter and applause.) As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

I think this would have been a real knee slapper had the groping rule not have been passed under his administration.  However, seeing that it was, the joke came off like a real disconnect.

Paul Ryan’s Speech

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Once again, I have to ask, are there any Republicans who know how to speak without that ding dong Happy Voice? So much of Ryan’s word would have been far more effective without the Happy Voice and the smile. 

Case in point, Ryan speaking about his children’s future

A few years ago, reducing spending was important. Today, it’s imperative. Here’s why.

We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead.

On this current path, when my three children – who are now 6, 7, and 8 years old – are raising their own children, the Federal government will double in size, and so will the taxes they pay.

No economy can sustain such high levels of debt and taxation. The next generation will inherit a stagnant economy and a diminished country.

Frankly, it’s one of my greatest concerns as a parent – and I know many of you feel the same way.

Most people would be sad or angry at the thought of passing on a diminished America to their children, yet Ryan delivers this very serious line with his Happy Voice.  Memo to Republicans: forget all this foolishness about toned down rhetoric and let the emotions fly.

Happy Voice aside, Ryan’s speech captured the true state and concerns of the nation. The previous Congress spent like drunken sailors and now the nation is perilously close to going over the edge. These are the words that Obama should have spoken.

Speaking candidly, as one citizen to another: We still have time… but not much time. If we continue down our current path, we know what our future will be.

Just take a look at what’s happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn’t act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody.

Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner. That is why we must act now.

Michele Bachmann’s Speech

Much media noise has been made about how Michele Bachmann was stepping on Paul Ryan and the GOP’s toes with her Tea Party response. After viewing it, that clearly was not the case. Bachmann’s speech seems more like a pep rally for Tea Party Americans than a rebuttal to Obama’s speech or a competing response to the GOP.

Bachmann does dovetail some of Ryan’s words with her recounting of the massive spending under Obama and the Democrats as well as the foolishness of ObamaCare.

Bachmann’s best moments are when she makes direct appeals to the people to be the solution of this problem.  This is something neither Obama nor Ryan did.

The perilous battle that was fought in the pacific, at Iwo Jima, was a battle against all odds, and yet the image of the young G.I.s in the incursion against the Japanese immortalizes their victory. These six young men raising the flag came to symbolize all of America coming together to beat back a totalitarian aggressor.

Our current debt crisis we face today is different, but we still need all of us to pull together. We can do this.

This kind of appeal is how you rouse the America spirit.  If Bachmann take a stab at running in 2012, talk like this will get her very far.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Wall Street Journal

Via: The Right Scoop

Via: CNN 

Chief Justice John Roberts: Scene at SOTU “very troubling”

At the last State of the Union address only six of the nine Supreme Court Justices attended, I have a feeling the attendance will be a little lower next time round. During a Q and A session at the University of Alabama, Chief Justice John Roberts was asked his opinion on the Alito incident at the State of the Union.  Roberts said: 

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."… 

Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.

"I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts,… 

Sounds like Roberts might be channeling his inner Clarence Thomas on this matter.  As I mentioned before on this blog, the State of the Union is really becoming such a childish exercise. It isn’t something that started under Obama either, it was bad under Clinton and Bush as well.

Since partisanship is driving much of the childish behavior, I think it would be better for future presidents to simply give the address from the Oval Office, where there can be no silly standing ovations, cat calls or outbursts.  Let the viewers at home make up their own minds as to whether or not the president is saying anything noteworthy. 

More reactions at Sister Toldjah and Scared Monkeys.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Associated Press

Why Clarence Thomas did not attend the State of the Union

Justice Clarence Thomas has stated his reason why he did not attend Obama’s first State of the Union address.

From The Weekly Standard:

"I don't go because it has become so partisan," he said, "and it's very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there. There's a lot that you don't hear on TV: The catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments. One of the consequences is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It's just an example of why I don't go."

Well bravo, Justice Thomas! I will go one further. The State of the Union address has become a childish circus. This did not happen under Obama, this has been in the making for quite some time. 

For me, the biggest annoyance about the SOTU is all those silly standing ovations. Congress looks like trained seals springing to their feet over every little utterance from the president. When the president says something his party likes they all spring to their feet and the opposing party sits on their hands. Republicans like what a Republican president proposes and Democrats like what a Democratic president proposes, we get it, their partisan. It would be far more dignified and useful if all of Congress followed the Supreme Court's lead and sat quietly until the end of the address.  Let the viewers decide for themselves what is or isn’t praise worthy.

In addition, the SOTU has become a forum for a president to showcase his initiatives rather than report to the American people what the true state of the nation is and what is being done to improve it.  This is why these address drone on for what seems like days and the most memorable things to come out of them are the outburst from the audience. 

Hopefully whoever the next president is, he or she will set some new ground rules for the SOTU and bring it back to a more informative tool for the American people.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Weekly Standard

Rasmussen: Americans not buying what Obama was selling at SOTU

Rasmussen has conducted a poll of how voters reacted to assertions Obama made about the economy and the results are staggering. Most voters simply do not believe the assertions Obama made about the economy by very wide margins.

On tax cuts: 

... just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years. 

On the recession: 

The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false. 

On jobs: 

Obama claimed that steps taken by his team are responsible for putting two million people to work “who would otherwise be unemployed.” Just 27% of voters say that statement is true. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it's false. 

On the spending freeze: 

Regarding another initiative detailed in the speech on Wednesday night, just nine percent (9%) of voters believe the president’s proposed freeze on discretionary spending will have a big impact on the deficit. 

The numbers get worse why party affiliation is taken into account. On all questions, only Democrats believe what Obama was selling and even then by small margins. The majority of Republicans and Independents simply were not buying any of it. 

The only silver lining for Obama is that Democrats opinion of Obama increased after the State of the Union address. There was no change for Republicans and Independents.

The problem for Obama is that he is using very old Chicago style politics in a very new political era. Many voters on the right and in the middle have become much more active. They are now following political news much more closely than before. Simply trying to spin away bad news will not work anymore. Adding to Obama’s problem is that we are now firmly in the YouTube generation. Anyone with modest editing skills can string together past statements and prove a politicians lies with devastating effect. Remember the C-Span video?

For further details, read the whole report.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Rasmussen

Graphic H/T: Mako Snark

Sarah Palin calls out Obama for his “Credibility Gap”

Sarah Palin has posted a response to Obama’s State of the Union address on her Facebook page today. In her post, Palin pulls no punches and calls out Obama’s credibility gap for not having his deeds match his words.  From his double talk on lobbyists to his make believe attempts at bipartisanship, Palin details all of Obama’s false words. 

Palin’s take down, speaks to what I found so galling about he speech. Obama’s ability to lecture everyone despite his culpability in the very things he is scolding them about. This is exactly why we have House Reps and Justices making outbursts about his lies. 

The Credibility Gap

While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.

Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.

He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”

He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.

He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.

Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.

He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.

He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.

He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?

Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?

In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it. 

Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.

Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.

He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.

Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.

- Sarah Palin 

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Sarah Palin’s Facebook Page

My notes on Obama’s State of the Union address

I actually watched and read the speech this time. You can find full video to the State of the Union address here and a full transcript here.  

I would just like to start with a few observations. Michelle Obama looked very well to night, but I did catch her looking like she was nodding off a few times (see 10:50 mark in video).  Obama looked well too, but he is clearly looking a lot grayer than last year.  

Like the last time Obama address Congress a few months back, I find these gratuitous standing ovations ever so annoying. This isn’t a partisan nitpick; I hated it just as much when it happened under Bush. This whole concept of giving standing ovations, like trained seals ,over the littlest of things seems so intellectually infirmed and childish. Congress should be a more serious place and as such should save standing ovations for when a president makes an absolutely prodigious statement, like we have won a war, we have erased our deficit, we just landed on Mars, etc.  Congress, please knock it off.

Things that stood out to me:

Public Anger: In the opening remarks Obama touches on public unrest, but describes it in terms of the little guy vs. the big guy (banks, Wall Street, etc) but only alludes to government and describes that as a lack of partisanship? This is troubling if he does not understand that a lot of the public’s anger has to do with his policies and the Democratic controlled Congress’ behavior.

Bail Outs: This is where Obama introduces his Bank Fee. He makes no mention that many banks were asked to take TARP who did not need it. Nor does he acknowledge that this fee can and most likely will be passed on to the banks’ consumers. 

Stimulus: The Stimulus was totally misrepresented. Obama referred to 95% of Americans getting a tax cut. It was a tax credit that you will have to pay taxes on next year.

Small Business: Using $30 billion in TARP to give to banks to make loans to small businesses. This sound an awful lot like the Community Reinvestment Act that got us in trouble in the first place. Obama seems to think that banks are willy nilly in their lending and that is why they are only giving loans to certain people.  Again, government stepping in to dictate who to lend to is how we got into trouble in the first place.

Eliminating capital gains tax on small business is a good idea, but why not do it across the board for everyone?

Health Care: All I can say is Holy Crap! Does Obama actually think that he did not do enough explaining on health care? Does he actually think all that vote buying and backdoor wheeling and dealing was merely lobbyists and horse-trading? Talk about a complete disconnect, he didn’t even recognize the anger people feel over the policies and the process.

The Deficit: Total blame Bush action here. No mention of his contributions to skyrocketing the deficit.  He introduces his smoke and mirrors spending freeze and then talks about going through the budget line by line. Where have we heard that BS before? He says the Bipartisan fiscal commission will not be a Washington gimmick but that is exactly what it is.

Publishing earmarks online: I had to have a big chuckle over this.  Wasn’t these entire thousand page bills supposed to have been posted online before being voted on? I do recall Democrats reneging on this and even sneaking in hundreds of pages of amendments just before the vote. I expect this online earmark nonsense to be completely ignored by both parties.

The perpetual campaign: I cannot believe this man can chide Congress for running a perpetual campaign when that is basically all he did throughout last year. I would even go as far as to say this State of the Union address was like a campaign speech.

Overall:  Overall I found this speech galling. Obama seems to still be in lecture mode. He was lecturing Congress and the American people on what should be proper behavior and discourse, yet there he stands completely failing in so many of the those very things.  Unless you were out of the country for all of 2009, I cannot imagine who anyone could not have been stunned how Obama ignored his culpability.

The second thing about the speech I noticed was that much of his higher talk seemed to be geared more to rallying the Democrats. Was he slyly giving them a pep talk to revive ObamaCare? Sure seemed like it to me.

What were your impressions?

Via: Memeorandum

Via: C-SPAN 

Via: The New York Times