Have you ever heard or seen so much ballyhoo about a State Of The Union address? (Full Disclosure: when I first saw the SOTU abbreviation, I admit that I had to look up what it stood for. I know we live in a world of texting and tweeting, but really...) Yes, the State of the Union speech is important and, in fact, is mandated by our Constitution (Article II, Section 3). This one is particularly important after a midterm election in which the President’s party lost its majority in one of the Houses of Congress, but it still is not as monumental as the WH and the msm are making it. Meanwhile, the Senators and Representatives are turning it into a Second Grade party, worrying about who sits with whom.
This speech seems to be positioned by the WH as the start of the 2012 presidential campaign. I’m almost bored with the whole show already. Aren't you? Don’t they know that two years is a long, long time in life and particularly in politics?
The President has even sent out a preview of the speech. [Here] I have received the trailer in an email and even received an invitation to view The Speech with other Democrats in a home over an hour and two expensive ferry rides away. [No, thank you.]
The NYTimes placed a long preview/analysis of the upcoming speech as their top Sunday news story, even though the reporters, Jackie Calmes, Jeff Zelemy and contributors Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Helene Cooper, tell us [Here] that Obama is still working on the address .[The emphasis is mine.]
The annual address on Tuesday, with much of the nation watching, will pull together themes suggested by Mr. Obama over the past two months as he has moved rapidly since the midterm elections to retool his presidency.
...Mr. Obama has signaled that after two years in which his response to the economic crisis and his push for passage of the health care bill defined him to many voters as a big-government liberal, he is seeking to recast himself as a more business-friendly, pragmatic progressive.
That means emphasizing job creation, deficit reduction and a willingness to compromise in a new period of divided government.
Why is it when I read statements about the so-called “divided” government, folks seem to forget that it is only Congress that is divided? The presidency is still in the hands of the Democrats or was the last time I looked.
However, the line in the article, obviously written after speaking to WH staff, that completely shocked me was this: [Here]
Advisers said the president would describe five “pillars” for ensuring America’s competitiveness and economic growth: innovation, education, infrastructure, deficit reduction and reforming government.
Five pillars????? Either this is a shocking piece of ignorance on the part of the Times reporters or the WH staff --or both.
Is the White House serious or were they rolling the Times? Are they really going to frame the President’s new economic program with the parallel wording of the core belief system of Islam???
Isn’t this the President who has tried to convince the GOP wingnuts that he is not a secret moslem? Why, then, would he chose to describe his new economic model with the same language as the Five Pillars of Islam? Let us hope that one of these “advisors” was pulling the reporters’ legs.
Yet, the only blogger whom I have read who has picked up this MAJOR bumbling stupidity is Tristero at Hullabaloo. [Here]
The WH has 48 hours to figure out the goof. The President is still polishing and revising the speech. Wasn’t that the reason why he didn’t attend Sargent Shriver’s funeral?
That's what we thought. Were we wrong?...