Time To Get Out The Empty Chair Again

[Mainecoons]

This really should surprise no one. Basically we have a POTUS who spends much of his time golfing and lets the radicals around him run the country into the ground.


CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I was stunned. This is a man who gave one of the great speeches of our time in 2004, and he gave one of the emptiest speeches I have ever heard on a national stage. Yes, it had cadence, and yes, there were deceptions in it, but that is not what is so striking about it. There was nothing in it. This is a man who believes that government can and should do a lot. There is nothing in here that tells us how he's going to go from today to tomorrow. For any of the so called goals and what government is going to do, what is he going to enact?

At least Romney had a five point plan. What we heard from Obama was a vision. And he pulls numbers out of a hat. 100,000 new math and science teachers. 600,000 more people working in natural gas. Two million more trainees, and he doesn't say how we get from A to B. It's a vision. I have a vision of an America where there is no disease and everybody has a private airplane, but unless I tell you how we get there, I’ve said nothing. And what is so surprising, is that - all he had left - he can't speak about his record on the economy, and it's not a good one. As we heard, he didn't speak about achievements, the one that's liberals like, ObamaCare, stimulus and etc… they're unpopular.

So, at least he would talk about the future, what he's going to to. There was nothing there. I’m amazed that he was -- it was like this is a guy who is the A student in the class turning in a paper clearly a C, and the teacher says, “How could you do this? Why did you mail it in?” I felt the Biden speech was infinitely better, because it was empathic and carried a message, but the Obama speech, I thought was flat and had no content in it. Otherwise, I loved it, really…

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it is the heart of the debate with Republicans and Romney. The heart of the debate between left and right, since the French Revolution. The individual or community, and he stands for the community, which he translates as government. So with that abstract, a cleverly sealed argument.

But, that is not what you're talking about in an acceptance speech, when you've been in power for four years. People expect you to say I’m going to do X, Y, and Z, and we didn't hear any of that. So, as a philosophical issue, yes, but without any of that meat on the bone, I think it rings quite hollow.

KRAUTHAMMER: I think it does [affect Independents] and I think it's a negative. If you're an independent and aren't a committed person on the left or right. And you were sort of a pragmatist, and you’re listening and the President offers you numbers out of a hat, he wants a lot of this and that. He’s mentioning again and again with wind and solar and algae, but he didn't use a word, he used biofuel. And you say, I’ve heard this, this is nothing new. This, is what he tried, he talked about. Where is the meat to make me think that I should have hope and faith? That we will achieve anything? That is what I think he's lacking. I think for independents, it will send him somewhat backwards.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/09/06/krauthammer_on_obama_one_of_the_emptiest_speeches_ i_have_ever_heard.html

[Mainecoons]

And from the left:


Let’s be blunt. Barack Obama gave a dull and pedestrian speech tonight, with nary an interesting thematic device, policy detail, or even one turn of phrase. The crowd sure didn’t see it my way. The delegates were near delirium; to what extent they were merely still feeding off the amassed energy of the previous two nights I can’t say.


And swing voters watching at home? They probably weren’t as bored as I was, but it seems inconceivable that they’d have been enraptured. This was the rhetorical equivalent, forgive the football metaphor, of running out the clock: Obama clearly thinks he’s ahead and just doesn’t need to make mistakes. But when football teams do that, it often turns out to be the biggest mistake of all, and they lose.


I didn’t like the lack of specifics at all. The thing I loved most about the Clinton speech was the specifics. The 24 vs. 42 million jobs created under Republican and Democratic administrations, the explanation of why Romney “restoring” that $716 billion would deplete the Medicare Trust Fund more quickly: that’s great stuff. And especially important, I think, in an election like this one. When you’re running against people to whom facts are irrelevant, the way you kill them is with facts. Not with rhetoric that’s vague and too subtle.


The main exhibit here was Medicaid. Again, Clinton showed the way. He spelled out how Romney-Ryan would devastate Medicaid, and explained how Medicaid has become now more a middle-class entitlement than a poor people’s one. Medicaid is, or can be, as David Frum wrote this morning, a huge Democratic weapon in this election. But unlike Clinton, Obama didn’t even mention it by name. Social Security and Medicare, yes, although even with those, he uttered mere vague sentences. But his not even mentioning Medicaid stunned me. Third down and 12, let’s run it up the middle, boys, take no chances.


The only sentence I really liked was the one about citizenship. It makes my heart happy to hear a president use the word, because a lot of them don’t very much, especially Democratic ones, who are probably warned that the word might offend the non-citizen community. So that felt like it might be the start of something interesting, but it too just sort of floated out the window.

The night’s big thematic device, the “it wasn’t me, it was you” business, sounded like a somewhat forced attempt, frankly, to come up with…something. He was trying to re-inspire the Obamabots of 2008. But it felt very superficial to me. Nothing in this speech was developed, nothing given hard thought, nothing that built to a great moment. Jeezy peezy, did Mitt Romney give a better speech last week? Not quite, but almost.


The question is, did he let the air out of the balloon here? Lose the momentum that gathered with such undeniable force over the previous two nights? I suspect he may have. If he comes out of this convention with under a three-point bounce, that will constitute a horrible missed opportunity. This thing was teed up for him to build a five-point lead. If there’s little movement in next week’s polls, then there’s also little doubt whose fault it is. Michelle did her job, and Clinton more than did his.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/07/obama-a-pedestrian-and-overconfident-speech.html

[Mainecoons]

Here's about as good an example of what an economic fool this man is:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120907/DA14MN4G0.html

He wants to spend a non-existant "peace dividend" from saving borrowed money on wars, which BTW he keeps getting into, on more trash spending that largely benefits unions.

That whole convention was a collection of holy-roller nonsense, not a serious convocation about the mess that Bush created and Obama has compounded several times over in just 3.5 short, disastrous years.

[Chris]

This is a man who believes that government can and should do a lot. There is nothing in here that tells us how he's going to go from today to tomorrow. For any of the so called goals and what government is going to do, what is he going to enact?

SOP for liberals. If there's a problem, let government fix it--if there's no problem, invent one so government can fix it. But that's the extend of the solutions, let government do it. Liberals are empty chairs.

[Chris]

That whole convention was a collection of holy-roller nonsense...


...President Barack Obama didn't give a particularly good acceptance speech Thursday night, but for the thousands in the arena it didn't matter one bit. They were here to see him more than listen to him, to communicate their love to him (often by bursting forth with "I LOVE YOU!!"s) more than hear about his plans for the next four years. The last five minutes of the speech was a festival of hollering back, of responding not to Obama's frequently inaudible remarks but to the rising timbre of his voice. I think it's impossible to understand the ongoing appeal of this odd and embattled president without grappling with the notion that he is an essentially religious figure.

Consciously or no, the Democratic Party and Obama himself played into that devotional relationship every hour of this convention. The president was portrayed as a kind of omnipotent father figure, whose abiding faith in his flock deserved tribute....

The Religious Experience of Barack Obama (http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/07/the-religious-experience-of-barack-obama)

[DonGlock26]

Obama is a walking, talking Potemkin Village.

[Cigar]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/AnderN20120906_low.jpg

[Trinnity]

Taking credit for what he Seals did, and what he had to be forced to approve.
The man has no dignity.
FAIL

http://im41.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Obama-Empty-Chair-Dog-Pissing.jpg

[Cigar]

Taking credit for what he Seals did, and what he had to be forced to approve.
The man has no dignity.
FAIL

http://im41.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Obama-Empty-Chair-Dog-Pissing.jpg

Plenty of empty seats here to piss on ...

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b137/chasc5/a_560x375.jpg