RedState Morning Briefing
For January 28, 2010
After reflection on Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, I am left with one overarching conclusion: while boring, preachy, dull, overly serious, then flipping to overly jocular tones while trying to balance pandering to the middle class with holding his base – Barack Obama’s State of the Union address was a declaration of war on the free market.
Barack Obama said, “Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses.”
But prior to that, he said, “Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.”
Review the list. Every job listed is either a government job or a job so connected to government that it would not exist but for government. The clean energy industry? It would not exist, but for government subsidy. Construction? He is talking about roads and other infrastructure – jobs that will go away once the project is done and the whole way through is dependent on the government.
All of these are government jobs.
The President also said, “Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.”
But, what businesses are these? And who bought the windows? I bet it was related to the government in both cases.
That was just the beginning of his speech, wherein he also referred to the bank tax as a “fee,” which it is nothing of the sort. But his speech got much worse and when the independent voters consider the other points herein, Barack Obama will see his poll numbers fall even further.
The adults are clearly not in charge. (Click into the post for even more evidence of his declaration of war and ignorance of the free market)
Tonight, Barack Obama said, “To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
“That’s what I came to Washington to do. That’s why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.”
Maybe this explains why his national security policies are so weak. He put William Lynn in the Pentagon as Deputy Defense Secretary. Mr. Lynn was a lobbyist for Defense Contractor Ratheon. I guess the Deputy Defense Secretary is not a policy-making job.
But it is not just Lynn. . .
What you did not know at home listening to Barack Obama’s speech tonight is that he inserted a few quips that were not in the prepared text. They were cocky and snide.
After an entire paragraph bashing the Bush administration with this (by the way, he blamed the Bush administration throughout his speech, refusing to accept ownership of any problem):
At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.
Obama added, “Just statin’ the facts.”
After saying, “I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger” he added, “That’s how budgeting works.”
There were others along the same lines. All preachy and aimed at both Democrats and Republicans. And, of course, he lied.
My friend Matt Lewis pens a piece today about the coming primary between John McCain and former Representative JD Hayworth. I suppose it’s a preview of how McCain plans to try to split Hayworth from his conservative base. But if this is the best that McCain can do, then he’s headed for trouble.
First off, full disclosure: I have liked JD Hayworth since my days on Capitol Hill, and I had the chance to work with him and his staff (a little) on taxes and other legislation. I like JD because he tells it like he sees it, and he embraces conservative values down to his core. I respect and admire John McCain, and I appreciate the great work he has done for conservative causes at times in his career. However, I know – and anyone who has watched McCain knows – that if he is re-elected, he will at some point in the next 6 years work against conservatives and with liberals on energy taxes, free speech restrictions, or God-knows what other liberal cause suddenly consumes him. I believe that given the choice of a genuine conservative, and a conservative-when-voters-demand-it, conservatives should back the former – JD Hayworth.
Matt does not try to argue that McCain is more conservative than Hayworth, but that Hayworth isn’t ‘a conservative hero.’ It’s worth noting that Hayworth’s lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 98% – compared to 81% for McCain. And if you look at McCain’s ratings from groups like the ACU and others, you’ll note that in between elections there are years when his ratings drop considerably – because McCain is a maverick who has often worked against conservatives during his years in the Senate.
There’s an allegation that Hayworth is a big spender. Really? His rating from Citizens Against Government Waste is 89% while John McCain’s is 88% – a wash. Despite his rhetoric, John McCain is not without major spending problems. Consider his response to the economic crisis.
Most of America would look at this as a story that carries an important message. It is the kind of story that a president who ostensibly wants to reduce the number of abortions might capitalize on by inviting the Tebow and his parents to the State of the Union speech.
Instead, when Tim Tebow and his mother agreed to tell their story in an ad that’s a part of Focus on the Family’s “Celebrate Life, Celebrate Family” campaign, an ad that cost Focus on the Family about $3 million to have aired during the Super Bowl, the crap hit the fan.
To say that the abortion industry and their lobbying arm went crazy is an understatement.