The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Streetcar Line

President Pitch-Perfect, Politically

By on 9.1.10 @ 6:10AM

His Iraq speech last night was a success.

Knowing that I will get an absolute ton of grief for saying this, I nevertheless pronounce that from a purely political standpoint, Barack Obama was as close to pitch-perfect in his speech last night as he possibly could have been.

Don’t have a cow, folks. Let me explain. This is not to say that critics would be wrong to pick apart some of Obama’s substance. It is not to say that his nod to former President Bush was anything other than more style than substance, and barely enough even of style. He should have credited Bush at least to a certain extent for the “surge,” and should have acknowledged that at least on a basic level the surge worked. This is also not to say that his discussion of the economy was anything but gauzy in substance, lacking any specificity or real thrust. And this is not to say that I agree in the slightest with his worldview or his overall assessment of what it is that constitutes U.S. interests.

But it is to say that considering the political position he is in, and considering his ideology, and considering the fact that most Americans now are looking inward and are very happy to stop thinking about wars abroad, I thought he threaded every needle he could thread and was effective in saying what a whole lot of less-than-political, less-than-ideological Americans want to hear. He said the troops are coming home. He said we must focus on our economy. He said that Iraqis and Afghanis must learn to fend for themselves — a stance with which probably 80+ percent of Americans believe. He credited our military personnel again and again and sounded heartfelt in doing so. He sounded proud of America and of its efforts. He sounded a bit more generous to his predecessor than in substance he actually was. He never once sounded peevish. He didn’t cast blame. He also didn’t sound anywhere near as arrogant, self-referential, self-reverential, and self-absorbed as he usually does. He didn’t sound flat. His intonation was good. And his language had just the right mix of understated eloquence with conversational approachability.

What I am saying is that his poll ratings will indeed get a little bump from this speech, and that the bump will not evaporate in just a few days but, at worst (or at best from conservative standpoints) might just slowly dissipate over a couple of weeks — if it dissipates at all. More likely is a bump of a few points — not a huge gain, but four points or so — that lasts steadily through September.

I don’t think he deserves such a bump. I think Obama is tremendously flawed and his vision for the United States is alien to mine and to that of most of American history. But I think he went as far as he could go tonight toward re-engaging the political middle without saying anything that could get him in trouble with the left. I also think that in what he did choose to say, he was sincere — and certainly sounded as if he were.

In those senses, I think his speech was a political success, although I wish it had been otherwise. I do not feel safe with Obama as our commander in chief. But I think he made more people feel safe, or at least accepting of him as C-in-C, than there were before he spoke last night. He didn’t say what a conservative would have said. But he said the best he could get away with saying while being credible, and he sounded mostly good in doing so.

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (211) |

Ret. Marine| 9.1.10 @ 6:17AM

Now this is a kicker. You know as I do once a liar, always a liar, until caught that is. You don't think his lying/lowering poll numbers has any thing to do with it do you now?

Steve| 9.1.10 @ 1:55PM

Quin.......did you watch the same speech I did?
The guy's a POS

Alan Brooks| 9.1.10 @ 4:05PM

"I don't think he deserves such a bump. I think Obama is tremendously flawed and his vision for the United States is alien to mine and to that of most of American history. "

Alien to "mine"? why is your vision important at all?

Tim*| 9.1.10 @ 7:11PM

Same as yours Brooks .We call it Free Speech here in America , Sport .

Big D| 9.1.10 @ 9:10PM

Your condescension is showing again, Alan. Very unbecoming. Oh, and Tim is correct. Surely you are in favor of free speech, right? And whether Quin Hilyer's opinion turns out to be important is out of your hands.

Alan Brooks| 9.1.10 @ 10:09PM

Free speech, yes. But important speech. Quin shouldn't toot his own horn. This is a megalomaniacal thought:
"[Obama's] vision for the United States is alien to mine and to that of most of American history."

Big D| 9.1.10 @ 10:42PM

I see. So, free speech should only be free if it is "important." Now I see where you are coming from.

As to megalomania, in this case I think it is really just a bad sentence. Obama can may have a vision for America, Quin Hillyer may have a vision for America, but I don't think American history has a vision for America. But I catch his drift and don't really disagree much. Does that make me a megalomaniac as well?

Tim*| 9.2.10 @ 5:29AM

Brooks is the bus callin' the canary yellow .

Ken Roberts | 9.6.10 @ 8:10PM

Important as in liberal or conservative,? I bet you mean if it had a left smell to it, it was important and if it smelled right in any way it was not worthy of free speech. Was that what you were trying to convey to all of us here at American Spectator?

Dan Kauffman | 9.1.10 @ 10:28PM

Because Quin is a VOTER which makes him one of the people Obama works for ;-)

old white guy| 9.3.10 @ 3:50PM

apparently he didi get a bump. i'm never sure that any of the polls relating to obama are true but i think he got 2 whole points. eeehhaw.

Occam's Tool| 9.1.10 @ 7:38PM

You know, Quin, Ret. Marine, when you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.

Alan Brooks| 9.1.10 @ 10:12PM

... but it's okay-- as long as Quin Hilyer doesn't get too uppity.

Siegfried X| 9.1.10 @ 6:28AM

His speech said that we should cut and run in Afghanistan in order to use the money to make "investments" [in Ted Kennedy socialist bills] at home. That's not moderate -- it's flaming left. It was a speech to pacify his far left base, not the general population.

This is a president who is risking the lives of our troops in combat every day with his withdrawal deadline. The President of Afghanistan has said so, as have some of our top generals. The Taliban have said they are waiting for the withdrawal date. I can't understand why the Republican leadership like Boehner is not pointing this out.

Eric Cartman| 9.1.10 @ 7:33AM

Why the Republican leadership isn't pointing this out? Because they are as useless as three tits on a bull, that's why! They may also want to point out - a fact that QH just flew right over - that the butthead used a speech that was supposed to be about the end of our combat role in Iraq (thanking the troops, as it were) to campaign for the mid-term election. It was a campaign speech more than anything else. The little turd talked more about his political problems than he did about what's next in Iraq and Afghanistan - and, really, even that was couched in terms of his health care mess. It was pathetic. Hillyer should quit doing Ecstasy - it leads to column like this.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 8:37AM

Eric, I take offense to your referring to our Dear Leader as a "little turd." Last time I looked, he was over six feet tall.

I'll agree with Quinn this far - the BIG turd did not pepper his speech with self-referential self-aggrandizement. What a yawning chasm between his scripted remarks and the petty punk that is revealed every other time he opens his mouth.

I am one of those who looks at him, looks at the manipulative pictures right behind him and then the American flag behind those pictures and my blood boils. This is an administration that cares about symbolism only to the extent they can fool the masses.

Their contempt for America is clear even in their attempts to hide that contempt.

This petulant, adolescent, ignorant, narcissistic, sociopathic, vengeful, angry, classless, hubristic, messianic, puerile, destructive fool has no business in the Oval Office - as a visitor, let alone its occupier.

Eric Cartman| 9.1.10 @ 9:10AM

At first, Grz, I took offense at your offense! Then I thought about it - Wait, maybe ole Grz here has a point! I mean, Pelosi is the ugly turd, and not very tall. A small, mean turd as it were. Reid is an old turd and shrinking due to dehydration and age. And the Republicans are stinky, useless turds, incapable of any coherent action whatsoever. So I stand corrected - Obama is indeed the BIG turd, as you so gracefully point out. Thank you for correcting my careless error.

old white guy| 9.3.10 @ 3:53PM

you insult mr. henky.

John II| 9.1.10 @ 10:08AM

". . . petulant, adolescent, ignorant, narcissistic, sociopathic, vengeful, angry, classless, hubristic, messianic, puerile, destructive . . ."

You left out "smug," Grzzy. Otherwise, that about covers it.

And if any dude tells you that "adolescent" and "puerile" are redundant, refer him to me and I'll straighten him out.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 10:44AM

Thanks, John II.

And let's not forget lazy. . . .

Clinton nee Publius| 9.1.10 @ 10:49AM

You think you are being clever but we here at Regime HQ have you under surveillance. We know who you are and are biding our time to make our strike and burn away this counter-revolutionary cult in the purity of world socialist fire. You will not even be given the opportunity to join one of our Messiah's re-education camps. You will pay the price for being an enemy of the state and it will be all you can pay, comrade. It will be late at night. There will be a knock at the door and the agents of State Committee for Security will take your family to the gulag and that will be all for you. Remember, the Messiah is all-knowing and the Ministry of Propaganda for the Messiah's State Media Collective is watching.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 11:48AM

Hello Clinton nee Publius.

The men in suits were just here. I'm happy to report that my mind is now right. I was wrong to criticize our Dear Leader. I will gladly serve my 20 years' hard labor at the Goldman Sachs Investment Bank and Progressive Gulag. It's Good that Obama wished me into the corn field. It's real good that he did that.

The state is all. Obama is the State. Long Live Obama. May His Wisdom and Beneficence Guide us for a thousand years.

Aelfgyva| 9.2.10 @ 2:02PM

"Malfeasant" would not be an out-of-place addition, either.

gypsy| 9.1.10 @ 12:36PM

OK, so he's not a "little turd". He's a monumnetal pile of lying, America hating, middle class attacking, job destroying horseshit

Is that a better description?

PS
Mr. Hillyer, you are completely off base if you think this Obama blather is going to help him or his heartless, hate filled kool aid swigging followers this November

Radegunda| 9.2.10 @ 2:09PM

Also left out: "dorky."

Ken Roberts | 9.6.10 @ 8:16PM

Also left out , "Mojo jo jo"

Linda| 9.1.10 @ 5:39PM

Eric - all he knows how to do is give campaign speeches. I didn't / couldn't bear to listen to it, but from what I understand from reliable sources all it was was campaigning. He's trying to save his party and those who bow down to him (excuse the pun), but there is no saving them.

Ken Roberts | 9.6.10 @ 8:12PM

Isn't all his speeches campaign speeches , seems like they are .

Eric Cartman| 9.1.10 @ 7:50AM

And by the way, QH, what was really disgusting was how the Spender -in-Chief blamed his HUGE deficits on the wars. Yeah, the wars made him do it. Guess you missed that part reloading your bong. And by the why, did you hear the words "victory" or Taliban anywhere in there? Isn't that who is killing our troops in Afghanistan? Couldn't find anything wrong with his campaign speech? That's what Ecstasy does, Quin - makes ya feel warm and fuzzy all over.

LVR| 9.1.10 @ 3:53PM

Right on, Eric! POTUS said our economy is in the tank due to our war spending. Unreal! Pentagon costs are a tiny tiny iota of what he's done to our deficit! And, again he mentioned 'his grandfather' in WWII. Every time he speaks about anything, it's always related back to 'him.' Where is the parade for the soldiers, where is the passion...oops, if we show passion or a tear, we're "angry" or we're "phony" like they call Beck! Annoying...everything they do in D.C. is totally without logic.
Class acts give others credit for their successes and they take responsibility for their failures. We sure could use a class act without a socialistic agenda.

Flee| 9.1.10 @ 4:36PM

I couldn't bring myself to listen to him...his voice grates on me too much. I suspect someone else penned the bulk of this speech and organizer in chief added the addendum about politics and health care because it was left off by the real writer. Anytime this one shows a hint of humanity or humility you can be certain its because someone else made him do it. Otherwise its looking down his nose at any and everyone especially military and their families.

Linda| 9.1.10 @ 5:40PM

Well, newest figures show that the stimulus (I still don't know what it's stimulating - but I guess some people get a tingly feelilng from it) has now cost us more than the mid-east war.

Kishego| 9.1.10 @ 1:14PM

Boehner is as inept as Dennis Hastert was. For the life of me I can't figure out how these guys keep getting into the leadership roles in the GOP. When we take back the House this year, I'm praying to God that we can get the likes of Eric Cantor, or Mike Pence, or Paul Ryan in as the Speaker. If Boehner is elected Speaker, kiss 2012 goodbye.

Joe| 9.1.10 @ 7:19PM

"His speech said that we should cut and run in Afghanistan ....I can't understand why the Republican leadership like Boehner is not pointing this out."

The Republican leadership can't point this out because Obama is just copying the original cut and run president in the Middle East, which was Ronald Reagan. Remember the Marine barracks bombing and then Reagan cut and run within 90 days.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.10 @ 6:29AM

Quin,
As I've said before, I simply cannot listen to the man. I did get up early and read the transcript this morning.

Brrrrrrr! (chills) Reminds me of a phrase I heard some years ago "Communism with a smiling face".

Yep, someone wrote him a great speech, no question.

drudge ette obama| 9.1.10 @ 6:43AM

I didn't watch it for the very same reason. What was with the umbrella the other day?

stephanie| 9.1.10 @ 6:55AM

He didn't want his hair to frizz? :-)

Ned the Red| 9.1.10 @ 12:36PM

Ken, Same here, I just can't listen to him. I figure I'll read in the morning what the people I trust and are paid to listen to him say.
One thing that has been on my mind lately is FDR. I have read that all of his policies from the time he took office until we entered the war were a disaster for the country. The policies worsened the economic situation and unemployment went up much higher than it was before he took office. It had stabilized and then shot up with his cures.
I also keep thinking he was elected three times before the war started and once after.
I worry about President Obama pulling off the same stunt. I think he will lose a house or two this November, but through his regulatory agencies and so called Czars already in place he can continue to do great damage.
I also worry that once the Republicans regain some power they will, as usual, be scared of the media and revert to the same old crap of trying to reach across the aisle.
Our only hope of combating a repeat of the 30’s is that the media has had its feathers clipped by Talk Radio, the Internet, and Fox News.
What does this have to do with Quin’s article, you may be wondering. Maybe the President will have the same appeal as FDR and be able to bullshit enough people to continue being reelected. Or kind of like if you’re married to a real ball breaker, the times she mellows out a little, or in Obama’s case comes to the right, you are so happy to not being clubbed over the head you let yourself be fooled into carrying on with the marriage thinking the worst is over.

Linda| 9.1.10 @ 5:44PM

I am so sick and tired of hearing what a "great" president FDR was. If you'll study your history, you'll see that he and Wilson were two of the very worst. My father-in-law lived through the depression and said that this country was starting to come out of it when FDR starting throwing all his social money, spending and entitlements to the people. Without all that, perhaps we wouldn't have such an entitlement generation today and we could be on solid ground instead of this giveaway program that we're enmeshed in.

Ned the Red| 9.1.10 @ 7:34PM

"If you'll study your history, you'll see that he and Wilson were two of the very worst."

Yes, but Wilson got elected twice and FDR four times. How did they do it?

Radegunda| 9.2.10 @ 3:28PM

How did Dems get vaulted into power in 2008 after being the primary agents of the mortgage meltdown? How do the Dems keep getting put in power in California? It doesn't mean they're doing a good job; it means (for one thing) that a lot of voters are clueless about the cause of their problems, while a lot of others are on the take.

Part of the FDR mythology was the claim that people would be even worse off without the government "giving" them things. To many voters, those meager government handouts were more visible than the actions of the government that took their jobs away.

Gretchen| 9.2.10 @ 3:13PM

Jim Powell has written an excellent book on the deleterious effects of FDR and the New Deal:

"FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Grest Depression"

I believe Jonah Goldberg has also written on the subject.

Gretchen| 9.2.10 @ 3:14PM

Typo alert:

"Grest" should read "Great".

Ken Roberts | 9.6.10 @ 8:29PM

Crest will do, we know and it is not needed to typo correct as we all know that lefty is out there being the English teacher that will pounce on every mistake . "Who cares"

Brian Mc| 9.1.10 @ 6:35AM

I don't care what he says, and this is why I did not tune in last night. I only care about what he does and this is why he terrifies me, no matter the words he utters from his mouth.

logmank| 9.1.10 @ 6:45AM

Great. Just what we need. Kudos for Obowmao the communist from Quin Hilyer. Reminds me of McLame "reaching across the aisle".
Hilyer - Take your compliments for this scum and stuff them where the sun doesn't shine - please.

Tom| 9.1.10 @ 1:27PM

So you disagree with the analysis? Are you saying there will not be a bounce?

Hilyer in no way endorsed the substance of the speech. In fact, he mentioned several areas of disagreement. What he wrote about is he thinks the speech is going to a political winner, at least in the short term. Whether Hilyer is right or not will be real easy to discern since we'll have the hard numbers soon enough.

Ken Roberts | 9.6.10 @ 8:31PM

Bounces happen no matter, it either goes up or down but if you will notice a month later it is down again ,speeches tend to bounce up . but they are not permanent .

stephanie| 9.1.10 @ 6:51AM

He WAS flat Quinn. No emotion, no love of country. And the words he spoke that Bush loves his country and the troops was just lip service. He didn't mean it. And how the heck could Bush meet with this pathetic man after all the blame he has heaped upon him and his administration?! What's up with that? He may have "said all the right things", but you know he was instructed on how to behave. Unless he's stroking himself or slamming the past president, he's not being himself. God, I can't wait for this guy to move out of our White House.

Siegfried X| 9.1.10 @ 7:25AM

"how the heck could Bush meet with this pathetic man after all the blame he has heaped upon him and his administration"

It's because "moderate" Republicans are very much like Democrats, and they both think the real enemy is normal, conservative Republicans. On non-military issues Bush's presidency was very much like Obama's, pushing the same left-wing issues like amnesty, Ted-Kennedy socialist health programs, and lots and lots of spending.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 9:06AM

I came to the conclusion that Bush actually gets some kind of thrill by "turning the other cheek" incessantly. It began with the Clinton goons' trashing of the West Wing before Bush's inauguration, and it has continued to this day.

His administration's absolute refusal to stand its ground with critics was acid - acid that that ate through his political capital, his credibility and finally, his presidency. And still he never understood that.

Nothing pleased Bush more than being sucker punched and then smiling at the perpetrator with misplaced beatific love.

The final straw for me was the Valerie Plame travesty. You won't find a better example of a kangaroo court anywhere in the annals of Soviet history. Yet, not only did Bush refuse to throw Scooter Libby a lifeline, he allowed Libby's phony conviction to stand - AFTER Richard Armitage went public.

So let me get this straight: Bush's loyalty was such that he wanted to elevate an obvious hack, Harriet Meirs, to the Supreme Court, but when it came to preventing a miscarriage of justice and the daily slander of Libby, he was an accessory.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bush showed up for one of Obama's inevitable Nuremberg-style re-election rallies as the guest of honor - and then gleefully lights the match setting the fire that will burn him in effigy.

Eric Catman| 9.1.10 @ 9:18AM

There is nothing more to add. Set and match.

Siegfried X| 9.1.10 @ 9:51AM

Bush was taught in his snobby, upper-class upbringing that the ruler doesn't talk to the commoners about his decisions -- he simply reigns.

I also think he bought into the fallacy which is so common among Republican politicians: "There is no need for politics because we will be judged on how we perform."

There are other strange things too, like Bush delegating a large share of his responsibilities to the Vice President, which is something almost unheard of. I also remember him nearly breaking down and crying during a press conference, when asked something about Iraq. I can't help but wonder if there was some deeper problem there, like something physical.

Eric Cartman| 9.1.10 @ 10:10AM

It's called the "Republican Testicular Deficiency Syndrome" (RTDS), marked by an uncontrollable urge to let Democrats walk all over you and then thank them for it. It's all spelled out in Grzmlyk's post above. You can detect RTDS by the loss of courage in the face of Leftist Traitors who continually tell lies and cost American lives while we are at war while you sit back and say nothing. It's all there in the above post - no need for me to add anything.

Siegfried X| 9.1.10 @ 10:23AM

That's what broke me out of the partisan fog, and led to the first time I ever criticized Bush during his presidency. It was the fact that he wouldn't defend his troops. They were bravely going all over the world, wherever he told them, and yet President Bush refused to politically cover their back from the Democratic attacks. Day after day the Democrats spewed out lies and hate at the military, yet our commander-in-chief wouldn't protect them. It was a betrayal.

It's made worse because President Bush, when he wanted to, COULD speak. That time he grabbed the bullhorn and told the terrorists we were coming after them will go into the presidential hall of fame. Even the left-wing New York Times said something like "Bush is really growing into the presidency". Yet that was one brief, shining moment.

Eric Cartman| 9.1.10 @ 10:37AM

I think you speak for a lot of us. That's when my bullshit antenna went up. I couldn't make the connection between his silence and his actions - until that Rove idiot said it was his fault Bush never defended his actions or his troops in public. So it boiled down to politics - that just pissed me off more. Bush let these guys die and suffer more because he was more concerned about how he looked in public and how addressing the Lefty scum would somehow make them look legitimate. What an asshole.

Stephanie| 9.1.10 @ 10:56AM

Geeeeze Guys, sorry I asked! Didn't mean to get you all riled up! Bush disgust on display~
PLEASE don't yell at me, I understand!

Kishego| 9.1.10 @ 1:26PM

I think Bush lost most of his nerve after the savaging he took from the press and, a large part of his own party when he landed on the Aircraft Carrier. The media tied the "Mission Accomplished" banner to him instead of the specific mission of the Carrier. It seemed he never really recovered from that, withdrew and went silent.

cuban pete| 9.1.10 @ 10:36AM

Grzmlyk:
You are always good my friend,but you are really cookin' today.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 10:53AM

Many thanks, Cuban Pete.

I almost couldn't stand to watch last night, but I think it's better to look tyranny in the eye.

As for Rove, how he passes himself off as a conservative on Fox is beyond me. I don't think he has a principled bone in his body.

And if he's such a genius, how come he didn't figure out that bullies prey on weakness until the Bush presidency was lying in a crumpled heap?

If Rove is responsible for the Head in the Sand policy, then he is not just "the architect" of the Bush administration. He's also the architect of Pelosi's rise, Reid's rise and Obama's rise.

With friends like Rove, who needs enemies?

John II| 9.1.10 @ 10:55AM

Whoa. I'm afraid you've once again nailed it, Grzzy. There's been some slight retrospective admission on the part of folks like Rove that Bush was ill-advised in his practice of ignoring his critics--and, in any event, temperamentally ill-suited to respond.

But even granted that Professor Obama's obsessive and prickly responses to his critics reveal a character much inferior to that of Dubya, I don't see how anyone can deny that the single more destructive shortfall of the Bush administration was Dubya's deadly mixture of political aloofness and rhetorical inarticulateness--the former almost certainly caused by the latter.

On occasion, his deferential manner worked well for him--in counterpoint, for example, to an aggressive blowhard like Associate Professor Kerry. But in the main, the manner let his supporters--and his country--down pretty seriously.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 11:19AM

Well, I do know Bush was a tireless and very effective fundraiser for fellow Republicans, so I'm not sure I'd call him politically aloof in every sense of the word.

I confess I'm at a loss to understand the Bush psyche. I think those who say he went to war because of unresolved "daddy" issues ought to check their medication. That isn't it. I do think he recognized, at least initially, America's need to assert itself in the aftermath of 9/11.

And he didn't have a tin ear, exactly - the megaphone moment was sheer spontaneous brilliance.

And he wasn't always inarticulate - not that anyone noticed. In that regard he reminded me of Dan Quayle, whom the media branded a moron (as with Bush, Quayle's halting and maladroit public persona played into his enemy's hands). Yet Quayle was actually a very bright guy who often said very cogent things and surrounded himself with supremely capable staffers.

Meanwhile, the media fawned over the intellectual chops of fatuous non-entities Gore and Kerry, whose cumulative cerebral puissance couldn't power a flashlight.

But in general, certainly Bush's inexplicable reticence and many rhetorical blunders branded him a dunce - the media made sure of that. Funny how Obama's many faux pas are just passed over.

I think the game is so rigged that there is not a single conservative who could be elected president who would not be charactarized as an intellectual midget by the media. And of course if that doesn't stick, they always have the "bigotry" charge.

cuban pete| 9.1.10 @ 12:01PM

Bingo!
My understanding is that Bush's GPA at Yale was 77 and Kerry's was 76.
Quayle had the one alleged spelling "mistake" with potato/potatoe but you could due a term paper on BHO's gaffes,ie "57 states"-not to mention the profundity of the Veep.

joli| 9.1.10 @ 12:51PM

Sending me to my dictionary once again... love it!

A. Murray Khan| 9.1.10 @ 12:55PM

History will judge W better than we possibly can. There were more good reasons to go into Iraq than not. Among other positives, we tied down the bad guys' best assets for 8 years. We maintained a beachhead in the middle of the Middle East. It was a strategic springboard for possible actions in various directions to support our national interests. We provided actual consequences for bad behavior as opposed to deep concerns and loophole ridden sanctions. We gave pause to Iran, and Libya. We took down a lot of important bad guys. The entire effort was nullified by our petulant left, (which includes most of the media). It takes a few years to redeploy field assets and put them in to action. The clock has been ticking. If not there, here. We will undoubtedly see the consequences of living in a political environment without accountability. So far it is enough to lie, spin, slip and flip, but it gets increasingly difficult when the nation’s security has been seriously breached. Stay tuned.

Ellen Collins| 9.2.10 @ 12:47PM

Sobering... but true...

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 9:55AM

What is lost in all of this is that the US has gained zero from Junior's folly. 4,000 dead, another 100,000 Iraqis, $1T down the toilet. How any president could muster even the faintest praise for this liar and cheat is astonishing.
An energized Iran, energized Kurdistan undermining a NATO ally in Turkey, an energized Islamo-fascist zeitgeist in the region and persistent $70 oil are our gifts from this.
Will you pony up the cash to support the 1.5M vets of this war? How much? I saw Walter Reed first hand and have seen the games the DoD played when manipulating soldiers and their families. Stop-loss anyone? Anyone?
Many experienced officers went down the tubes for expressing correct strategic approaches to this fantasy - experienced officers that could be aiding our work in Afghan, NK and other areas. Instead, they were casualties of the vanity war among the zionists and robber-barons closest to Junior. Watching the fiddlers Senor and Fleischer "revise" the record last night in real time was amusing and scary at once.
Our sons and daughters died for nothing in Iraq. You can explain that to your kids when this episode is properly analyzed through time.
Bravo to Obama for staying above the bar on this one.

Eric Cartman| 9.1.10 @ 10:30AM

Hey look everybody! Hackneyed Lefty cliches! Hey, canuckistani, why don't you mind your own business up there in socialist Canada - or as we call it, America's Cold Storage Space - and let us fix the mess your ilk has gotten us into. You don't know what you're talking aboot, dare, hey! Ya hoser.

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 11:10AM

Have you been to Walter Reed? Do you have any close friends that joined the service and then were stop-lossed for repeated tours? I get to see it and feel it every day. How about lost jobs and marriages and homes? Too cliche for you?
You have 1.5M brothers and sister veterans that will tell their children they have no idea why we detroyed a country that never attacked us and we entered on either lies or spectacular incompetence. I suspect the Texas book nazis will erase that part as well in years to come.
We now spend more on energy than ever before and have turned the region upside down for nothing.
If these are cliche for you, then shame. I feel sad we have such conciously blind observers here.
As for Canada, I was there when the gov refused to join the coalition of the unwilling. The relationship paid a heavy price - a relationship that has been the best America has ever had, and you choose to mock it. Too cliche?

Tom| 9.1.10 @ 1:39PM

"You have 1.5M brothers and sister veterans that will tell their children they have no idea why we detroyed a country that never attacked us and we entered on either lies or spectacular incompetence."

Nice of you to be able to speak for 1.5 million people you do not know. You are one hell of a mind reader.

Eric Cartman| 9.1.10 @ 2:46PM

WOW, canuckistani! Did you go get your "Lefty Ahole Book of Trite Phases" when I was meeting with my client? Let's see: "texas (sic) book nazis" check; using injured "Walter Reed" vets for your pathetic argument, check; "we detroyed (sic) a country that never attacked us ", check; "coalition of the unwilling", check; "stop-loss", check; can't mock Canada (America's snow hat), check. That's some impressive list! You forgot FAUXNEWS and Bush lied, people died. Other than that, you surpassed most other Liberal aholes that post here for "most cliches stuffed into a Liberal ahole rant in one post". Quite inpressive!

And being a vet, I can tell you I have no "brothers (sic) and sister veterans that (sic) will tell their children they have no idea why we detroyed (sic) a country that never attacked us" . They all know exactly why we were there; Because we were told to stand down by your Liberal ahole pal, General Powell, during the Gulf War - we looked at each other then and said "we'll be back in 10-years". Bush the First didn't do himself proud listening to the jerk then, either.

So really, the Iraq war was brought to you by Liberal Ahole Powell and Clinton's spectacularly incompetent CIA director, George Tenet -according to you, anyway.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 4:12PM

Well said, Eric.

Canuck bills himself as a "pragmatist," yet, as John II pointed out, there's no realpolitik in his screeds - they are wholly emotional and his choice of words proves he's a liberal.

But he doesn't seem to recognize his own tendentiousness.

Tim*| 9.1.10 @ 12:17PM

This Fraud ain't No Canuck . He flies under a false flag .

Appleby| 9.1.10 @ 3:37PM

Bet he's from Toronto. There are lots of him around here, busily sawing off the branch on which they are sitting, under the belief that this will cause the American tree to fall.

If America crashes, Canada won't last 12 hours.

Tim*| 9.1.10 @ 12:13PM

Let's guess if anywhere near a majority of Our WIA Combat Vets At Reed give a Rat's Rump what ObamaBoy Faux Canuck Thinks .

Herb Tarlek| 9.1.10 @ 1:31PM

I'm just glad we've been kept safe from the nukular bombs Sadam was going to sell Bin Laden. That was some scary shit.

Redstateboy| 9.1.10 @ 10:21AM

I didn't know that he met Dubbya as much as I believe he said he telephoned him but besides that you ask how could Dubbya meet/talk to the Hussein?? It's called: Class.

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 11:17AM

It's called "oh my god, the phone is ringing!"

Lawrence Boccardi| 9.1.10 @ 6:57AM

I agree with Stepanie. I am also perplexed that Laurie Bush would appear with Mrs. Obama, at 9-11 events, giving the latter much sought-after credibility!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.1.10 @ 7:19AM

In short, when the ruling class speaks, people listen!

Obama is akin to a carnival barker and his alleged sincerity will never rise to a level above that. Recent successes by the Tea Party and other traditional American influences put Obama in a situation where the Iraq speech is not only not sincere, his relationship with teleprompter, not the audience was the story.

Obama is not to be believed under any circumstances, and the Bush's are part of the ruling class who will say or do anything to sell their books and remain part of the ruling elite.

Obama and the rest of the current ruling elite will never be part of the solution. They can't afford to be.

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 10:11AM

And the Teabaggers will do what exactly when they get to Washington?
The American electorate is fickle and they detest unsportsmanlike conduct that will come out of this over the next two years.
End earmarks in their own districts? AK is #1 and AZ is #2....
End federal slush money in their own districts? AK is #1
End useless military spending in their own districts? AK is #1
I will believe it when it happens and spectators here will wonder what the heck happened when nothing occurs.
Remember, on a per capita basis, the freedom fighters in Alaska are and always will be the biggest pigs. Stevens perfected it, Palin institutionalised it and Miller will have no choice but to eat it up, too.

Tim*| 9.1.10 @ 12:36PM

The American Public Votes Our Wallets .
The GDP is anemic and Unemployment is up to 9.5 .

It's The Economy Stupid !

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

We Can See November From Our Houses .

skip| 9.1.10 @ 12:44PM

FYI: Words matter. The third word in your first sentence describes the activity you wish to perform as often as possible and the activity you fantasize about the rest of the time. So anyone reading the first sentence takes the question as rhetorical; that you are asking what you and your ilk would do in power in D.C. That question is being answered on a daily basis as we witness the decline and destruction of the greatest nation ever known.

Convet| 9.2.10 @ 2:54PM

Does this make you a fister, CHUMP?

Will| 9.1.10 @ 7:35AM

This guy had his chance, and he could have had a charmed Presidency, perhaps even a successful one. Instead, he chose another path. The rah-rah-rah about supporting the troops etc. is just more slight of hand, more of the trickster. The only thing I'd welcome hearing is that, like Lyndon Johnson, he will not seek reelection to the office.

Douglas McCabe| 9.1.10 @ 7:51AM

Obama took all of the credit for the positive points achieved in Iraq and offered the Bush Administration a mere honorable mention. We people of this world, this age, this culture are both a forgiving people and a forgetting people. We Americans will forget that Obama was opposed to the "surge" and is now taking credit for something he wanted no part of and had no part in. If the Republicans and other opposition parties and candidates do not point this out and raise it to our "national conscience", he could be falsely recognized in the history books as winning Iraq and gain a second term from this.

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 10:21AM

We won? Won what?
Stated goals of the surge:
Strengthen the rule of law and combat corruption. Nope.
Build on security gains to foster local and national political accommodations. Nope.
Make Iraqi institutions even-handed, serving all of Iraq’s communities on an impartial basis. Nope.
Junior's words: "A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced." Nope.
We destroyed their country and now we bitch that they are not moving fast enough?
Explain to your children in twenty years what the heck happened and the impact it has had on 1.5M soldiers and their families.
Will you pony up the cash for their welfare and the money for the war memorial on the mall in perpetuity?
Probably not, if you cannot even take a sober unemotional view of what has occurred there.

Tim* | 9.1.10 @ 12:25PM

Apparently , Fraud Canuck is upset with Field Marshall Obama's Hedging Speech last night acknowledging General Petraeus And Our Troopers .

Appleby| 9.1.10 @ 3:39PM

WE? What did you socialist Canadians have to do with any of it?

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 4:38PM

I'm 100% American, I just choose to take my head out of the sand from time to time to review what the other 95% of the world has to say about us, so I'm not shocked when we ask for help for another BS cause and they say no.
You're right, Canada had nothing to do with it, so it's just us and Blair's boys responsible for the fiasco. The Brits got the hell out of dodge when they finally realized it was colonial time all over again and being an unwanted guest in the middle of a 1000 year-old blood feud is probably bad policy.

Tim*| 9.1.10 @ 6:32PM

Non- Canucky . "I just choose to take my head out of the sand....... "
Froggy The Gremlin ," And put it up his own rump ."

Non-Canucky , " Yes , and put it up my own rump ".

Froggy , " Ha , Ha , Ha Ha ".

Convet| 9.2.10 @ 2:56PM

Sounds like 100% communist...

ellen collins| 9.2.10 @ 12:56PM

"WE" who? Stay up there in Canada and mind your own business.

Redstateboy| 9.1.10 @ 12:17PM

not to concern yourself... there's plenty of YouTube evidence of this man's duplicity

bluecollarbytes| 9.1.10 @ 7:54AM

I Think Obama is past the point of incremental increases in his support. He's a known entity now and only reinforces the growing view of his 'committed Leftist-marching us to the brink', every time he opens his mouth. Folks now see and hear what they already know about what Obama does and believes.... any time he opens his mouth.

Kitty| 9.1.10 @ 7:55AM

Talk is cheap.

martin j smith| 9.1.10 @ 7:59AM

It sounds to me as if Obama gave the kind of speech he gave during the 2008 campaign which means he said whatever everyone wanted to hear. Here lies the danger. He has not changed. His words we know are meaningless. so perhaps the best one can say is that Obama may not have offended too many people. So, Quin Hilyar, do not be so quick to make a judgement on this speech. Rather, step back, waite, and watch. The facts will be revealed and for all to see. The truth shall set you free.

Kitty| 9.1.10 @ 8:12AM

Exactly! I'm doing a slow burn reading similar reviews of this speech. What is it with these writers, white guilt? Short term memories? No longer included in the Foggy Bottom cocktail soirees?

Louis Jenkins| 9.1.10 @ 8:19AM

Dear Martin:

Your advice speaks! Step back, wait, and watch. Do not listen to what the man says, watch what he does. While the truth shall set us free, the Pretender n Thief will not. I did not watch the fool. I cannot, will not.

canuckistai| 9.1.10 @ 10:48AM

You speaking of Junior or someone else?
Take your own advice and apply it evenly.
Junior killed over 4,000 of our sons and daughters and wrecked the country based on lies, vanity and spectacular incompetence. True or not true?
If you continue to lie to yourself, you will continue to live in a fantasy.

stephanie| 9.1.10 @ 11:03AM

Well, Canuck, obama is carrying the baton of war on in Afganistan. Wanna rip him a new one too?
Pansy obama. Riding a girls bike with a fricking helmet on. What a girl. Is he like ahhhhh, a metro sexual kinda guy?

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 11:31AM

I'll "rip him a new one" when the stated goals of his strategy either fail or undergo the inevitable scope-creep when the intelligentia stumbles in their plans.
Afghan mission was collaterally damaged by Junior's spectacular decision to shift attention to Iraq.
I have no illusions about our prospects in Afghan: the audacious elements will fail, just as every other empire has failed there for thousands of years.
If we can contain the Taliban and minimize Pakistan's hegemony in the region, freeing up our access to the regions resources, it will be a victory. There is absolutely nothing in Afghan that vaguely resembles a western state. Success will be judged in minimalist terms.
You can be the one to explain to 1.5M vets that there is a real strategic interest in Afghanistan being our problem for years to come.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 11:32AM

Stephanie, Canuck is clearly a blind ideologue. He can't separate some valid points from the sewage of leftist ideology and propaganda.

I'm sure he'll be fulfilled in his new job as a central support beam in a Canadian health care clinic.

However, you made me laugh with your description of Obama on that bike!!!! OMG!!! If there is any justice in this world (and we know there is not), that image will become as rife with symbolism as Dukakis in that tank.

I mean, that picture spoke volumes about the real Obama. I'm not holding my breath for THAT picture to make the cover of Newsweek.

Canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 12:08PM

Grz,
I've read your stuff, pretty good.

If you read mine, I am pragmatist and not an ideologue. Lying to our troops about anything is shameful. We pay with mistakes at the ballot box, they pay with blood....the stakes could not be higher.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 12:38PM

You do make some good points - but the "teabagger" nomenclature really undermines your credibility and puts you squarely in the company of the MSNBC crowd.

The tea party phenomenon is primarly a spontaneous response to out-of-control spending by government. It's a grass-roots movement that has been pretty successful at not being hijacked by opportunistic pols.

And the "Bush lied people died" meme really is untenable.

I have mixed feelings about the Iraq "adventure" as well, but it's not so clear cut one way or the other. And in any case, I don't think we'll know whether it was worth the blood and treasure for a while. I am deeply concerned about it; but without rehearsing the entire argument, I think Saddam was a regional threat. Whether what's replaced it is an improvement remains to be seen. Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons long before Shock and Awe.

And the problems with vets, as I understand it, predated Bush. Yeah, it's unconscionable the way they were treated, but that's an indictment of the nature of bureaucracy more than of Bush's negligence.

There are those who say we didn't have to invade Normandy, when on one day alone we experienced, what, over 6,000 casualties? The Soviet Union would have attrited the German army regardless; the outcome of that war was set long before we crossed the English Channel.

Pete| 9.1.10 @ 12:59PM

If you profess to be from Canada, so what's all this "we" and "our "stuff? Are you a Canadian or American citizen? You confuse me.

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 1:46PM

American. Worked there during '02-04 in Toronto for a US company. Wife and kids loved it there and I appreciated the minimal vitriol in their political discourse (the difference between left and right is minimal). Some of the chatter is false disdain for America presented as thoughful exposition, but really only opposition to empty-headed policies like we endured under Junior.
The political controversy at the time there, beyond the Iraqi hoax, was pressure from interests to deregulate the banking system. It is interesting that zero bank failures and minimal foreclosures have occurred there in the last three years. We could learn something about managing monetary flows from them, given our current state of affairs.

My name comes from one Pat Buchanan that equated Canada to Soviet Canuckistan when they refused to join the coalition of the unwilling. I thought it was catchy and serves me well here. I like most of his positions, especially modesty when it comes to power projection, and the name stuck on me.
As for my views, I am for a modest US policy, smaller government and telling the truth to soldiers when they are put in front of danger. I am also for demanding reason when emotions take over political discourse. It was a tragic mistake to impeach Clinton over a BJ, when we as reasonable men should save that instrument for real crimes. It was at that point my allegiance to the GOP waned and told me the hypocrite and moron wings had taken over and we are no better than our opponents.

Pete| 9.1.10 @ 2:11PM

Thanks, and while I don't agree with you all the time, I appreciate the fact you're not one of the "ranters" on this site.

BTW, I'm a legal immigrant from Germany, and an ex-republican, now independant. I left the GOP when the bible-thumpers took over.

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 2:41PM

Danke and ditto on your last line......

Appleby| 9.1.10 @ 3:43PM

TORONTO! I knew it! I live there and am also American, and there are so many of him around here that people are shocked to hear that I didn't move up here because I hate my country, but because I like theirs.

The most common question I get asked in Toronto is "Why do you live HERE when you could live THERE?"

P.S. Of course the wife and kiddies loved it up here. FREE GOODIES FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS KIDS!

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 4:49PM

Don't get me wrong, I still felt like a foreigner from time to time, and the early Thanksgiving was interesting. I guess accommodates for the weather....
I voted at the consulate in '04 and then came back home soon after.
My wife liked the feeling of security no matter where she went in the downtown main tracts. Traffic was challenging, but most people were courteous to a fault. Incredibly decent people, with very little racial undertones we see in many US cities of the same size.
Toronto is hated by the rest of Canada, much like Yankee carpet-baggers - just more polite.
I only had a couple of zealots hammering me on Junior during my stay, they were more concerned about the folly of our decision-making. They were scared by the orgy of patriotism after 9/11 and the feeling we were going to shoot first and ask questions later - and they were right.
Incredibly decent people and very non-threatening.

Pete| 9.1.10 @ 6:49PM

TO! Great place. I worked for Tandem Computers in the 90's and spent alot of time up there selling to Royal Bank of Canada. Great city, wonderful people.

Tim*| 9.1.10 @ 7:01PM

Pat Buchanan on The Clinton Impeachment :
" Given 24 hours to present their case, the House managers spoke in a hushed Senate chamber, for once uninterrupted by the aging student radicals of the Judiciary Committee and demagogic rants from the House floor. So it was that the strength and power of the case against the president was brought home.

Even Senate Democrats conceded by week’s end that, on the facts as presented, Bill Clinton lied under oath to corrupt a civil trial and perjured himself to a U.S. grand jury to cover up his felonies. "

John II| 9.1.10 @ 1:20PM

Well, Nuckie, in your own more sober moments, I hope you'll be able to consider three points:

1. Your own posts are anything but "unemotional," so that . . .

2. Your insistence that the rest of us be "unemotional" in our evaluation of the war is surely preposterous, so that . . .

3. You may want to measure the possibility that the know-it-all posture of folks like yourself is a principal reason why democracies have trouble waging war quickly and effectively, with minimal casualties.

Vietnam is in chains today principally because of folks like yourself. Don't take my word for it. Ask General Giap, who, at age 99, is still alive to explain how his Communist forces won.

Or better still, and to cut to the chase, ask the surviving Boat People what they think of people like yourself.

And now back to Sergeant Preston of the Yukon.

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 1:55PM

Vietnam? Really?
We've normalized relations with them, the Chinese and even Thailand - which is as oppressive to the locals as the first two, just different letterhead. Nixon was elected on getting out, as was Obama - with large majorities, and they did it. Take it up with the voters.

Vietnam has been shown to be a net zero to American interests in the region, and we have 50,000 names to thank for our hubris.
How many more would you have sacrificed for a net zero?
My father's best friend was an enlistee, two tours, a purple heart and a bronze star. He is 100% opposed to wars of convenience without a clear and present danger to the homeland. I take his views over yours in a nanosecond.

John II| 9.1.10 @ 2:10PM

Well, I thought #3 was a long shot, but hope springs eternal. You have my permission, therefore, to restrict your all-knowing attention to #1 and #2.

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 2:43PM

I will, cheers.

Convet| 9.2.10 @ 2:57PM

Eat any good books lately, MORON?

Jeff R| 9.1.10 @ 8:13AM

Quinn Hillyer, you're right. And we can't be so partisan or ideologically-blinkered not to recognize that Obama did what he had to do politically in his speech.

Of course, it's ironic that as a senator Mr. Obama was a visible and vocal critic of the surge that succeeded in Iraq. And it will be interesting to see if an Obama-overseen war in Afgahnistan comes to a similar, if still opened-ended success, like Iraq.

stephanie| 9.1.10 @ 8:20AM

I fear the lame duck session. His blather last night about Cap&Tax;, education etc, is pandering to his base for sure, but when they say no lame duck session suprise, you know it's coming.
I hope the republicans are in the now and paying attention after their victory on Nov.3.
The man scares the tar out of me.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 9:23AM

My fear, Stephanie, is that when the GOP gets voted in this year, in order to save the country they would have to put the brakes on spending BIG TIME.

That's going to gore a lot of oxen and slaughter a slew of sacred cows. First of all, I doubt the newly-minted elites will have the political courage to do that and, even if they do, the blood that will flow from all of those slaughtered sacred cows will cause the people to rise up as one and say, "hey, we wanted you to cut spending, but not on me!"

Then (assuming the GOP does the right thing), as the nanny state's charges start to cry, the Dems will promise to put the teat back in the dependents' mouths if only they vote out the GOP in 2012. As long as the Fed can keep the dance going until election day, The People will be happy to perpetuate the illusion of an America that still exists.

In other words, I fear that success for Republicans in 2010 spells doom for Republicans in 2012.

Siegfried X| 9.1.10 @ 9:58AM

There won't be nearly enough budget cutters next year for this to happen. The most likely scenario would be for Democrats to keep control of the Senate, and for Republicans to control the House by only 10 seats. Since only a few Tea Party type Republicans are running, that likely means that Obama will still have a working majority in the House, by "picking off" 10 RINOs. Even within the Republican conferences, there will be many old bull types who will fight spending cuts.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 11:38AM

I actually think the GOP will score much bigger - and possibly take the Senate (though Dick Morris predicts a GOP sweep, and it always gives me pause to agree with Morris's prognostications; I wonder how his "Condi vs. Hillary" in 2008 book is selling these days in the remainder bin).

But otherwise, I agree. And then the Republicans will be blamed. When the media's on your side, the winds of the zeitgeist are always at your back.

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 10:56AM

Grz, agreed.
AK is #1 at the federal trough and Palin and Miller are eating up the FNC airtime without any "feet to the fire" pressure to do what's right.
Teabaggers are drinking the kool-aid, Palin is ringing the bell and a mass suicide is in the offing when Miller abstains from his first budget vote that attempts to sever the teat from freedom-loving Alaska. We bitch about redistributionists, but the #1 lopsided one is Palin country, and Kyl/McCain country is right behind it in earmarks.
Hypocrisy is a bitch sometimes.

Tom| 9.1.10 @ 2:10PM

Alaska might be the #1 per capita recipient of Federal money but Arizona is no where near #2. It is in fact #31 and below the national average.

The top 10 (ranked by the US Census Bureau) http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/cffr-09.pdf
1. Alaska
2. Virginia
3. Hawaii
4. Maryland
5. New Mexico
6. North Dakota
7. Massachusetts
8. Kansas
9. Connecticut
10. South Dakota

It is important to realize that a lot of spending is driven by Federal employees, both military and civilian. The top 3 recipients of per capita Federal money all have enormous Federal presences. Any analysis that looks only at raw numbers is silly and reveals very little.

JimP| 9.1.10 @ 3:08PM

Re Virginia: So true we are brimming with Federal employees and contractors and we have quite a number of military bases.

canuckistani| 9.1.10 @ 4:53PM

You are correct, my mistake.

Convet| 9.2.10 @ 3:00PM

More ravings of a lunatic FISTER. Go peddle your papers at the daily kostic, jerk!

Doctor Right| 9.1.10 @ 8:21AM

Any sales representative with a basic knowledge of presentation skills could have given that speech successfully.

After all, who would argue or find fault with a safe speech that honored the effort of our troops in Iraq? It wasn't exactly visionary.

And besides...He didn't mean any of it.

This speech was nothing but a propaganda effort designed to make Obama (and the Dems by proxy) patriotic in the run-up to the November elections.

Let's not be fooled by a speech. It doesn't make him a statesman.

Grzmlyk| 9.1.10 @ 9:30AM

Doctor Right, I noticed that Obama's voice was preternaturally high-pitched last night.

Clear cut evidence of conscious mendacity.

It Obama had any clue at all, he'd wake up from his perpetual onanistic reverie and say, OH MY GOD, HOW DID I GET HERE?

The actual skills that such a position requires are so far beyond this putz as to boggle the mind. It's like grabbing a homeless guy off the street and asking him to perform neurosurgery.

Of course, the media would duly drool over the homeless guy's incredible facility - and then pronounce the operation a success without ever mentioning that the patient died.

Franklin| 9.1.10 @ 12:58PM

Little o didn't write the speech, didn't mean it and cares nothing for the military except as a photo op. I don't understand why people don't see that he is still in campaign mode ... never stopped even after he won. Pathetic.

Big J| 9.1.10 @ 1:10PM

Three points regarding Obama's sorry attempt at a "victory in Iraq" speech last night (my apologies if they are duplicate):

1. He looks very uncomfortable in the Oval Office. Much more like a child in grown man's clothing than the Commander in Chief.

2. He is no "great orator". The more he speaks, the less I understand him. Seriously, where did the economy, education reform and energy independence comments come from? (Strictly rhetorical).

3. It is painfully obvious that he sees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as mere distractions from his domestic agenda. This is probably the scariest part about this president, especially during this volatile period.

That's the Reader's Digest version of my take on his speech last night.

Forgive me Quinn, if I do not share your views on the "political gains" he made. And no, I don't think he'll get any bounce whatsoever.

He looks just like the mealy-mouthed ideologue I saw right before the speech.

God bless our troops. What a shame that these brave men and women have to answer to this man-child.

Ran / Si Vis Pacem | 9.1.10 @ 8:21AM

It matters not, really, what the occupier of the White House said.

He had less than no political credibility to expend before the address and he will grow that deficit until he has the grace to resign.

Pulling troops from Iraq accomplishes two things, in his mind: He can crow publicly about reducing our waste of military lives and materiel... and he can enjoy privately the knowledge that it simultaneously takes pressure off of Iran while it reduces the perceived strength of our Afghan contingents.

East Texas Rancher| 9.1.10 @ 8:21AM

Mr. Hillyer,
Never tell a Texas cattle rancher not to have a cow, particularly one that knows the difference between cows, and bulls, and STEERS!
His speech was on in the living room with the sound on OFF! I only turned it back on when the commentary came on. Nothing new here. Same old leftie President who is encouraging our enemies to come after our troops, won't use the word success, or win, or victory. And this family has two serving. One comes home (to the USA), today. A daughter remains in the war zone.
She, a medic, says the number of men being killed and wounded has quadrupled.
A rancher also knows not to step in fresh cow poop. The man in the White House tracks it through the Oval Office and all over the WH and across the nation.
Just a rancher's opinion.
East Tx Rancher

Stephanie| 9.1.10 @ 11:07AM

God Bless your children and you sir.

Franklin| 9.1.10 @ 1:00PM

"tracks it through the Oval Office "

That's why he needs to get a new rug.

Ran| 9.1.10 @ 4:58PM

Amen what Stephanie said. God bless your children and your family.

Virginia| 9.1.10 @ 8:27AM

obama's speech was a recital. He reminded me of a lecturer who was obligated to speak on a topic to which he had no real connection, interest or much involvement. He knew that the drawdown and removal of our trops from Iraq had been negotiated with the Iraqi government by the previous president and his administration. He had merely presided over the execution of that agreement. Not much else to be said

TennesseeVolunteer| 9.1.10 @ 8:33AM

A long time ago, I learned at great personal cost that when you don't trust someone, you must watch what they do, not what they say. That their true intent will come from their actions, not their words.
Quin, I give you your point that he said words that were designed to miss political land mines..and you are right, he may get a bump in the polls. So, for those of us who watch things closely, your opinion may give us a glimpse into polls etc in the near future.
But I cannot confuse his words with with his future actions. And by the way, with that absolute travesty by the State Dept. turning in the state of Arizona for human rights violations shows me on a different plane that he has not changed at all. His words mean nothing when trying to read his intent and his heart...only his actions my friend.

davelnaf| 9.1.10 @ 8:40AM

The people that have turned against Obama will continue to see him as at best agnostic about this country and at worst they wonder if he even understands it. After the last two years few people are left tittering between finding him at least adequate for the job and viewing him as another misfire. A well-delivered speech will not change this perception.

JAWilson| 9.1.10 @ 8:40AM

I've been watching liberals since Jimmy Carter walked into the presidency with just a smile. I tell you all, I have never seen such a stark example of a person over matched by his job. Brack looked small and unpersuasive in his delivery and it didnt sell to me. Even if you call the speech a success from a political point of view, its too little too late and a massive signal if weakness to our enemies. We are so screwed with Brack in charge.

Rich Berger| 9.1.10 @ 8:43AM

Quin-

You were right, you will get a lot of grief. I listened/watched the speech while I was doing the dishes and was really offended by this howler- "We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. " Substitute stimulus for war and you get a true statement. Dull, shameless and devoid of passion - typical Obama.

Purple Lips| 9.1.10 @ 8:45AM

And in 2 days no one will even remember the speech, anymore than they remember Bush's 2004 speech before the VFW. The truth be known, the vast majority of voters were tuned into re-runs of Mannix and My Favorite Martian.

JimP| 9.1.10 @ 8:45AM

I see your points, Quin and can understand your analysis. It wasn't as bad as his usual addresses are, IMO. To me, at the beginning of his address he seemed angry, then he just seemed oddly uncomfortable and unlike himself. Almost like he was choking on the words. Two things in particular hit obvious false/negative notes to me. I thought his seque into talking about the economy was clumsy and was too typical of him where he brings his agenda into a talk initially about another subject. Also, and this was a big goof in my mind, he pointed out we've spent a trillion dollars in the last decade on war that could have been spent at home. My immediate reaction was what about the trillion he has spent in the last year and there is NOTHING to show for it.

Thanks for reminding us that we spent a 'T' in Iraq over a decade with a very low return rate , and you have spent a 'T' in 12 months with zero return rate, Mr. President. I am even more motivated to vote in Nov than before. His bump won't last, I feel certain.

Texas Mom| 9.1.10 @ 1:27PM

We actually spent less in Iraq than the wasted stimulus. But kuddoes for the point!

JimP| 9.1.10 @ 2:55PM

Thanks for the correction, TM. I should have known to check his figures. Duh on my part. And thank you for the kind words.

Purple Lips| 9.1.10 @ 8:49AM

The thing you have to remember about Obama is that his only skill is speechifying. So he gave a speech that satisfied 80% of the political class inside the Beltway. And it was so satisfying that it was utterly forgettable.

Melvin| 9.1.10 @ 8:58AM

This Being, merely uttered the phrases that he was instructed to utter, it partially explains, "The Being's," total lack of any charisma and emotional expression of love of Country.
His speech was not for us, to motivate, to bring together, and to celebrate to some small degree of military and political success in Iraq, it was for him and his deplorable poll numbers.
It may be noticed that I have described this entity as, "The Being." I do not consider that man to be my President of these United States. As some have alluded to, he is completely devoid of any love of Country or it's people. He merely exists as the mechanically operated mouthpiece of some higher authority that desires to impose a foreign political ideology, philosophy, or religion upon this Nation.

winterhawk| 9.1.10 @ 9:35AM

I never watch im talk. I can't stand the guy. What he continues to do to this country makes me sick. I cannot watch or listen to him. He is too full of himself.

TKP| 9.1.10 @ 9:42AM

We see the beginnings of an attempt at "Triangulation". I have to beleive that the competent political operatives inside that leftist study group of an administration have to be telling him that the hole is getting very deep.

One big problem for our-dear-leader - only Clinton is Clinton, Obama channeling Clinton, that's a script worthy of Stephen King. The ecomomy that Bill convinced enough to get elected was "... the worst economy in the last 50 years...", was indeed fundamentally strong and the "peace dividend" was being spent. After his early flirtation with socialism (well Hillary may have had just a little influence), lost the H of Repsfor the first time in 2 generations, he did a right turn and had fruitful ground to land on, oh and Newt. Both a policy geneous and a useful foil for his Clintonianess.

Our dear leader has much bigger economic issues to deal with, and the Facists wrapped in Islam are playing him like a Stradivarius.

He never learned the "rule of the hole": when in a hole it is best to stop digging. Then again he has been shoveling his whole (entirely too short to be leader of the free-world) life, its' all he knows.

So yea he was OK last night - but he is not the man from Hope.

Mike| 9.1.10 @ 9:45AM

I visited AmSpec looking for any evidence of graciousness to match the President's in his speech last night.

I didn't expect to find any.

I wasn't disappointed.

Eric Cartman| 9.1.10 @ 10:00AM

Yeah, it was real gracious of him to use what the WH billed as a speech about the wind-down of combat operations in Iraq - and as corollary a plan for Afghanistan - to give a campaign speech about how now we can spend some REAL money on his green projects and his commie health care screwing we are about to get. Yeah, Liberal Ahole class act all the way. It's exactly how you asshole think. Putz.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.10 @ 10:23AM

Mike,
It is very difficult to be gracious with a dog that is busily chewing your arm off.

I sincerely believe the man hates our country as constituted.
I'm glad you were not disappointed.
Come back and drop a turd in the punchbowl any ole' time.

JimP| 9.1.10 @ 3:00PM

LOL. No you didn't come here looking for that! How much grace do you find at HufPo or KOS for anyone from the right? Mike, you really cracked me up. Thanks for the laugh.

PaulD| 9.1.10 @ 9:46AM

Obama thinks he's the reincarnation of Cicero, but he really needs to do something about his whistling "S's". His speech last night was like listening to shoes squeaking on a basketball court. He also comes across as having the sincerity of a turnip.

Tim*| 9.1.10 @ 9:46AM

When PBS' Mark Shields and David Brooks both panned the speech , ya know it was a loser . " Warmed over metaphors , passive construction , no substance ..... "

The Dog Ate My Homework .

Radioman777| 9.1.10 @ 10:01AM

His speech was pathetic and lame. What a loser!

Derek Leaberry| 9.1.10 @ 10:01AM

Neo-conservatives Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz liked the Obama speech so it must have been a bad speech with hints of acceptance of the neo-con theory of perpetual war for the democratization of the globe. Hopefully, Obama was only pulling the legs of the neo-conservatives and American troops will be out of Iraq in December, 2011 as scheduled. Obama's heart is not into fighting wars in the Middle East which is about the only thing conservative about Obama's nature.

Stephanie| 9.1.10 @ 11:14AM

No Derek, his heart is into destroying America as we know and love it. why the hell don't you move to the EU or Canada? Democratization of the globe? No, at this rate with this pansy of a president, the muslims will have taken over the globe before we can bring all to freedom.
Fool.

Derek Leaberry| 9.1.10 @ 11:24AM

I agree that Barack Obama detests the historic American nation, from George Washington to Ronald Reagan. He despises Middle America and Christianity especially just as his mother did.

However, I do not believe in the neo-conservative mission to democratize the globe. It is not a conservative endeavor. If Obama truly supports that mission, he is wrong. If he is secretly against the neo-conservative mission, he has stumbled onto the truth.

martin j smith| 9.1.10 @ 10:18AM

This speech was written with the idea of "do no harm" --or as little harm as possible. To that extent Obam achieved his goal. I think there are suckers out there who really want to say something"good" about Obama or perhaps find a silver lining somewhere. What they forget in this quest is that they went thru a whole campaign of such speeches and the 18 months of lies. I re-iterate to those who are so desiour of this "silver lining"; Step back,give it time, let Obama show his true colors in his deeds as well as words.
He is no"neoconservative--believe me. That is truly misreading him and dangerous.

Anthony| 9.1.10 @ 10:36AM

Since I did not watch the speech, I, unlike most Leftists, will not criticize your observations.
That said Quin, my read of your analysis leads me to believe you need a breather from D.C. You, like most D.C. political observers, see EVERYTHING in terms of the political gains and losses for the moment, day, or week. Who's on top and who gained or lost with a particular speech. What will the polls reflect and how will this impact the Nov. elections?
I realize you do politics for a living, but still, in your precise disection of the speech, you lost the essense of the big picture.
I've read portions of the speech and my take on it is that Obama is just a skilled teleprompter reader. This was a precisely crafted political speech, pure and simple, timed for the Nov. elections, with goals aimed at various groups. It was crafted and given to elicit the precise responses from the political class that you have engaged in.
While the political class and pundits add up the score for last night, the larger picture of what all our involvment in Iraq ment to America and Iraq, remains a footnote.
At the end of the day, through no fault of yours, Obama's words and thoughts, no matter how precisely delivered, remain deeply troubling.

Quin| 9.1.10 @ 11:31AM

To Anthony: You and I agree. The ONLY thing I was doing was giving a purely political assessment. Conservatives need to keep track of and understand the political situation in order for conservatives to win. I made it very clear that my assessment was only political. Your words are very appropriate and concise: "a precisely crafted political speech." That is my point entirely. Conservatives must understand what they are up against. We can't win hearts and minds if we can't recognize when the left makes a slight inroad itself into winning back some hearts and minds.
OF COURSE I understand the larger picture, and indicated repeatedly that I do not like it. It does, indeed, "remain deeply troubling." But I'm on a conservative site here. Why preach to the choir on that, when almost all the readers know it already?
Thanks, though, for your comments. Your points re Obama's substance were right on target.

Anthony| 9.1.10 @ 12:03PM

Quin, thank you for your gracious response. Yes, at the end of the day we are on the same page here, and if this article was ment as a clarion call to conservatives, I'm fine with that.
If I offended about missing the bigger picture, allow me to apologize. You are a bright young man doing God's work, which at times gets me a bit ornery.

Steve A| 9.1.10 @ 10:42AM

Anyone who has ever read anything I have written here knows I am no fan of BO or his agenda. The guy is a disaster. I must admit though, last night was the first & only time I felt myself in agreement with this guy. I was right there with him for the first 10 minutes or so until he started talking about the "middle class & economy." We parted ways there. It was an excellent speech. I sincerely believe he wants to kill the bad guys. This is good.

Tim*| 9.1.10 @ 10:50AM

Brooks notes a "Deterioration in the quality of Obama's speeches from a year ago " , lacking high level of speech and freshness .
Shields observes , " I'm not sure what to take away from that speech " .

Tim opines , " Obama is startin' to suck wind and is runnin' low on The Shuck & Jive Meter .

George S| 9.1.10 @ 10:56AM

Maybe he grew up a little... or maybe was trying to get in good graces with combat military personnel. After all, he's going to need their allegiance during the National Emergency of November 2012. (Just a joke, on both counts)

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.10 @ 11:00AM

Folks,
Sometimes I wanted to wring his neck, (figuratively), but I genuinely like and admire Dubyah.
Jesus did in fact instruct us to turn the other cheek, but he never said not to defend our children...to the death.
Dubyah "defended us" to the best of his ability.

I read all the cheap shots above on Dubyah, and it just makes me wonder who you bitchers would be satisfied with.
I have the good fortune to have negotiated contracts with Mr. Cheny. He is without question one of the three most brilliant/courageous men to ever sit in the oval office...if even in the side-chair.

Heh, the only problem Dick has...is suffering fools.

(heh, including the fool who wandered into the free-fire zone while bird hunting with him)

Finally, I think Dubyah just got discouraged there at the end. The ankle-biters have even forgotten that he proposed a COMBINATION of medicine for seniors...and privatising some retirement funds for younger citizens....to balance everything out.

So how do we get a great candidate who will put up with the agravation of the ankle-biters?

I like Sarah. She just ignores you guys. She is used to whining babies. (grin)

JimP| 9.1.10 @ 3:06PM

I agree with you, Ken. I very much like 'W' personally. IMO he is a very admirable man. Unfortunately I strongly disagreed with an awful lot of what he did and did not.

Steve A| 9.1.10 @ 11:24AM

Ken, Agree. Cheney is the best & most qualified man we have had in a position of authority since Reagan. On second thought, Hillary is quite a man herself.

stephanie| 9.1.10 @ 1:40PM

You mad me laugh.

dw| 9.1.10 @ 11:29AM

Just more drivel from a leftist ideologue whose academic theories are crushed by real world actuals. He now takes credit for a victory he had no part in and will now turn his energy to his equally disingenuous and disastrous economic policies.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 9.1.10 @ 11:41AM

If by “considering his ideology”, Hillyer means the sunburned zebra is a marxist alinskyite hoping to transform OUR Country into some sort of kommie utopia much as were the Soviet Union, Red China under mayo, Cuba since kastrato took over, or today’s Venezuela under baby hugo, by trashing our economy and destroying every chance we have either personally or Nationally to defend ourselves, then I have to agree.

I must concede that I so detest looking up his nostrils when he lectures us from the sacred scrolls of his teleprompter that I would rather watch my shot glass empty than suffer through another beavisbud self-serving panegyric.

To echo comments posted in Eric Cartman’s reply to Siegfried X @ 6:28AM @ 7:33AM and Grzmlyk’s reply to Eric Cartman @ 8:37AM, I simply ask, “What do you expect when a rectal egress fools enough of the people some of the time?”

Call me when the fly kisser announces that he has reluctantly accepted joey bite-me’s resignation, is nominating Chris Christie or Bobby Jindal to take over as vee pea and once the governor’s approved and sworn in plans to take ‘chellefish and the kids on a really long vacation.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
Don’t Tread on Me.
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“Q: What’s the difference between Obama’s cabinet and a penitentiary?”
“A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society.
The other is for housing prisoners.”
[ http://darnfunnyonline.com/some-funny-obama-jokes/ ]
Only 872 days to go

jim| 9.1.10 @ 12:00PM

Am I the only one that heard him say that those that opposed the war were patriots?

Bob Miller| 9.1.10 @ 12:07PM

Hearing only this sorry speech, who would ever realize that GW Bush won this Iraq war despite Obama's total opposition?

JeffW| 9.1.10 @ 12:12PM

Quinn, I understand what your saying but one phrase you used many times summed it up for me.

"He sounded" instead of "He was"

dennis2j| 9.1.10 @ 12:20PM

Well, you're right about the "ton of grief" part, at least.

Brian B| 9.1.10 @ 1:05PM

--Barack Obama was as close to pitch-perfect in his speech last night as he possibly could have been.--

In my admittedly incomplete sampling around the web that would appear to be a small minority's view with the notable exception of the apparently insane Chris Matthews.

David | 9.1.10 @ 2:11PM

Well Quinn, you predicted the "hits" (no un intended) would be coming, and so they are.

Krauthammer made the point that pulling out now, on a scheduled agreement negotiated by the Bush admin years ago is a BIG mistake. He points out that the Iraqi government, which was once strong and in place, has not been able to get their act together since the last election. He fears that bad things are going to happen.

When they do go bad, expect Bam Bam and the dems, and their puppy dog media to blame the chaos on Bush because it was Bush's admin who negotiated it. They won't bother to point out that the conditions on the ground have changed since the agreement was signed as there is not a solid government in place. I have heard quotes from Iraqi leaders who share Krauthammer's concerns about withdrawing at this time.

Pete| 9.1.10 @ 7:24PM

"Iraqi leader" is an oxymoron. Without a dictator, islamic states are tribal and will simply persue tribal interests. Ask why it seems to take decades to "train" islamic "troops" and "police" (sorry for all the ""), to actually (not) do their jobs. The reality is these people have no national identity. They are more connected to either their religious sub-sects or familial tribe relationships. The "west" is wasting its time trying to raise these people to the 20th century. Never going to happen.

Jim O'Brien| 9.1.10 @ 2:12PM

Obama is an incompetent, treacherous impostor. I wouldn't trust him with my wallet for 5 seconds.

Best of luck to the 49,700 American soldiers still in Iraq. See http://www.navytimes.com/news/.....aq-082410/

Lisa| 9.1.10 @ 2:34PM

"This is not to say that critics would be wrong to pick apart some of Obama's substance."

Alas, Obama has no substance to begin with!

David| 9.1.10 @ 2:41PM

Gill, "sunburned Zebra" - love it.

I recall wishing that it was Dick Cheney who would be president when Bush won. To this day I think he is the most competent politician America has, and courageous and sharp enough to articulate the conservative positions on the issues. Too bad his health is such a problem.

Ken, as to George W, there was a lot wrong with him. He is not even close to being a conservative, and even Peggy Noonan, who grates on me with her fluffy/puffy writing, slammed Bush for tearing destroying the repub party.

Please recall some of what he did:

First act as prez he snuggled with Ted Kennedy and increased federal funding of education by 50%.

Constantly called Islam a religion of peace. Said Muslims pray to the same God as Christians. As a born-again Christian, how could he say allah and The Father, Son, and Holy Spririt are the same God?

He tried to ram Harriet Meirs down our throats by saying "she is a born-again Christian, and I am sure she will vote the right way". How ignorant and shallow a statement. If he had gotten away with her nomination, no doubt the other lightweight, Alberto Gonzales, would have been his next appointment. Instead we got John Roberts and Sam Alito.

He tried to give amnesty to millions of illegals. He and his surrogates called those opposed to his amnesty, bigots, and said we would be sorry. We were sorry. He made his point by orchestrating for the cameras raids on employers to round up illegals who were really here to work. He also made sure the cameras caught the feds arresting and deporting the lady who had been hiding in the Chicago church for a year. He made sure the cameras caught us deporting her while her crying son stayed here. He made no effort to arrest the thousands of illegals who are here and have committed felonies. No cameras for them. No, he made sure we were sorry by letting the world see the tear-jerker cases.

Bush allowed the repub Congress to spend like crazy, thus allowing them to hang themselves in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

He never vetoed any spending bills or any bills for that matter.

He started the the bail-out crap. I am sure that made it a lot easier for Bam Bam and dems to do what they have done.

I fault him for his "compassionate conservatism".

There are others that I cannot recall at this time.

I do give Bush credit for what he did immediately after 9/11, and for starting the necessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I give him credit for appointing a legitimate panel of scientists and experts in other fields to study the issue of stem cell research. They produced an outstandingly credible report and Bush gave long, non-political speech and explained to the American people his position on the matter.

I give him credit for being staunchly anti-abortion.

Samwise| 9.1.10 @ 4:05PM

I can't look or listen to Obama for long...too much self-aggrandizement, too many lies and deceptions - but I did tune in once in a while and my overwhelming impression was that he as shrunk somehow,he seems lifeless, diminished...almost like a puppet. It's so strange...he looks like a shell of the man who had towers and golden, flowing drapes behind him pre-election, who predicted that the earth and other planets were at a turning point, that the oceans would rise...etc...and now, watching him sit tensely behind his desk, posed as it were, without the props and flourishes...I kind of felt sorry for him. I don't know if anyone can ever really trust him again...and I never truly believed that he was competent to fill the office of President of the United States...now I am sure of it. So many attacked Sarah Palin for 'lack of experience' but elected a man with no executive experience whatsoever...he is in way over his head and he brought into his Administration men and women of the same mold as himself...community organizers - radicals, people like Jennings his safe school czar who approves adults having sex with children and wants to inject his distorted agenda into elementary schools, Valerie Jarrett, Geithner who cheated on his taxes and got away with it because he said he made a mistake - oops! It's all so pathetic...and I think Obama and his cohorts know it and probably can't wait to get out of there - and will push their radical agendas right up until the end which, I hope, will be soon.

David | 9.1.10 @ 4:30PM

Samwise, I think I know how you feel when you said "that I kind of felt sorry for him".

I don't feel sorry for him - I feel very sorry for America. Having any of our presidents appear to be in an immasculated and weakened state puts America in a very dangerous situation. Our enemies know we won't decisively act when the time comes, and knowing that, our friends won't support us.

Having an impotent president that is perceived as such by the entire world makes for a very sad America.

Mike| 9.1.10 @ 4:39PM

Whenever I want to know what the sh*t for brains crowd is thinking, I log on to this cesspool.

The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.1.10 @ 7:36PM

We're buying shrimp, Mike. Of late I have had to suspend or lay off several of our paid trolls that work this site. The only troll left unaffected is Alan Brooks partly out of respect of the imitation be does of his kinsman Foster Brooks. I loved that guy when I was growing up. There is really nothing funnier than a drunk. Mike, you are troll material and I would like to offer you a job. It would be of course not on the books and a little below minimum wage with no benefits. I believe for you that would be an improvement over your current conditions. Your job will require discipline on your part and strictly following our talking points. Here is the five point plan:

1. Only mention my name in conjunction with people that poll worse than I do. As of now the list consists of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Jack the Ripper. Mussolini actually polls a little higher than me but there is something about that guy and I encourage comparisons.

2. There is a growing list of countries we can no longer mention led by Germany. These are countries that didn't follow my economic advice and are actually coming out of their recessions. The nerve.

3. You must call anybody that disagrees with me a racist several times an hour unless it is Michelle.

4. When people complain about the economy you must talk about wind farms and the Chevy Volt.

5. In our country that is 80% white constantly complain about any activity you don't like as being mostly white. For instance if you didn't like the trolls working this site all you have to do is claim that they are mostly white. It is easy and takes no brains whatever. You'll do great.

Let me know in your subtle way whether you are interested.

Radegunda| 9.2.10 @ 6:18PM

Wow, I'm in awe of your educated eloquence, not to mention your incisive logic. You perfectly exemplify the superior thinking and deep moral purpose of the American leftopaths.

bobmontgomery| 9.1.10 @ 5:42PM

No matter where O was born, he was not born an American, he was not raised as an American and his formative years were in anti-American schools and anti-American churches. It is psychologically impossible for him to sincerely praise his - scratch that - our country or any of our country's noble institutions. There is a reason why an American President must be an American: he/she must be "down with the struggle". Obama is not "down with the struggle". Our long nightmare is far, far from over.

Linda| 9.1.10 @ 6:09PM

Amen, Bob.

David| 9.1.10 @ 5:44PM

Hey Mike, that's brilliant. You made several very excellent points. I'll have to spend some time in deep thought about them. It sure is nice to have you libs/leftists/commies to keep us right-wingers from going off the deep end. Please don't ever hesitate to set the facts straight for us. Again, you are brilliant.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.10 @ 6:36PM

I thought everyone would enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.10 @ 6:38PM

Lets try this again:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc

DTCOFAZ| 9.1.10 @ 6:43PM

obama and his minions sued AZ to get more votes from the illegal immigrants,.

obama created a scene of bringing our troops home as the event to get more votes from our military families and military supporters.

He will do anything for his political survival, but not for integrity.

God bless America and the people that once had voted for this ridiculous human-being.

Bullhead| 9.1.10 @ 10:15PM

Are you sure you were watching the same speech the rest of us were watching??? I don't think so.

Yosemeti Sam| 9.1.10 @ 11:18PM

" President Pitch-Perfect, Politically ...."

Oh yeah?

Who selected the drapes behind him.

Muslim motif?

Who didn't iron the American Flag behind him?

It 'looked' neglected. Hmmmm.

Etc etc etc.

What a - drab tableau to remember a Presidential speech by.

BTW - what did he say?

JmsA| 9.1.10 @ 11:31PM

Didn't watch the speech. What for? The guy is a boring as hell. As I have read here and elsewhere, the One used Bush as a prop, gave him barely any credit, did not acknowledge the surge, which he and the rest of the dems opposed, while backhandedly criticizing Bush he cynically tried to tie the Iraq War expenditures to our current fiscal troubles. The One will get his one week dead-cat bounce in the polls, and it's back to the economy and jobs for the electorate.

tih| 9.2.10 @ 7:30AM

When you know he's only saying something to appease someone ,then it's only words. He said along time ago he was going to focus on the economy like a laser. I believe he said this inbetween playing golf and vacations. His mentioning the economy means nothing untill something is done . I don't want to hear he inherited it, he should of known the situation before running for office.

J| 9.2.10 @ 7:32AM

I like the way Mr. Quiller writes.
After watching then-congressman Jindal parrot the dems attack lines on Pres. Bush regarding Katrina, and reading Mr. Quiller's high praise for Jindal for that period, and now reading his praise for obama's speech, I'm starting to think that Mr. Quiller is the male version of Peggy Noonan, always falling for a pleasing image but not always aware of the underlying weakness of the idol.

Oldefarte| 9.2.10 @ 1:31PM

Nah, he's about as PRESIDENTIAL as I am Norwegian!!!!!

Oldefarte| 9.2.10 @ 1:40PM

I agree with George Neumayr's assessment [TAS today] concerning Obama's speech. It, to me, is an accurate protrayal of the FRAUD of this man and his PRESIDENCY!!!!!!!!!

Neo| 9.2.10 @ 3:27PM

The address could inspire only disgust and contempt among those who viewed it. Obama, who owed his presidency in large measure to the mass antiwar sentiment of the American people, used the speech to glorify the war that he had mistakenly been seen to oppose.


The most chilling passage came at the end of the 19-minute speech, when Obama declared, “Our troops are the steel in our ship of state,” adding, “And though our nation may be traveling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true.”


It is for this statement, rather than all the double-talk about troop withdrawals, that Obama’s miserable speech deserves to be remembered. It was rhetoric befitting a military-ruled banana republic or a fascist state. The military—not the Constitution, not the will of the people or the country’s ostensibly democratic institutions—constitutes the “steel” in the “ship of state.” Presumably, the democratic rights of the people are so much ballast to be cast overboard as needed.

I guess that didn’t work.

Dean from Ohio| 9.3.10 @ 7:36AM

Charles Krauthammer's article on this feckless speech (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245532/our-distracted-commander-chief-charles-krauthammer) is worth a hundred of this one.

Tenn Slim| 9.5.10 @ 9:49AM

"But I think he went as far as he could go tonight toward re-engaging the political middle without saying anything that could get him in trouble with the left."
I was mowing the acerage while this was said by our Pres.
Opine: Straight out of Rules for Radicals. Say what the audience wants to hear. Admittedly, Pres O stutters and stammers over the Conservative terms, anathema to him for sure, but he is nearly perfect reading what the Center for American Progress says to say. Podesta and Co. undoubtedly wrote the speech, Pres O practiced well and delivered well. Those that wanted to hear what he said, got thier angst soothed.
Underneath the neat speech, lies the duplicity of the Admin, the Podestas, the Czars, the Leftist Led Agencies, all continuing thier agenda work.
We are still in dire straits.
We WILL Prevail
Semper Fi
end

More Articles by Quin Hillyer

More Articles From Streetcar Line

Tea Partiers for Freedom

April 16, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Make Room for a New Master

April 9, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Closed to the Public

March 26, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

The Labor Nominee’s Other Lies

March 19, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Thomas Perez Should Be Blocked

March 12, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/01/president-pitch-perfect-politi

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.