The first State of the Union address of President’s Obama’s
second term is almost upon us. And while most conservatives aren’t
exactly savoring another harangue from our scold-in-chief, we
decided there must be some insight, and perhaps even some optimism,
out there somewhere. So we roused several Spectator writers from
various states of intoxication and took their temperature on
tonight’s event. Are we doomed beyond all hope? Or just doomed
beyond most hope? Here’s what we found (some of which is
cross-posted on our blog):
Mark Meckler, Co-Founder Tea Party
Patriots
The state of the union, unfortunately, is now completely
different than the state of the D.C. elites of both parties. While
the elites in D.C. prosper and play political theatre, the people
of the country live in a reality that is the result of the
long-term madness in D.C.
Much like the world painted by the recent literary and movie
phenomenon, The Hunger Games, the Capitol City is
doing fine. Out here in the provinces, things are not going so
well.
Quin Hillyer, American Spectator Senior
Editor
I don’t want to write about the State of the Union address,
because I don’t want to watch Barack Obama give a SOTU address and
I don’t even want to think about Obama giving such a speech. He
says the same things over and over, in the same hectoring,
holier-than-thou tone of voice, creating and pretending to knock
down the same old straw men, all while using first-person pronouns
so often that not even a few dozen Scrabble sets could supply
enough letters “I” to meet the demand. Obama’s self-regard is
insufferable, his leftist bubble impenetrable, his magnaminity and
graciousness entirely non-existent, and his mendacity
unforgivable.
Other than that, it should be a pretty good speech.
Jim Antle, Daily Caller News Foundation
Editor
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama will
likely use the bully pulpit to harangue recalcitrant congressional
Republicans into supporting his agenda on spending, immigration,
and guns.
Expect the president’s use of human props to be as liberal as
his policies. Obama clearly believes he has the GOP on the ropes as
he seeks to advance “wedge issues” that will separate his opponents
from swing voters. But as past proponents of gun control and
amnesty have learned, wedges sometimes cut both ways.
Aaron Goldstein, American Spectator Contributor
(from his piece earlier today)
If President Obama plans to spend a better part of an hour
heaping scorn towards the Republican side of the aisle, the GOP
shouldn’t sit there and take it. Instead, they should stand up and
walk out on President Obama. It would be a SOTU address no one
would ever forget.
Of course, Republicans would be excoriated in all the usual
circles. The GOP would be accused of being divisive, disrespectful,
eroding civility, and, no doubt, racism. But Republicans are
accused of these things every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
How will it be any different if they don’t walk out on
Obama?
Kyle Peterson, American
Spectator Managing Editor,
on his drinking prompts for the evening
“Elections Have Consequences” — Whenever Obama invokes
the last election. E.g. “Republicans may not agree, but voters
sided with me this past November.”
Weep sadly into a strong martini.
“The Embrace” — Whenever Obama shakes hands with or
embraces Speaker John Boehner.
Have a black and tan, of course.
Matt Purple, American
Spectator Assistant Managing
Editor
Politico is reporting that President Obama intends to be
aggressive in tonight’s speech. This is in tune with his curious
belief that his reelection gave him a mandate not to govern, but to
annihilate the Republican Party. At this point, it’s not an issue
of if he’ll break off his TelePrompter screen and throw it at Kevin
McCarthy like an Olympic discus, but when.
As for substance, he’ll ask me to pay for things I can’t afford.
Beyond that, I lost interest two years ago. Perhaps the other Matt
is more sanguine?
Matthew Walther, American Spectator Editorial
Intern
Sorry, Matt, but I am not. Tonight, if I even remember to turn
on my television, my eyes will be on Samuel Alito, the most
principled and civilized high court justice (see his dissenting
opinions in United States v. Stevens and
Snyder v. Phelps). Alito’s calmly uttered “That’s not
true” proved a far more stinging rebuke to the president than any
of Willard Romney’s managementese-ridden bloviations during last
year’s debates. Of course, if Alito bothered to say “That’s not
true” every time Obama pinocchioed, a transcript of the State of
the Union would look something like this:
The Taliban’s momentum has been broken.
(That’s not true.)
Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many
openings as we have workers who can do the job.
(That’s not true.)
Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes
digging into their own pocket for school supplies, just to make a
difference.
(That’s not true.)
And so on and so on. Ad taedium.
If Alito doesn’t turn up, count me out.
