"not now"

Yes. The president just said that.


In the SOTU address.

For once I agree with the president's words.

(See my previous post.)

MORE: At 09:49 p.m., he just said "Not now" again.

It's a mantra. Not now more than ever!

MY OVERALL REACTION: While I get tired of his repetitive style of rhetoric, all in all, it wasn't a bad speech (and I agreed with some of it). The man's oratorical skills continue to shine.

The president did appeal to the center and displayed some good-natured humor, and I am glad he promised to work on repealing DADT. But I found myself especially irritated by the repeated and gratuitous bashing of bankers and Wall Street, and even more by the attack on the Supreme Court. (To my mind, that borders on attacking free speech.)

And you'd think by now he'd see the wisdom of backing off on health care.

It's worth pointing out that during the campaign, he was to the right of Hillary (who viciously attacked him for it). I see no reason he couldn't fall back on that strategically. (Might even save his ass in '12.)

Not now, apparently!

AND WHY NOT: I think the most important thing to remember about tonight's performance is that Barack Obama did not tack to the center, as many would have expected. Instead, he held his ground. A smart move, and I would have advised him to do exactly what he did. First of all, he would have looked weak in light of the recent election of Scott Brown had he seemed to capitulate. Second, there's still plenty of time to tack to the center in order to to preserve his administration in 2012, and from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, it is not in his interest to have the Democrats win the upcoming Fall elections.

In fact, it is in Obama's own political interest to have the Republicans win.

That way he can not only blame everything on them, but his reelection will be an appeal to the sense of protective gridlock that American voters like.

LAST WORD: This is what we're up against:


And the president only wants to make it worse by adding new entitlements.

(Via Glenn Reynolds, who hopes it's hyperbole.)

MORE: As to all the people, all the various reactions, most of it will pass, and be soon forgotten. Except by the Democrats who will lose in the Fall:

The Democrat-vs.-Democrat anger roiling the ranks of Congress is being wrapped in smiles and standing ovations Wednesday as President Barack Obama outlines the nation's top priorities in his first State of the Union speech.

But for most of the Democrats cramming the House chamber, there is no issue more pressing than getting re-elected in November. And it's not clear that pursuing Obama's priorities will help them achieve theirs.

For what it's worth (which is not much), it's clear to me their priorities are not his.

The man wants to get reelected in 2012, and the Democratic majority will not and cannot help him do that.

MORE: Thanks for the link, Sean Kinsell. Sean does a great job of doing what I refused to do...

posted by Eric on 01.27.10 at 09:17 PM


You heard a totally different speech than I heard, Eric.

I heard the same low-baritone drone that he used so successfully during the campaign--saying nothing really, but trying to string together enough soothing words that you somehow come away feeling--well--not totally antithetical to the message. Maybe I'm to cynical now . . . maybe I'm just immune.

But there was no substance there, I thought. My impression was that he was saying what he thought he had to say to keep the masses bamboozled.

I think politically he's screwed. Most Americans will see a lurch to the right by Obama as exactly what it is--an insincere sop to political necessity. But he can't stay out there on the outskirts of the center-left and win another election, or even be of benefit to any Democrat running in anything close to a competitive race this fall.

But if he moves towards the center, the netroots will eviscerate him as a traitor to the cause.

He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

I think he'll get a bump out of the speech, but I don't think the bump will last.

The people are, I think (and hope!) tired of Big Government, and are maybe at last ready to consider other alternatives.

filbert   ·  January 27, 2010 11:16 PM

I think you misunderstand. I didn't say there was substance, only well-delivered rhetoric.

He said what I would have advised him to say had I been working for him. And said it well.

(As to "NOT NOW," that is pure sarcasm on my part.)

Eric Scheie   ·  January 28, 2010 12:29 AM

In fact, it is in Obama's own political interest to have the Republicans win.

You're right, of course. I have trouble trying to think as cynically and self-centeredly as Obama and his insiders apparently can do with frightening ease . . .

filbert   ·  January 28, 2010 10:52 AM

...and I am glad he promised to work on repealing DADT.

And so am I. But why does a nagging thought occur that he's doing it to undermine the military. I've been listening to Limbaugh too much it seems.

Frank   ·  January 28, 2010 9:51 PM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits