The man knows his audience: ignorant and hateful

The latest from Barack Henry O'bama*

By Jeff Emanuel Posted in | | Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Barack Obama (via his campaign flunkies) sent out the following email (with the subject line "My response to Bush") after tonight's SOTU:

Tonight, Governor Kathleen Sebelius spoke eloquently to the nation on behalf of our party.

But I wanted to share my personal response to George Bush's final State of the Union with you.

Watch my response here: [yeah, there's a video; no, I didn't link it]

Next year, when it will be the job of someone new to report on the state of our union, the entire nation can have a president they believe in.

And with your help in the coming days and weeks, that's the kind of president I will be.

Now, I have only two brief comments to make about that message:

(1) The man knows his audience. They don't want to hear GWB called "President Bush" -- after all, he's illegitimate, a Nazi, a far-right uncompromising b****rd, and so many other things. Given this, Obama is making a very calculated insult by simply calling the President "Bush" in the subject line of his email (though I suppose we should actually be applauding him for not pulling an MSNBC and titling it "My response to The Monkey").

(2) Clearly, Mr. Obama doesn't know -- and of course his devout followers are unaware -- that State of the Union addresses aren't given by newly inaugurated executives. A new President doesn't go before a joint session of Congress and report on the State of the Union as he inherited it; otherwise, nearly every four (or eight) years we'd get a SOTU dedicated to describing our country as being in a shambles, on the brink of depression, and in its death throes. Addresses can be given to joint sessions, but in an inaugural year, SOTU addresses are not.

Therefore, contrary to his own written promise, Obama's first prospective SOTU would not be "next year," but would be in 2010. But hey, who cares about details? They so get in the way of a good hate-fueled campaign.

*h/t Tbone.


« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing.Comments (50) | You don't understand! We're lying to you for your own good!Comments (62) »
The man knows his audience: ignorant and hateful 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

And was quite conciliatory, on earmarks and fiscal responsibility.

Autopilot on the staffs part or Obama slipping off his leash ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Jeff got that via a mailing list that they put him on, which means that it's just the Senator saying one thing for public consumption and another for what he thinks is exclusively his supporters.

In other words, Democratic business as usual.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Obama says:

Next year, when it will be the job of someone new to report on the state of our union, the entire nation can have a president they believe in.

Then you point out:

Therefore, contrary to his own written promise, Obama's first prospective SOTU would not be "next year," but would be in 2010. But hey, who cares about details? They so get in the way of a good hate-fueled campaign.

It is true that it will be the job of someone new to "report on the state of our union" starting in 2009. Even if that person does not carry out that part of the job description until 2010, you could still say it is that person's job to report on the state of the union. Similarly, one would say that it is Pres. Bush's job to report on the state of the union currently as President, even if he is never going to do it again. Either way, my guess is he knows this, it is just some rhetorical flair.

Btw, Obama's middle name is actually Hussein, not Henry

as you doubtlessly recognize. (as in "Takes one to know one." Sorry, but upon reflection I knew you really didn't have a fair shot at getting it.)

This is just priceless. "It is true that it will be the job of someone new to "report on the state of our union" starting in 2009. Even if that person does not carry out that part of the job description until 2010" Dude!

Also, everyone but you knows that Henry is Gaelic for Hussein and that the Kennedys think his last name in O'Bama.

I know you can't keep up, but at least try to grasp something as you are being lapped.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I am aware of the whole Gaelic Kennedy "O'Bama" thing. I was making a joke - as if there is anyone left in the Universe (at least in the universe of Redstate readers) who does not realize Obama's middle name is Hussein. I must say, I really do not see why his middle name is such a big deal, but whatevs.

Don't make him Irish. We don't want him.

www.republicansenate.org

If he got his 2009 state of the union it would sound something like:

"Dear citizens, i my few weeks in office I have given away all our money, we have run from Iraq, and we have been attacked 12 times, i'm sorry for making the 6th season of 24 a reality. I'll be living in Africa from now on, Oops"

So he didn't know about the State of the Union first year thing. Does anyone think President Bush would have know about it at this point eight years ago? I love the Pres, but deep insight into the minutia of the federal government has never been his strong point. In 2000, he didn't even know Musaraf's name.

Why is it mean? ( I'm not going to bother to find the non linked video and watch all of it, but from the summary I can't really find the hate. He didn't use the full title. Big whoop. Jeff Emanuel didn't call *Senator* Obama, *Senator* Obama. He obviously must know that his audience hates all black people and they should all still be slaves, rather than members of congress.

Two can play that game of insanity and lets face it republicans and Democrats do. I'm sick of it. Its stupid. It demeans us all.

The truth can only be found by those who seek it.

Feel free to hit the contact form if you wish to petition for reinstatement after calling Jeff a hatemonger and all of us racists.

HTML Help for Red Staters

For the record, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all gave statements to joint sessions of Congress on "administration goals" (rather than "the SOTU") in the weeks following their first inaugurations, and unless you want to be incredibly petty about this, it's a de facto SOTU--otherwise the outgoing president would bear the burden of giving one.

As you yourself concede, the State of the Union is prospective, not reflective. Presidents spend much more time in the SOTU setting agendas than analyzing the past year, so your rationale that presidents can't give SOTUs in their first year seems wholly uninformed. The President is going to structure his address around what he wants to fix/improve whether the country is prospering or in shambles.

In sum, this is an incredibly petty and weak critique.

Perhaps that statement is reflective not subjective?

A de facto SOTU? What in Heavens name is that? BHO said this of his own volition; it was deliberate and purposeful. Now he looks like liberal obsequious truckler and unfledged student of government all in several paragraphs.

Ah, but maybe I missed the point and it's all part of this "change" he keeps speaking about?

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

Yes, a de facto SOTU. SOTU vs. Address of Administration Goals is a distinction without a difference. Whatever president is elected will give an address one month or so after entering office in 2009, and everyone will describe it as a SOTU.

Ask anyone what that address before a joint session of Congress was that Bush 41 gave in 1989, Clinton gave in 1993, and Bush 43 gave in 2001, and they'd all say it was a SOTU. I bet even Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 would say that address was the SOTU.

Hell, if presidential scholars can't see a difference, bickering about one is childish. See: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php . These addresses are thrown right in with the SOTUs because they're principally the same.

You really think that the fact that Obama wrote "Bush" in an email subject line and "George Bush" in the body of the email is meant to convey a Super Secret Message to the base? I'm still waiting on my official Moonbat Little Orphan Annie Decoder ring, so maybe you are right, but this really seems to be a stretch. It just isn't how Democrats play ball. We really haven't mastered the art of the buzzword.

Buzzwords and subtle framing are a Republican game (cf. "death tax," "Democrat Party," "states rights," "activists judges," "big government," "sanctity of marriage," "pro-life," etc., etc., etc.).

Not that I don't wish that Democrats knew how to pull it off (look how badly it worked out when Bill Clinton tried to Jesse Jackson Obama); they just haven't, though.

If one were familiar with campaign psychology and literary communication techniques, it would be academic that every word is deliberate. Although in BHO’s defense, it could have been written by a five year old; but I digress.

Demoting to last name only usage and excluding title is a basic methodology by which authoritative subliminal influences are removed. But then again, you didn’t really give it that much though; did you?

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

but "a basic methodology by which authoritative subliminal influences are removed" is a bit different than "he's illegitimate, a Nazi, a far-right uncompromising b****rd, and so many other things. Given this, Obama is making a very calculated insult" etc., isn't it?

Presidents are often referred to by their last name. Do you think that conservatives are subliminally subverting their favorite president every time they refer to the "Reagan Revolution" rather than the "President Reagan Revolution."

If there was other evidence of some kind of subtle subversion in Obama's email (remember context is important for literary communication techniques, too), then maybe there would be a case for arguing that Obama is attempting to subtly removing authoritative influence. I personally, don't even see that. There is certainly no implication that he was trying to convey any kind of "calculated insult" like what Jeff is trying to argue, though.

Jeff is only repeating some of the milder references BHO’s target audience has used to describe our President.

Context is absolutely important; closely review the stated, textual, purpose and intent of the email. Then explain to me “Cakes” how the use of “Bush” is not a deliberate attempt to communicate directly with a select segment! Get my point? Tonality has everything to do with interpreting intent.

But I am willing to accept the highly unlikely prospect that Jeff might be wrong. It could be the underage staffers and topically educated staffers were just using shorthand.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

pro-choice, tax-cuts-for-the-rich, dead white males, misogeny (sp?), lockbox, it's for the children, torture, Bush lied-people died, Fitzmas," etc.

you really are too modest in analyzing Dems.

Not much.
Change about as meaningful as a change of sox.
A naiveness about how people in America actually work.
Some low rent legal practicing for Chicago race-based activists and slumlords.
A membership in a racist church.
A Harvard degree.
Good looks.
Decent speechifying
Weak interview skills
A term in state government
A nice speech in 2004
A partial term in the Senate with extremely low participation.
An early vote against the war.
A determination to see that we lose the war.
So arguing to the emotional side is about the only real tool he has.

If one is a person who feels that the Republican "Brand" (used to describe a mindset, not my own point of view) has been damaged greatly and one also feels that the Clinton "Brand" is not worth a whole lot, Obama becomes the default choice.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

if he was employed in the private sector.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

You think someone that intelligent would only be able to deliver pizzas in the private sector? You might rethink that a bit.

It rewards "competence". Most of the highly intelligent Members of Congress couldn't get a real job in the private sector that didn't interface with the government.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"...highly intelligent Members of Congress.."

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Especially after the results from last night's festivities.

The private sector can be suckers for charm and a good resume too, especially the big companies. Keep the job; another issue.

In Vino Veritas

ok by pwest

Look, I'm not voting for Sen. Obama for president! However, I think his lack of knowledge about the inner workings of SOTU is being a bit nit picky. And as for calling President Bush, Bush, sure he was speaking to his unhindged followers, but hey, when Republicans want to raise money they mention Ted Kennedy and Hillary. In fact, I'd say Hillary had the best day she's had in a while when Teddy endorsed Sen. Obama. Heck in the south, that'll turn out blue/yellow dog Dems for her.

So relax; all of this will play out. What I think is funny is the Democratic blood letting; it's worse than anything the Republicans are going through. We'll be more united when this process is over; you wait and see.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service