Skip to content

The State of the Onion

January 28, 2010

Let me shoot you straight: I literally don’t give a rat’s arse about the State of the Union.  As I’ve said before, listening to politicians talk in circles literally makes my ears bleed.  I did catch some of the speech tonight (not by choice, I assure you), and it seemed like as much of the same-old-same-old as I’ve ever gotten out of the SOTU.  There are those, however, who actually take this bullcrap seriously.  All you need to do is take a simple look at Andrew Sullivan’s blog to find people who are transfixed by the President’s rhetoric:

Tonight I was reminded why I stood in the cold on the Mall on Inauguration Day.

For all the talk about a disconnect from the concerns of the populus, this president comes across as FAR more aware of, connected to, and affected by the struggles of the average American than his predecessor ever did.

This speech is directed to the people in that room more then the people watching at home.  He needs to look into the camera more often, and he has made too many jokes that are geared towards the beltway crowd.  Political junkies might get all the references, but the average American is probably watching Jersey Shore on DVR by now.  That being said his closing has had a more universal message, but the first hour was way too “inside baseball”.

10.22 pm. This was the president I supported and still support and will support because he alone is calling us away from the cynicism, the ideology, the rhetorical poison, and the red-blue divide that keep us from the reform we desperately need.

The first three are readers, and the last one is Sullivan himself (or one of his “underbloggers” or whatever).  I mean, really?  You’re actually going to take a speech from a politician seriously?  I mean, the guy talked about spending for an hour and then starts talking about spending freezes and deficit reduction.  And other sleazeball politicians applauded after every sentence like the nogoodniks that they are.  Have a look at this part of the speech:

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who’s to blame for this, but I am not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future – for America and the world.

This was followed by a fervent round of applause from the whole chamber.  But look again—what the hell does that even mean?  Who isn’t going to call for national unity when it comes to self-defense?  And yet somehow people claim to be re-invigorated by a dumb speech.  It’s a speech.  Why don’t we judge the guy by his actions rather than the words he says?  Is that because…all the guy does is talk?  I guess it’s because the words he says are the things he does.

I don’t understand why we’re even listening to politicians speak anymore.  Does any of it really mean anything?

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: