Tuesday, January 20, 2009

One Word: Ambiguous

My reaction to President Obama’s inaugural address is split. On one hand it had plenty of lofty rhetoric which is to be expected in a speech of this stature. On the other hand, George W. Bush could have given the same exact speech. As a Republican looking for clues on how President will govern, I didn’t find much substance.

In a political sense, being ambiguous can help one successfully navigate through rough times, but in the day an age in which we live, where people what to know information sooner rather than later, being ambiguous can been seen as being secretive or alternative motives. Maybe Obama wanted it this way, or maybe this is how he will lead.

We all have our own opinions on George W. Bush’s presidency, but there is one thing that I did like, you always knew where he stood. So while people of many different stripes celebrate Obama’s election, we now enter into a time of uncertainty in terms of what our leaders are thinking. For those like me looking for a glimpse of what direction Obama will take our country I think we will have to wait and see.

If I had to guess, Obama is going to be better known for how he reaches out to the Right, than what he does for the left. I think Obama will continue the Bush foreign policy, notice no calls for troop withdraw in his address. So one could say that where Bush reached out to the Left on education, immigration, and prescription drug coverage, Obama will work with the right on issues concerning foreign policy, and economic policy. Just a guess.


  1. Obama is meeting with the Generals tomorrow to tell them to withdraw troop in no more than 16 months

  2. Always knew where he stood?

    Like WMD's in Iraq?
    Like chasing down and killing Osama?
    Increasing the national deficit?
    Letting illegal Immigration spin out of control?
    700 Billion dollar bank bailout?
    Spying on American citizens?
    Warrantless wiretaps?
    Political firings?

    I know how much you want America to fail, Krusty, so you can blame it on Obama and the Democrats, but sugar coating BS, doesnt make it anything but BS.

  3. No, George Bush was simply unable to deliver that speech, even had it been written for him. He simply does not possess the innate senses of timing and cadence to pull it off.

    The problem with instant analysis is like the problem of reviewing a great book or movie right after completing it. The author has not had time to let the whole thing sink, no time to mull it over.

    The greatness (or not) of Obama's inagural address will largely be linked to the success of his presidency. If he carries through and is a fine president, I think this address will be one that is remembered for a long time. If not, it will be a matter of missed opportunity and potential unmet.

  4. Oh and here I thought all the Democrats went to DC to see the golden child?

  5. I liked the speech, it was of course well delivered, but it didn't wow me. He's wowed plenty of times: in Denver, for example. But honestly, who cares? Who really cares how well a President speaks? It's what he does that matters and I read that one of the first things he will do on the Roe v Wade anniversary is reinstate the funding for abortions to other countries. Is that his answer to the immigration problem??

  6. Stay classy, ITR.


  7. where's your buddy marty heldt to find out the dirt on this president?

  8. Dirt? Shame on us. The Republic needs a successful Presidency and Legislative for a change, maybe we ought to offer our goodwill and support instead of immediately wishing there were dirt.

    And don't be stupid with a response such as "they did it first". Didn't our mothers teach us to do certain things just because it's right?