The President's Address: How Did He Do?

In my last posting, I was very critical of President Obama's speech, delivered last week to House Democrats. I found it jingoistic, partisan, glib and patronizing - in a word "non-presidential". I was looking for a lot better from President Obama in his first prime time address to the nation, Monday night. So, how did he do?

First, a compliment. I must admit that it is refreshing to listen to a President who is articulate, intelligent, and thinks so quickly on his feet. I do not think that there is anyone around in Washington who rivals Barack Obama in this respect. There are no malapropisms; the words flow smoothly and in the right order. It is apparent that President Obama loves to speak, to be engaged and even challenged by his audience.

In fact, if there is any criticism to be made of the President's speaking style, is that he loves to speak too much. The answers to questions went on and on. Questions were merely taken as an invitation to repeat whole parts of the speech or of other well rehearsed lines. I cannot imagine that many listeners, other than the obsessive political junkies, lasted through the whole hour.

But now on to substance. There was absolutely nothing new in this address that President Obama has not stated before. One would be hard pressed to isolate one significant sound-bite which represents a new thought or point, not made by the President before. The themes were familiar. The USA is facing catastrophe if something is not done pronto. Doing nothing is not an option. The economic problems were inherited. People must be put back to work. 4,000,000 jobs must be created or at least saved. It will take time. And so on.

One thing which President Obama likes to do is to set up straw men, which he can then proceed to shoot down. For example, he repeats that doing nothing is not an option. But who actually is saying that doing nothing is an option? Opponents of the existing stimulus bill are not saying that the government should be doing nothing to improve the economy. What they are saying is that the government should not be engaged in excessive spending, especially for projects which are not stimulative.

Another one of the President's familiar "selling" points is that he is taking advice on this package from the best economists in the world, some of whom were even advisors in the previous administration. Sorry, but this to me is not that reassuring. You mean the same "experts" who failed to see this train wreck coming are now the people President Obama is counting on to get us out of this mess? That goes for Congress to. Most of the leaders in Congress who are feverishly working on this thing have been around for donkey's years. Their "expertise" got us into this crisis. They were the ones who just a few months ago passed the TARP spending of $700 billion, without providing for accountability or oversight, and who now admit that the money was not used as intended. They were the ones who passed an auto bail-out package to temporarily prop up failing automobile manufacturers, who, for sure, will be back again very soon for more money. Relying on this group is supposed to give the public the confidence that this stimulus bill is a good idea?

President Obama said nothing at all about the "Buy In America" provisions which were in the original House bill and which caused so much consternation for Canadians and Europeans. Not one of the questions asked by the press dealt with this subject. I am not aware of the current fate of that provision or how the matter might ultimately be dealt with when the Senate bill and the House bill are reconciled, as they eventually must be. It is interesting to note, however, that this matter was not of particular interest to anyone in the press conference.

One final observation. President Obama has assured everyone that there is no "pork" in the bill. It has all been removed. This I know will be a relief to all Jewish and Muslim Americans. A kosher stimulus package.