Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but -- in the case that you are -- Obama might say we should include faith, unity, and love; but Obama would not ever say that the whole world's hopes rest with America's future.
He doesn't actually understand the moral significance of the American experiment. He said that we do "big things" (in the name of the American dream), but he doesn't understand -- and his actions prove that this is so -- he doesn't understand the sanctity of unfettered individual rights.
Ed, Pundits on both sides have described Obama's speech as "Reagan-esque". I just thought I'd give an example for comparison. You picked on one example from the SOTU address ("move forward as one nation") and I tried to show that Reagan used a similar line. In fact, you can probably find a similar sentiment in just about all of the SOTU addresses in modern times.
"he doesn't understand the sanctity of unfettered individual rights."
Can you name one modern politician of any significance who did or does? Thanks, Glenn
This stuff is just tiresome. If you were given the choice between Obama and Reagan, is there any question what any freedom loving individual would choose? Are we going to start a debate on RoR again over which politician fits some definition of a Platonic Ideal, or that all politicians are morally equivalent because they don't fit this impossible standard? I'm not purporting one ought to elevate Reagan as an ideal, but I don't delude myself into thinking Reagan is not any better than Obama. The problem I've seen quite frequently is the irrational Platonic Ideal standard for measuring a politician's worth. Yet no one can fit your idea of the perfect politician other than yourself. You can barely find any two libertarians or objectivists to agree with each other on everything, now we're going to say that there is no difference whatsoever between any modern politicians? Why should this be taken seriously at all? Don't get me wrong, I sympathize and agree with the criticism that most politicians are simply statists in various forms, but I don't think it's rational at all to think they are all equally statist.
OK, Ed. If you equate "understand the sanctity of unfettered individual rights" with "adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements", which is what the "Freedom Index" is based on, then I agree with you.
I also agree with John. But, I also find the constant sniping at Obama to be "tiresome". Why don't we all just agree that he's a scum-sucking Marxist with nothing of any value to say or contribute, and move on to more interesting topics?
Until the main-stream media reports his scum-sucking Marxist nature to the public, it is up to us to keep poking at it - even if only to one another. (Sorry, Glenn, but this might be going on for a while - especially as we roll into the campaign season. :-)
You know, when you guys keep on referring to Obama as a scum-sucking Marxist, it gets repetitive to the point where it might actually lose its potential value.
Calling him a scum-sucking Marxist, over and over again, could -- in time -- prove counterproductive. There should be some kind of rule made in order to prevent the overuse of the phrase: "Obama is a scum-sucking Marxist." I was thinking of a rule which reads: "You shouldn't call Obama a scum-sucking Marxist." Or perhaps one which states: "If you think that Obama is a scum-sucking Marxist, then you should bite your tongue about that." Or perhaps this one: "Obama may be a scum-sucking Marxist, but we should not engage in numerous repetition of that phrase; if the phrase (i.e., the phrase: 'Obama is a scum-sucking Marxist') comes up in conversation, then politely let the issue pass without repeating, especially in the very same words, that 'Obama is a scum-sucking Marxist.'"
Well, Sam, if you want to get picky, he isn't really a scum-sucking Marxist. He's a scum-sucking socialist.
Marxists want a revolution - a violent overthrow of the existing government. But they are just one kind of socialist. The far-left Progressives want a "transformation" to achieve their socialists ends. Most of them lie and pretend that they favor free-enterprise, claiming they just want some regulations to prevent this or that evil coming from unfettered capitalism.
The "scum-sucking" is a metaphor that has to do with willingness to lie and cheat and to take the lowest of ethical paths to reach his ends as contrasted with those socialists like Senator Bernie Saunders or Representative Dennis Kucinich who openly and honestly admit that they are socialists and advocate their transformations out in the open - making them dumber-than-bricks socialists.
Obama ... and Pelosi ... and Reed & Co. are all pragmatic, unprincipled, power-lusters. Their actions show that much.
They do not seek power to implement the policies they want, instead, they seek the precise policies that would afford them with the greatest increase in political power over others.
Even a serial killer could "sound like Reagan" for a speech -- if his vocation was on the line, and he knew it would help. Like Mr. R Kay said, calling Obama's speeches "Reagan-esque" is insulting to anyone with principles. Imagine the absurdity of mentioning how a serial killer looks like your husband, or -- for some -- or how the serial killer looks like Jesus.
As if a pretentiously-superficial similarity has any meaning whatsoever.
Edit: "hypocrite alert" ... I just noticed that I compared Obama to a serial killer, largely nullifying one of the very points I was trying to make (because of how I made it). Ugh. I can't seem to win for losin'.