More Analysis Of The Speeches

It's a new day, and there are some new comments on The Speech Tuesday night. You'll be happy to know that the #1 voice in conservative America, Rush Limbaugh, talked on his program yesterday about how the two speeches were a matter of style versus substance. Hmmm...where've you heard that before? Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

Anyway, here are some other thoughts on the evening.

Ace of Spades:

Last night Joe Biden was named the enforcer of the stimulus plan because according to Obama, 'nobody messes with Joe'. Today Biden was asked what the address is for the site where people can follow the 'stimulus' spending and hilarity ensued.

Thank God we dodged that idiot Palin as VP, huh?

You know why nobody messes with Joe? Because picking on a retard is wrong.

Clearly, no one has 'messed' with him long enough to educate him on the fact that websites aren't generally referred to by 'number'. But hey, this is the same guy who said 'jobs' was a three-letter word. Give him a break.

Ace also added this, which amuses me greatly:

The press is engaged in a game of endlessly writing "BHO + MSM = TLF" on their book-covers in hopes he might notice them.

Patterico links to some fact-checking (how inconvenient for the Obamessiah). Two good examples of not-so-factual facts in the speech:

OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before."

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs."

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus.

Also, an American did not invent the automobile -- a German did (Benz) -- nor did the transcontinental railroad get built during the civil war. But, this is the guy who said there were 57 states in the union. He's a liberal, so facts are negotiable things.

Tevi Troy highlights the inaccuracy of Obama's suggestion that he's already done more for health care than the previous administration.

The Bush administration accomplished a great deal on health care: prescription-drug benefits under Medicare, with choices for seniors; PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency AIDS Relief, which created a new paradigm for foreign aid based on goal-setting and accountability; the improvement and expansion of Community Health Centers, which now serve 16 million Americans; and setting the goal and the path forward for half of Americans to have electronic health records by 2014. President Bush’s domestic health-care efforts had a unifying principle, that of value-driven health care — the use of incentives and new technologies to make patients better and smarter purchasers of health care. I know some conservatives may not like all of these changes, but that does not mean conservatives should let the new president write these developments out of history.

Secretary Leavitt used to call the Bush administration “the most consequential administration with respect to health care in four decades.” Given President Obama’s grandiose pronouncements on health care last night, it is quite possible that his administration could be more consequential — at some point. But not yet, and not based on 35 days, an SCHIP eligibility expansion, $2.1 billion for comparative effectiveness, and a still-to-be-written plan for using $20 billion to promote electronic medical records.

Rich Lowry connects some dots and shows how Obama's speech was eerily reminiscent of Clinton's in 1993.

A keen-eyed friend pointed out to me the similarity between Clinton's 1993 joint-session speech and Obama's last night. My friend was struck about how much more forthcoming and specific Clinton was about his budget plans than Obama was last night. That's true, but I was most struck by the uncanny parallels. If you want to know what Obama is up to, think of Bill Clinton circa 1993, except even more ambitious, (arguably) more talented, and with (for now) no Newt Gingrich in sight. (And, of course, with every number with another couple of zeroes on it).

Hit the link for the full details.

Finally, Ed Morissey at Hot Air addresses the key for the Right to understand:

We’re never going to beat Obama on style points; he’s just too good of a speaker. Republicans need to beat him on ideas, and Jindal did about as well as anyone could in doing so.

That's a great point. Our ideas must be superior, and we must be able to communicate them well. Even if ours is a more pedestrian presentation, if it is done well people will come over to our side, especially as the Obamessiah's plans begin to exhibit their negative effects. It's all the more reason for Republicans not to sign on to Obama's plans now in the spirit of bipartisanship - they've got to provide a viable alternative because people are going to want one in a couple years.

In short, it's no big shock that the media had a collective orgasm over the speech, while much of the rest of the country -- the thinking, intelligent rubes who actually make the country work -- aren't so impressed.

There's my two cents.