Skip

Well, I’m not all that surprised at the reactions – if you are on the Left, this was (at least, spoken out loud) equal to sliced bread.  On the Right, not so much.  I took it to be rather long, disjointed, and at the end, wondering about his speech writers.  Of course, TOTUS is starting to become a bore and given the ubiquity of it everywhere, I think most have come to the conclusion that he can’t give a cogent speech without it.  I guess we can just think of it as the equivalent of his binky, blanket, or Amex card – for all ages (as we found out with our kids), one should never leave home without them.

All that said, what it really comes down to is how did the operator / Talent / President do?  During the campaign, he always seemed to keep his cool. Last night, though, he had another "face" – one that was more biting, more angry; like a father dressing down recalcitrant kids, or a teacher trying to maintain control over a classroom full of class clowns.  In other words, someone trying to fight to maintain (or regain) control of the situation.  

Much of it was standard fare, but on more occasions than necessary, rather than sounding and being Presidential, he came off as being simply petty.  Or what he really is: a Community Organizer – which really showed last night.  A C.O. needs an enemy to focus on, to ridicule, to make hay against, and thus, have a target to rally his troops to attack.

Problem is, he’s trying to pit Congress and Senate and the Supreme Court all against each other while still doing what a C.O. does which is remain in the background and keep his troops in front of him.

Problem is, it is hard to be in that background when you are the President at the State of the Union address.  And that presented the problem to Obama, as he can be a campaigner, he can be a C.O., but seemingly is having more and more problems in being successful at what he is being paid to do: be President.  And last night, it showed.  And I’m not the only one:

Jules Crittenden: “But seriously, we have just witnessed an extraordinary exercise in presidential oratorical animation that may be without peer or precedent. Can it be said that any American president has ever tried to blame so much on other people, or has been willing to so rapidly abandon his own principles for the betterment of his standing with the people, to seize up the banner against himself in our nation’s time of need, that this nation should not stand against him? For this, the president deserves our unabashed, gaga-eyed astonishment.”

John Podhoretz: “One liberal trope after the speech, voiced by Chrystia Freedland of the Financial Times on Charlie Rose, is that Obama is putting Republican politicians on notice he will go after them as the do-nothing impeders of progress. Republicans should pray this is the case, and it may be the case.” In New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts he’s proven impotent. Why should people fear him more now, when he’s weaker?

Prof. Randy Barnett: In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds [of] Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

and the most devastating: Meryl Yourish

Tonight, he addressed the American people, and he addressed Congress. Go back and look at the speech. He was earnest, and his chin was down, his head relatively level, when speaking to Congress. When he spoke to us, his chin rose, and he talked down to us—literally.

Go ahead. Take a look. Note his posture. You’ll see it, too. You and I, we are not his equals. He is above us.
That’s what sets my teeth on edge every time I listen to him.

(H/T: Instapundit)

Problem is

Read more

Most martial arts will stress one important point – use your opponent’s strength against them.  I did Tae Kwon Do for a number of years and learned that the surprise attack works well, when you have a "straight ahead" attacker use a more circular pattern.  Good puncher?  Switch to a lot more kicks and stay to the "outside".  Better kicker?  Do the opposite.  It all hinges on the pattern you can identify and know how to neutralize the advantage.  Always seem to work well (those many years and many pounds ago)..

Seems to work well in politics as well – have a plan for what is unfolding in front of you (or, if really caught by surprise, what’s going on behind you).  That, however, seems to have been the problem for conservatives lately – what IS that pattern, how do I know there IS a pattern, and if I even have an idea of what is going on, how to neutralize it.

We’ve all been hearing about Alinsky’s Rules for a while, and I finally found a really decent abridged version of them here (having not bought the book yet).  It is worthwhile reading and upon doing so, have found a number of them have been attempted to be used against Doug and I by various Progressive folks in the past ("…you’re not following your own FAQs by showing that lady…" – Rule #4 [it failed by the way – they hate being ignored. Better yet, they’re not used to having their enemies doubling back and going onto the offensive against them!]).

And I think that’s the key for conservatives lately – few have taken the time to read the Rules.  You should…and start using them yourselves!  After all, they’ve had much success with them – just think of it as political Akido – recognize the pattern, develop a plan ahead of time to neutralize the pattern, and execute the plan:

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon." There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

Read more