Having read both pros and cons regarding the president’s speech Tuesday night I have reached a few conclusions. Perhaps I should say I have come up with more questions than answers.
Many of us have wondered why he chooses a large audience and extremely high profile venues for his speeches. But West Point for a “surge” speech that could have and probably should have been made from the oval office? In my humble opinion presidents always look more “presidential” and appropriate when seated behind the desk from where, supposedly, the commander-in-chief addresses issues pertinent to the United States of America. I won’t even go into the cost of flying all over the United States at the drop of a hat; no one seems to take that into consideration anymore. After all, he is the president and if he is incapable of speaking from the oval office, I guess all that expense is worth it. But it bothers me that every time he address the American people it’s from a podium in front of a mass of hand-picked observers who are sure to provide him with the feedback which he apparently craves.
Apparently I am not alone in my ruminations. This is from Nile Gardiner concerning Charles Krauthammer’s comments on the speech. And this is from the Baltimore Sun.
It seems we have a traveling photo-op instead of a president. It could be funny if this photo-op were not the top rung of our teetering republic. His speech Tuesday should have been from the perspective of a take-charge leader promising an unmistakable victory, not a half baked, something-for-everyone non-plan, delivered to some who will die trying to carry out his caricature of a strategy. Let’s face it, this was just another finger-gesturing performance from a Chicago hood, which appeared to be more the scolding of a group of unruly eighth graders than an address to the people who put him where he is in the first place.
11 hours ago