Hopeless
There's been, as there's bound to be, a good deal of speculation on what President Obama will say in his State of the Union Address Wednesday, from silly speculation on DADT to reliable reports that he plans to announce a freeze for the next three years on domestic spending.
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf asks: "Will President Obama announce new policy regarding the sexual orientation of people serving in the military during his State of the Union address Wednesday?"
Um, no.
Moving right along.
Seriously. The notion that a President who is drowning in the shallow end of the pool, who's all too willing to toss healthcare overboard because of some guy in a truck...? I mean, really?
But it would sure make that freeze on domestic spending more palatable.
What are people smoking? Can I get some?
It would almost make sense — I mean, Obama wants to freeze domestic spending, but has no plans so far to freeze the war budget. In fact, according to the AP: "The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next year".
Now, if he could make a case for shipping all the gays over to Afghanistan on the cheap in return for scrapping DADT, maybe the Teabaggers, who are apparently running things now, would go for it?


























Maybe I'm too Machiavellian, but I think he may well make that announcement. It would provide an awesome distraction from whatever it is he's planning on doing with health care and other things. It's the red flag distracting Congress and pundits from the sword (to use a bullfighting metaphor. or is it a simile? I can never keep those two straight.)
It would certainly keep the chat shows in fits of apoplexy. And since they can only think of one thing at a time, any movement on health care or anything else would slide right under the radar.
Reply to this
Definitely too Machiavellian.
Reply to this