Thread Rating:
01-27-2011, 12:31 PM
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/alvi...plagiarism
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what can be said of plagiarism? President Obamaâs second State of the Union address contained enough recycled ideas and lines lifted from speeches of others to make historians wince. I suppose this is what one does when one not only has nothing new to say, but is required by custom and Constitution to come forth with a report of some kind by a certain time and day.
Had Obama or his writers been considerate enough to have informed listeners of where some of the presidentâs best lines and offered-up ideas originated, the speech might be remembered for its cutting and pasting of great and not-so-great moments of the past performance of others. After quoting Robert Kennedy early on, Obama tried to have his listeners believe that everything else he said that we might remember were his or his writersâ creations. Had the president submitted the text of his second State of the Union Address in the form of a college term paper, he would have been sent forthwith to the nearest academic dean. Once again, our public affairs are such that we have one standard for presidents and another for undergraduates. Now is as good a time as any to let Obamaâs listeners in on what the late Paul Harvey would have termed âthe rest of the story.â [Take the poll: Was Obamaâs State of the Union speech a success?]
Early in his address, Obama said that he wanted the nation he leads to be a "light to the world." The last president who set such a mission for the nation he led, and in those exact words, was Woodrow Wilson.
Obamaâs concept of the âAmerican familyâ may well have had its origins in the first State of the State address New York Governor Mario Cuomo delivered in 1983. Cuomo proclaimed the state of New York as a âfamily.â He also talked about multiple partnerships, both public and private.
In an address to the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s, Margaret Thatcher delivered what might go down as the most memorable line in Obamaâs second State of the Union address. The British Prime Minister told her American audience that the United States was the âfirst nation to have been founded on an idea.â It took the president a few additional words to get this idea across.
Obamaâs pointed mutterings about a second âSputnik Momentâ being upon us and his recollection of how American policymakers responded to the last one with increased expenditures on infrastructure, science, technology, and education were clearly intended to evoke the spirit of Dwight D. Eisenhower. His setting of specific deadlines and goals was vintage JFK, but for the absence of any sense of challenge to his audience, list of benefits the United States would derive from them, or any semblance of a shared adventure the American people were about to embark upon. [Read Robert Schlesinger: Obama Not the First to Use 'Sputnik Moment.']
There was a certain Back to the Future feel to the masterful tributes Obama paid those Ronald Reagan might have described as âordinary heroes.â After all, it was Reagan who began the practice of inviting citizens who had done extraordinary things to sit beside the first lady in the House gallery as the president recited their achievements. It was also Reagan who reminded his listeners that the greatness of America emerged not from the hand of government, but through the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on Obama.]
Obama received his most sustained applause when he said, "I know there isnât a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth." Leaving aside the faulty grammar (people change places with people, not with nations), the poaching from John F. Kennedy's immortal inaugural address was obvious enough for the most historical of Obama's listeners to notice. ("I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation.") That Obama could utter almost identical words days after paying tribute to Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of the delivery of that famous speech and not making reference to it suggests a self-absorption rare even among presidents. [See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]
Most pointedly, the low point of Obamaâs speech came when he brought back government re-organization from the ash heap of failed efforts of previous presidents who sought to save money without inflicting pain on a public that had grown accustomed to government largesse. This one, like all that talk about all those green energy jobs that lay before us, had fallen out of the presidential repertoire with retirement of Jimmy Carter. Obama might have had the decency to have Carter on hand to witness the moment. He will have another chance should he, when he delivers his budget, bring back that other Carter flop from yesteryear, âzero based budgeting.â [See a slide show of 10 worst presidents.]
Even Obamaâs feigned attempt at humor had an antecedent in the remarks of a predecessor who spun better yarns than this president. Obama informed his listeners that salmon comes under the jurisdiction of one department when swimming in fresh water and under another when swimming in salt water. He rhetorically inquired what happened to the fish when âsmoked.â
Somewhere in the White House library resides a published letter Franklin Roosevelt wrote to an adviser in which he complained that some bears were the property of the Interior Department, while others belonged the National Parks System. FDR, tongue in cheek, warned of a pending custody battle over cubs that emerged from illicit unions of bears crossing departmental jurisdictions. [Read A Brief History of the State of the Union Address.]
It would appear that the only president of note whose imprint was absent in Obamaâs long awaited and much-anticipated speech was Obama. This was supposed to have been the moment when the nation found out whether he was at the core a Rooseveltian liberal of a Clintonian centrist. What it got was a cut and pasted version of great and not-so-great State of the Union and other addresses of the past.
Sometime last year, many suggested that Obama would have an easier time getting his message across if he was less dependent on his teleprompter. This may be the year his writers are advised to throw away their books of political quotations. Then we may finally find out what the president truly believes and what he hopes to achieve in the office he so ardently sought.
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what can be said of plagiarism? President Obamaâs second State of the Union address contained enough recycled ideas and lines lifted from speeches of others to make historians wince. I suppose this is what one does when one not only has nothing new to say, but is required by custom and Constitution to come forth with a report of some kind by a certain time and day.
Had Obama or his writers been considerate enough to have informed listeners of where some of the presidentâs best lines and offered-up ideas originated, the speech might be remembered for its cutting and pasting of great and not-so-great moments of the past performance of others. After quoting Robert Kennedy early on, Obama tried to have his listeners believe that everything else he said that we might remember were his or his writersâ creations. Had the president submitted the text of his second State of the Union Address in the form of a college term paper, he would have been sent forthwith to the nearest academic dean. Once again, our public affairs are such that we have one standard for presidents and another for undergraduates. Now is as good a time as any to let Obamaâs listeners in on what the late Paul Harvey would have termed âthe rest of the story.â [Take the poll: Was Obamaâs State of the Union speech a success?]
Early in his address, Obama said that he wanted the nation he leads to be a "light to the world." The last president who set such a mission for the nation he led, and in those exact words, was Woodrow Wilson.
Obamaâs concept of the âAmerican familyâ may well have had its origins in the first State of the State address New York Governor Mario Cuomo delivered in 1983. Cuomo proclaimed the state of New York as a âfamily.â He also talked about multiple partnerships, both public and private.
In an address to the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s, Margaret Thatcher delivered what might go down as the most memorable line in Obamaâs second State of the Union address. The British Prime Minister told her American audience that the United States was the âfirst nation to have been founded on an idea.â It took the president a few additional words to get this idea across.
Obamaâs pointed mutterings about a second âSputnik Momentâ being upon us and his recollection of how American policymakers responded to the last one with increased expenditures on infrastructure, science, technology, and education were clearly intended to evoke the spirit of Dwight D. Eisenhower. His setting of specific deadlines and goals was vintage JFK, but for the absence of any sense of challenge to his audience, list of benefits the United States would derive from them, or any semblance of a shared adventure the American people were about to embark upon. [Read Robert Schlesinger: Obama Not the First to Use 'Sputnik Moment.']
There was a certain Back to the Future feel to the masterful tributes Obama paid those Ronald Reagan might have described as âordinary heroes.â After all, it was Reagan who began the practice of inviting citizens who had done extraordinary things to sit beside the first lady in the House gallery as the president recited their achievements. It was also Reagan who reminded his listeners that the greatness of America emerged not from the hand of government, but through the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on Obama.]
Obama received his most sustained applause when he said, "I know there isnât a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth." Leaving aside the faulty grammar (people change places with people, not with nations), the poaching from John F. Kennedy's immortal inaugural address was obvious enough for the most historical of Obama's listeners to notice. ("I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation.") That Obama could utter almost identical words days after paying tribute to Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of the delivery of that famous speech and not making reference to it suggests a self-absorption rare even among presidents. [See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]
Most pointedly, the low point of Obamaâs speech came when he brought back government re-organization from the ash heap of failed efforts of previous presidents who sought to save money without inflicting pain on a public that had grown accustomed to government largesse. This one, like all that talk about all those green energy jobs that lay before us, had fallen out of the presidential repertoire with retirement of Jimmy Carter. Obama might have had the decency to have Carter on hand to witness the moment. He will have another chance should he, when he delivers his budget, bring back that other Carter flop from yesteryear, âzero based budgeting.â [See a slide show of 10 worst presidents.]
Even Obamaâs feigned attempt at humor had an antecedent in the remarks of a predecessor who spun better yarns than this president. Obama informed his listeners that salmon comes under the jurisdiction of one department when swimming in fresh water and under another when swimming in salt water. He rhetorically inquired what happened to the fish when âsmoked.â
Somewhere in the White House library resides a published letter Franklin Roosevelt wrote to an adviser in which he complained that some bears were the property of the Interior Department, while others belonged the National Parks System. FDR, tongue in cheek, warned of a pending custody battle over cubs that emerged from illicit unions of bears crossing departmental jurisdictions. [Read A Brief History of the State of the Union Address.]
It would appear that the only president of note whose imprint was absent in Obamaâs long awaited and much-anticipated speech was Obama. This was supposed to have been the moment when the nation found out whether he was at the core a Rooseveltian liberal of a Clintonian centrist. What it got was a cut and pasted version of great and not-so-great State of the Union and other addresses of the past.
Sometime last year, many suggested that Obama would have an easier time getting his message across if he was less dependent on his teleprompter. This may be the year his writers are advised to throw away their books of political quotations. Then we may finally find out what the president truly believes and what he hopes to achieve in the office he so ardently sought.
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
01-27-2011, 12:41 PM
Man....
I can't bring myself to read all of this right now.
But from what I have read it's pretty funny.
I'll finish it later lol
I can't bring myself to read all of this right now.
But from what I have read it's pretty funny.
I'll finish it later lol
01-27-2011, 02:19 PM
Did he claim these as his own Ideas? Sayings?
Alvin Felzenberg is a Republican Writer at his best. Most great speeches in modern day have quotes and lines from those of greats before them.
Alvin Felzenberg is a Republican Writer at his best. Most great speeches in modern day have quotes and lines from those of greats before them.
01-27-2011, 08:34 PM
Wildcatk23 Wrote:Did he claim these as his own Ideas? Sayings?
Alvin Felzenberg is a Republican Writer at his best. Most great speeches in modern day have quotes and lines from those of greats before them.
Nope, and I'm fairly certain he cannot make that claim for ANYTHING that comes out of his mouth!
01-27-2011, 09:17 PM
Stump speech for 2012 nothing more than a montage of mularky with a cherry on top. It really didn't make much sense. He contradicted his own policies . . . how can we be fiscally responsible when he has propagated a deficit of spend, spend more and spend even more? More like comedy central than the state of the union if you ask me.
01-28-2011, 01:55 AM
Hopefully in 2012 we can elect someone who will actually start turning things around.
Virtually everything Obama promised has been a lie.
Granted the republicans, which i am, has stopped him from doing things sometimes, but mostly for the good of the country.
I have heard on several news sources, if Huckabee ran for it in 2012 he would have a wonderful chance.
They claim he would beat Romney rather easily and Palin is dropping everyday, and gladly so, shes the last thing we need running the country.
I like Huckabee as well. I had made the statement before the last election that thats who i would have voted for and ill stick to that.
Virtually everything Obama promised has been a lie.
Granted the republicans, which i am, has stopped him from doing things sometimes, but mostly for the good of the country.
I have heard on several news sources, if Huckabee ran for it in 2012 he would have a wonderful chance.
They claim he would beat Romney rather easily and Palin is dropping everyday, and gladly so, shes the last thing we need running the country.
I like Huckabee as well. I had made the statement before the last election that thats who i would have voted for and ill stick to that.
01-28-2011, 07:25 AM
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Hopefully in 2012 we can elect someone who will actually start turning things around.Huckabee is a fraud, IMO. I hope that he sticks with his talk show career. Of the three that you mentioned, I would prefer Romney because of his successful business background, but hopefully a true conservative like Mike Pence will catch fire (and decide to run).
Virtually everything Obama promised has been a lie.
Granted the republicans, which i am, has stopped him from doing things sometimes, but mostly for the good of the country.
I have heard on several news sources, if Huckabee ran for it in 2012 he would have a wonderful chance.
They claim he would beat Romney rather easily and Palin is dropping everyday, and gladly so, shes the last thing we need running the country.
I like Huckabee as well. I had made the statement before the last election that thats who i would have voted for and ill stick to that.
01-28-2011, 09:14 AM
BIGREDDAWG Wrote:Stump speech for 2012 nothing more than a montage of mularky with a cherry on top. It really didn't make much sense. He contradicted his own policies . . . how can we be fiscally responsible when he has propagated a deficit of spend, spend more and spend even more? More like comedy central than the state of the union if you ask me.
Come on dawg, where's the political correctness? Didn't you mean INVEST, INVEST, INVEST, and INVEST some more? lol
01-28-2011, 11:49 AM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Huckabee is a fraud, IMO. I hope that he sticks with his talk show career. Of the three that you mentioned, I would prefer Romney because of his successful business background, but hopefully a true conservative like Mike Pence will catch fire (and decide to run).
Who is Mike Pence? I have never heard the name, but then again, I don't claim to know much about politics. Is he a governor? senator? Representative?
01-28-2011, 08:54 PM
LWC Wrote:Who is Mike Pence? I have never heard the name, but then again, I don't claim to know much about politics. Is he a governor? senator? Representative?Mike Pence is a Congressman from Indiana. He recently announced that he will not be running in 2012 and it may be getting too late in the process for him to change his mind and have a shot at winning. Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin is another dark horse that would get my full support. Unfortunately, Congressmen do not have a good track record of winning presidential campaigns.
IMO, Indiana's governor, Mitch Daniels may be the smartest and most effective politician among the likely candidates. I am just not sure if he is telegenic enough to get elected. Daniels may not be conservative enough for some Republicans but we need competency and fiscal conservatism more than somebody who panders to the base. I think that Daniels would make a fantastic president.
I also like Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. I worked as a contractor for a department of the state of Mississippi and I was very pleasantly surprised at how well managed Mississippi's government is compared to my impression of Kentucky's state government. If the federal government were managed like the Indiana or Mississippi state governments, it would be a giant leap forward.
My biggest problem with Huckabee is that he joined Juan McCain in dishonest attacks on Romney in 2008 (about Romney's position on the Iraq War) and stayed in the race late to split the conservative vote in the South after it was obvious that Huckabee was out of contention. I suspect that McCain promised Huckabee a plum job in his administration in exchange for Huckabee running interference for him.
It does not matter who wins the Republican nomination in 2012, he or she will get my vote. I just hope that the next Republican nominee will not require me to hold my nose as I vote, as I did in 2008.
01-28-2011, 09:34 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Mike Pence is a Congressman from Indiana. He recently announced that he will not be running in 2012 and it may be getting too late in the process for him to change his mind and have a shot at winning. Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin is another dark horse that would get my full support. Unfortunately, Congressmen do not have a good track record of winning presidential campaigns.
IMO, Indiana's governor, Mitch Daniels may be the smartest and most effective politician among the likely candidates. I am just not sure if he is telegenic enough to get elected. Daniels may not be conservative enough for some Republicans but we need competency and fiscal conservatism more than somebody who panders to the base. I think that Daniels would make a fantastic president.
I also like Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. I worked as a contractor for a department of the state of Mississippi and I was very pleasantly surprised at how well managed Mississippi's government is compared to my impression of Kentucky's state government. If the federal government were managed like the Indiana or Mississippi state governments, it would be a giant leap forward.
My biggest problem with Huckabee is that he joined Juan McCain in dishonest attacks on Romney in 2008 (about Romney's position on the Iraq War) and stayed in the race late to split the conservative vote in the South after it was obvious that Huckabee was out of contention. I suspect that McCain promised Huckabee a plum job in his administration in exchange for Huckabee running interference for him.
It does not matter who wins the Republican nomination in 2012, he or she will get my vote. I just hope that the next Republican nominee will not require me to hold my nose as I vote, as I did in 2008.
lol........Nice one Hoot!!
01-29-2011, 06:40 PM
Bob Seger Wrote:lol........Nice one Hoot!!It was a nice one but one for which I cannot take credit. McCain earned a new first name with his support of Bush's amnesty bill that he tried to slide through the US Senate. I am not sure who called McCain Juan first but it was not me. :biggrin:
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
