As readers of Eric Boehlert's book, "Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press," know, online pundits have, since the very beginning, done their best to promote and praise (then Senator now President) Barry Obama and to respectfully offer clear perceptive and cogent advice to him, as needed. Somebody should point out that perhaps the "your game, your rules, I'll win" crowd would like it if the President did take the Republican advice to show bipartisanship during his term in office and then used it to his own advantage.
As the history of the Obama legend continues to unfold, it will be with great pride that members of the Obamanaires Choral Club sing his praises as the historic first year of the Age of Obama comes to a conclusion. During the State of the Union address, the bloggers can give him an "Amen!" loud and clear when it is appropriate.
Any rapscallion, who dares to blaspheme with an expostulation of the "you lie" sort, during the President's oration, should be given short shift and immediately be provided a chance to endorse a bipartisan approach to the "don't taze me, bro" school of stifling free speech. Using the stun gun during the State of the Union speech would be a valuable, commendable example of giving the use of electronic crowd control a bi-partisan (who you calling bi?) endorsement. Why should the Republicans be the only ones who can shush dissent with a tazer gun? The use of the megawatt baton should not be granted a pass by the passive aggressive Bush supporters, who previously enthusiastically greeted the "zap "em early and zap "em often" methodology for the effective elimination of dissenting points of view. The use of tazers should also be available to Democratic Presidents.
If any surviving members of the SA brownshirts use their trademark disruptive behavior on Wednesday during the State of the Union Address, then this columnist respectfully suggests that they be sent to Guantanamo to be given an unprecedented opportunity to compare their group's use of coercive questioning methods versus America's "this will hurt me more than you" selective questioning augmented by the sparse use of physically induced psychological encouragement to "answer the f*****g question" type humanitarian interrogations.
It is to be assumed that the Republicans will listen attentively and respectfully on Wednesday night to provide a textbook perfect example of how the Democrats should behave when, after winning the 2012 election President Dick Cheney gives his first State of the Union Address in January of 2014. (Unless the Dickster croaks before then and he has to be replaced by Vice President Jeb Bush.)
Don't the teabag fondlers (make that word "founders") provide the teabaggers with the best legal defense team that they (the Koch Brothers) can afford? [Are they related to Fred Koch who helped form the John Birch Society?] Why don't they encourage the Democrats to use disruptive commotions at Republican events? Isn't it just another example of free speech at work?
Wednesday's State of the Union address will provide the President with a marvelous opportunity to elaborate on just how sending additional troops to Afghanistan exemplifies the old hippie adage of "More is Less." Isn't it logical to conclude that the more troops you send to a war the less chance the bad guys will have of winning?
The State of the Union address on Wednesday would be grand opportunity for a discussion of labor relations tactics that the President intends to use.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).