Blurring The Outline -Covering Up All The Details

Via Hot Air, from The Hill:

Analysis: Obama speech to Congress unlikely to be game changer

President Barack Obama’s address to Congress on healthcare reform was short on specifics and long on ideas he and his advisers had already floated this year.

The historic speech left some liberals wanting more details and conservatives emboldened to torpedo the president’s top domestic priority….

Still, while the speech once again illustrated the president’s extraordinary oratory skills, it was not a game changer and appears to leave the president with the same quandary: Healthcare has become the pinnacle legislative issue of his first term, but has divided his party in Congress and run into almost universal GOP opposition. Polls suggest Americans are not convinced reform will help their lives and it is unclear whether the legislation Obama seeks will reach his desk….

As he as done throughout 2009, Obama is largely deferring to lawmakers on the details. His address drew laughs from Republicans when he said some details still needed to be worked out.

I recommend the full article at The Hill as well as Ed Morrissey’s analysis at Hot Air as I only want to focus on a couple of things:

First of all, it is time to stop calling everything Obama does historic!  Bill Clinton gave a speech on health care when he was President.  Why was Obama’s speech historic?  The word is so overused it has become hackneyed and laughable.

Second, I am sick to death of the meme of lauding Obama’s oratory skills.  I had some telephone calls during the speech I had to take so I only saw some brief clips of him on mute–but here’s my opinion!

Obama’s facial expressions range from angry to nose-in-the-air to sly humor.  He is condescending to his audience and tells obvious lies and at times contradicts himself within a speech.  He does not connect with his audience–there is a remoteness as if TOTUS really is between you and him.  His real persona is hidden.

If, as Marshall McLuan wrote, The Medium Is The Message, I think the most important medium to consider is the speaker himself.

Who is he?  What does he think of his audience?  What does he think of himself?  What does he think of his message?

My answers:

If your integrity has been already shot to bits because of innumerable broken promises, then you really should quit talking and starting acting to rebuild it. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. If enough people are on to you, then you might as well not waste your time.

If you consistently condescend to your audience or berate them or lecture them, then you really should quit talking and start pointing that finger at yourself and ask yourself why you have such contempt for those to whom you speak.

If you continually indicate your commitment to yourself and your agenda over the well-being of anyone else and a belief in your inherent superiority, then you really should quit talking and get a clue that no one is really that impressed with you.

If your message is lengthy and tedious and full of lies designed to obscure reality, then you really should quit talking, and learn that truth is more important than power.

In the dictionary under The Inflated Style, it says See : Barack Obama.

George Orwell: “Politics and the English Language”.

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.

As JustMary quoted in a comment this morning:

“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

Proverbs 18:17

Crossposted in a modified format to Be John Galt.

H/T: Hot Air, The Hill, WIkipedia, http://www.orwell.ru/, JustMary.