Mike N, I believe the Tea Party Movement at large is wary of Republicans. They want politicians to prove they’re dedicated to smaller government and more liberty. In a way, the Tea Partiers are doing the same thing the netroots are doing on the left: forcing the politicians to radicalize. The netroots pressure Democrats to be more statist, whereas the Tea Parties pressure Republicans to be more free market. But the great thing is that Independents seem to be with the Tea Parties. So far the movement has looked good to me because religion is not driving it.

I love the argument Obama began to make in the SOTU speech and continued today in Baltimore. The spin is that if the Republicans do not compromise with the Democrats and work with them to pass such things as the health care reform bill and cap and trade, then they are being obstructionist for purely political reasons. This argument is designed to regain the affections of Independents. In other words, “compromise in big government policies or you’re just playing politics.”

As I see it, obstructing socialism is the most patriotic and noble thing a politicians can do. No compromise with poison.

And so it is with Obama. Sure he meant some of the things he said but in terms of principles which he did not say explicitly. His criticism of the SCOTUS’s recent decision shows his contempt for the rule of law and free speech all at once. His contempt for honesty, fiscal responsibility and just plain credibility was displayed with his promise of a spending freeze–next year. That’s like a thief promising to go straight–starting a year from now.

His pledge to start more offshore drilling is one of those he didn’t mean. If he does mean it you can be sure there will be so many chains attached it will become worthless.

I think the tea parties will be ramping up this year with a focus of voting out the lifers in congress in November.

One thing scares me though. On Fox I heard one Republican strategist claim that the Republican Party must identify itself with the tea party movement. “Identify itself” are code words for take over or hijack the tea party movement. I will be attending some of these locally with other objectivists to make sure that doesn’t happen in the Detroit area.

Potentially yes, but also more predictable. Think of any given issue. Obama is almost guaranteed to be on the wrong side of it. Bill Clinton was more random; on some issues I actually agreed with him (but probably not for the same reasons)

The predictability makes Obama easier to combat and he makes it easier for people to see the other side. Failing to communicate? Communication is actually something that Obama does pretty well so long as his teleprompter is available.

For the SOTU, I’ll just read some of the commentary. I don’t know of a really good reason to watch these travesties.

That goes double for the Oscars. Even in a perfect world this would be pretty subjective – now a days it seems to just be a platform for narcissists to complement each other.

Interesting comments regarding Obama’s race. There are a number of race-conscious conservative writers that argue that Obama is in part so alienated from America because, as an angry black man, he *hates* America. I wonder if on top of Obama’s ideological reasons for hating America if there is in fact a connection with his being black. Black men like Thomas Sowell are literally one in ten million. I think that because of the tribalism spread by today’s Left – that most black and non-white people do not feel “connected” to America and secretly want to punish it. Modern Leftism has unleashed group think and the easiest form of group think available is race awareness. So I am inclined to think that Obama’s own race awareness (and this is a man who went to Farakkahn type church for 20 years) gives him an extra authoritarian drive and determination that a Bill Clinton did not have. For that reason alone, he is more dangerous.

I don’t think Mr. Steele is thinking deeply enough about the issue – Obama would already have to lack a significant part of a sense of self in order for this to work – but it could definitely hold water as to why he’s so much more driven and ruthless than his collectivist/statist predecessors and peers. Unlike Mr. Steele, who finally told the world “screw you” – which stopped him from becoming any more collectivized than a run of the mill conservative thinker has to be – Obama has never said no to anything the culture has tossed at him.

What this has to do with your post is that now that he’s won the Presidency – the top of the heap and the end of the road for a social metaphysician – he’s having an identity crisis. He’s unwittingly painted himself into a corner and he’s being forced to see just how empty his soul really is. This “scorched earth” policy which he’s been hinting at recently (eg: that “good one-term President” comment, and the unmistakably Orwellian tone of his SOTU speech) could just be a last-ditch effort to keep his fragile self-image from shattering.

I suppose “they’re nothing without me” (ie: “at least I can control whether they come down with me”) feels a lot better than facing fully the truth and admitting to yourself “I’m nothing without them.”

News flash, Obama: We understood your health care plan perfectly well. We reject it, and we reject you by association. Man up and recognize that.

That’s the problem with a concrete bound culture.

As a virtue, “integrity” depends on the other primary virtues: rationality, independence, productivity, justice, honesty and pride.

A man who sticks to irrational principles, (statist solutions: fiat money & coercive regulation, business nationalization, appeasing terrorists etc.) is not a man of integrity. He cannot know what principle to apply when, except by reference to those he perceives as like-minded.

Counting on others whilst appearing to lead, is a scam. He discards honesty and pride. Can he truthfully possess the virtue of “justice“? Check the link. What has he done with productivity?

Obama abandoned all seven primary virtues, long ago —at least since he was connected to ACORN. That seems to be a moral standard most politicians and the MSM are happy to ‘achieve’.

As Rand put it, “Integrity does not consist of loyalty to one’s subjective whims, but of loyalty to rational principles.” (my bolding)