The State of the Union Address. Time to reflect on what we have done and what needs to be done. Will anyone be listening with an open mind or has partisan politics already spread its cancer on Obama’s presidency?
Filed under Democratic Party, Playing Politics, President Barack Obama, Republicans
Tagged as democrats, President Obama, Republicans, State of Union Address
I don’t think my mind will be too open. I am tired of promises. If he had done more to keep his campaign promises, I would have a better attitude.
Let’s face it, he took care of the corporations, but he hasn’t done much for the little guy that he promised to help.
I am not even sure that I have the heart to watch.
Conservatives will attack for the wrong reasons, but we all need to be a little more analytical when it comes to this guy’s promises.
(side note: Just left that other blog, feels like I took a bath in snake venom!)
On the SOU address, the problem is that I do try to see the logic behind what courses are being taken and the reasoning behind the decision. Lately it is at best hard and at worse there is no logic or reason to be found other then power other then the people.
I wonder how receptive they would be if the President pulled a party switch?
He does seem to be falling for their ideology beyond reason.
Kind of like Boeing thoughts several years ago that they could save a lot of money if they would just quit building those large airliners. Spending freezes?
Shoring up those who already had enough money to weather the coming storm?
Heath care reform in name only and nothing that is meaningful?
OMG did we elect John McCain?
As far as the president – any president – actually telling the Americans the State of the Union, I dare say that a majority of both parties would revolt if the president actually stood up there and told all Americans the truth.
As a country, we have become lazy, apathetic, demanding, arrogant, greedy and spoiled brats.
We cannot even allow an intelligent debate on health care reform but, rather, let the entire debate get into the lowest sewer cesspools imaginable by playing partisan politics.
And bottom line – what has that accomplished?
When each side is hellbent on winning the game and not fixing the problems, then do we deserve what we get?
I am cynical and frustrated with everything in politics. Apparently I am not alone in this feeling.
I think that is why Scott Brown appealed to the Massachusetts Independents. He was, after all, running against the heir apparent to the Kennedy seat. People do not like something being rammed down their throats and those independents rose up against Coakley being the annointed one.
Maybe it is time for a third party again?
But, I’m sure tonight’s SOU address will be a very big dog and pony show and then the fighting continues the minute after Obama leaves the chamber.
Whether there are those would admit it, many things the President said in his speech were truly real Conservative not the fake ideological kind.
But at this point, many promises he made were hard not to sound similar to “No really I promise I was not do that in your mouth again this time!”. He said many things that were common sense and to the mark.
But for now it is time will tell and hope will be held in check.
They will only come true if he would finally realize that it is HE not other who will have to spearhead it.
Leaving it to the congress to get it right is like leaving the house cleaning to your dog.
One thing Obama did, which he has done very well in the past, is to put the spotlight on the Republicans and make them accountable for their actions.
Did you notice how many times Republicans sat stone faced and refused to even acknowledge what was being said?
Only towards the last few minutes did some Republicans start to warm up and applaud – not all of them at once but a few of them from time to time went against the stone faces of most of the angry white men.
And what the hell was Mitch McConnell chuckling about all the time? He looked like Goofy in Disneyland.
One very telling point was when Obama was talking about the distasteful act of bailing out the banks and that now it is time for those banks to pay back the taxpayers for bailing them out. He was talking about those bank fees.
Not one Republican stood and applauded for that line – that is very telling that Republicans are very much for the big banks.
I also noticed the Republicans did not stand and applaud when Obama said something about giving community banks money to start lending to businesses to jumpstart the economy and provide jobs.
Again, that was very telling – it made it look like Republicans like banks – but only the big banks will suit them.
And the line about stopping to reward these companies from outsourcing jobs – again, no Republican stood to applaud that line.
It was quite apparent to even a blind man that Republicans STILL are the cheerleaders for Big Banks and Big Business – to the detriment of everyone else.
Lill you and I watch it and noticed.
But how many others?
Rachel made a point of the very same thing after the speech and how it showed the American people how the Republicans are.
But I would suspect like with all the other State of the Union speeches since they were carried after Cable became widely used. The Cartoon networks rating jumped when the speech started.
The President made a valid point, now that the Democratic is not a sixty strong majority.
The raise or fall will be shared by the Republicans.
No longer will it be that of the Democratic alone when nothing is done.
If the Senate health care fight is any indication, no only will be sweet talking a lone Republican it will be getting a number of Republicans to vote with the majority.
And the Republicans can no longer dismiss the issues as the Democratic problem alone.
They could write off Snow as not being a real Republican, but will have a hard time explaining a number either joining with the Democratic or refusing to vote for what the American people really would want.
Hi folks. I might not be around either here or the Stinkfoot blog for a while (both lotsa work, and a scary family issue). I didn’t even see the speech, but, what I’ve read, Obama struck the right tone.
It seems to me though there is a middle ground between “over-promising” and “reducing expectations.” As a reasonable person, I will give the health-care package another look, yet I laughed-out loud when the article–from McClatchy no less–that Obama “surprised” everyone by adopting a “stay the course” approach. The same article noted, again without irony, that rejecting one’s one campaign rhetoric (even when it made sense, I have to add) lost Bill Clinton the Congress and George H.W. Bush the presidency.
Of course, the Democratic Leadership Council crowd will point out that Clinton won re-election by adopting that cynical strategy. But at what cost?
Were NAFTA, Gramm-Bleach-Bliley, Ross Perot’s “great sucking sound” (exporting jobs to Crapland), the final busting of unions, and, oh yeah–the betrayal our gay friends (who I know, in Wichita, turned out in droves in Clinton)–just for starters–really worth it?
Yeah, politics is the art of the possible. And I’m not one to piss on a valuable political ally, even as I will not withhold even withering criticism, when I think it’s warranted. Like or it not, folks, if we can’t make this work, we’re screwed anyway.
Turning against the DLC convention wisdom–even in rhetoric–is more significant than you might think.
Maybe the ambitious young man from Hawaii is awakening to the reality of the situation (from the most cynical perspective, it’s good politics), but the proposals are still disappointingly modest.
He doesn’t have to promise the Moon, but rising expectations–or what we can do (emphasis on we, folks), are both vintage Reagan–and, if it’s possible at the point, a “tranformational’ Obama.
But it’s a start.
Okay. I get it, It surprised the same people who, supposedly objectively, describe a total cave-in into a loud minority in Congress as “moving to the middle.” Obama rightly pointed out that the Democrats have the largest majority in decades.
They can use it, or fuck it up. Their choice.
I was for Hillary and I advised many Obama supporters against just what we have seen this last year and reinforced tonight.
I think Obama has to go. And I mean he has to go before 2012. The right is very CAREFULLY grooming Sarah Palin for a run and if we are stuck with Barack til then we are gonna be stuck with Palin in 2012.
What is really the difference between Hillary and Obama, Thunderchild? Can you tell me, from the campaign platforms that they published at the time, what are the major differences in policy between Hillary and Obama?
The truth is that both of them are still working from the DLC conservative playbook, especially where economics is concerned. As long as we have “free marketers” running our country, we are slaves to the corporate masters. Hillary is just as entwined with the New York banking crowd as Obama, and maybe even more so.
I would just like to understand why you think we would be better off with Hillary.
Do you really think Palin is being groomed for 2012?
The elite GOP good ole’ boys don’t want her – except for the hotness factor. Other than that, they would prefer she stop yapping – isn’t that basically what Glenn Beck called her – a yapper?
Palin is to bring out the crowds and the the good ole’ boys plan to take over from there.
The Tea Partiers (the real ones) are so fed up with this crap from the GOP , that they are looking for the nearest exit.
I just don’t see the country being that stupid (and God knows we have stupid people) in electing Palin. Even Henry Paulson slammed her in his book as not being very knowledgable as he was explaining the problem to her. And all that cutesy, downhome talk grates on one’s nerve after awhile.
If we couldn’t impeach Bush for the many crimes committed during his tenure, what other option are you suggesting?
By the way, I’m not suggesting you continue to take the very personal abuse, but good job elsewhere. The stupid-ass scripts which connect to multiple crap servers preventing me from saying so there.
I know Iggy will shake his head at that, and in an sense he’s right.
You do that’s what left over there is the mostly radical right-wing nut-fringe, even by DLC standards–right?
Yes, they do need to be engaged, so long as you’re aware of that.
As for Hillary, ep–sorry, but the notion that she was somehow the rescue from the sellouts we see now is the dumbest fucking idea I have ever heard.
And, to your credit, you have acknowleged that, indirectly, tonight.
I know what happened in 1980 with Carter and Kennedy, but flirting with President Feingold might not be a bad idea, just for leverage–but he has to win re-election first.
I’ve been getting fundraising emails, and I’ve been resisting, because I don’t live in Wisconsin, but since the campaign finance reform bill that shares his name is dead, who cares?
“I would just like to understand why you think we would be better off with Hillary.”
Because I believe she understands that Republicans just cannot be worked with. Obama is a naive panderer. He needs to go. Biden would be the natural successor. I’m ok with that as well.
Because I believe that the only people that are “working with” anyone in Washington are the lobbyists that work with the aides to draft the bills, I guess it doesn’t really matter to me whether the president thinks republicans and democrats can work together.
Hillary would have antagonized the Republicans simply with her presence, but I don’t know that it matters, because I believe that they are all working for the same masters anyway. The “divide” is a dog and pony show.
I think that Obama is “politicking” with all this reaching out to Republicans. I don’t think he really believes that they will ever work with him. What he is doing is setting them up, over and over and over again, to look bad because he knows that they will refuse to work with him and that they don’t have anything to bring to the table themselves. He is just proving this “party of no” storyline over and over to try to make them look bad.
But none of this dog and pony show is making anything better for the people of this country. And I don’t see any evidence that Hillary would have done anything differently that would have improved things either.
I think Obama is naive to think that everybody is basically wanting the same thing – the best for the country.
From what I’ve seen from majority of Republicans this past year – it is clear they want things their way and to hell with the country.
For example, if they really cared about the country then they would have put the muzzle on Bush and Cheney during those 8 years (that these same people now claim to have never wanted in the WH in the first place).
Republicans cannot be trusted – but then there are some Democrats I don’t trust either.
But Obama is correct about one thing – we are all in this together. This bitterness and pettiness has got to stop.
Why are we spending billions against the terrorists when our enemies only need to wait awhile and we will tear our own country apart – one soundbite at a time.
The bitterness and pettiness needs to be aimed at the real enemy–the corporatists that have taken over our government.
Rail at lobbyists as he did last night, Obama allowed them to control every part of the process in the supposed health care reform.
He could have used his “bully pulpit” to warn the people of this country that the process was being hijacked, as usual, by corporate interests and that they needed to get their voice in there. But he just remained silent and let the process work the way it does. Then he sent his minions to Capital Hill to work deals to get the thing moving. It didn’t matter that the deals cut all of the real reform out of healthcare reform, he was willing to give away the farm to get the plow.
You are part of the system or you are working against it. I don’t believe that anyone can work inside it to change it because they eventually go with the flow instead of swimming upstream or get eaten by the bigger fish.
Paula, what you say is true. The true masters are corporations that make the puppets dance to their tune.
And that dancing puppet has two faces – Democrat and Republican. It just depends on whose party has the power that year.
If people were to actually care to look – corporations give money according to the political winds of any given year. It matters not to them which party – they only want the power.
I wondered about something Obama said last night about the Supreme Court ruling last week.
Obama stated that foreign companies are included in that ruling. I’ve read elsewhere that they are prohibited and that part of the old ruling was left intact.
What is the actual truth?
But I can see where an American company might have foreign shareholders and that is how they get into the influence of our elections.
But, really, let’s get real. Corporations were doing all this money shoveling before – they just did it in other ways – didn’t they?
What would be more beneficial to average Americans is if we made our elected officials wear the uniforms of the different corporations – like the NASCAR drivers do. At least we would know upfront who is really making the dummy talk.
It is kind of yes and no, in their ruling they did say that this ruling did not change existing law.
But the ruling did not address the subject of foreign corporations and paying for ads.
In a sense it is the side effect of a Global economy, we now have corporations operating in the U.S. that are foreign owned. Toyoda has several plants in the U.S. set up to be “U.S. operations”.
They recent recall only covers those cars, SUV, and trucks build in the U.S.
Not those build in Japan and shipped here.
There is a manufacturer in Wichita that has the best benefits offered to it employees that I have ever heard of. They are owned by a German Corporation but the operation in Wichita is done as a independent operation. A few times a year some German corporate reps come and tour the plant.
Anyway these are how they can effect the campaigns and American Politics.
These operations are based in the United States but still owned be foreign corporations.
The SCOUS did not address such situations.
(Sponsored by Humana, etc.) They could wear jumpsuits with patches of the logos on them. Wouldn’t that be cute?
I have said it before and say it again, it is one of the most admirable traits I find in Bluejay. He fights and is unchanging in his beliefs, many of them I agree with and know where he is coming from.
It might have been a good time for a Hillary presidency, a majority in both houses.
The down side and what Bluejay admires about her is she is a trench fighter.
She would have been in the trenches and the mud fighting tooth and nail with the Republicans. Throwing blow for blow and that would have been her downfall.
It would be the fight with the Republicans that would be the total focus and the country and getting real effect to happen be damned!
I do not recall who it was but on reflection, they said the Republicans made a grave mistake with Bill Clinton. He was one of the best Democratic Presidents they could have worked with. He would have favored them over the more liberal Democrats.
The same could be said of Obama, of course the problem being that to work with either one of them. Would mean that the people would he happy and not too quick to want to change control.
Hillary has done a superb job as SOS and she does have wisdom and knowledge.
If not for falling for the Republican trap of sidetracking with meaningless partisan end fighting.
She is well qualified to be President.
During the election that was my only objection to her, she would not have been able to stop from being sidetracked by partisan crap throwing matches.
FYI, I also found Bluejay to be a likeable guy.
She would have been in the trenches and the mud fighting tooth and nail with the Republicans.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. She certainly didn’t do that in the Senate or as First Lady, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding. She did, however, have the common sense to oppose the terrible FISA bill, after missing the first vote.
More of a fighter, perhaps? I suppose–Bill at least did some fighting–after he lost the Congress–and at least used reconciliation to pass a budget before then. Maybe Hillary would have too.
But I find this notion that Hillary was somehow not going to cut deals with corporation Washington the way Obama has to be profoundly silly, and ahistorical. She had 8 years to show what she had, and I wasn’t impressed.
That said, I agree with you about our friend, though I think he too often wastes time trading insults with knuckle-draggers.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 124 other followers
Sign me up!