An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Obama’s State of the Union Address: Did it Deliver?
After a tempestuous first year that ended with his political wings being clearly clipped and a notable reduction in his political clout, President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. But did it deliver? CNN’s political analysts weigh in:
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “Obama’s State of the Union Address: Did it Deliver?”
Deliver what?
It is painfully obvious that you cannot “deliver” republicans bent on obstructionism. They don't care about American people. They don't care if people start dying in the streets! They create debt by borrow and spend fiscal lunacy that keeps our working people forever broke paying it back while the rich and corporations enjoy tax breaks and cushy corporate welfare. Then blame the whole mess on the Democrats!
Their answer to everything is Lower taxes! What they really mean is lower taxes on the rich and on corporations. We just had eight years of their borrowing to pay the bills then dump the debt on the democrats blame game.
When are you people going to wake up? Republicans don’t care if you have jobs or not. Never have, so why should they start now?
It delivered platitudes as far as I'm concerned. Trite words about unity in the face of our serious problems which were moving only if one completely ignored his administration's actions during the past year which have been highly partisan. I'm sure Dems felt the same about W who'd campaigned as a 'uniter' and then often failed to measure up- but given the emphasis that Obama placed on his own abilities to govern in a postpartisan manner and move beyond 'politics as usual', he's certainly not been successful at this and I see no evidence that he's even tried. He claimed (correctly) that change can't come just from him- but he neglects to realize that it has to at least START with him if he's going to lead on changing the tone. Even as most of the divisions have arisen within his own party, he still characterizes the opposition as obstructionism from Republicans. He continues to pretend that the GOP hasn't provided any alternative ideas of their own (fortunately the GOP seems poised to go on offense and prove him wrong, and the shift in public opinion evidenced in Massachusetts will likely give them some traction to put their own positive proposals out there so that Obama and the Dems can't continue to misrepresent them as a party strictly saying 'no'.)
At best, the calls for unity seemed banal; at worst they were almost Orwellian as though Obama tries to repeat things enough that they become 'true' even though they're completely disconnected from the realities of the actions of himself and his administration over the past year.
I'm disgusted with the rhetoric, though I'll give credit where due if the actions begin to change as his administration and advisors hopefully realize that 'just words' aren't cutting it anymore.
If Team-Obama tries to make the Public Option contingent on whether or not they can get 60 votes, then what he actually said was “I'm lying when I say I will deliver you meaningful healthcare”.
Father Time is wholly correct. You cannot negotiate with evil. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. So either Obama is lying or insane if he promises the Public Option [the only thing we will consider as "meaningful healthcare reform"] if it depends on 60 votes.
Again, if he or other dems are worried this will piss off the GOP into not compromising elsewhere, think again. The GOP couldn't be more pissed off simply that he was elected. He doesn't get this. Obama still somehow thinks that if he just acts kind enough, concilliatory enough, gentile enough that this will somehow make his skin less dark. Sorry to bare the naked truth but really, watching him pander to the GOP is like watching a black man plead to a KKK rally. If Obama was a clever guy, he would've noticed how dark [speaking of shades] the suits were to his left. The message was one of solidarity. They looked like an army in uniform. And if he was still observant, he would've noticed the lack of women. The GOP is all about the old southern guard and it is just sad and pathetic to watch him or any of the other dems pretend otherwise.
That being said I did wriggle with glee watching him call out the Supreme Court and effectively say “Your decision is incompetant; which is why we're not going to abide by it.” Watching them squirm in incredulous disbelief was worth having to sit through the rest of the “we really mean it” speech of promises but no action. Well, to be fair there wasn't much he could do there.
His mention of nuclear power was disturbing. Obama has no idea that there is no such thing as safe nuclear power. If the unexpected Haiti earthquake and ensuing devastation didn't clue him in as to why reactors are insanity, nothing will. Guess what the containment material is made out of? Concrete, inevitably weakened by radioactivity with time under use.
Geothermal does the same thing that nuke plants do. Just to remind the reader here. Nuclear plants simply use radiation heat to heat water to steam to make turbines. Guess what else does that? Thermal hot spots scattered throughout the entire Western US and in some parts in the east. You pipe water onto hot rocks just below the surface and it does the same thing as a nuke plant for a tenth of the expenditure and upkeep. And if there's an earthquake, nobody's land is poisoned and nobody dies or has seven generations of cancer as a result. No terrorists can intercept the transportation and handling of nuclear fuel. The only byproduct of geothermal is steam. Put your R & D there and put nuke plants in the museum of “Stupid things men did in the 20th Century.”
Delivery only comes with actions not words. Whatever delivery was supposed to happen, according to 2 years of BS, was lost in the mail over a year ago!
Platitudes? Name one platitude please!
You will not take responsibility for creating all this massive debt that you obviously created, then you turn it back on the President WHY?!
For what purpose do YOU perform this dishonest crapola??
How do you DELIVER when the republicans BLOCK EVERYTHING?
When are you going to get it? The President cannot DELIVER when republicans do not want to help the American people.
Good greif.
But Sil, it's about the American people. Why do we have a congress if they DO NOTHING for the American people?
What is wrong with these republicans anyway. WHY are they blocking everything? What is the purpose of their existance if not to do the people's will…and the will of the people is obviously jobs and debt reduction!
Good, thoughtful response. I'd just like to second your comment.
But Father_Time (and Sil), he did say he was going to work on ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, which I'm sure both of you will applaud. Funny, then both of you will be on the same side as those “evil Repubs”.
I'm really not going to spend a lot of time responding since I've seen you ask the same types of questions of a number of other conservatives here and then proceed to ignore their responses.
I'll just briefly point out that I personally do not bear responsibility for the massive debt created by Congresses led by both parties of late; with regard to the previous GOP majority Congress under Bush, I opposed much of the massive spending, especially those bills that are fiscally unsound in the long term like the Medicare prescription drug bill.
When you responded to someone else here saying that Obama wants to create jobs and reduce the debt, my only response is why did it take him a year to come to those goals? Those are the things that conservative voters have been asking him to focus on, and now a year later he finally seems to see the need to help small businesses and suddenly the kinds of business tax cuts that the GOP has been calling for all along are being proposed by this president. It's about time, and if he follows through with something meaningful, that's great- but I'm a skeptic until I see him acting on the rhetoric and hopefully leaning on his own party in Congress to get something done to help entrepreneurs.
“Trite words about unity in the face of our serious problems which were moving only if one completely ignored his administration's actions during the past year which have been highly partisan.”
Mmhm. What did the democrats get for offering the GOP seats in the reform bill conferences? Stalling.
“I'm sure Dems felt the same about W who'd campaigned as a 'uniter' and then often failed to measure up- but given the emphasis that Obama placed on his own abilities to govern in a postpartisan manner and move beyond 'politics as usual', he's certainly not been successful at this and I see no evidence that he's even tried.”
Stimulus was one-third tax cuts. Republicans received seats for health-care conferences. Constant talks with Snowe. The republicans are a far more unyielding and obstructing minority than the democrats were under W, who *always* failed to be post-partisan.
“Even as most of the divisions have arisen within his own party, he still characterizes the opposition as obstructionism from Republicans.”
The divisions appeared because no republican offered a vote, and the senate's rules are a joke that lets a person representing a fraction of the population take away an idea that a majority of the nation likes. Republicans knew that once democrats would need all 60 representatives, the lobbyists would be able to slip their hands into the blue dogs and have them yapping like muppets.
The HC bill is nothing compared to W's partisan and ideological decisions. Many dems tagged along for the madness and I hate them for it, but the fact remains – the HC bill has become worse because republicans refused to play along since the beginning, giving clout to scum like Nelson, Bayh and Lieberman. However, it is still ideologically quite neutral. You don't see FDL jumping up and down over it.
“He continues to pretend that the GOP hasn't provided any alternative ideas of their own”
Apart from Wyden-Bennett, all your proposals are about as dumb as the invasion of Iraq. Tort reform? ololololollololol
“almost Orwellian”
Wow, I think you should stop visiting poligazette, Stanley. Their turn towards reflexive partisan thinking and wounded anti-left hyperbole is rubbing off on you.
Did it deliver? Why are you going to CNN “analysts” for the answer? They live in just as much of a bubble as they accuse the administration of doing. These are not regular people and have no clue about the 9 to 5 daily grind of your average American, who, by the way, you should be asking “Did it deliver”. They are the ones that count, not highly overpaid blusterers who dont have an original opinion on anything. Their “reaction” was already set in stone before the SOTU even aired. They all decide on a narrative ahead of time and get their talking points straight and never stray from them. All the cablers do it and it's deceptive and dishonest. Remember the Obama/McCain debates. They all said “McCain clearly won” , yet when the polls came out of voters who watched, Obama won. @sshats.
I've so little time though there's a lot here I'd love to respond to… I'll tackle a couple of points.
As far as the GOP getting 'seats', that's nothing but window dressing. None of their ideas were considered in the least, and yes, the only 'negotiating' or 'compromising' came from the couple of GOP who aren't very conservative and didn't oppose the whole thrust of the liberal plan for 'reform'. And yes, basically when you do that kind of compromise you end up getting the worst of both worlds- a bill that starts from one type of ideology but then gets watered down to the point of being worthless or even harmful.
If there's a seriousness about bipartisanship now, then some GOP ideas like tort reform (yes) and uncoupling insurance from employment by fixing the antiquated tax code, and allowing competition across state lines, might get incorporated into a bill. If the GOP really had any 'seats' at the table initially, then these are the kinds of compromises which already would have been made (and interestingly, none of these proposals are really based on conservative ideology, so the liberal opposition to them doesn't even make sense except for how it plays against the special interests that support them financially.)
And yes, tort reform, which even many from the center left recognize as necessary to reduce the costs of defensive medicine. It's not a fix all by itself but it's one of the few things that actually address real costs instead of expecting to cut cost curve by cutting reimbursements.
And besides:
Apart from Wyden-Bennett,
Why are you exempting that proposal, which had a lot of merit?
Wow, I think you should stop visiting poligazette, Stanley. Their turn towards reflexive partisan thinking and wounded anti-left hyperbole is rubbing off on you.
Pfft. My thoughts are my own…always have been, always will be.
The republicans are a far more unyielding and obstructing minority than the democrats were under W, who *always* failed to be post-partisan.
You mean like the partisan legislation such as the Medicare bill and No Child Left Behind? Those major bills were passed with bipartisan support because they weren't based on conservative ideology at all. The Dems were more than happy to go along when W promoted bills that were 'progressive' in nature, and they were just as recalcitrant on many other parts of his agenda when he was promoting conservative ideology.
Are you really Chris Matthews masquerading as someone called “Silhouette”?
MSNBC's Matthews On Obama: “I Forgot He Was Black Tonight”
“None of their ideas were considered in the least”
Which ideas would these be? Tort reform, for example, is nothing but an ideological canard.
“the only 'negotiating' or 'compromising' came from the couple of GOP who aren't very conservative and didn't oppose the whole thrust of the liberal plan for 'reform'”
Ah, falling back on that lovely “liberal” adjective and then the mock quotes around the word reform. We're on a roll already. So people like Snowe aren't very conservative? I think you mean – “Doesn't walk in lockstep with the GOP”. I'll explain it to you again – Republican does not equal Conservative. Not anymore.
“If there's a seriousness about bipartisanship now, then some GOP ideas like tort reform (yes) and uncoupling insurance from employment by fixing the antiquated tax code, and allowing competition across state lines, might get incorporated into a bill.”
As long as the GOP will make more political gains from reform not happening, I don't count on them being willing to trade input for votes on a final bill. It's up to Reid and his whip now, and I don't think he has any reasons to actually open up an embrace to the republicans. They have to start a discussion.
“If the GOP really had any 'seats' at the table initially, then these are the kinds of compromises which already would have been made (and interestingly, none of these proposals are really based on conservative ideology, so the liberal opposition to them doesn't even make sense except for how it plays against the special interests that support them financially.)”
In previous posts of mine I've hated some on unions and organized labor, but you didn't know that. Still, if republicans had offered up votes in return that would have weighed over the drop-off of the special interest democrats, those ideas would have been incorporated.
“And yes, tort reform, which even many from the center left recognize as necessary to reduce the costs of defensive medicine. It's not a fix all by itself but it's one of the few things that actually address real costs instead of expecting to cut cost curve by cutting reimbursements.”
Past experience shows it as a minor alteration. It's a few doctors responsible for a lot of the mess.
“Why are you exempting that proposal, which had a lot of merit?”
I liked that idea all along. It's much better than anything else offered up by any republican, and probably better than most democrat ideas as well. I must have made myself easy to misunderstand.
“You mean like the partisan legislation such as the Medicare bill and No Child Left Behind?”
Yeah, those two were just gangbuster successes after passage…
“The Dems were more than happy to go along when W promoted bills that were 'progressive' in nature, and they were just as recalcitrant on many other parts of his agenda when he was promoting conservative ideology.”
And republicans didn't return the favor when the unavoidable stimulus was one-third tax cuts or when the reform bill was neutered to the point where there's just as much disapproval from the left as from the right.
It's not the policies or the substance of an Obama administration most congressional republicans disapprove of. It's the very idea of a democrat administration that they must oppose with all measures. Those people haven't changed since the last administration, and the idea of them being rewarded or vindicated makes every meritocratic fiber in my body wrench itself out of shape, no matter how little I think of most of the DNC at this point.
And if there's an earthquake, nobody's land is poisoned and nobody dies…
suggest you google 'haiti'
Geothermal as a significant source of energy in the US has gone the way of the unicorn after the eco-extremists insisted we pour billions of dollars into that rathole.
It was OK, overall.
The whining about the Supreme Court and professing to try to subvert freedom of speech was not OK.
Trying to blame Bush and the Republicans for most of the fiscal problems we face now, and trying to associate himself (and the Congre-Dems) with only his past year's follies (not fully admitted), was not OK.
Trying to claim bogus legitimacy for eco-socialist energy policy (and eco-fascist “cap 'n' trade”) was not OK.
Presenting the “spending freeze,” a gimmick that doesn't even take effect anyway for another year, as a tough measure, as a lead-in to the bipartisan panel that's political cover for new higher taxes, was not OK.
Overall, he was OK. As a figurehead on a prime time teevee event, he was certainly OK.
I'm not surprised that the children on the Stephanie Miller show this morning thought it was great.
C. Stanley:
“When you responded to someone else here saying that Obama wants to create jobs and reduce the debt, my only response is why did it take him a year to come to those goals?”
The essence of it is: The Dems now need to repeat (re-do) the year they just wasted doing it wrong, and do it right this time (up through the elections in November).
I bet they won't. Possibly, they can't. Not after what we've seen:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487…
Those mean old republicans again! You lefties are mirror images of the right! What you don't get, is both these parties are corrupt and will tell you whatever you want to hear, not because they care about the American people, but because of their own self-interest. Obama said it last night in his speech, his accusation towards republicans personal ambition trumps helping the people, as if he isn't there for his own ambitions! Obama said it during his campaign, There is a certain amount of ego when seeking high office!
those poor defenseless democrats, with a major majority in the house and an still a big majority in the senate (59) just can't get anything done with those devils of the slimest minority! WAH!WAH!
HI there, May I ask please, as per requests from other commenters, if you are replying to a commenter, address them by screen name or hit the reply button UNDER their comment for Disqus to put their name in red at the top of your new comment.
Makes it easier for readers to follow the conversation
C. Stanley, nice to see you. I like that shorthand, Phttt. Made me smile
dr.e
Deputy Managing Editor, TMV
C. Stanley, nice to see you
Thanks…it's nice to see you too. My time will still be quite limited for quite a while but I had a bit of a break today and thought I'd check in.
My impression from the SOTU was that the president talks alot but listens very little.
I like high-speed rail and have little faith in what's sought so far. Isn't the following like Obama's address (no details)? On the other hand, this past year _has_ seen the practice of just giving money away…
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14287792
I also was suspicious of misuse of “high speed,” from the start, by the Dems. Would they define “high speed” not according to world standards (186-220 MPH, currently; future line speeds could reach around 250 MPH), but instead, a common gimmick for years, “110 MPH or more”?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/wire/c…
(At least it wasn't “79 mph or more”)
“Chicago hub” system makes sense, speeds make sense. But — we'll believe it when it's running.
(Don't forget the Acela example. Where's the 150 MPH express with the ability to go faster now?)
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/high…