Obama’s Speech Earns ‘D’ Grade
Jan 28th, 2010 | 27 responses
Apologies for being tardy commenting on President Obama’s first State of the Union address. I had slept 36 hours as a result of some viral. I awakened for a bit of nourishment and watched the speech, followed by the Republican response, and went back to bed for another 12 hours.
If I were a political science professor, I would grade Obama’s speech a D.
Before even reading the reviews other pundits quickly posted, my reaction hearing contents of the speech is that he hasn’t learned a damn thing his first year in office.
He urged Congress to salvage the health care reform legislation on their own with himself sitting on the sidelines as designated cheerleader. If ever there was a time for the president to arm-twist and kick some butt, this was it. He declined.
He urged a spending freeze beginning 2011 for three years on all programs not national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Veteran Affairs. I haven’t seen the numbers, but this seems a pitiful feeble attempt at cutting the deficit at a critical time the economy still requires some pump priming.
He wants a jobs bill that smacks of extending the stimulus without any additional funding except what’s left in the original $787 billion package.
I expected the president to turn to the center, a path President Clinton chose when the Republicans regained a majority in Congress after the 1994 midterms. He didn’t. To borrow a phrase from George W. Bush, he’s staying the course.
That’s a major mistake. To govern, he must cut his umbilical cord with his liberal base and seek a right-of-center course where most American voters now reside.
Governing is an effort to provide legislation that is best for Americans, not to fulfill dreams of political interests groups.
I thought it was beneath the president to scold the Supreme Court for its ruling allowing unlimited corporate spending for federal election campaigns. Rather than fight the court, he should be demanding complete transparency in campaign finance disclosures which would allow voters to determine the efficacy of each issue.
I gave him a passing grade only on his admonition of both political parties in the Senate to assume responsibility when using the 60-vote supermajority rule to defeat, delay or diminish all major legislation.
Earlier today I began reviewing the reviews. Nothing changed my mind. He still gets a D.
John Dickerson, writing for the liberal Slate:
The State of the Union speech was intended, at least in part, to remind voters that the president is the same guy they elected 14 months ago.
That’s the problem. He is still Everyman espousing hope when substance and leadership is required.
Ron Fournier, the respected bureau chief for the Associated Press:
The president used his prime-time address to essentially concede that he had failed to communicate his empathy for hard-luck Americans.
But copying the Clintonian “I feel the pain” bromide does not get legislation passed. The AP writer then nailed a problem, no matter how undeniable it is:
“I know the anxieties that are out there right now,” (Obama) said. “They are not new.” The last phrase was a reference to economic woes he inherited from Republican President George W. Bush. Obama pointed back at Bush — a subtle passing of the buck — at least a half-dozen times.
The Washington Post’s veteran columnist Dan Balz:
He needed to stiffen the spines of Democrats, who are now justifiably worried about surviving the wrath of a disgruntled electorate in November. He wanted to challenge Republicans by warning that voters may hold them as responsible as Democrats for the breakdown of functioning government in Washington. And he needed to reconnect with the voters after a year in which he became a virtual prisoner of the unseemly machinations on Capitol Hill.
Unless the president turns bully, these are shallow promises. Continues Balz:
His proposals spanned the ideological spectrum as his radar sought to lock in on disparate groups of voters: more tax cuts for small business; more nuclear power plants and offshore drilling for conservatives; more education spending for suburban families; a spending freeze for deficit hawks; a renewed pledge to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for the left. And, for anyone willing to listen, there was the promise to keep fighting for health care.
Here, Obama the Everyman is throwing crumbs to Everyone. Don’t hold your breath.
Gail Collins, New York Times columnist, on the angry tone in Washington:
The House hates the Senate. The liberal Democrats hate the moderate Democrats. The normal conservative Republicans hate the hyper Tea Party-types. The Tea Party-ists are having so many internal fights that there’s a definite danger of broken crockery. And, of course, everybody hates the bankers, except the Republicans who sat on their hands when the president called for taxing them.
No wonder nothing gets done, especially with a president too cool to become combative ala Teddy Roosevelt. More Collins:
Obama does not really do angry. Peeved, yes.
During his speech, Obama outlined a litany of successes including tax breaks for earners up to $250,000 which failed to budge Republicans from their seats to applaud. The president even quipped that he thought that would draw a similar response as the faithful Democrats in the House Chamber.
The New York Times article on the speech explained why, referring to Republican Gov. Robert F. McDonnel’s State of the Union rebuttal:
“Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much,” Mr. McDonnell said.
Today’s editorial in the Los Angeles Times was surprising luke warm to the president’s speech:
It also lived up (or down) to the modern expectation that such speeches will be extravagant exercises in high rhetoric and political theater. What it seems unlikely to do, however, is galvanize support in Congress and the country for what until very recently was the president’s most prized priority.
I would be surprised if Obama’s speech receives much of an uptick in his job performance polls. Of course, as Everyman he remains personally popular.
The problem is presidents who win Mr. Congeniality contests must also learn to govern.
27 Responses to “Obama’s Speech Earns ‘D’ Grade”
Even if you are a partisan person, I must agree with you. This was Elmer Gantry at his best, while congress has its way with any thing that moves behind the pulpit.
I agree with dduck that congress is the real power here (even if it chooses to abdicate power by deferring to the status quo) and I agree with the LATimes that this was an exercise in high rhetoric – to which I would add common sense rhetoric, but the point is – Obama is mainly a figurehead unless he gets in there and rolls up his sleeves. There are noble symbols and there are actions. But Obama can only do so much. Is the congress going to wimp out or do the work we put them there to do?
I was surprised by this quote by Gail Collins :
Surprised since my impression has been that the tea party folks have been thoroughly embraced by most of the right. Perhaps that opinion was informed by my exposure to a few on this forum, who are most likely well to the right of these (hypothetical?) republicans.
I give the President an A++
I don't care what you think….pundit.
I thought it earned a C. I based this on what he said (content, and to a lesser extent, style), not on what he will do, for I am unsure what he will do. The speech had demerits (and so does the positions represnted by these things that earned demerits, in numerous instances), but also had merits (to me he actually was good at how he incoporated some Bush-bashing in his speech, in contrast to the gratuitious whining about the Supreme Court decision and expressed wish to be subversive to further the politics he and his party support). It remains to be seen to what extent he'll diverge from or continue on the too-far-left course he and the lib Dems have been pursuing this past year. (It also remains to be seen to what extent he diverges from Congress, notably the House lib Dems, while at the same time getting them when desired to shift more to the center and do what he otherwise would want done with legislation.) I didn't expect much, given he's in the figurehead and the campaign mode, as usual. So far as a President he gets a C — handles the basic mechanics of the job just fine, can represent us well elsewhere, but is disturbingly lib-Dem in his trends this past year, and even if he moves back toward the center and gets Congress to do the same, “safer and saner” remains a relative term. He'll have to go well toward the center _and_ achieve a true Mideast peace agreement, for example, to have a chance at an A.
“congress has its way with any thing that moves behind the pulpit”
That's Obama's and any other President's disadvantage, even without being a lame duck (no pun intended, D. Duck). Washington is so over-sized and over-powerful and influential, and incumbency and power and influence effects are so pervasive as well as entrenched among Congress members and their staffers (and lobbyists, and party officials, and other hangers-on like permament media flacks, think tank members, and so on) that Presidents are all passing fads. They may stay and continue to work in Washington as part of the Establishment, but it's that Establishment (including Congress) that really runs the place.
Thanks again Dubya for rejecting Cap and Trade. It moved to Great Briton when you rejected the Kyoto protocols. Now carbon emissions trading is a 150 billion dollar commodities market.
Nothing like throwing business away dubya….stupid is as stupid does.
Don't worry, Father Time. Obama will enlighten us. He and his fellow mandarins, and fans like you, can look at each other. smirk, be dishonestly smug about saving the planet, while what industry isn't crippled here joins the more heated (pun intended) race with industry in the UK and other more-enlightened Western nations, to relocate to China.
DLS, it's one thing to be so passionately disconnected from what's happening around you, but worse is the bitterness that manages to creep into nearly every one of your posts. How ironic that your characterizations of others so often describes your own behavior eh? Normally I wouldn't bother commenting like this, but as you are by far the primary purveyor of insult and sarcasm at TMV, I'm willing to make an occasional exception.
I think my favorite comment was from the Reason liveblogging:
“It's not often you get to see a politician unleash a populist assault on his own administration.”
– Jesse Walker
Speak for yourself, J. Spence, even if you are light on the bitterness portion. (I was being humorously sarcastic about Obama, not bitterly sarcastic, even if some cannot tell the difference, or wish make an arbitrary selection if given a choice.)
I agree. I think most just want the political bullshit to stop.
What umblical cord to the progressive base??????
This cartoon amused me
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/100127/payne.jpg
Obama: “Stay the Course”
Alphonse, it must be a “virtual” umbilical cord.
DLS, my reference wasn't to any one of your posts in particular, but more the body of your “work”. I enjoy the humorous bits, just not the uglier ones. My suggestion would be to look more closely at your adjectives before posting, and ask yourself how much they are chosen to impress youself – as opposed to facilitate useful dialogue.
“I would give the President's speech a D”
Of course you would, dear.
Obama didn't turn to the center? Did you forget about…
Nuclear power
Offshore drilling
Tax cuts
Jobs bill, in the form of more tax cuts
Spending freeze
Generally attacking the Democrats
The list goes on. I would give the speech a bad grade as well, but for the opposite reason: he turned to the center in a way that made him look incredibly weak, willing to do whatever it takes to make Republicans like him.
I'm certainly not as politically savvy as the average Moderate Voice commentator, but really: “must learn to govern?”
What do we want, a benevolent dictator? What kind of powers do we think reside in the Executive Branch? How many speeches do we need to see, hear, evaluate and grade? Do we want to have more of the riddance of governmental procedure, and just have “declarations” and more signing statements and John Yoo legal admonitions and 1% doctrines and tax cuts on principle? I always think of that line in Star Wars where the emperor says, “I'll MAKE it legal!!”
The fire should come down on our congresspeople. “Wipe them out, all of them…” if they are incapable of governing. They are our representatives, and do the business of government, teach THEM to govern, lead follow or move the heck out of the position.
The president certainly has a worthy and powerful position, but really what would we have him do at this point? What was Bush to do with the economy crashing down around him? You know both these guys are and were doing what they could with the situations we face as a nation.
I sometimes wonder if the USA would prefer a monarch-type, King instead of an elected Executive Branch. The Media: “Bush's War,” or “Obamacare” or things that suggest that they are not American issues, just presidential issues… Okay, sorry for the rant.
What I had in mind for Obama is what Lyndon Johnson did for civil rights and the Great Society and what Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did to financially restore Social Security. That was governing. — Jer
Obama: “Stay the Course”
B said it and O said it.
Just a few minutes ago, O was giving a speech to the ____________. My wife saw it and said; Doesn't he ever work? I don't know if it was pent up frustration, or whatever, but I cracked up and laughed for five minutes.
This is what Obama was giving a speech about and to whom: ( from Andrew Sullivan's blog:)
“I've just watched the president address the Republican retreat in Baltimore. Address is not quite the right word, because it was a genuine – and remarkable – conversation between Obama and his political opponents – transparently on CSPAN. I don't remember similar public events of this length and this informality and candor in the past, but I may be forgetting some. But the theme was very straightforward: the president does not expect total GOP support on everything he is trying to do; but he does believe that the tactical oppositionism and electioneering that infects our current politics is making it impossible for the republic to grapple with the real and pressing problems we face.”
If this isn't in the realm of being bold enough to attempt to govern, I don't know what is. Yet it will be portrayed as a “sell out” by the radical left, and “weakness” from the right. Me, as a centrist, thinks this looks reasonable, a very real representation of where politics over the last 15 or so years has landed us.
At the risk of appearing entirely without humor, wtf? He was there to have a parliamentry-like dialogue with Republicans in Congress, at a congressional retreat. He was invited by the Reps to attend
He was certainly doing his job–reaching out to Congress is his job.
I suppose you will find a way to paint this as some sort of anti-Republican charade, while simultaneuosly claiming Obama isn't trying to reach out to the other side.
Ah, well. Haters will hate, no matter the circumstances.
Ah, well. Haters will hate, no matter the circumstances.”
My wife had no idea what the speech was about, and couldn't care less. Unlike her obsessed husband, she doesn't give a rats a__. She, like many in the country, even some Dems, think he talks too much. No hate, just humor.
“I enjoy the humorous bits, just not the uglier ones.”
Give me more reason to feel giddy these days! Also, I'm ever ready to Push Back.
“My suggestion would be to look more closely at your adjectives before posting, and ask yourself how much they are chosen to impress youself as opposed to facilitate useful dialogue.”
I prefer plain language to the fancier stuff, in fact.
Suggestion noted and filed, on a par with editors' corrective instructions.
I see you have brought the more ferocious looking cat to the Avatar battle. Does this mean 'no more Mr Nice Cat'?
I personally give President Obama two grades above any speech given by George W. Bush. He is an excellent speaker. I don't think anyone here can effectively argue against that simple fact.
The content was better than most of his other speeches to this point. That gives him another grade up.
Accordingly, he gets a B- from me for the SOTU speech.