State of the Union

[JerichoHill]

see : Politifact

 

[mangxema]

At this point in his term, I think the President made a gamble in bringing up the failings of the past eight years. For all the negative things people can say about President Bush XLIII, the unemployment rate was much lower during his Administration, and that's probably the single biggest issue to an awful lot of people right now.

I don't think so... These things have momentum and it all hit the fan right at the end of Bush's presidency. This is only a year later. I think it is entirely reasonable to point that out to people who generally have pretty short attention spans. People were yelling at him almost immediately into his term when it was impossible for him to have had an effect, but he was the guy in power at the time so it was 'his fault'.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I commented on this last time as well. Could someone please bolt Pelosi to her chair? I started to watch it last night and after 3 of 4 standing ovations I turned it off.

It was hilarious to watch the Dems go "Yay!" and clapping enthusiastically at the drop of a hat like morons, and to watch the Reps go: "Hrmph" and sit there with their arms crossed looking ... crossed and not have the decency to put their hands together even reluctantly.

I have to say that American Politics has become my favourite soap opera over the last 5 years, although I understand that it's not as fun to experience when you're actually governed by Sesame Street.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm starting not to belive in what Obama stated in his address. What he said is almost the same year ago. I'm starting to think that I had voted for empty promises .

I should have voted for McCain, even if I had to swallow a large pill consisting of Palin, bring taxed because I have health insurance via my employer, and a century occupation of Iraq.

 

[Camikaze]

I should have voted for McCain

Well that would hardly have solved any problems, would it?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

McCain would have solved the economy in a fortnight and unemployment would have been a thing of the past.

 

[Camikaze]

Interesting piece from the LA Times:

A startling new poll just out: It shows that fully 9 out of 10 Americans bought that State of the Union gimmick of President Obama's to impose an alleged spending freeze on parts of the federal budget to carve into the nation's deficit that's expanding faster than a billion bellies at Super Bowl snack time.
Spending and also deficits have shot up as voter concerns in recent polls, even as the hallowed healthcare legislation went on life support. This is because the community organizer's claim that giving health insurance coverage to 30,000,000 more Americans would actually save money sounds about as likely as those late-night TV commercials promising an extra $20,000 a month with a simple 800-phone call.

So the president's firm federal freeze covers every single dollar of discretionary spending -- except for all Medicare spending and except for all Medicaid spending and except for any and all national defense spending. Everything else is frozen. Like the streets of Wasilla, Alaska. Oh, no, one more. Also excluded from the freeze is all Social Security spending.

Obama's spending vow is a flare, perhaps even a rhetorical rocket, a symbolic signal, if you will, demonstrating his Chicago-like determination to rein in the outgo of federal money in this crucial midterm election year when history suggests his Democrats are scheduled to suffer significant losses in Congress.

Oh, no. Wait. That's the wrong poll news. Gee, we're as good with these numbers as the White House predicting national unemployment would stay at 8% thanks to a $787 billion bill for stimulus spending.

The new Rasmussen Reports poll actually shows that 9% -- nine out of every 100 Americans -- think the freeze will do a lot about the federal deficit that has this many 0's -- 0,000,000,000,000.

To put it another way, 81 out of every 100 Americans are already convinced that the president's three-year plan is a phony phreeze that won't do much of anything at all about the deficit.

They're not against a freeze. It sounds swell. Like a budget-conscious family banning restaurant dinners except on weekends. In fact, 57% of poll respondents would like to see a government spending reduction. They just don't see such a tiny one as mattering much, despite the administration's orchestrated news leaks in advance and the three whole paragraphs the president devoted to it.

And, therefore, Obama's spending veto threat also rings hollow. Since, come to think of it, he's had that at his left hand since he took the oath by raising the right one 374 days ago.

To assist the Democrat president, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is feigning a fight over including defense spending in the freeze. Of course, that's not going to happen. But her cosmetic talk makes the grumbling Democratic left a little less unhappy and allows Obama to appear like an alert centurion at the gates of national security.

Additionally, this kabuki-like skirmish distracts attention from what all isn't happening at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Because it appears to be coming to the attention of those voters who believed in change to believe in that way back in 2008 they turned over the presidential house and both of the Capitol's legislative houses to representatives of the exact same political party by considerable margins.

So, now that same majority crowd makes even more promises. But, uh, what's the delay in getting things fixed back in that bizarre, broken-down place?

-- Andrew Malcolm

A bit cynical, me thinks.

 

[JollyRoger]

Bush didn't use his veto pen in regards to spending until his 2nd term.

 

[bhsup]

McCain Mitt Romney would have solved the economy in a fortnight and unemployment would have been a thing of the past.

I fixed that for you. If everyone would have written in Mitt like I did, we'd be fine now.

 

[JollyRoger]

I fixed that for you. If everyone would have written in Mitt like I did, we'd be fine now.

Yeah, he got healthcare passed easily enough in Massachusetts, so he probably would have already got it pased Federally by now.

 

[Cutlass]

I fixed that for you. If everyone would have written in Mitt like I did, we'd be fine now.

I'm genuinely puzzled about why you have so much faith in a man who will reinvent himself at the drop of a hat to be whatever he thinks he needs to be to further his own personal aggrandizement.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I don't think so... These things have momentum and it all hit the fan right at the end of Bush's presidency. This is only a year later. I think it is entirely reasonable to point that out to people who generally have pretty short attention spans. People were yelling at him almost immediately into his term when it was impossible for him to have had an effect, but he was the guy in power at the time so it was 'his fault'.

I'll agree that certainly the current mess isn't President Obama's "fault," but in a forward-looking speech, he's putting a bit too much negative light on the rest of this past decade. The mess isn't the fault of the president or the government as a whole, but I don't think it's the fault of the previous Administration, either.

Saying, "We should enact [these policies] to have [these effects]" just sounds better than "we can't do nothing; look at the last eight years!"

Besides, anyone blaming President Obama for an economic crash that began before he was elected aren't going to give him a fair shot no matter what he says. For those of us who want to see him take charge and lead us somewhere--heck, even if it's wrong--it would have, I think, been better to leave out criticism of his predecessor.

He made a good start with "we all hated the bailouts, but they were necessary to prevent collapse," but I'm afraid that based on his first year, he's not terribly likely to try unpopular things to make a positive change. Had he taken more charge of health care (or, more sensibly, started with a few smaller but more manageable policies that he could use as trophies), I'd have more faith in him to turn things (if not the economy, at least our attitudes towards it) around. Given the upcoming midterm elections, though, I doubt we'll see anyone wanting to try unpopular things.

 

[BuckyRea]

I'm genuinely puzzled about why you have so much faith in a man who will reinvent himself at the drop of a hat to be whatever he thinks he needs to be to further his own personal aggrandizement.

It took me a second to figure out whether you were talking about Romney or Obama.
At the risk of sounding both cynical and hopelessly passive, I think what you've described may be a necessary characteristic for a successful career politician. I know we're all supposed to loathe career pols, but when you go over the list of successful leaders in the past, they're just about all careerists.

I'm starting not to belive in what Obama stated in his address. What he said is almost the same year ago. I'm starting to think that I had voted for empty promises.

I feel ya, CivGeneral. The lack of progress is frustrating. But I think I'd be even more concerned about a politician who radically changed his core message in the space of a year. A lesser politician might well have done that--gone for the "recasting myself as a populist" the way Gray Davis did when his career went into a tailspin. Obama's relative consistency in the face of stubborn problems (and problematic stubbornness from the loyal opposition) might be seen as a virtue.

Henry Kissinger didn't call it "the art of the perfect," after all. (And neither did Otto)

 

[Cutlass]

It took me a second to figure out whether you were talking about Romney or Obama.
At the risk of sounding both cynical and hopelessly passive, I think what you've described may be a necessary characteristic for a successful career politician. I know we're all supposed to loathe career pols, but when you go over the list of successful leaders in the past, they're just about all careerists.

I understand that every successful politician has a public face that may of may not have anything to do with the real person. But Romney's campaign and term as governor of Massachusetts should give conservatives absolutely nothing of appeal for the guy. And what he campaigned as for president didn't even vaguely resemble his term at governor. So he's a lot more transparently two-faced than the typical politician.

 

[bhsup]

And what he campaigned as for president didn't even vaguely resemble his term at governor. So he's a lot more transparently two-faced than the typical politician.

Quite the opposite. I would say that means he truly understands federalism. What he did at the State level is just fine, at the State level, but he recognizes you don't do those things as leader of the federalies.

 

[Cutlass]

Quite the opposite. I would say that means he truly understands federalism. What he did at the State level is just fine, at the State level, but he recognizes you don't do those things as leader of the federalies.

Has he said that? Or is that what you are reading into it?

 

[bhsup]

Reading into it. Besides, don't you just think it would be cool to have a President with holy underwear??

 

[Cutlass]

Not particularly, no....

I wouldn't trust that reading in to it too much if I were you. There's still the fact that he was pro abortion and gay civil union to become governor, expanded health care access while governor, didn't really do a thing to improve state management while there, raised taxes and refused to admit the fact, and then took a sharp turn social and economic right when he decided to walk away from the governor's office and run for president. And then moved to New Hampshire just so he could campaign their more effectively.

Federalism aside, conservatism (or not) aside, I consider the man completely untrustworthy. Even more so than the average run of politicians.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Besides, don't you just think it would be cool to have a President with holy underwear??

Well sure, I mean, how else would he put it on?

 

[BuckyRea]

I would say that means he truly understands federalism. What he did at the State level is just fine, at the State level, but he recognizes you don't do those things as leader of the federalies.

Ah, again we see the mere hair's breadth difference between federalism and sociopathic personality disorder.