2015 State of the Union Address

[Kyriakos]

Ernest Moniz, the energy secretary (and the only member of the Cabinet I know in person).

That is a wig, right?

 

[Antilogic]

That's because the State of the Union is a boring pointless exercise in political buzzwording and not actually saying anything of importance or interest, nor in conveying an actual identifiable point. Which, by the way, is why the response is always nonsensical and pointless. How can you be on point in replying to something which had no point to begin with?

http://gawker.com/the-state-of-the-union-is-dumb-hacks-writing-garbage-sp-1680681848

The other thing that hammers the response (and why they generally suck hard) is the optics--you are going from a speech with a ton of applause lines and all the pomp and circumstance of the halls of Congress to a tiny room with a teleprompter. That's why I think Bob McDonnell had a good response a few years back, because he gave it to a session of the Virginia state legislature so it kinda made up the optics deficit. Otherwise, being forgettable like Ernst was, or like Cathy Mc-Morris Rodgers was before, is the best you can hope for. People only remember the bad stuff like Rubio's drink of water or the strange walk-in and introduction that Jindal did.

In relation to sick leave (which I was shocked to find out you don't have as a mandated thing?), didn't Obama specifically say that he's looking to help states implement it?

Some states have this (Massachusetts passed it via referendum), but not all do. But that's our federal government for ya--big business doesn't want it, so it's probably not going anywhere in Congress. Some state legislatures, though, could do it.

It seems that the EU also does this thing, but from what i can tell nobody else does. Maybe under a different name?

It's just a big annual speech that a lot of people end up watching. I'd assume other nations have a similar tradition (i.e. Putin's multi-hour end-of-the-year press conferences), although it might not have the same relative profile it has here.

That is a wig, right?

It's his real hair as far as I know. I never pulled on it.

 

[illram]

I have not heard anything good about this speach from anyone.

Liberal Friends--Where was this in 2009? We could have done it then. Now we have no chance.

Conservative friends--President NO-bama. I have to admit, that was cute.

J

Without looking any of this up, because who cares, my guess is all of these things poll well regardless of party affiliation, or they poll well with swing voters and independents and moderately minded Republicans. Thus when Republicans inevitably prevent all of it from ever happening, it assists the Democrats in 2016 to style the Republicans as the rich oligarch party that does nothing to help the middle class or "main street" or whatever.

Or maybe that's not the plan, I don't know. I can't think of any other reason that Obama just now all of a sudden figured out a solid progressive economic plan for the country.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It seems that the EU also does this thing, but from what i can tell nobody else does. Maybe under a different name?

I have never ever heard of this. I'd be surprised if more than 1% of EU citizens know it. I'd expect less.
But cool to know it exists.

 

[Kyriakos]

^It is given by the president of the eu parliament/or that other of two things, ie Baroso in the near past.

(hm, wait, actually iirc all three figureheads give their own speech, because we are so pluralist with those having a salary of 2 US presidents).

 

[onejayhawk]

Without looking any of this up, because who cares, my guess is all of these things poll well regardless of party affiliation, or they poll well with swing voters and independents and moderately minded Republicans. Thus when Republicans inevitably prevent all of it from ever happening, it assists the Democrats in 2016 to style the Republicans as the rich oligarch party that does nothing to help the middle class or "main street" or whatever.

Or maybe that's not the plan, I don't know. I can't think of any other reason that Obama just now all of a sudden figured out a solid progressive economic plan for the country.

It's amusing you mention the Republicans preventing it. Quite the opposite. President Obama embraced BEING the blockade. The number of times he used the word "veto" is what makes "NObama" and "White House of No!" so funny.

J

 

[jackelgull]

It's amusing you mention the Republicans preventing it. Quite the opposite. President Obama embraced BEING the blockade. The number of times he used the word "veto" is what makes "NObama" and "White House of No!" so funny.

J

Oh God, not another one of those Republican vs. Democrat hissy fits.

 

[illram]

It's amusing you mention the Republicans preventing it. Quite the opposite. President Obama embraced BEING the blockade. The number of times he used the word "veto" is what makes "NObama" and "White House of No!" so funny.

J

So the Republicans are going to enact paid sick time, raise taxes on the wealthy, and all the other "pinko" stuff Obama presented?

Obviously nothing Obama discussed is really on the GOP agenda. It ain't happening, and maybe that's the point.

 

[onejayhawk]

So the Republicans are going to enact paid sick time, raise taxes on the wealthy, and all the other "pinko" stuff Obama presented?

Obviously nothing Obama discussed is really on the GOP agenda. It ain't happening, and maybe that's the point.

The point is that the same things were not on the Democratic agenda when it mattered. That's why a number of the more liberal people I know are irritated. If this was what he wants now, why was he not pushing it six years ago?

J

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Because 6 years ago he still had to worry about re-election.

 

[Light Cleric]

I love when I think I posted something but apparently closed the tab instead.

That's because the State of the Union is a boring pointless exercise in political buzzwording and not actually saying anything of importance or interest, nor in conveying an actual identifiable point. Which, by the way, is why the response is always nonsensical and pointless. How can you be on point in replying to something which had no point to begin with?

http://gawker.com/the-state-of-the-union-is-dumb-hacks-writing-garbage-sp-1680681848

Which is why it needs to not be nationally televised or treated with pomp and circumstance. If the politicians want to do it, fine, but they shouldn't get to pretend it's something other than what it is.

And I agree on the response, I don't even know who watches those let alone why they have them. Although I never saw the big deal about Rubio drinking water, it was only slightly awkward but people act like it was a huge gaffe and they've never seen someone drink water after talking for a long time before or been to a presentation where the speakers have a bottle of water right on the podium.

It has been a Constitutionally mandated thing since, well since the Constitution was adopted.

The SOTU is constitutionally mandated but an actual speech is not. Heck, some presidents used to write letters and that would meet the requirement.

 

[illram]

The point is that the same things were not on the Democratic agenda when it mattered. That's why a number of the more liberal people I know are irritated. If this was what he wants now, why was he not pushing it six years ago?

J

Because he is a timid overthinker who hopelessly looked for consensus? Lots of reasons.

My point is that perhaps the purpose of his speech was not "lets get this done" but "here is a bunch of great stuff the GOP will never do, sucks don't it." He has little to lose now with these "bold" policy ideas because he does not have to do anything other than sit back and watch it not happen. It's for the 2016 candidate to run on.

 

[bhsup]

UNIONGATE​

Rebecca is Democratic stoogie!!!

The woman whose story of economic recovery was showcased by President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address is a former Democratic campaign staffer and has been used by Obama for political events in the past.

Rebekah Erler has been presented by the White House as a woman who was discovered by the president after she wrote to him last March about her economic hardships. She was showcased in the speech as proof that middle class Americans are coming forward to say that Obama’s policies are working.

Unmentioned in the White House bio of Erler is that she is a former Democratic campaign operative, working as a field organizer for Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.).

This also wasn’t the first time the White House used the former Democratic campaign staffer as a political prop. Obama spent a “day in the life” of Erler in June so that he could have “an opportunity to communicate directly with the people he’s working for every day.”

Reuters revealed Erler’s Democratic affiliations following that June event, and the Minnesota Republican Party attacked Obama for being “so out of touch with reality that he thinks a former Democrat campaign staffer speaks for every Minnesotan.”

P.S. - For some reason I was thinking hubby's name was Jack. It is, apparently, Ben. I suspect it will probably come out in a few days that he is a long term ACORN operative.

 

[RobAnybody]

The number of times he used the word "veto" is what makes "NObama" and "White House of No!" so funny.

Here's the transcript of the SOTU speech. I count 2 instances of the word "veto" out of 6,598 words. It's always amusing to get a peek at what passes for "facts" in Bizarro World.

 

[FriendlyFire]

UNIONGATE​

I demand IMPEACHMENT !

James Dale Guckert (born May 22, 1957)[1] is an American conservative columnist better known by the pseudonym Jeff Gannon. Between 2003 and 2005, he was given credentials as a White House reporter. He was eventually employed by the conservative website Talon News during the latter part of this period. Gannon first gained national attention during a presidential press conference on January 26, 2005, when he asked United States President George W. Bush a question that some in the press corps considered "so friendly it might have been planted"[2][3] ("How are you going to work with [Senate Democratic leaders] who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?").

Gannon first attended a White House press conference on February 28, 2003, and there asked a question of then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. At this time Gannon had never had an article published, and was not associated with any kind of news organization (Talon News had not yet been created

After the January 26, 2005, press conference, scrutiny into his personal and professional background by news organizations and blogs began. On February 8, 2005, Gannon resigned from Talon News and shut down his website, Jeffgannon.com. According to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post:

"Jeff Gannon, ... whose naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites, says that he has 'regrets' about his past but that White House officials knew nothing about his salacious activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

 

[bhsup]

That's all nice and all, but Bush hasn't been President for awhile now and nothing you posted invalidates my post.

 

[FriendlyFire]

That's all nice and all, but Bush hasn't been President for awhile now and nothing you posted invalidates my post.

So Republicans have a problem with Presidents whom uses I assume to be "completely false" intelligence to "deceive" the American Public. The President has "cherry picked" information to forge a fake narrative.
Seriously, while it is concerning that Democrats would use a former employee for propaganda / politics. Republicans are protesting a little to much.

FFS you impeach a President for lying about an extra marital affair while giving another president whom oversaw thousands killed, a free pass, didnt even require him to testify under oath.

 

[bhsup]

He was impeached for perjury. I love how people always try to distort what he was impeached for. Yes, he lied. To a grand jury. Doesn't matter what it was about. And, I am sorry... were you wanting us to initiate impeachment hearings against Lincoln? Or Wilson? Or maybe FDR?

 

[FriendlyFire]

He was impeached for perjury. I love how people always try to distort what he was impeached for. Yes, he lied. To a grand jury. Doesn't matter what it was about. And, I am sorry... were you wanting us to initiate impeachment hearings against Lincoln? Or Wilson? Or maybe FDR?

I basically don't get how G.W.Bush and Nixon got away with all the insane criminal, cronyism and corrupt behavior. Clinton wasn't no saint either but impeachment for an extra marital affair and cover up is very confusing.

 

[bhsup]

Again, he was not impeached for an affair. He was impeached because he lied to a grand jury. What he lied about is utterly irrelevant.