January 28, 2010 - 9:10am
Today's Poll: What do you think was the key point of Obama's STOU Speech?
posted by Howard B. Owens in polls.
January 28, 2010 - 10:18am#1
Another campaign speech full of smoke and mirrors, asserting some of the same promises that he has already broken. Chastising the Supreme Court justices in front of the nation was gutsy. Seemingly making a commitment to nuclear, off shore drilling, and clean coal was a positive that I hope comes to fruition. Not addressing that fact that the first piece of legislation that he signed as President, the promise that Gitmo would would be closed in one year, never happened and why. Claiming that 2 million jobs were created or saved at the same time the unemployment rate went from 7% to over 10% escapes my math abilities. Announcing a federal spending freeze(that won't go into effect for a year interestingly enough) saying that when the people have been forced to tighten their belts, the government should to, on the heels of unprecedented federal spending this past year and the release of the final cost of sending 106 delegates and family members to the Copenhagen Climate Summmit at a taxpayer cost of $2200 dollars per day EACH. The fact that he said "I'm not interested in punishing banks" in the same speech that he announced "fees" on banks that haven't paid back bailout money who will in turn pass that fee down to the consumer...duh! The fact that he asserted AGAIN that he has no interest in living in the past and playing the blame game and then smacked down the previous administration on numerous occasions. The fact that he asserted AGAIN that Republicans offer no solutions to healthcare and simply block all attempts when in fact Republicans have offered numerous detailed proposals including one introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan before the address that go ignored by both houses and the President. I could go on but I have stuff to do.
January 28, 2010 - 10:17am#2
Between the handslapping, cheek-kissing, and mugging for the camera, it was hard to believe this is the most powerful man in the free world. He comes across more celebrity than politician. And as I recall, he started his very first speech to congress addressing the need for job creation. OK< I'm waiting. And the continual reference to the previous administration is getting old. Stop blaming them, and just do the job that the people elected you for. You preached transparency and bi-partisanship, and the people have seen neither. As I saw it, the state of the union is poor, and not improving.
January 28, 2010 - 11:21am#3
"And the continual reference to the previous administration is getting old. Stop blaming them, and just do the job that the people elected you for." Right, just sweep eight years of shenanigans under the rug. I think he should repeat it ten times a day seven days a week. That method sure worked when Fox News used it to brainwash people into giving Bush a second term. He needs to be agressive, abrasive and abusive if necessary (and I believe it is), the right wing doesn't understand any other way. It's ironic how some people only believe in turning the other cheek, if they are the one who slapped you.
January 28, 2010 - 11:51am#4
George Richardson said: 'It's ironic how some people only believe in turning the other cheek, if they are the one who slapped you.' Well said.
January 28, 2010 - 11:55am#5
The speech reiterated that the democratic radical agenda of government health care, cap and trade, social programs, big government, and government spending must be stopped before these wackos ruin the country.
January 28, 2010 - 12:05pm#6
I found it hard to focus on what the President was saying because of the two Clowns sitting behind him. They were making all kinds of facial gestures. I cant wait to watch SNL this weekend !
January 28, 2010 - 12:11pm#7
Come on Gabor Nance P is smokin! Think maybe there might be some some prozac at work behind that plastic surgery manican mask i'm so happy look.
January 28, 2010 - 12:37pm#8
The reason I continue to get on the Presidents case for blaming the previous administration is not because Bush was without fault, it's because Obama himself keeps saying that he's not interested in the blame game and revisiting the past, yet continues to do so over and over again. I would have much more respect for the man if he just came out and said "Bush ruined this country and I'm not going to let you forget who ruined it until I've fixed it", then get about the business of actually fixing it. In addition, here is a quote that underlines the disingenuosness of the "I inherited" fiscal argument... "Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but the Con Law professor may want to retake his high-school civics class. Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from Democrats. In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years. And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him." - Ed Morrissey
January 28, 2010 - 12:34pm#9
There should have been a spot for "Did you bother to watch". Most people I talked to today did not watch it for one reason or another.
January 28, 2010 - 12:56pm#10
I find it amazing that so many got nothing out of the speech. "I know that we haven’t agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground." Even that message didn't strike a chord? Have we become so polarized that a section of the speech that reminds us of the our shared patriotism and hopes for our country is reduced to nothing by those who oppose the president?
January 28, 2010 - 1:44pm#11
Bea, If love of country is the only defense of last nights speech then even you have to admit it lacked real substance. If after a full year, all we can say is hey we all love America, the speech was a failure. I said in my first post that I am behind Obama in his commitment to nuclear, off shore drilling, and clean coal. I did fail to mention that I suppport his idea of removing tax breaks for companies that unnecessarily send jobs overseas and offer new incentives for companies that add jobs here. I hope that happens. Other than that, what was new? What was the plan for success? All I heard was more of the same Washington rhetoric and divisiveness that he promised to change.
January 28, 2010 - 1:43pm#12
Bea quoted ""I know that we haven’t agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground." Talk is cheap Bea. I have always been impressed by the President's oratory skills, but action is what the USA needs right now, and BOTH sides of the aisle are filled with maniacal egocentrics who need to see the world for what it really is, not what they say it is. And George, I didn't vote for GWB in 2004, because he began an unjust war. Obama still should be the bigger person and stop the blame game.
January 28, 2010 - 1:46pm#13
Bea, I like the president and know he is doing the best he can but, words are not enough anymore. The country gave him control of Congress, the Senate and the White House and what has changed? He came in to office with a huge mandate and what do we have to show for it? Where is the leadership? You can’t point to words, when they don’t translate into actions. Words are for campaigns, leaders take action.
January 28, 2010 - 1:55pm#14
Who is this Ed Morrissey character? He apparently has no idea what the federal budget process is... Step 1: President Submits a Budget Proposal; Step 2: Congress Passes a Budget Resolution; Step 3: Congressional Subcommittees 'Markup' Appropriation Bills; Step 4: The House and Senate Vote on Appropriation Bills and Reconcile Differences; Step 5: The President Signs each Appropriation Bill and the Budget is Enacted. The President releases his budget, traditionally, on the first Monday of February, containing: * Budget of the US Government * Analytical Perspectives * Historical Tables * Appendix * Budget Systems and Concepts * Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget What it all comes down to is the President is the Executive... it's his budget. Congress just sets limits on how to spend the monies. It's all part of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. And when the President doesn't get the budget he wants, he can use Reconciliation, like Bush did in 2001 and 2003... to push thru his tax cuts. Cursory internet research would bring him to learn these same things very quickly.
January 28, 2010 - 2:19pm#15
Tony, He's a conservative blogger. As such he knows all there is to know and no one will ever tell him any different. If he wrote it, it has to be Gospel. Like Rush, Beck, etc., his followers will spew whatever he puts forth as an absolute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Morrissey
January 28, 2010 - 2:26pm#16
Bud, there was much I liked about the speech. That particular snippet struck a chord with me since I should be more aware that we all share a common love of country and to go a step further a love of our own county and city. Charlie may call me a thug, but I guess name calling is part of his debate style. You and Jeff and dyed in the wool conservatives, which I respect. That said, I do believe we cherish this land on which we live.
January 28, 2010 - 2:35pm#17
Bea, Do you mean he's different from the liberal ones like Ed Schultz, Randy Rhodes, Bill Press, or most of MSNBC?
January 28, 2010 - 2:36pm#18
Bea- if I didn't love my country, I'd keep quiet :)
January 28, 2010 - 2:55pm#19
A cursory read of Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution clearly sets the budgeting of the nations finances on the Congress. The President signs(or not) what is handed to him by Congress. You and I both know that when the President submits his budget proposal, it looks nothing like the original after Congressional process. That is why Presidents are often times forced to make changes to try and get the budget back to some semblence of the original. Why does it matter who the messenger is when the message is accurate? Why is it when the left disagrees with the message they attack the messenger. The fact is Senator Obama sent inflated budgets with his approval to President Bush's desk and then wants to hide behind "I inherited".
January 28, 2010 - 3:54pm#20
Y'all aren't shy about your political views, are you'se guys?
January 28, 2010 - 3:57pm#21
Howard! Muchas Gracias Senor esta bien y bueno.
January 28, 2010 - 4:22pm#22
A cursory look at Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution will give you the powers set forth for Congress... for which you will discover budgeting is not one of the many they have. In fact... the word "budget" does not exist in the Constitution. Perhaps you should instead reference US Code 1105, which clearly states that the President is to submit the budget to Congress: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/1105.html The message he gave was inaccurate. They were Bush's budgets. They were written by him, they went thru the appropriations process, they were signed by him. He owns them.
January 28, 2010 - 4:38pm#23
Yes, the word budget does not exist in the Constitution and neither does the word sermon appear in the Bible but Jesus gave some great ones. What is a budget? Determining how much income you have, how much you have in expenses, and adjusting either or both to create sustainability. Those are exactly the powers and resposibilities given to Congress in Article 1 Section 8. As long as you stand by "Presidents budgets", I'll earmark these remarks when we are debating "Obama's budgets"
January 28, 2010 - 10:02pm#24
Jeff Allen posted: "Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush…” - Ed Morrissey http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/28/aps-ten-whoppers-from-the-sotu-spe... Then discussion here devolved into asserting who is responsible for the federal budget…the president or congress? Do a little research…don’t be so quick to accept everything you read just because a blogger blogs it. I did a brief internet search to find out if Mr. Morrissey was in fact referring to President Obama’s "repeated insistence" during the State of the Union speech last night. (A link would have been helpful.) He was. So…okay. Where, exactly, in the SOU did the president "insist" that he “inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush”? Once…twice…"repeatedly"? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/27/politics/stateofunion/main6148... Where, exactly, did President Obama even mention the name George Bush? This is a worthwhile focus of legitimate debate? Really? Partisan derision is truly an ugly thing.
January 29, 2010 - 6:12am#25
One does not have to name Bush to understand what the repeated phrases along the lines of ; the policies of the last 8 years, when I took office, I inherited, the previous administration. If you need to boil it down to parsing words like "budget" and did he name George Bush, then I am comfortable that I have accurately addressed the substance of the message.
January 29, 2010 - 9:13am#26
Blame Bush.....Screw you Judiciary....I'm smarter than the American people.....I won't quit making the country worse.
January 29, 2010 - 9:43am#27
Every time he opens his yapper, the DOW drops. Who voted for this moron? Not I!
January 29, 2010 - 9:44am#28
Oh Guys, Obama's just another "Poor Sucker" that has to try and fix our messed up, corrupt, government, and country. We need someone in there to raise a little hell, and not be afraid of what the schysters will say and do. Someone to "Clean House". It'll never happen because their all Chicken shits, and Yes Boys. Put Donald Trump in there. he has nothing to loose and fears knowone. lol
January 29, 2010 - 9:47am#29
Karen, I don't think I could take 4 years of that hair piece bobbing every time he gave a speech! :-)
January 29, 2010 - 10:05am#30
They had an impressionist on Jay Leno last night. He did impressions of Obama and Bush, Halarious!! I thought the State of the Union was all over the place. Theres just too much behind the scenes crap that has followed Obama to office. He's one man, and I support him, because I feel he is doing the best he can, and that is more than the others did in the past. Its all about the money that all the "Bigwigs" are acustom to. Their all happy as pigs in shit, on the backs of the American people. It would take Superman to fix it now. :-)
January 29, 2010 - 10:10am#31
It's going to take a decade to fix an economy tat was tanked in just a year or two. That being said, I've been less than thrilled with the leadership coming out of the White House. I know I'll be sorry for saying this, but sometimes I find myself wishing that just for a day or two President Obama would channel George W.'s 'my way or get the f*** out' attitude.
January 29, 2010 - 10:27am#32
Wow Chris........ I was not a Bush fan, the man was down right idiotic most of the time, but you do have to appreciate his balls.
January 29, 2010 - 10:42am#33
What balls ? Golf Balls, Paint Balls? I'll tell you who I admire more now, than when he was in office, Bill Clinton. He continues to support the US and other countries. I see him as a compasionate, smart man. I am very impressed with his active support in Haiti, and good relations with other countries. So what if he lost his cigar, and smoked a little pot. He's the real deal.
January 29, 2010 - 10:51am#34
LOL Karen....Bowling Balls Actually. ;-) I loved Clinton when I was younger. The guy played sax on Arsinio Hall, wore sunglasses AND lost his cigar and smoked a little Pot. As a teenager Bill Clinton was the freakin' man!!! As an adult, I appreciated that Clinton could balance the budget, but he still expanded government more than it needed to be, JUST like Bush and now Obama, although Dear GOD not to the levels we have seen over the past 7 years!!! It's Crazy!!!
January 29, 2010 - 11:02am#35
Government expansion or not, he left George Bush a few billion dollars in surplus. Of course Bush managed to piss it all away in a year or two.
January 29, 2010 - 11:19am#36
Agreed....hard not to. The man spent us into a huge hole, but Obama isn't stoppong! I just don't think that continuing to spend is the right answer.
January 29, 2010 - 11:55am#37
Chris, While there is a question if the "surplus" under Clinton was real money in the bank or not, there was at least a paper surplus. That is much better than Bush or Obama. But, why do you forget to say the surplus came only after 1994, when Clinton lost control of Congress to a conservative Republican one. Since it is Congress that passes the budget, you have to give them credit for the surplus, as you have to give them the blame for the huge debt.
January 29, 2010 - 12:02pm#38
John, that particular point was fought out earlier in this thread.
January 29, 2010 - 12:46pm#39
January 29, 2010 - 12:57pm#40
Does this mean that Brown is actually a Kenyan? I want to see his birth certificate NOW :)
January 29, 2010 - 2:25pm#41
I am not related to any of them, I am proud to say.
January 29, 2010 - 2:28pm#42
“…I am comfortable that I have accurately addressed the substance of the message.” I was addressing the argument over whose responsibility the federal budget is… the president or congress … the argument was quite specific. And the argument was based upon a specific quote of an erroneous statement.