Obama’s First State of the Union
Comments?
UPDATE: The problem I have is I don’t believe a word the president says. For example. he touted nuclear, clean coal, and offshore drilling for energy. Does anyone seriously believe that? I don’t. And he griped about deficits after running up the largest deficit in history. This is a man who has bought into his own rhetoric.
UPDATE2: It strikes me that Obama’s speech is entirely directed at members of Congress and tuned to tactical political concerns. As an average American watching it, I don’t think that my President was talking to me.
UPDATE3: I like Obama’s tie.
UPDATE4: Al Franken sitting behind the Joint Chiefs looks ridiculous.
UPDATE5: Goodness… Pelosi blinks a lot.
UPDATE6: Inspired? no.
UPDATE7: Dude… what the hell is up with Axelrod’s hair? Man… you’re not fooling anyone.
UPDATE8: The Republican response was better than it has been in the past.
Gotta give him credit for sticking to his campaign slogan….he sure has CHANGED quite a bit the last few weeks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2213 hrs
I am listening to this speech and all I hear is a bunch of BS.
Posted by JP on January 27, 2010 at 2216 hrs
Is that Joe Biden or a Joe Biden bobblehead doll sitting behind President Obama? The head just keeps on bobbing up and down.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2218 hrs
Questioning the the SCOTUS to their face that is a first in my memory. Say what you will but the man has chutzpah. Alito did not take it well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2221 hrs
Agreed. I’m not certain that “chutzpah” is a commendable quality in this circumstance.
Posted by Owen on January 27, 2010 at 2224 hrs
It took him 40 minutes to even mention health care.
And taking shots at the Supreme Court? Really, Mr. President? Really??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2232 hrs
@jp - “All I hear is a lot of BS”
And you’re surprised by this? He’s a politician. BS and lying is all they do. None of them are smart enough to do anything else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2234 hrs
@Marvin - “He’s a politician. BS and lying is all they do. None of them are smart enough to do anything else. “
They’re smart enough for the rest of us useful idiots to keep participating in their little elections. That’s all they need.
Oh, and to keep giving them money for some boogyman type reason. So they can continue to create more problems that we’ll demand solutions for. Which they promise to have. Which we’ll cheer about at political rallies. Which we’ll vote for next time. Which we’ll be disappointed by when they aren’t implemented. Which we’ll be angry about. Which they’ll claim they need a little more of our money to fix. Which we’ll gladly hand over. Which won’t fix anything. Which we’ll get angry about. Which….you know the drill.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2243 hrs
It strikes me that Obama’s speech is entirely directed at members of Congress and tuned to tactical political concerns. As an average American watching it, I don’t think that my President was talking to me.
Certainly not the first time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2252 hrs
After this speech there is a serious question we must all answer: does the man know how to do anything other than give a campaign speech?
This was not a speech about governing the country, this was a speech squarely aimed at mollifying the Democrats in that room.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2314 hrs
Is the Supreme Court sacred?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2320 hrs
UPDATE4: Al Franken sitting behind the Joint Chiefs looks ridiculous.
But think about this: Everytime Adm. Mullen farts he’s gotta’ sit there in it!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2010 at 2329 hrs
Watch Obama’s hair turn ashen gray (if he avoids coloring) over this year and the bags grow under his eyes. The makeup crews do great work, but the digital TV catches the detail as the pressure does its damage.
I wish the networks would insert $$$ major contributor bubbles over representatives’ heads as the camera panned.
Better yet, that would make for a great interactive website with pictures of the senate and congress and the prez/vice: Bubbles and buck$ - click for detail.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 0030 hrs
Criticizing the Supreme Court for doing their jobs? The man is NOT very presidential.
So, he spends the first half of the speech offering up new goodies to make people think he has a plan, and then he complains that the government is spending too much money.
He complains that Congress is still eramarking, but yet fails to mention that he has approved every one of the earmarks.
He asks for bi-partisanship, openly tells the Democrat Party that they control Congress, and then complains that the Republicans are going to obstruct everything and threatens to blame them if they do.
I looked as hard as I could for the second mouth, as he was clearly talking out both sides of his face all night.
Nauseating.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 0122 hrs
“Is the Supreme Court sacred? “
Umm, yes, Keith. It is an independent branch of government. Just like Obama and the administration. Go back to school.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 0158 hrs
Is the Supreme Court sacred?
No, it is not, however it is one of the coequal branches of government, and is not typically addressed directly in the state of the union. This is just further evidence that President Obama does not understand the decorum of his office.
Lets take a look at the constitutional foundation for the state of the union:
Article 2, Section 3: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
It says nothing about expressing opinions of decisions made by the Supreme Court. The President is more than welcome to form opinions on the decisions of the Court, but the State of the Union is not the place for him to express them, an article in Time magazine would be much more suitable.
Now, would I say that the President made a successful state of the union address? No, I would not. It sounded like a campaign speech and a justification. Rather than coming out and telling the American public and the congress (who the speech is supposed to be directed towards) what the state of the union is, and then recommending a legislative agenda to carry us forward, he droned on and on about how successful his documented failures have been, he again chastised the previous administration, he chastised a body who operationally has no function in the state of the union, except to be there, and he made another campaign speech.
What do I think he needed to do to make a successful speech? 1.) I think that he should have admitted that the stimulus program is not working, and called for the remaining unspent funds to be recalled for deficit reduction. 2.) He should have spent more than 7 minutes discussing the two foreign wars in which our troops are sacrificing their lives and livelihood. 3.) I think he should have dropped the blame Bush crap, and taken responsibility for the deficit he has created. 4.) He should have called for the remaining TARP money to be put into deficit reduction, and the 30 Billion in repayments should have been included in that. 5.) Rather than calling for a reduction of capital gains for small business he should have called for a suspension or massive reduction of capital gains all together for a couple years, and IF they were to be fazed back in it should be gradual. 6.) I think that the student loan spiel is probably a bad idea, it will add to the deficit, especially for future generations. 7.) For crying out loud, no jobs bill. Lower corporate tax rates if you want to create jobs…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 0653 hrs
“Is the Supreme Court sacred?”
No, but it should be free from the normal political sniping that takes place during a SOTU speech and treated with a certain amount of respect and decorum.
Taking shots at Congress is fine and fair game, and certainly lawmakers will return fire. But the Court is always been considered off limits, to a certain degree, from political hackery and rhetoric. Obama must not have gotten the memo.
Regardless of their political stripe, I don’t think it’s proper for the President to chastise them for a difficult decision rendered, in public, in front of the entire nation, while they’re sitting right in front of you.
After he said it, each member of the Court looked a bit shocked that he chose to pull their punk card, and I don’t blame them. I thought it was totally inappropriate and unfair to blindside them like that.
The Justices are honored guests of the SOTU speech, in my opinion, and they should be treated as such. I have never, ever, seen a President do what Obama did last night, and it was certainly the most egregious thing he said and did.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 0854 hrs
The reason that SCOTUS is give lifetime appointments is to not worry about politcal ramifications of their rulings. It was a low move by Obama, it wasn’t going to change anything and shouldn’t affect any future rulings. It was just done to score some points with his base. A real leader would have critisized Congress for passing a bill that was unconstitutional.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2010 at 1224 hrs
The Supremes are there because of an invitation of Coingress. They cannot refute what Obama says. It was a low blow by Obama and veryunpresidential. But hey, when you have no life experience and have an IQ of about 10, what do you expect. Obama makes Bush look like a genius.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0331 hrs
The Supremes are there because of an invitation of Coingress. They cannot refute what Obama says. It was a low blow by Obama and veryunpresidential. But hey, when you have no life experience and have an IQ of about 10, what do you expect. Obama makes Bush look like a genius.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0332 hrs
“The Supremes are there because of an invitation of Coingress. They cannot refute what Obama says.”
How true. Presidents should not bring up judicial decisions during the State of the Union. Just because past Presidents brought up such court decisions dealing with issues such as Roe v Wade, school prayer, marriage, child labor, and mentioning activist judges. Obama should not be allowed to. Hopefully it will never happen again by any future President.
And if it does happen, all networks should give a half hour of time devoted to the Supremes to refute anything the President said that they might have hurt their feelings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 1245 hrs
@FBP Could you provide me with a link to the SOTU speech where those other Presidents directly confronted and questioned the rulings of the justices before them? I must have missed them. And please don’t give me kumquats when I’ve asked for apples. Other apples will do nicely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 1534 hrs
In fact, presidents have a history of directly addressing and criticizing the Supreme Court
Harding criticized the Supreme Court for overturning the Child Labor Law in his 1922 State of the Union. In 1922, the Supreme Court found the Child Labor Law of 1919 to be unconstitutional. In his State of the Union address, President Warren G. Harding criticized the court for putting “this problem outside the proper domain of Federal regulation until the Constitution is so amended as to give the Congress indubitable authority. I recommend the submission of such an amendment.”
Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court’s recent ruling on school prayer:
And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation’s health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.
Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion:
And while I’m on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can’t freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?
[...]
During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn’t? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.
Bush condemned “activist judges” who are “redefining marriage by court order.” In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized “activist judges” who, according to him, were “redefining marriage by court order”:
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God’s sight.\
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 1819 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 118
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 12:05 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).