I heard a different speech than many here.

[mmonk]

But I guess that is the art of State of the Union addresses.

[Matariki]

1. Elaborate.

please.

[SunsetDreams]

24. Specifics would be nice

[Bicoastal]

2. Would you please elaborate?

This is called a "discussion" forum for a reason, ya know.

[mmonk]

9. I suppose the best way to put it is people hear the same thing and interpret differently.

[valerief]

3. Yeah, I had my audio running backwards, too. nt

[mmonk]

6. .

[slay]

4. Seems I did too

lots of broad strokes - no details - and he really needs to just flat out call the republicans criminals serving their corporate masters. this dog and pony show sucks.

[onenote]

7. he "needs" to do that?

I guess his problem is that he doesn't have advisors like you. Submit your resume.

[slay]

10. No, let's just all pretend the Republicans are solid leaders, with the best interests of the people

at heart. sheesh.

the emperor wears no clothes is about to become non-fiction again.

[FarLeftFist]

15. SO you think he should talk about unity while attacking unity? I'm sure that would play well

In the media.

[slay]

20. How has his talk of "unity" helped over the last 3 years? The way Repubs just block everything?

what's the point of unity when the people he want's to unite with (Republicans) are all HORRIBLE corporate sock puppets?

[Matariki]

13. Funny, I heard lots of -'going to do this right now' in his speech.

Military buying alternative energy, directions to the Attorney General to set up a financial crime unit, a number of other 'action items' that go around a do-nothing congress.

[slay]

14. I hope you are right

but in the past the differences between his speeches and his actions have been like night and day.

[uppityperson]

18. I noticed he didn't talk about making congress pass bills but will "send a bill to congress", over &

over and over. Which means he has figured out that he can send bills to congress but can't make them drink. Which also means not so much difference between his speeches and actions.

Which "differences between his speeches and his actions have been like night and day" do you mean?

[Bohunk68]

47. "making" Congress pass bills?

So, now we criticize by stating that he stated the facts?

[uppityperson]

49. What? Are you saying you can lead a horse to water AND can make it drink?

[tpsbmam]

58. You can lead a horse to water and pressure it to drink.....

how do you think (e.g.) LBJ got so much of the "Great Society" initiatives passed? By being timid with the legislature? By backing off and letting legislator after legislator chip away at every program until it didn't even resemble the original initiative? Hell no -- he did it by pushing, and pushing hard. You think he had no push back from his own Party? Think again -- he had plenty. He leaned and leaned and leaned some more on legislators. Things were accomplished during his administration in part because, like him or not (and I HATED some of his foreign policies), he and his administration made them happen.

[uppityperson]

59. So Obama is spineless, simply backing off since he can not make repubs do what he wants. Gotcha.

thank you for clarifying.

I do not think LBJ had as much energy focused on simply making him fail, on blocking EVERYTHING simply because he thought it good, as Obama has. I guess you think differently and more highly of those who automatically block everything than I do.

[tpsbmam]

60. I wasn't talking about Repubs.....read my post....I was talking about HIS Party, not the opposing

Party. And he had to work on HIS Party. I sure wish those who are vociferous Obama supporters would stop reading things into posts that weren't there.

[uppityperson]

61. My apologies. Are you saying Obama has not pushed the democrats enough? What?

Or are you comparing LBJ pushing his party with Obama pushing those who automatically block him?

Please clarify so i don't have to assume. Thank you.

[tpsbmam]

62. I don't think Obama has pushed the Dems enough

He has repeatedly deferred to Harry Reid and others, and has repeatedly backed conservative Dems and ignored progressive Dems. He needs to engage his WHOLE Party, whether he agrees with them or not. The Progressive Caucus has asked to be heard on numerous occasions:

Afghanistan

The "debt limit deal" which the Progressive Caucus felt violated basic Democratic principles.

The Progressive Caucus budget.

Single payer representatives totally excluded from health insurance revision talks -- this was a Congressional Progressive Caucus issue.


He makes his decisions excluding the largest Congressional caucus and deferring to a Senate leader who most at DU, up until Obama's administration, agreed was weak and far more conservative than most used to consider acceptable.

That's also assuming that one takes him at his word. I personally think that he too frequently talks a good "Democratic" game but he's more in agreement with some of the shitty "compromises" than he acknowledges. He's started from right-wing/corporate/Wall Street mindsets too often and has been too reluctant to challenge those ways of thinking. His SOTU speech sounded good, but I heard him sound good before and govern far to the right of his "sound good" speeches, so my jury is out on that one -- his actions will speak WAY louder than his words.

But, if he TRULY believes his liberal rhetoric, he hasn't shown it in his willingness to push at least HIS PARTY to go along with his more liberal policy goals, at least those he claims in speeches. All those conservative Dems he's been backing owe him -- he has chips to draw from them. And I lived with someone (Dad) who worked in DC/politics for most of his adult life -- that IS how much of it works. Time for him to call in those chips if he REALLY means what he says and PUSH the Dems to rally AS A WHOLE behind what he SAYS are his policies.

[sad sally]

55. All those things are nice, but when there's no money attached to executive orders

the agencies tasked to carry them out can't simply (legally) reprogram funds to do whatever the President asks them to do. And yes, it falls back on Congress - the branch of government that has control over government purses.

Seems it would make more sense to have turned to John Boehner and say, "I want to see you and your possee in my office tomorrow at 8 a.m. sharp - we have work to do." Instead of hitting the campaign trail, oh well, that's politics.

[Electric Monk]

16. All the kids have always known, the emperor wears no clothes, but you bow down to him anyway,

because it's better than being alone. - Arcade Fire

[slay]

25. I guess...

but #OCCUPY is sounding a LOT more appealing.

[SammyWinstonJack]

28. Sounding a lot more appealing because they are.

[slay]

30. :)

indeed.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

53. OCCUPY!

It's our future.

[nanabugg]

29. The fact is, this was one of the most specific State of the Union address in ages. nt.

[Number23]

38. "he really needs to just flat out call the republicans criminals serving their corporate masters."

Genius, I tells ya. Genius.

And after he does that, maybe he can moonwalk off the stage while shooting a water pistol full of Welch's grape soda dead into Boehner's face. I mean, if we're going to conjure up colossally idiotic, meaningless fantasies, may as well go big, huh?

[Larry Ogg]

50. If all the criminal politicians in Washington went to jail...

The number of honest politicians that were actually left, could all fit in a phone booth; and they would all be liberals.

[slay]

51. so you think they're not criminals serving their corporate masters?

or that the president should just ignore that? you put your loyalty to Obama above doing the right thing and telling people the truth. sad.

[dionysus]

56. !!!!

[Inuca]

52. Call them CRIMINALS?

Literally? Ridiculous.

[slay]

54. You don't think they are?

how long are we just going to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the truth?

[Drunken Irishman]

5. Did you accidentally have it on Telemundo?

[slay]

12. No

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

8. I'm sure Republicans would agree with you......

But guess most of them aren't here right now though.

[mmonk]

11. They would hear something different from me as well as you.

We probably have 3 ways of looking at it.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Well, there is only one of two parties that can win the elections come 2012.....

So I heard enough to know which team I'm on......

[mmonk]

26. I tend to not look at teams other than I am not on the red one.

I look at the country and policies and try to make assessments. I try to see what will happen though none of us know for sure.

[Logical]

19. So all agree frenchie or we are GOP supporters? This is a horrible thing to say!!!

[FrenchieCat]

23. If the choice is between Obama and some GOP idiot in 2012 - I pick Obama!!

I think broadly most of us agree......

[gateley]

41. Frenchie was speaking for herself. That's quite a jump you made! nt

[bigtree]

21. There's just one speech

There's a text. Read it through and nail down just what you're talking about here. It's not as if some folks here wouldn't be interested in hearing what your specific differences are. I don't really care where you're coming from. That's your business. I like an open exchange of ideas though.

text: http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/politics&id=8517683

[mmonk]

32. It's fairly easy for me.

I like the rich and powerful paying more taxes. I like investigations into financial malfeasance. Any mention of infrastructure and manufacturing I like. I like the idea of looking into trade policies. I like investments in education and health.

I don't like what looks like more green lights for the oil and gas industries. I don't like pretending our problems have come from government spending and and over regulation, and pretending our corporations are paying too much in taxes when the real rate they are paying is around 14% and only about 6% of current overall burden.

Overall, I heard a centrist speech trying to sound liberal.

[bigtree]

36. centrist trying to sound liberal

. . . is a little too much. He's certainly more of a centrist than a liberal, but you make him out to be insincere in the things he believes which may or may not gain favor from a liberal pov.

I do think he was playing to the right on offshore drilling, but I'd be surprised if that turns out to be anything more than lip service; just like the regulation thing. So what if he's playing to perceptions? There's little to be lost by consolidating the branches of government he's outlined, and benefits, I think, in bringing some of those departments out of the shadow of unrelated Cabinets.

We can rightly complain that liberal pov's and liberal initiatives need advancing and promoting, but the President is likely correct in balancing those ideals and initiatives with at least a rhetorical nod to the complaints from the right. Follow what he actually proposes in the form of legislation. That's more of a measure of his progressiveness or centrism, than what Congress ultimately agrees to.

[mmonk]

37. Not him specifically. The speech.

[DevonRex]

22. I'm SO surprised.

[mmonk]

27. I'm sure everyone is shocked.

Didn't want to disappoint.

[Stuckinthebush]

31. Funny, that's what my GOP friends are saying on Facebook

They heard a different speech than me. Hmmmm....

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. There are NEVER details given in SOTU speeches. Obama is not unique on this. Specifics come in the

forum of proposals. I'm going to wait to see those proposals. I'm confident that the president knows what he's talking about.

Now, Bernie Sanders is on Ed's show praising the president's speech while acknowledging that more work needs to be done.

[mmonk]

34. That is by design and always holds in today's world.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. Yep. Nothing out of the ordinary.

[Obamacare]

39. Good for you

would you like a cookie? Meanwhile, back in reality, Obama delivered a knock out punch to the rethugs. I think republican­s in the audience looked unhappy because they know that Noot is their candidate, Mittens is plummeting in every poll. Mittens should've released his taxes earlier.lol

[mmonk]

40. I live in reality. That's my problem.

And yes, Obama shouldn't have any problems with the Republican field.

[gateley]

42. I don't think any of us liked the shale reference or opening up oil and gas (wondering if

it means offshore or what), but we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[mmonk]

44. Yep.

What's bad from my perspective on that is the new Republican legislatures where that pressure is already there.

[Raine]

43. That's the way I felt too

[lamp_shade]

45. Oh... it's you!

[mmonk]

46. Or maybe as Keith Olbermann put it, he "proposed everything" including opposite positions.

[kentuck]

48. Yeah..

me too.

[dionysus]

57. i'm sure you did