Wednesday, January 27, 2010

State of the Union Open Thread

An open thread is one with only comments. A free-for-all. Predictions, critiques, questions, whatever. So have at it.
Posted by at

7 comments:

Georgia Thomas said...

Was anyone else dissapointed when Obama said that he supported putting in place more nuclear power plants? We should be moving away from nuclear power and towards more environmentally sound energy sources

January 27, 2010 at 7:14 PM
Jack Rogers said...

In terms of fighting Global Warming, nuclear power is the only currently scalable option that does not emit greenhouse gasses.

I was disappointed that the President didn't take more of a leadership position on health care reform. "If anyone else has a better idea..."

January 27, 2010 at 7:57 PM
Scott Silton said...

Overall, I thought it was a successful speech, but not a game-changer. I don't think that's possible without more substantial movement on the economic front.

The speech reminded me of the inaugural more than some of his more uplifting speeches. He didn't include the typical applause lines early in the speech, which set a sober tone. Nor did he use audience members as props during the speech. Suits me. Some traditions deserve to end.

I loved how Obama called out the Supreme Court on _Citizens United_. That's real talk. He actually managed to call out everyone (Democrats... a little; the Senate; the media; lobbyists) without sounding too whiny (the smile helps.)

Obama's a good speaker, and a reasonable, pragmatic, respectful person. We'll see if he can enact effective policies in the current political environment. Every time he speaks about "changing the tone" he comes off as sincere as his breakthrough speech at the DNC in 2004, and I like it, but I don't believe he will actually convince many congressional Republicans to negotiate in good faith when non-stop obstruction has been rewarded by the public. If hear another Republican claim that Obama has governed "from the left" I'm going to puke.

One of my favorite moments in the speech was when Obama called out Congress for being more worried about their jobs than doing the right thing. When pundits treat votes like "well, you can't expect Senator X to vote that way, even though we know he wants to, and believes this is a generally good idea, because it might hurt him politically" you know they are lost in the game and forgetting that this game has real life human consequences. Yes, it doesn't do your party (and its values) any good to lose to the other party, but nor does it do your party (and its values) any good to put your career ahead of the welfare of the country. It isn't like the people in the Congress can't earn a living elsewhere; most would earn far more in the private sector. Power corrupts.

It sounds like Obama is willing to cede some lower priorities to disillusioned political constituencies and take some smallish steps to the center. However, if this isn't in service of real change, health care reform or otherwise, I do think the Democrats will be pummeled in the fall. They can't wave their magic wand and fix deep structural problems in the economy, but nor can they treat reform as a sideshow or a luxury. In the long term, you have to be for something, and if the Democrats can't stand on principle, they'll lose the debate. It isn't just a few hyper-rich bankers. It's a matter of justice, and the bank tax isn't going to improve equality of opportunity any more than McDonnell's nice rhetoric will.

Finally: did you hear that Republicans are willing to back some tax cuts?? News at 11.

January 27, 2010 at 8:57 PM
Lily said...

I really like how the speech touched on the different needs of people. For instance, he definitely spoke to us, graduating high school seniors, about how education is important and that hes willing to help us out with the cost as not everyone can afford to go to college.

I enjoyed watching President Obama call Congress out for only voting a certain side to keep their jobs. Very tactful although that might get some of them to dislike him (even more?). ;)

January 27, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Anonymous said...

i felt his speech really attacked the senate as well. He kept referring to how the house always votes for the "correct" measure and the senate still needs to in the future and also when he said that voting for your political ideals is only good for short term politics such as being re-elected but not for the welfare of our country. But that is the right thing to do because of the recent scott brown victory. His bipartisan goals are quite far from attainable.

but another thing i really enjoyed was the actions he would be taking on banks. I liked the idea of bringing 30 billion to community banks from the pay offs of the predator banks, i think.That is a great way to create more jobs

January 28, 2010 at 9:05 AM
Andrew said...

I just wish he addressed America's foreign policy a bit more. It was not so promising or convincing per say. It was more of what we already know or what we've already heard before, but I guess that's the thing with State of the Union addresses. They're all relatively similar to the previous one.

January 28, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Lily Y said...

In the end, it seems the speech is only for publicity and hopefully a calming affect on the nation. We are "unified"!!! (clap clap)

January 28, 2010 at 6:37 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)