I would be very surprised if Oakminster were surprised by that.
Obama missed a bet. The justice department found many bankers have broken laws and they intend to prosecute them. That would have sent the popularity of the speech off the charts.
What would happen if farm subsidies were eliminated?
Over at TPM, they’ve decided to shorten “Win the Future” to “WTF”. Cheeky.
Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland would write very large checks, and next day the Tea Party would demonstrate furiously against government takeover of food.
Don’t forget Monsanto.
True.
No, Oakminster is correct. From the transcript:
I thought Paul Ryan’s response was excellent. While clearly not as polished a speaker as Obama, he came across as very earnest and very focused, and his rebuttal was on point and he said it very well.
He came off like a bog-standard Republican douchebag, actually.
Ryan sounded a little forced but didn’t deliver his response too badly. It was a little generic, but considering it had to be 99% written before the address was made and the response has to be made 10 minutes after the speech for some reason, I guess that was bound to happen. The more significant problems with it were the claim that the health care law is “stifling job creation” (yeah, that’s because of the health care law, not the deep recession that made the banks tighten their purse strings), and he got a bit weird with the suggestion that the U.S. could turn into Greece or Iceland and the line about “our social safety net [turning] into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.” That might have sounded like a clever turn of phrase on paper, but I would much rather have a hammock than a net. That sounds great. And the biggest problem was that Ryan argued for more limited government at the same time he said bad decisions in Washington and Wall Street caused the financial crisis. Limited government contributed to the financial crisis. This wasn’t the only problem, but the government failed to regulate the housing market or speculative trading of derivatives or insane behavior by banks. Government lending agencies also contributed to the problem and so did the behavior of the banks, but that isn’t something limited government is going to fix or prevent.
I wish they’d cut down on the every-sentence-needs-a-standing-ovation mindset. I feel like I’m watching a SNL parody. Presidents put a great deal of time and effort into these speeches and deserve the limelight.
I agree, that crap is ridiculous. And after the speech ends we’re treated to analysis of how often everyone applauded, who reacted to what line, and this year, a discussion of who didn’t bother to show up. (For those who didn’t hear, it rhymes with ‘the duncervative wing of the Dupreme Dourt.’)
That ain’t 'zactly a new thing. Nor is it limited to conservatives.
*This year, Alito accepted an invitation to teach law in Hawaii in late January, during a court break, and he was among the absentees on Tuesday evening.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have complained in the past about the political nature of the president’s annual speech to Congress, and they rarely attend. They were absent last year as well as this year.
In the past two decades, attendance at the State of the Union address has become spotty for members of the Supreme Court. On a few occasions, only Justice Breyer was in attendance when President George W. Bush addressed Congress.*
To be honest, there is probably as much news value in analyzing who applauded what as in the speech itself. It must be quite an unnerving experience for members of the opposition party whenever there is a proposal which doesn’t fall in a clearcut ideological category and they have to make a split second decision on whether to applaud or not.
Anyway I thought Obama’s speech was excellent. He needed to reach out to moderates without alienating his base and that is exactly what he did. He managed to tie up his proposals into a larger theme of reviving America and also weaved in interesting stories about regular Americans.
Ryan's speech OTOH was anodyne and basically a series of conservative talking points. He was preaching to the converted. If this represents the GOP strategy to the general election they will be in for a rude shock. 2012 won't be 2010. In a general election there will be far more uncommited voters. If Democrats under Obama reach out to them whle Republicans stick to rallying their base, it's not going to be much of a contest.Not a word about China yet? To me the speech was all about China and how we shouldn’t let them beat us economically, just like we didn’t let the Russians beat us to the moon.
The fatal flaw in the OP is the assumption that the public notes and long remembers what was said in the State of the Union speech. It’s now yesterday’s news, headed for the ashcan of history like all the other State of the Union speeches. For the record, it was a fine speech. But that and a buck will buy you the morning paper.
I thought the beginning of the end was supposed to be last November’s elections, but whatever.
So, just asking here, which of the GOP front-runners, in the OP’s view, is going to save the country from ruin in 2012?
IMHO, the Speaker of the House “allowing” Michele Bachman to have a Tea Party response to the SOTU is the big story. Rather than last night being the bell tolling for Obama, I think it’s ringing for the GOP. Can you imagine Tip O’Neill or even Gingrich letting someone from the House do that. They would have crushed anyone stepping out of line.
The SofU speech is much ado about nothing. Every year there’s a big build up among the talking heads, we have the speech, and then everyone gets back to business as if it never happened.
I had to stop watching when Obama started telling us how amazing the internet was and how we had to focus on the future. My mind couldn’t grasp the profundity of those ideas. :rolleyes:
Anyway, what surprised me more was that he said we could double our exports by 2014. Good luck with that.