Well there is political insight for you.
Those already disillusioned with Obama will be pushed over the top with the earmark thing. Mind you, they did not vote him in to kill earmarks, was barely an issue in the campaign beyond a few soundbites. But now he mentioned it that is what will do him in. Nevermind any of the other stuff. :rolleyes:
Obama or Ryan?
Excellent speech overall. Even my wife, a dyed-in-the-wool republican said it was the best SOTU speech she’d heard in years. High praise indeed coming from her…she still believes that if she votes Republican she’ll get rich someday.
The president kept the tone positive & upbeat, and I think he connected. I was actually disappointed in Ryan’s rebuttal, I thought he would do better. A tired reiteration of “conservative” talking points with no real counter-proposals offered. The only base hit he made was acknowledging that the the health care bill as it stands might place some undue hardship on small businesses, and Obama had already stolen his thunder by noting that himself and promising to adjust it. The president’s comment about earmarks was interesting. The overuse of earmarks is rampant, and his idea is sound, but I have to wonder if he’s going to be able to follow through. Congresscritters of both parties do love their earmarks, and won’t willingly give them up. Obama might have a little bit of wiggle room there though…depending on what the meaning of “earmarks” is.
Nearly everyone seems to have overlooked one of Obama’s most far-reaching proposals, the move to reshape and streamline the federal bureauocracy. This is one area where the potential exists for significant savings, and one the Republicans ought to be able to get behind. The plethora of “alphabet agencies” has become ridiculous with administrative overlap everywhere. Look at the matter of internal security…we have the TSA, DEA, FBI, INS, OIG, ATF, Marshall’s Service, Secret Service and gad knows whatall else, each with their own top-heavy administrative & support structure, all of which could be merged into one or two departments. Same thing with the Ag department, and with interior. The BLM, BIA FWS,and NPS could easily be combined into one agency, as could BUREC and the Army Corps of Engineers. Their functions are similar but presently all are operating seperately and sometimes at odds. The resulting reduction in force could be accomplished by simple attrition rather than by layoffs and redundant facilities could be decommissioned.
One of the most important moves could be to pull the USFS out of the Ag Dept and put it under Interior where it has always belonged. This has been attempted since as far back as the Carter years but congressional inertia and bureaucratic stonewalling have prevented it. Maybe this administration can actually pull it off.
SS
Obama’s aggregate approval ratings are back above 50% (he’s at 55% in the CNN poll), so I wouldn’t exactly call that “on the ropes,” especially since the Republicans have absolutely no viable candidate to run against him.
Ryan. Ryan was stiff and smarmy and parakeeted GOP platitudes and talking points. He also gets extra points off for repeating the lie about health care reform costing jobs.
Obama was workmanlike, characteristically over-conciliatory and dull, but SOTU addresses aren’t supposed to be inspirational, they’re supposed to be informational, and no election has ever turned on one.
I agree that the most significant thing about the night was the split being suggested within the GOP by allowing Michele Bachmann to give her own Tard Party response. The hijack of the Republican party continues. The Primaries are going to be fun in a couple of years.
snerk
The Examiner did a pretty good fact-check of the speech (from a righty’s POV, warning to most on this board).
As for the the earmarks concern by the OP, one might reasonably ask why he signed so many of them during the first two years of his Administration (with Congress Democratically controlled, of course). In fact, he supposedly defended them in 2009, saying
Oh, bollocks. November 2012 is a lifetime away. Presidencies are never killed by any one statement (Possible exception for “I like fucking sheep”).
One might also ask why Republican Congresses over the past 15 years allowed earmarks to increase by leaps and bounds, while noting that in the last four years the Democratic Congress cut the amount of earmarks in half. Why is it that fiscal conservatives loved earmarks so much before the Tea Party said they were bad?
How the heck can the Republicans hammer Obama on not vetoing bills with earmarks that were passed by the Republican majority house?
Spending bills come from the house. The Republicans control the house. The only way a bill with earmarks can reach Obama’s desk is if the Republican house passed the bill. So the Republicans are going to scream and cry about the pork that Obama refuses to veto, that they passed?
Your cite would have more weight if it actually pointed to a true ‘fiscal conservative’ who actually liked earmarks. Almost by definition, they don’t.
You can’t confuse true fiscal conservatism, which has found new voice over the last couple years in the form of the Tea Party movement, with what the GOP has been peddling. At least, that’s my opinion.
True fiscal conservatism would not support unfunded tax giveaways to the richest 1%.
Quoted for truth. Remember who the runaway Presidential front-runners for the respective parties were in January 2007? Rudy Giuliani and Hilary Clinton. Neither one is President now, last time I looked.
Remember how bad things looked for Bill Clinton in January 1995?
Twenty-two months is an eon in politics. A whole lot of stuff is going to happen between now and November 2012, and we can’t know right now which way the advantage will turn.
Spending bills originate in the House, but the Senate can add earmarks, too. No?
Anyway, this business about earmarks is a red herring. Everyone hates other people’s earmarks, but they love their own. Well, almost everyone. The news junkies love to watch a speech like this, but most Americans don’t even notice. Obama will get a bump in the polls until the next unemployment figures come out. If they don’t look good, then it’s sinksville for the poll numbers again.
The dirty secret is that Americans want earmarks for their own communities, and all politics is local.
Its optimistic, but not as crazy as it sounds. He was refering to his promise made during the last SOTU to double exports in five years, which given that '09 started with the slump in exports bottoming out, and that the annual growth prior to that was better then 10%, is certainly do-able.
It’s more subtle than that. Thanks to the President’s ill-advised promise, Dems cannot attempt to insert any earmarks without potentially embarrassing Obama. Reps can use them freely, and I suspect will be sure to load up popular bills with them. Obama then has to veto popular legislation–and get pilloried for it, or he breaks his promise and gets pilloried for that.
Yes, I heard the commentary about the clock really starting a year ago. But the thing is, much of what affects our exports is out of our control. Anyway, I don’t really hold the guy to any platitudes spoken at the SotU speech. Maybe it was just in there to make everyone feel good. After all, that’s the primary purpose of such speeches.
Yes. You act like this is verboten. They’d put some pork in and compare it to the “completely necessary” Stimulus package. The Stimulus package, because it was sold horrible, is still very unpopular with voters. Any time it can be brought up as a hammer, it will.
Very true. “Where’s my bailout?”, for example.