But Republicans promised to end earmarks, too. So they’ll get “pilloried” for putting them in there before the bill even reaches Obama’s desk, according to your reasoning.
Now, it’s true that the media gives more attention to the president’s actions than to the actions of any member of Congress. But speaker Boehner is riding high, and will surely be in the spotlight, too.
Odd. This is the part I like least, but only because I hate the phrase “invest in our future”. BAH! You don’t need to say you’re investing in the future because that’s what investment is. Trust me, people wouldn’t think you wanted to invest in 1995, so no need to clarify "in our future.
And how was this any different than his campaign speeches that got him elected AND a Nobel Prize?
“Fiscal conservatism” means whatever people want it to mean. Silly me, I originally thought that “fiscal conservative” was someone that was cough cough fiscally sane. Instead it’s generally some sort of rehashed lipstick on a pig supply side economics/starve the beast/government is the problem/efficient markets/protectionism/gold standard crapfest. I would thank some of the outspoken posters on these boards for having corrected my false understanding.
Not that I wouldn’t LIKE to invest in 1995 again. At least we were in the MIDDLE of a bubble then instead of still working our way to the surface after it burst.
Even the very brightest people make mistakes. If you’re constantly in the public eye, as the President is, sooner or later you’ll screw the pooch out in the open where everyone can see. This is why politicians are so very glad the public seems to have such a short memory.
I didn’t watch the SOTU, but I’m certain it was just standard political boilerplate, and I’m immensely skeptical it marks the beginning of the end for Obama. IIRC, Obama’s popularity has never dropped below 40% in the last two years, which indicates to me he has a very large and very loyal base. Obama is certainly in no danger of impeachment and removal from office–how would you like to be the white congressman who spearheads a move to impeach a black president? November 2012 is still a long way away, and I don’t see any strong presidential candidates among the Pubs. From where I’m sitting, Obama has an excellent chance of being re-elected.
You don’t seriously believe it’s going to end any sooner than 2017, do you?
Strictly speaking, bills with only one earmark in them are still okay. 
Is Tom DeLay a fiscal conservative? Or is he not Scottish enough for your taste?
That’s from 2007. He hasn’t changed his tune.
Let me be clear: earmarks are not a big problem. DeLay is right. But you attempt to criticize Obama over earmarks completely ignores the fact that under his Administration and Democratic Congresses, the number and amount of earmarks has dropped by roughly half of what the Republican-led government had inflated them to. It is fine if you think that Obama and Congress should go further, but it is disingenuous not to recognize the amount of earmarks that they have already cut.
“Double exports by 2015” is “vague”? Anyways, I actually think Presidents do generally try and make progress on the issues that they mention in the SOTU. Granted most don’t go anywhere, but thats because the President doesn’t actually have that much power when it comes to domestic policy, and many/most inititives die in the legislature.
FWIW, here’s a list of policy proposals from the 2010 SOTU according to wikipeida:
Aside from the off-shore drilliing thing, which died for obvious reasons, I can’t really see anything on that list that Obama didn’t at least try to do over the last year (and actually his success rate is pretty good to, but then, it helps to have your party control the legislature).
You completely miss the point. But I forgive you… 
I criticize him for flip flopping, defending them last year, then trying to get on the fiscal conservatism train this year (as if anyone would believe that’s where his heart is). This doesn’t make him unique amongst politicians, you will remember that McConnell had to be brought kicking and screaming to the no-earmarks cause, in effect reversing his course when he read the tea leaves (so to speak).
The honest answer? Because he, and the Democrats, generally don’t consider them a bad thing - certainly not likely to cause the downfall of the Republic. They don’t appropriate new funds, they just direct them towards specific projects important to congresspeople.
However, now that the GOP, and the Tea Party in particular, has made great noise about earmarks it’s time to call their bluff.
Interesting analysis.
Tea Party GOP congressmen were elected on promises of eliminating earmarks. Obama was not elected on such a promise. GOP congressmen insert earmarks into popular bills. I don’t see how either an Obama veto or failure to veto hurts him more politically than it does the GOP in this scenario.
If anything a veto makes big news, and points out exactly who inserted what earmarks - and like you said this promise virtually guarantees they will have been inserted by the GOP.
By the middle of next week, hardly anybody but political junkies will even remember he even said it.
This
I would be concerned about splitting the vote if this trend continues.
In fact, I’d argue he played a similar tactic on a number of issues (tort reform, 1099 reform for the health-care bill, corporate tax simplification).
Take an issue important to the GOP base and dare them to go for it. Either they do, and Senate Dems get a say in the shape it takes and get to take some credit for it, or they don’t, and Obama is no worse off.
It’s not like Boehner’s gonna be pumping out a lot of useful legislation over the next year and a half anyways. Might as well attempt to focus his efforts on things that have a snowball’s chance of being signed.
As for Ryan’s response, it was pretty well delivered, I think. One striking feature, however, was it’s negativity. One can argue about whether the tone is justified or not - but you don’t raise your popularity, or that of your party, by comparing yourself to Greece and Ireland and making claims of financial apocalypse without offering specific solutions.
Mr Smashy: So you concede the point that fiscal conservatives were the reason earmarks increased so greatly in the last 15 years or so?
And as far as flip-flopping goes, who cares? Have you never changed your mind on anything? I disagree with Obama on this earmark business, but clearly it is an olive branch to the Republican House: I will support you on some issues (earmarks, corporate tax rates, tort reform) and I hope you will work with me on others.
It is extraordinary, but unsurprising, that some people can’t bear to give Obama credit for anything. He could pull a drowning baby out of a river and bring him back to life with CPR, and there will be people who will criticize him for allowing there to be water in the riverbed. Your criticism on “flip flopping” is in this same spirit: you are so aggravated that Obama now agrees with you, that you must become enraged that Obama didn’t always agree with you. It is a pathetic and irrelevant political argument, more commonly known as “sour grapes.”
“Read my lips: no new taxes.”
That wasn’t really what killed Poppy Bush. The economy was (and the public’s sheer exahustion with the devastation of Reaganomics).
You need sour grapes to make whine.
The Repblicans getting elected is the best thing to happen to Obama, it gives cover for 2012. He will win the 2012 election pretty easily.