Political Discussion

[backtoschool]

I thought Obama's speech was a good campaign speech. It was completely devoid of details, it was aimed at voters instead of congress, and it was in reaction to recent media events.

As a presidential speech, it fell flat, and failed to deliver. There were no real promises in the speech. Although giving money to community banks will help small businesses (because large banks are currently not lending to small businesses due to the risk....), the number of jobs created through this money will not be enough to make a serious dent in unemployment. The rest of the jobs that Obama wants to create are government jobs, and he will have to have a significant stimulus bill to create enough government jobs to seriously make a difference. I do not think such a large stimulus bill can get approved in this political climate.

Obama was trying to regain momentum for his presidency. I think he will be successful in rallying the Democratic House members behind him, but I do not think he made any difference in rallying the Senate or any independent voters. He is a weakened president who wasted his first year fighting for an initiative that is now dead (health care). What he does have going for him is that jobs are an issue that every member of both the house and the senate have to deal with if they want to appease their voters back home. Some sort of jobs bill will get passed. If Obama can get in front of the jobs momentum and truly own it and convince voters that it is his initiative then he might be able to salvage some of his credibility.

[Mi Bankruptcy]

Typical Americans. Tare down everything and praise nothing. The President is our CEO. Do you all really expect him to sit down in front of the Camera and give details of everything. He sets the agenda and expects his executives(congress) to get the job done. So, after an hour of public speaking you can not tell me anything that is worth talking about or that you liked. NOPE.. We can give a hundred things we dont like.

I like the college saving and loan forgiveness. Being that I own 36k. I liked the debt forgiveness in 10years if you serve the public, I liked the idea of assessing fees on the banks to pay the bail out. I liked that he wants to repeal the bush tax cuts for people making 250K or more. I like the idea of healthcare reform. If you don't want government involved in your health care then maybe we should all start demanding none of our tax dollars be spent on police, fireman or public schools.

I don't like that neither party has the ability to compromise and work together.

[Tom_Mi]

The speech, by any President, is largely theater.

Several Presidents have commented on how lonely a job it actually is. Your schedule is dictated to you and you really live subordinate to the number of meetings etc you have to carry on.

No President can sit quietly with a cigar and come up with a grand philosophy to acheive this or that. He's too busy being rushed from meeting to shining meeting...without a lot of time to ponder decisions, I might add.

And it's in lieu of the line above that I'm glad he's on the job. For all the nonpartisan minutae that have to be dealt with by a President, I'm glad we have a person at the desk with a measurable IQ.

[OHBOY]

Quote by 'Tom_Mi': 'I'm glad we have a person at the desk with a measurable IQ.'
***************

...Just concerned that it's on the low end...lol

[justbroke]

Stop mentioning IQs. The last few presidents all were Ivy League with some even Rhodes Scholars. They all were smart with high IQs. Don't be fooled by what people want you to perceive. I still think the best Politician and believable and likable guy, was Bill Clinton. (Ronald Reagan was as well.) I'm an Independent (and have been for years). I lived in Massachusetts for a stretch, while attending school cross-river from Boston. If you want to learn about politics... live in Massachusetts for awhile.

Having wrote that, we went from a very good politician, to a heartfelt convicted president, to another politician. Unfortunately, it's all political theater and speeches are always designed to give a broad overview of "why you should still like me". Just as I do for the kids who go on Jerry Springer and say my parents are the blame, I want one President to say "look, I messed up, it's not Congress' fault, you should expect better from me". Instead, we attack the Supreme Court. (Why are the Supremes always blamed, just like in 2000?).

Politics is easy. You win, or stay in power, by doing two things. First, you tell people what's wrong. Then, you tell them who is to blame for it. I haven't heard one thing in the President's speech, blaming Congress for anything.

I return to our normally scheduled debate, already in progress...

[simplicityof]

Speaking of theatrics, most of the closeup shots went to the republicans with their diabolical facial expressions. If I were to read into that, I'd conclude they haven't completely washed their hands yet of their total allegiance to the Bush-Cheney 8 year fiasco, nor do they have any plan other than to obstruct.

[justbroke]

I'd conclude they haven't completely washed their hands yet of their total allegiance to the Bush-Cheney 8 year fiasco, nor do they have any plan other than to obstruct.

See, now that's what I'm talking about. The politicians have you squarely where they want you... blaming everything on the prior Presidential administration, and not the Congress. That's why I give the President the benefit of the doubt in having to work with Congress under any circumstance.

There's a balance of power for a reason. If only 50% of the country agrees on something, voting on it is not good for the other 50%. This is why I think the super-majority rule (66 2/3%) should be used more often for things.

By the way, go look at the voting record, and you'll see there was no "total allegiance" in the record, unlike the current record. It's just that simple. This isn't about allegiance to a person, it's incestuous pandering to your own party -- no matter what side of the fence you sit.

This isn't going to change until we vote out the Congress, trust me on that one. Every President who was a true believer when they got there (which even Clinton was when he first sat in the Oval Office) was quickly dismayed when the reality of the Congress set it. I think it was Reid himself who sent an early message to newly inaugurated President Obama, that the Congress ran that town... not the White House. His words, not mine.

Let's agree to vote out the Congress. I'm glad Chairman Dodd (D-CT) isn't running. After that total lie her perpetrated, he knew he wouldn't be re-elected. However, I think if he actually ran, people will just go in the booth, and say "oh, Dodd, he's a democrat", and select him for Senate again.

Too many are turned off by politics and this type of theater... on both sides.

[DeadManCrawling]

I saw a few things I liked. The education forgiveness idea resounded with me. And I don't have any school debts at all. But it does make sense that people shouldn't be afraid of going to college and ending up living a life of servitude because of it.

[simplicityof]

See, now that's what I'm talking about. The politicians have you squarely where they want you... blaming everything on the prior Presidential administration, and not the Congress. That's why I give the President the benefit of the doubt in having to work with Congress under any circumstance.

There's a balance of power for a reason. If only 50% of the country agrees on something, voting on it is not good for the other 50%. This is why I think the super-majority rule (66 2/3%) should be used more often for things.

By the way, go look at the voting record, and you'll see there was no "total allegiance" in the record, unlike the current record. It's just that simple. This isn't about allegiance to a person, it's incestuous pandering to your own party -- no matter what side of the fence you sit.

This isn't going to change until we vote out the Congress, trust me on that one. Every President who was a true believer when they got there (which even Clinton was when he first sat in the Oval Office) was quickly dismayed when the reality of the Congress set it. I think it was Reid himself who sent an early message to newly inaugurated President Obama, that the Congress ran that town... not the White House. His words, not mine.

Let's agree to vote out the Congress. I'm glad Chairman Dodd (D-CT) isn't running. After that total lie her perpetrated, he knew he wouldn't be re-elected. However, I think if he actually ran, people will just go in the booth, and say "oh, Dodd, he's a democrat", and select him for Senate again.

Too many are turned off by politics and this type of theater... on both sides.

You say you lived in MA. The rule you just applied to Dodd did not work there.
Voters stayed home as they must have been doing all along when Kennedy ran believing a dem was guaranteed.

No one had to tell me how bad the previous admin was. What they were known for was doing less of everything, e.g. leadership, openness, and responsibility.

The media tolerated Bush-Cheney until the only story to tell was how bad it got. When the media stopped backing B-C, the reaction from the GOP was to criticize the Dem Congress in the hope of limiting the damage.

[OHBOY]

Quote by 'What Money': 'Oh really? Here is what Obama said in October 2009 about nuclear power. Now tell me where is the "flip/flap" (sic)?'
"President Obama Would Like To See Increased Use Of Nuclear Power
Obama also spoke about the need to rely more heavily on nuclear energy as the United States looks for ways to reduce greenhouse gases"


Answer by 'OHBOY':
I strongly maintain that Obama is 'flip flopping' on nuclear:

Indeed, Obama knows better. CANDIDATE Obama understood that nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. Watch this 'UTUBE' video taken early in his presidential campaign, in which he expresses concern for his daughters growing up in Chicago and surrounded by nuclear reactors. He says he is not a nuclear proponent and speaks out directly against taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power. Barack on Nuclear Energy 12/30/07 Newton IA

Interesting that nuclear power with its unresolved deadly waste issue has apparently become safe since CANDIDATE Obama has become president.

Personally I find it interesting that it is suggested that we ( the taxpayers) should give unlimited funding to industries that are going to be allowed to produce deadly radioactive waste that we have NO SAFE way of taken care of. Also interesting that same industry after producing deadly wastes and taking profits are then allowed to wipe their hands clean and leave the mess ( and AGAIN the bill) to the innocent citizens/taxpayers.
And....all of that as we still have no alternative to Yucca Mountain, a ridge of volcanic rock about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, which has been the leading candidate site for a repository since the 1980s (!).......

Oh yes, there was the Westinghouse 'Demonstration Project' in West Valley, NY......What a success it has been to 'take care' of nuclear waste (!)...with nuclear contamination running through the Western NY streams toward the Great Lakes, and ongoing erosion sure to be an absolute catastrophy for future mankind if left on existing site.

And...don't think for a minute that nuclear fuel is initially 'cheap' from an economical view, ( WITHOUT the HUGE costs of any attempts of so called 'safe' storage) see:

March 21, 2008: Testimony of former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford to South Carolina PSC on the economics of Duke Power’s proposed Lee reactors, nuclear power and climate and more.

Sorry don't know how to bring up the links, but please google references made
Also valuable info on www.nirs.org/

[bulletproof77]

State of the Union"....

I must admit that I gagged when he came to the part about how his programs had "helped keep people in their homes with affordable payments for the middle class".....Really ? When, where ? Obviously he doesn't read how his programs are an EPIC FAIL....And yes, I voted for him, but he is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter all over again...No guts, no glory Mr. President..

[OhioFiler]

All you can do is quote a chain letter filled with known lies and distortions? Are you conservatives so desperate that you can't even tell the truth a little bit of the time? Why do you hate Michelle Obama so much you need to fill up this forum with lies? The comparison has been debunked many times. Why do still believe such $hit?

Rosen Bush had a LARGER personal staff than Michelle and paid them more. So did Jacqueline Kennedy. So did Hillary, and Betty Ford. Your numbers comparing to other First Lady's are simply a pack of lies. Pretty much like most of the comments in yet another Obama bashing thread on the BK forum. Yawn... how predictable.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp

As the song goes: 'TELL THE TRUTH' - To bad the conservatives don't know how.

It might serve you well to know who is making such claims. I am a conservative and never have complained about Michelle Obama's servants.

You are so blinded by your rage toward anyone who is opposed to your Dear Leader and his "For once in my life, I am proud of my country" crony of a wife that you are forced to make ridiculous statements like the one above.

Michelle Obama is a political hack raised on the corrupt side of Chicago politics just like her husband with a blank page resume prior to being elevated to the position of POTUS. Michelle Obama has nothing in common with the common man (or woman). Her nonsensical attempts to portray herself as anything but a typical elitist is laughable.

[OhioFiler]

Speaking of theatrics, most of the closeup shots went to the republicans with their diabolical facial expressions. If I were to read into that, I'd conclude they haven't completely washed their hands yet of their total allegiance to the Bush-Cheney 8 year fiasco, nor do they have any plan other than to obstruct.

Obama waited until he was 69 minutes into his speech to pull his eyes from his teleprompters and look directly at the camera and speak to the American people. As far back as I can remember watching televised speeches by presidents I have never watched someone so afraid to make "eye contact" with his audience. This man knows what he says is false and/or fluffed.

Obama's attack on the Supreme Court was an obvious failure. He made that part of his speech and Justice Alito's response the memorable portion of the speech. All the other nonsense he read off his teleprompters will be forgotten. It will be a long time before many forget Alito mouthing his response to the supposed Constitutional scholar's obvious distortion of the Court's ruling.

Obama has no intention of working toward increasing our nuclear energy capacity, expanding off-shore oil drilling or working to increase clean coal burning. He was trying to sound centrist knowing full well the leftists running the house and senate would never consider such plans.

Obama has large majorities in both houses of congress yet is neutered. The American people have decided his far-left agenda is contrary to the best interest of our country and he sits in the Oval Office a lame duck for the next 3 years.

[OhioFiler]

I thought Obama's speech was a good campaign speech. It was completely devoid of details, it was aimed at voters instead of congress, and it was in reaction to recent media events.

As a presidential speech, it fell flat, and failed to deliver. There were no real promises in the speech. Although giving money to community banks will help small businesses (because large banks are currently not lending to small businesses due to the risk....), the number of jobs created through this money will not be enough to make a serious dent in unemployment. The rest of the jobs that Obama wants to create are government jobs, and he will have to have a significant stimulus bill to create enough government jobs to seriously make a difference. I do not think such a large stimulus bill can get approved in this political climate.

Obama was trying to regain momentum for his presidency. I think he will be successful in rallying the Democratic House members behind him, but I do not think he made any difference in rallying the Senate or any independent voters. He is a weakened president who wasted his first year fighting for an initiative that is now dead (health care). What he does have going for him is that jobs are an issue that every member of both the house and the senate have to deal with if they want to appease their voters back home. Some sort of jobs bill will get passed. If Obama can get in front of the jobs momentum and truly own it and convince voters that it is his initiative then he might be able to salvage some of his credibility.

I'm impressed. For one so apolitical you certainly paid attention to his reading that evening.

I doubt he'll be able to rally the house democrats around him. The house is controlled by that whack job Pelosi and she's losing control over her minions who are scared of what will happen to them in November. I see an attempt to oust her from the leadership position she enjoys coming this summer. Chaos in the house will be fun to watch should this occur!

[backtoschool]

Obama waited until he was 69 minutes into his speech to pull his eyes from his teleprompters and look directly at the camera and speak to the American people. As far back as I can remember watching televised speeches by presidents I have never watched someone so afraid to make "eye contact" with his audience. This man knows what he says is false and/or fluffed.

Obama's attack on the Supreme Court was an obvious failure. He made that part of his speech and Justice Alito's response the memorable portion of the speech. All the other nonsense he read off his teleprompters will be forgotten. It will be a long time before many forget Alito mouthing his response to the supposed Constitutional scholar's obvious distortion of the Court's ruling.

Obama has no intention of working toward increasing our nuclear energy capacity, expanding off-shore oil drilling or working to increase clean coal burning. He was trying to sound centrist knowing full well the leftists running the house and senate would never consider such plans.

Obama has large majorities in both houses of congress yet is neutered. The American people have decided his far-left agenda is contrary to the best interest of our country and he sits in the Oval Office a lame duck for the next 3 years.

I think this is more your wish than a fact, OF. There will be certain bills that will pass in the next three years, mostly relating to job creation and tax breaks. It will be difficult to impossible for all republicans to vote against jobs bills and other bills of this type.

As to Obama being far left, well I am a progressive liberal, and I do not think Obama has even come close to representing my views. His agenda has been much more like Bushes' than like the agenda any liberal would want. He is growing the war in Afghanistan, trying to cut social programs, was going to allow a roll-back of abortion rights, and has all but abandoned womens and gay rights initiatives.

But....

He is better than the alternatives.

Obama and Alito have a long personal history of animosity that goes back to when Obama did not vote for Alito's confirmation. Obama also overturned one of Alito's key rulings as one of his first actions as president.

No president gets much done. All presidents read from teleprompters. I agree that this speech was just a speech and will not change much, as you can see from my comments earlier in this thread.