Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Analyzing President Obama's state of the union address

1. President Obama delivered the first state of the union address of his presidency, a 71-minute speech that ranked as the sixth longest in presidential history. (The famously long-winded Bill Clinton has four of the five longest speeches.) The White House posted its version of the highlights from the speech and you can read the whole thing for yourself; Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell delivered a solid if not spectacular Republican response that will likely cement his status as a rising star within the party. The gaffe of the night? That came from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito who mouthed the words "not true" when the president condemned the recent Citizens United ruling. We posted our first thoughts on the speech last night. Here's a quick summary: 1) Values matter: From the start of the speech to its ends, the common thread was an appeal to the country's shared values of what it means to be an American. 2) Health care humility: Obama waited more than thirty minutes before raising the touchy topic of health care. But, when he did, he talked about it in a self-deprecating tone aimed at defusing some of the vitriol surrounding the issue: "By now it should be fairly obvious I didn't take on health care because it was good politics," Obama said in a line that drew chuckles in the chamber. 3) Blaming Bush: On at least three occasions, Obama referenced the previous administration to explain the problems left to him and the country. After rattling off a list of spending and tax cuts by former president George W. Bush, Obama exclaimed: "All of this is before I walked in the door."

2. In the midst of the state of the union madness came an absolutely fascinating national survey conducted by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican pollster Glen Bolger for National Public Radio. The entire poll is well worth checking out but since you're probably getting over your SOTU hangover -- is that a thing? -- here's five key data points from the survey: 1) Republicans lead on the generic ballot question -- which party's candidate would you vote for if the election were held today? -- 44 percent to 39 percent, an improvement from the statistical tie (43 percent R, 42 percent D) in a July 2009 NPR poll. (Check out Bolger's blog post on the generic ballot findings and what they mean.) 2) Nearly six in ten adults (58 percent) blame former president George W. Bush for the "current state of the economy" while just 33 percent blame President Obama. 3) A huge majority of those polled -- 70 percent -- said a "jobs bill" should be either the first or second priority of the administration moving forward. That number crushed a focus on a deficit reduction plan (49 percent) or on a financial regulation bill (34 percent). Interestingly, health care was not offered by the pollsters as an option for the administration to focus on moving forward. 4) The country is deeply divided over whether the change Obama is bringing is good or bad. Fifty percent call it "the right change" while 46 percent call it the "wrong change." 5) Speaking of divided, 49 percent approve of the job Obama is doing whle 48 percent disapprove. There is no such uncertainty of public opinion about Congress; 28 percent approve of how Congress is doing its job while 67 percent disapprove. ALSO READ: Greenberg's analysis of the numbers.

3. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) appears to be in genuine jeopardy of falling in next Tuesday's Democratic primary at the hands of state Comptroller Dan Hynes, a loss that would reinforce the anti-incumbent bent of the American electorate. A recent Chicago Tribune poll showed Quinn, who took over from disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), leading Hynes by just four points -- a rapid erosion for the incumbent in less than two months time. In a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Hynes campaign manager Mike Rendina claimed that "every minute we are gaining support across the state." Hynes pollster Jef Pollock argued that Quinn was simply unelectable in a general election and comparing him to New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) who lost his reelection bid after months (and months) of polling showed the incumbent in the low 40/high 30s in ballot tests. "Quinn is in a far worse situation than Jon Corzine," added Pollock. While a loss by Quinn would almost certainly become part of a broader national narrative for voters' rejection of their elected officials, the Illinois race has some unique traits that make it somewhat difficult to draw lessons from. First, there is the Blagojevich factor. Blagojevich's downfall has become the stuff of parody but it has left a lasting scar in the minds of Illinois voters that Quinn, despite being no friend of Blago, has struggled to overcome. Second, the accidental release of hundreds of prisoners by Quinn's Administration has handed Hynes a potent issue by which to paint the incumbent as out of touch. Still, a sitting governor -- even an appointed one -- is a big deal. And Hynes is now well within striking distance.

4. Republicans are falling all over themselves to challenge embattled Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) in Arkansas with Rep. John Boozman (R) set to run and former University of Arkansas star Jim Lindsey apparently also looking at the contest. Boozman, who has held the 3rd district since 2001, is reportedly going to join the race later this week although he does not appear to be clearing the field -- or at least not yet -- of serious challengers as state Sen. Gilbert Baker has said he will not drop out no matter who gets in. While Lincoln has had to beat back retirement rumors since Democrats lost the Massachusetts special election race last week, the more crowded the field gets, the better the chances that Lincoln could survive if the GOP badly fractures itself in the May 18 primary.

5. While the political world was focused on the state of the union, the rest of the universe was watching Apple CEO Steve Jobs roll out the new iPad. The device won't be available to buy for another 60 days so, in the meantime, all we can do is watch Apple's official iPad video in amazement. (And, don't forget about the Macbook Wheel -- the Onion's take on the next big thing from Apple!)

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 28, 2010; 7:03 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: First thoughts on President Obama's state of the union address
Next: Breaking down President Obama's state of the union speech (VIDEO)

Comments

Seriously?! "Someone should be able to run over you with a car and incur nothing more than a fine" is not worse than a simple grammar mistake or the hypothetical IF "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is repealed (I hope it isn't) going back to the status quo ante bellum?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 29, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

JakeD shoots his own foot again.

The summa cum laude Stanford law doctorate who doesn't know the plural of "court martial."

it's "courts martial," Mr. Drool-In-Your-Shoe.

SO busted.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

"I admit I try to be a bit over the top to get people to think"

And it's working great.  Pretty much everyone who reads your posts is thinking.  They're thinking "next time I see a post by this moron I won't read it."

"Take a look at what Obama has promised and what his own actions have been.

It's pretty much a disaster."


Incorrect.  The disaster is what he inherited from Bush.  Actually many disasters .. two pointless wars, a collapsed economy, the near-total loss of American prestige, the total loss of American reputation as a non-rogue nation ... any one of which would be more than most men could handle.  Obama is making significant strides but apparently not fast enough for a troll with a 2-digit IQ on a blog.
Like, who cares?  Especially since your "bit over the top" idiot trolling has established your low intelligence.  Why should anyone care what you think?  Nobody does.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 29, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


Take a look at what Obama has promised and what his own actions have been.


It's pretty much a disaster.

He should not have been making all those deals with the lobbyists - or you don't campaign saying all the things he said - and then go do the complete opposite.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 29, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Oh, BB, were it only true. Long before Jake loses interest from being ignored he amps up his troll, posting increasingly sick garbage until someone responds. Praise or hatred, it's all the sane to him and he probably enjoys inspiring loathing in people. I don't get it, dint understand how that could possibly be gratifying, but there's no denying that's what he lives for.

I would hope someone who cares abou me would shoot me long before I got as depraved as that.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

@BB,

I guess I'm getting old because I am really shocked to see someone actually posting such sociopathic garbage, without the sense of even being ashamed. I grew up in the country and I swear I never heard anything so hateful, except in whispers.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

37th wrote "I admit I try to be a bit over the top to get people to think."
----------------------------
Perhaps that works with some people. If you are interested, it causes me to diminish the validity of the poster. I am much more impressed with a measured, moderate analytic response, one that offers proof and invites responses from those who disagree. I am much impressed by courtesy and I am extremely impressed by someone who admits he is not certain. THAT is the person who interests me, who may have something of value to educate me. Because, God knows, I am here to learn.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

@12bar - Oh, I saw it. Jake's a troll and he finally went over the deep end. I went on my own little campaign in late summer when he was over-active in spamming the blog. He quit in a snit and then came back in force in the fall. If ignored, he'll lose interest as he did before.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 28, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


I admit I try to be a bit over the top to get people to think.


At least people know who I am.

A Fraud in my book is someone who says something, or creates a deception, and who really has no means or intention on carrying out what he says.

If someone makes a commitment to be bipartisan, and repeats that commitment almost every day on the campaign trail for a year and a half, I expect a little more effort in that direction should that person be elected.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

12bar, I think you're reading Cillizza wrong. He's a Republican, he's from Texas, he grooves on the most extreme members of his party, people like Quitter Palin and Me-Too Pawlenty. He had a column on the anniversary of Piyush Jindal's idiotic response speech fer chrissake .

Cillizza did nothing while zouk called me a child molester in these pages all day every day for like four months, and he still turns a blind eye to it.

All he cares about in these comments is their number. Hitcounts are job security. Dozens of people left naming Jake as the reason, did that make any impression? No. Only thing that did was Jake disobeying him on the birther stuff.

If he was offended by bigotry he wouldn't be a Republican, now, would he.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey 12Bar, don't leave. Don't give this twisted creep the satisfaction. He's driven away too many good posters.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 10:06 PM
-------------------------------------
We talk about values here. Jake talks about the desirability and legality of executing gays. What kind of value is that? This is not an American value, it is not a western value, it is not a Christian value.

Surely, Chris C. cannot run a blog that provides a soapbox for this kind of thought. For now, I am going to assume that Chris C. will block Jake and all his alterations. If not, Washington Post should shut down the comments section because this type of sociopathic message tarnishes their reputation.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Elijah: execution is for capital crimes. Homosexuality isn't a crime, 'cept maybe in Iran and Uganda.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

whereas there is no Constitutional right to deviant sexual behavior.

Posted by Jake the Coprophage

==
Funny, there is nothing that gays do in bed together anywhere near as sick and bent as what you do on this blog.  Homosexuality is part of normal natural variation, human and animal, and its persistence across time and culture, irrespective of approval or acceptance, shows that is is part of normal genetics, not deviant in any way.  And the psychological community overrode the social judgment of sick freaks like you in 1974.

Gays have committed relationships; you lie about having a wife.  Gays have jobs and above-average incomes, you collect SSI and steal charity baskets from a church.  Gays contribute to society and serve in the armed forces, you stalk strangers on a blog.  Gays get above-average education, you need to lie about yours.

And even granting "arguendo" that there is a psychopathology in gays, to use that as justification for their murder places your entirely outside any legal spectrum, and marks you as morally subhuman.  Got that?  Subhuman.  Someone should be able to run over you with a car and incur nothing more than a fine.  And given the ugliness of what you wish for others, I hope someone does.  You sick freak.

Now you've been banned, but you came right back under another moniker, writing about Chris Fox all day.  You sick freak.

Hey 12Bar, don't leave. Don't give this twisted creep the satisfaction. He's driven away too many good posters.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Jake, I am against the death penalty in any case, but even if i werent, surely we can get even the most conservative christians to agree that it is way too harsh for people guilty of nothing but homosexuality.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

@37th - Jake was repeatedly warned by CC to knock off the birther nonsense. He refused and was accordingly banned.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 28, 2010 9:07 PM
----------------------------------
I think it was worse, far worse. See Jake's post on the Twittering thread, about midnight about executing gays.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

@37th - Jake was repeatedly warned by CC to knock off the birther nonsense. He refused and was accordingly banned.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 28, 2010 9:07 PM | Report abuse

elijah24,

"See the difference"? I feel like I have entered the twilight zone, don't you?

I cannot participate on a blog with this kind of poster openly and proudly advocating and defending executions of gays. This is extreme antisocial behaviour. If this poster is not gone by tomorrow, I am.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

You are aware that capital punishment CURRENTLY is a "violent" (in every sense of the word) and DEADLY procedure, right? I do not think that shooting patriotic Americans in a firing squad is funny -- I would not be "ok" with a similar bill against Christians, since that would violate the First Amendment -- whereas there is no Constitutional right to deviant sexual behavior. See the difference?

37th:

No, that's just the next version. If I get banned again (like Chris Fox), it will be JakeD3.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 28, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

sverigegrabb, No problem. Sometimes sarcasm doesn't translate to print.

Drivl, you supplied evidence that they cannot buy campaign ads, but that says nothing about issue ads. As I said, there are no limits on issue ads at all, as long as you don't use the magic words. Wanna try again?

Jake, and everyone who thinks shooting patriotic Americans in a firings squad for the crime of being gay, is funny: you are entitled to your beliefs about the rightness and wrongness of homosexuality, but you should all be banned if you are advocating violence against your fellow human being. Maybe we who don't share your beliefs should push back with a similar bill against Christians. Maybe we should put them in an arena to fight lions. You'd be ok with that, right? Of course not. And you shouldn't be. We are a pluralistic nation. We don't all have to agree, but we cannot use or advocate violence to settle differences. EVER.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

37th,

Very funny. I guess I will have to assume that you are uninterested in persuading me to anything. Until now, I have read your posts, actually thinking about your points. That is the ultimate respect in my book.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

Thank you for your comments.


I honestly believe there is a lack credibility on the part of Obama.


Yesterday, he talked about being bipartisan, but then he slammed the Republicans in a way that I have never seen before in a State of the Union address.


I am beginning to wonder if Obama feels any obligation to hold himself to his own words.


I find Obama's abandonment of things he said last year during the campaign extremely unsettling.


You may not like the word "fraud" - however it fits.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

IS OBAMA A COMPULSIVE LIAR???


Does anyone believe that Obama feels any obligation to abide by his own words ?


It's as if Obama is willing to say anything to get through an election - or through a speech - and those words and commitments MEAN NOTHING to his future actions.


The nation really have a situation on their hands.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama's speech reminded me of this from Family guy.

Playing the part of Obama is Stewie.

Playing the part of the American People is Brian.

Summing up American's feelings toward Obama at 0:56 is Brian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RmO6fc-FdE&feature=related

Posted by: Washington13 | January 28, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Jake


Is your new name sort of like R2 D2 ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:

Report away! Legally, I am not calling for the murder of anyone.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 28, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

For me, last night’s State of the Union address will forever be entwined with next week’s season premiere of Lost, and not just because of the much publicized scheduling conflict between the two, television events. By imploring Congressional Republicans to cooperate with Democrats in confronting the many, critical concerns facing our nation, President Obama echoed the rallying cry of Lost ’s motley crew of castaways: “live together, die alone.”

Read more @ http://armchairfirebrand.wordpress.com/

Posted by: ArmchairFirebrand | January 28, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

What does any of that have to do with murdering gays, freak?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 5:27 PM
----------------------
Come on. We gotta be fair. Is it really murder if gays get shot by firing squads? Or is it technically vigilante action? Or, possibly could it be friendly fire? Or, if the rifles are small caliber, could it even be slow death by torture? But surely it CAN'T be murder!

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

What is wrong with you? I stand with Noacoler--he is NOT the only one who thinks you should be blocked. BTW, I just reported you to CC.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

What does any of that have to do with murdering gays, freak?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I have no idea if that's why I was banned (but it is funny to see Noalocer suddenly upset about "banned" people posting now), however EVERY law school in America teaches about "justified homicide" in first year criminal law. If explaining that gets one banned now, so be it.

A non-criminal homicide is usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another. A homicide, therefore, may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or ACTUAL murder. There are a bunch of intricate rules, but for the purpose that I brought it up, I need only quote the California State Penal Code that covers justified homicide for executions:

Sec. 196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--

1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,

2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,

3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.

(bgreen2224: as always YMMV)

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 28, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

37th,

Could you please dial it back a little? I am probably the least partisan liberal here. When you write something that has credibility, you often follow it up with words like fraud and an outsized sense of outrage.

If you are just posting to vent your rage, don't change a thing. If you want to persuade me to your point of view, you have to be more "fair and balanced".

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

To Elijah24, et. al.,

I do apologise if your comment was meant sarcastically. Your apparent subtlety escaped me completely. I must have left my sense of humour at the dry cleaners.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | January 28, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Yea, everyone agrees that Alito was correct last night.


However, what really bothers everyone is that Obama had two major points which he basically - the lobbyists and his bipartisanship which he makes a joke.

Obama has cut deal after deal with lobbyists to support his health care program - this list goes on and on.

Obama CLAIMED AGAIN last night he wanted to be bipartisan - but in this very speech he slammed the Republicans - OVERT PARTISAN ATTACKS IN THE SAME EXACT SPEECH.

HOW MUCH OF A FRAUD CAN OBAMA BE ???

OBAMA'S ACTIONS DO NOT MATCH HIS WORDS.

This why Obama has been sinking - and he will continue to sink until all the support he has left is blind democrats who refused to recognize reality.


I really do not like the government being run this way.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

An update: "JakeD" is either banned or will be banned shortly for comments he made last night on the blog.

If there are others violating our rules, please send me an email highlighting the offensive comment.

Thanks,
Chris

-------


Chris:


What exactly were the comments which prompted this ??? Many of us would like to know where the line is


And why didnt broadwayjoe get banned for the multitude of "ad hominem" attacks ???


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Gotta go guys. I've got class, but I'll check back in a few hours to see what Drivl brings to support his case.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

I already supplied the evidence:

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."


as they say, you can look it up.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not know who zouk is and I am referring to the previously banned chrissy foxxy who is certainly not still present here.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Woman. "Their" child.

Bloody illiterate.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, calling me by diminutive names. That would really sting if I was twelve. How old are you, zouk?

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Well, it's not false, but I'm sure that if you are going to call me a liar, you have some form of evidence to support your claim...right? Oh, wait, you can't prove something that isn't true, so all you're really doing is calling me a liar and hoping that you're word vs. mine will damage my credibility. Well, it will...with those who already don't want to believe me.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Elijah, I will refrain from lying about what roe v Wade actually says.

for example, can you beleive that the supreme court ruled that a woman has the right to murder their child anytime before their third birthday?

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

chrissy foxxy will now provide a list of all allowed speech.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Simply false elijah.

As I'm sure Alito is aware:

foreign corporations.......prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

If the president needs to respect the SCOTUS decisions, and what this president said was not respectful; I want some assurance that no Republican will EVER say anything about Roe v. Wade again. The courts made their decision, and to oppose it is to disrespect the court. Can i get that assurance from you Drivl or does your self-righteous indignation only apply to decisions you support?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The foreign-owned thing is a distraction. Purely domestic corporations are more than bad enough. We don't need oil companies pouring hundreds of millions into the defeat of representatives who want to act on global warming and we don't need tobacco companies agitating for cigarette machines in public schools and smoking back in the workplace.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

elijah24 and drivl,

I am going to stand back and read both your posts and learn. I was prematurely inserting my 2 cents.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

drivl--now I see it. The President made reference to foreign corporations being able to [.....]

Perhaps this is the exact point Alito commented on. Without doing the research myself, it would seem the President made a mistake referring to "foreign" corporations.

I don't think this qualifies as the biggest lie since the Serpent, though, since foreigners can influence our elections through domestic corporations, no?

BTW, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't insult liberals as slow. I am a liberal and I am not slow.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

To those in denial of facts (specifically Drivl), what they CAN buy are "issue ads" these ads can show pictures of the candidate that the ad supports or opposes, as well as his or her name and it can discuss that candidate's position on the issue (or distort it).
These ads use "code words" to make their point. They can't say "vote for or against John Doe" but they can and usually do say "call Senator Doe and tell him to represent you" or something along those lines. as long as the ad doesnt include the words "vote for" "vote against" "elect" "cast your ballot (for/against)" or a few other key words and phraises, the ads can be paid for with unmarked bills from a bank heist. (thank you West Wing) This decision ensures that this continues to be the case.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

12bar,
when he said foreign corporations he entered into the
a) liar
b) incompetent

realm. since he is so smart and a constitutional scholar, that leaves.......

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

So how about domestic corporations with foreign shareholders?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm still curious whether Alito was objecting to some very narrow point, but putting that aside.

I agree with drivl that the administration and Congress need to respect the SCOTUS' opinions (and set an example for the citizens' respect). But, as elijah24 posts, the comments the President made are FAR from disrespectful and he encourages Congress to make corrections through legal means. It's not like Obama recommended we just ignore the SC decision.

I don't know whether Obama should have said it during the STU speech or not, but surely he could say this sometime. If Obama posted his comment on THIS blog, it would be the most courteous comment on the thread.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

For the slow amongst us, and by slow I mean liberals:

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

(APPLAUSE)

I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."

-President Barack Obama
2009 State of the Union Address.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

No respect form the classless failure:

So presidents are careful to respect the decisions of the court. Sure, Andrew Jackson was supposed to have brushed off a Supreme Court decision that would have stopped the government from forcibly removing Cherokee, Creek and other American Indian peoples from their homelands in the Southeast out to Oklahoma with the frank declaration, "John Marshall has his opinion; now let him enforce it." (Jackson may not have said this of the Chief Justice, but he acted in the spirit of the statement, ignoring the Court and putting the tribes on the genocidal Trail of Tears.)

And FDR got so frustrated with the Court's rulings on the New Deal he tried to expand its membership and pack it with his legal toadies. But both moves are seen today as low points in the history of the presidency. Even Richard Nixon bowed to the will of the court, releasing the Watergate tapes he knew would end his presidency.

There's a good reason for this tradition of deference. The Supreme Court has no direct authority to enforce its rulings. Think about it: There is no Supreme Court police force, or tax collection department, or other agency to see that its decisions are adhered to throughout the land. The court is, in that sense, powerless. Its only power, its only duty, in Marshall's words, is "to say what the law is." It depends on the political branches to give effect to its rulings and maintain the rule of law in our country. It depends on that tradition of respect.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-of-the-union-president-obama-justice-alito-political-theater/story?id=9688639&page=2

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

It is somewhat of a left/right thing. It breaks the monopoly of the WaPo and NYTimes corporations for election time speech.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a human like. Justified homicide is not "murder" either. I hope you didn't go to ANY law school and not learn that.

Posted by: BANNED troll JakeD

==

and what kind of law school teaches "justified homicide?"

what's the justification for murdering gays? There is none.

Fact of the matter is that JakeD is a sick freak.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama was slamming the court for the Citizens United case. They opened the door to unlimited corporate spending directly from their treasuries. Given that directly rebuking the court in a state of the union speech is unprecedented, a bit of a reaction is no big deal.

It's not necessarily a left/right thing. Steve Jobs could spend from Apple's pile-o-cash in support of environmental initiatives.

B

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 28, 2010 2:41 PM
---------------------------
Thanks for the response. I realize that the general issue was the Citizens United case. I'm making an assumption here, that Alito was reacting the a technical point, some very specific narrow point. I very well could be wrong.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama was slamming the court for the Citizens United case. They opened the door to unlimited corporate spending directly from their treasuries. Given that directly rebuking the court in a state of the union speech is unprecedented, a bit of a reaction is no big deal.

It's not necessarily a left/right thing. Steve Jobs could spend from Apple's pile-o-cash in support of environmental initiatives.

B

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 28, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Question:

What exactly did Justice Alito comment on during the speech. What did Obama say at that point?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse


I hope it was Jake's obsession with me that led him to issue the troll that was finally more than even CC was willing to put up with.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 1:11 PM
----------------------------
Live by hatred, banned for hatred. And I am not talking about his political beliefs. He stalked you to a point that it was weird and completely unhealthy.

I know you are reading all this, JakeD or JakeD2. CC is doing you a favor--when a person becomes consumed by the lives of other posters, something is wrong.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | January 28, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, if they know them to be false, and stand for them anyway, they ARE lying. My point is that many of them really don't know that what they are saying is false. Some are liars and others are wrong, but we should attribute their false claims to their actual cause. Don't accuse them of bad character if they are just foolish.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Sorry elijah but "they sincerely believe when they say things they know to be false" just makes my head explode.

Naah, lying is lying and maybe Republicans don't have a corner on it but they do it more than anyone else. Welcomed as liberators, death panels, market-based solutions. I say we wash their mouths out with soap.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

End the influence of lobbyists -


Obama said that tonight but isn't that a bit of a joke after all the deals Obama made for his health care bill ???


He made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry


He made a deal on the "doctor's fix"


He made deals with lobbyists from health care industry groups so they would not run tv commercials against his health care plan.


He made deals with the lobbyists from the labor unions on the taxes on the health care plans.


All these negotiations were the polar opposite from what Obama promised during his campaign - and the complete opposite from what he said tonight.


Then tonight - he said he wanted a freeze on spending - then he proposed more spending.


If it wasn't so crazy and reflective of multiple personalities, then it would be comical.


Does Obama have multiple personalities?


Is that it???

...

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

way to pull my quote completely out of context drivle. yeah, you are clearly confused. it's ok, we'll get you a coloring book, and you'll be fine. i hear "going rogue" is a pretty good one.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

way to pull my quote completely out of context drivle. yeah, you are clearly confused. it's ok, we'll get you a coloring book, and you'll be fine.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse


What bothers many people today is the failure of Obama to take responsibility - he wants to blame Bush for everything - and it's right Obama said "all this took place before we walked in the door."


Posted by: 37thand0street
-----------------------------------------
Why did the man run for job if the situation was so bleak? It's like someone
taking a NFL coaching job and blaming the previous gm and coach when he go's 2 and 14. The guy WANTED the job.

Posted by: leapin | January 28, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I don't really distenguish between lying and hypocricy. Dishonesty is dishonesty.
BTW, I don't like being the devils advocate, but lying is not a sin that is limited to the GOP. Nor does it aflict everyone in the GOP. I think Conservatives are wrong on...well almost everything, but I don't think they are all dishonest. I think most of them genuinely believe the things they stand for.
Lately, the Republicans holding federal public office tend to be less honest, but it isn't all of them. And our party has some people selling woppers too.
I only point this out because when they try to paint us in with Bloggo, we don't think thats fair, and it isn't. But how can we ask fairness from them, if we assume that they are all crooks? That is hypocritical on our part, isn't it?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

If you opposed the program, dont try to convince your voters that you are responsible for the jobs or improvements that it has afforded your constituents. That IS hypocricy.

Posted by: elijah24


you must be referring to berry's claim to winning the Iraq war all by himself?

now as far as bush's tarp goes, was that what pulled us back from the brink or was it bailing out fat cats? It's so confusing in liberal lala land.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

What bothers many people today is the failure of Obama to take responsibility - he wants to blame Bush for everything - and it's right Obama said "all this took place before we walked in the door."


But the democrats are partially responsible for the lack of regulation of Wall Street.


The democrats and Bill Clinton pushed through the repeal of Glass Steagall.


Bill Clinton and the democrats pushed through NAFTA


Bill Clinton and the democrats pushed through the trade deals with China and Indonesia.

Harold Raines, a Clinton appointee - and a bunch of other Clinton people ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The democrats were in the middle of everything - taking all sorts of campaign contributions from Wall Street Bankers -

The idea that Obama and the democrats are lilly white is simply a deception.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

MeMeMeMeMe's diary :: ::
This instant poll comes courtesy of CBS News, and the results are very good:

• 59% of speech watchers think that Barack Obama has a clear plan for creating jobs. 40% thought so before the speech.

• 72% of speech watchers approve of Barack Obama's plans for dealing with government spending. 28% Disapprove.

• 56% of speech watchers think Barack Obama's economic plans will reduce the budget deficit in the long run, and 71% think they will help ordinary Americans.

Posted by: drindl
----------------------------------------
This is called the "tingle" effect. Tomorrow it's back to the reality of a country very close to economic collapse.
There is a difference between "good" poll results and the truth.

Posted by: leapin | January 28, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"I actually respect the Republicans who are accepting the Stim money even if they opposed the legislation that brought it to their states and districts. It isn't hypocricy. Gingrey is right. If it's going to be spent, you might as well try to get some for your district."

But then don't go and say that the stimulus was a waste when it's clearly going to some use.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 28, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It's worse than hypocritical, elijah, it's lying.

But then, if they didn't lie they wouldn't be Republicans. Fundamental to the definition.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I kept on wondering where I heard this tone before - Obama continues to blame Bush - and yet Obama wants credit for every little improvement. Obama wants to take no responsibility for anything. Where have I heard that before?

That is exactly the attitude of the Wall Street bankers - we are going to gamble with your money - we the bankers make money, it's theirs, if they do not make money, then the loses are yours.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | January 28, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I actually respect the Republicans who are accepting the Stim money even if they opposed the legislation that brought it to their states and districts. It isn't hypocricy. Gingrey is right. If it's going to be spent, you might as well try to get some for your district. What i do have a problem with is when they ceremoniously present a giant check.
If you opposed the program, dont try to convince your voters that you are responsible for the jobs or improvements that it has afforded your constituents. That IS hypocricy.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow, dribbl has a week's worth of pent up cut and paste's.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It was, if nothing else, extremely unpresidential—indeed downright unseemly—to dress down a co-equal branch of the federal government, to their faces, in a forum in which they could not reply. (Although it seems as though Justice Alito did reply, and in a way that provides the perfect soundbite to ensure that it be repeated and discussed over and over on television today.) Worse, he treated the Supreme Court as though it were a policy-making body that had come up with a bad policy that needed to be changed rather than a decision as to whether a law squared with the Constitution.

But it was something else: it was wrong. He misconstrued the reach of the decision. Citizens United does not allow foreign corporations to contribute to American political campaigns.

For someone who has presented himself as a constitutional scholar, this is all very embarrassing. And it is likely to erase everything else he had to say in the public’s perception of the speech.

The White House positively crawls with lawyers and has instant access to any scholar in the country. Couldn’t it have run this part of the speech passed someone who knew what he was talking about before the president stood before the entire country and showed that he didn’t know what he was talking about?

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DDAWD | January 28, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.

Greenwald wonders at Alito's inability to comport himself as would most adults, at such an important public event. And he reminds us of the right wing's shrill doubts about Sonia Sotomayor's "judicial temperament."

Alito's conduct is the precise antithesis of what "judicial temperament" is supposed to produce.

But the real danger is this:

What's most disturbing here is the increasing trend of right-wing Justices inserting themselves ever more aggressively into overtly political disputes in a way that seriously undermines their claims of apolitical objectivity.

Scalia pallin' around with Cheney, then sitting and ruling during a lawsuit directly affecting Cheney's authority. Thomas playing up to right wing media, including Rush Limbaugh. And while it's no secret that Alito is a right wing ideologue:

But last night, he unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well.

And his every ruling, from now on, will be judged in that light.

Whatever impulses led him to behave that way last night, they have nothing to do with sober judicial reasoning or apolitical restraint.

As one commenter to Greenwald's post noted, Alito's reaction was deeply personal. As such, it revealed even more about the man, and I would say it revealed even more about the level of the irrational and extremist threat to the very constitutional foundation of our republic.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Glenn Greenwald thought the reaction to Congressman Joe Wilson's childish antics during President Obama's health care speech was overstated. Greenwald pointed out that the speech was political, and the reaction was political, from an opposition politician. Not that Wilson's behavior was okay, but that it wasn't as condemnable as some were making it out to be. So, Greenwald's reaction to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, at last night's State of the Union Address, is all the more salient:

Turkana's diary :: ::
By contrast, the behavior of Justice Alito at last night's State of the Union address -- visibly shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" when Obama warned of the dangers of the Court's Citizens United ruling -- was a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court. It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with the Court's ability to adhere to its intended function,

Greenwald emphasizes the importance of the Court's remaining above the political fray, precisely because its rulings often have such profound political impact. And he makes the obvious reference to Bush v. Gore, which so damaged the Court's credibility, with the majority ruling outside what had been the tenor of its previous judicial philosophy. And Greenwald notes that the Citizens United ruling also undermines the purported conservative judicial philosophy, because its broad scope was a consummate example of the judicial activism conservatives, now exposed as patently dishonest, usually deplore. Greenwald bluntly states that Alito's behavior, last night, further undermines the Court's critical credibility.

On a night when both tradition and the Court's role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow -- a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President -- with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

The stooges are resurrected.

jasper, you're out. simply not ignorant enough to make the cut.

chrissy and dribble reign supreme. Loud and dumb sets new lows in imbecility.

Same old Fix.

dribbl will now call anyone who posts here a loser, then post all day long.

chrissy foxxy will complain that everyone here is an angry misfit and insulting ahoe. Well you know the rest.

Loud and dumb will muster a one liner about Ace Mcnumbnuts, the height of hilarity in his world. also the pinnacle of intelligence for him.

and that folks is the fix that you know and love. the one that drove almost every intelligent person to flee.

Now we return to our programming - the mutual loon admiration society.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

LOL -- another teabagger/hypocrite

"In Florida, the Club for Growth is backing former state Speaker Marco Rubio over Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in the Republican Senate primary — and the stimulus is an issue in the race. Rubio attacked Crist on Wednesday for supporting the stimulus when it was being debated in Congress, saying that he’d “cut the legs out from under” the GOP by doing so.

But Rubio has said that he also would have accepted whatever stimulus funds would have helped Florida. And indeed, despite some early rumblings, every governor — Republican and Democrat — ultimately accepted stimulus funds.'

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Congressional Republicans will make opposition to President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan a centerpiece of their 2010 campaign.

They’re plying reporters with polls raising doubts about the stimulus, demanding that Democrats say whether they still support the stimulus and declaring, as Minority Whip Eric Cantor did on the “Today” show Wednesday, that “the stimulus hasn’t worked.”

There’s just one catch: According to a tally kept by the White House, at least 65 congressional Republicans have touted the stimulus dollars that have flowed into their own states.

Georgia Rep. Phil Gingrey is one of them.

Gingrey calls the stimulus a “boondoggle” and a “dismal failure” — and like all House Republicans, he voted against it last year. But when Cedartown, Ga., got $625,000 in stimulus funds to help build new sidewalks, Gingrey made sure he was on hand to present the city with an oversize check signed by “Uncle Sam.”

How does he explain the disconnect?

“The money’s going to be spent — if not in Georgia ... in Massachusetts, California and New Jersey,” Gingrey told POLITICO. “It would be unconscionable for me to stand in the way of that money.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32118.html#ixzz0dvqwsrD9

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) are trying to find a way to legislate around the Supreme Court decision.

"All you have to do is read the dissent, the four justices who said this will defintely open the floodgates to big corporate special interests. Anybody who thinks that's not true is out of touch with the American political process." Van Hollen said.

Van Hollen told POLITICO he expects to unveil the package in the next 10 days to two weeks.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) was glad the president called out the Supreme Court.


"He [Alito] deserved to be criticized, if he didn't like it he can mouth whatever they want," Weiner said. "These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the real world. They got a real world reminder tonight, if you make a boneheaded decision, someone's going to call you out on it."

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I hope it was Jake's obsession with me that led him to issue the troll that was finally more than even CC was willing to put up with.

Way to go, LOSER. How pathetic to have nothing else to do with one's life than stalk some stranger on a blog.

Now if we can get rid of the dozen or so zouk monikers and the flea-brain trolls some of the people worth reading might come back.

Posted by: Noacoler | January 28, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

BULLETIN TO TEAM OBAMA: RESTORING RULE OF LAW MUST BE JOB #1

• A job without justice is slavery by another name.

The pervasive surveillance, community watch vigilante terrorism, slander, financial sabotage -- and physical torture and impairment of THOUSANDS of unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans continues.

And the Obama administration now is fully aware -- and complicit in Bush-legacy programs of ideologically-driven personal destruction.

NOW IT'S OBAMA'S GESTAPO USA. WHEN WILL TEAM OBAMA ACT?

See: Poynter.org (Journalism Groups -- Reporting):

• "U.S. Silently Tortures, Impairs Americans with Cell Tower Microwaves"
• "Gestapo USA: Fed-Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America"
• "U.S. Uses CBS News to Cover Up Microwave Cell Tower Torture?"

http://www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2 OR:
http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list)

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 28, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 is a weasel to the power of 2!

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 28, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Benedict Arnold committed the crime of treason against the United States at a time of war.
Homosexuals commit the crime of not subscribing to your puritanical views on love, marriage and sex.
Even Uganda is having trouble passing a law making homosexuality punishable by death. Uganda. Home of Idi Amin. Is this the company you want to be in?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic-controlled Senate has muscled through a plan to allow the government to go a whopping $1.9 trillion deeper in debt.


Just Libs being Libs.


A few thoughts after a very long and I though flatly delivered speech by President Barack Obama:

1. He’s not going to pivot towards the centre a la Bill Clinton 1995 – yet.

2. Obama realises many people find him too cool and detached so he laid on the “I feel your pain” stuff with a trowel. But this sat uneasily with the passages in which he tried to be optimistic. It was a difficult thing to pull off and I don’t think he succeeded.

3. The speech was uninspiring. Perhaps deliberately slow. Soaring rhetoric would not have worked. Perhaps the greatest talent Obama has – speechifying – is now not much use to him.

4. He paid lip service to getting health care through Congress but he knows it’s dead.

5. A consistent theme from now until November will be that Republicans are rejectionists and it’s all their fault that Obama’s agenda has been frustrated. But ultimately the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress so they’ll be blamed for inaction.

6. Obama has stopped blaming Bush all the time by name. But he did it several times in thinly-veiled references.

7. It’s remarkable how much of a back seat nationals security issues are taking given that the US is engaged in two wars.

8. Obama berating Republicans for being oh-so political simply won’t wash. The President is giving all his speeches in swing states and has given his 2008 campaign manager an enhanced role.

9. It was pretty classless to berate the Supreme Court while Democrats all around them leapt to their feet cheering and guffawing. Obama will suffer for this more than Justice Samuel Alito will for mouthing the words: “Not true.”

10. This speech won’t change the current political dynamic – Obama has much, much more to do.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

ANYONE who has been banned should not be allowed to re-post again. It's "my" blog after all ; )

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 28, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

i see drivl, my admirer, is now posting every 2 minutes. wonder if he wears diapers so as not to have to stop typing frantically? if he had to stop, he might wonder why he has no life. thinking is dangerous.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I see Cilizza has about as much effect on Jake as berry has on Iran and N Korea.

Where do liberals get the idea they are so powerful? berry is personally going to see to it that your job is saved. He told me so.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

drivl:

I wish I could stay and play, but I have to go for today (I'll see if my "JakeD2" sign-in works tomorrow ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 28, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Now it's JakeD2. Couldn't stay off the board 5 minutes. What else would he do with himself? Empty, useless life...

..................................

• 83% of speech watchers approve of the proposals the president made in his speech tonight. 17% Disapprove.

• 70% of speech watchers think Barack Obama shares the same priorities for the country as they do. 57% thought so before the speech.

More.

MeMeMeMeMe's diary :: ::
This instant poll comes courtesy of CBS News, and the results are very good:

• 59% of speech watchers think that Barack Obama has a clear plan for creating jobs. 40% thought so before the speech.

• 72% of speech watchers approve of Barack Obama's plans for dealing with government spending. 28% Disapprove.

• 56% of speech watchers think Barack Obama's economic plans will reduce the budget deficit in the long run, and 71% think they will help ordinary Americans.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

berry and his socialist allies have clearly seen the writing on the wall. He is headed down the road to single term ignominy.

they have realized that without the corporate twin shills of the NYTimes and WaPo, they can't monopolize the message.

(some corporations are more equal than others)

If the truth gets out, Democrats will be slaughtered in a thundering landslide.

Liberals must immediately stifle everyone's free speech rights before the once great and powerful Oz is exposed.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Benedict Arnold served his country with valor, up until he sided with the British (I would have advocated a firing squad for him too ; )

margaretmeyers:

Your false claim was I "wanted Muslims to fly on their own airplanes. This was how he proposed to solve the whole bombers on airplanes problem -- we just identify the Muslims and make them take a segregated plane." The "Muslim" flight I referenced on 12/31 would not be "their own airplane" and, unfortunately, some non-Muslims who could not afford the premium would be flying with them. Just like some people can't afford to fly first class. As I said, because of civil rights laws, AMERICAN-owned airlines would be legally prohibited from doing that.

Posted by: JakeD2 | January 28, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Just days after President Barack Obama endorsed a partial freeze on domestic spending, his Democratic allies in the Senate have rejected a plan attempting to do pretty much the same thing.

Oh dear. the failures just keep stacking up.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Best part of the SOTU: Obama turning Scalito into a whiny little baby.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | January 28, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

State of the Union: Same “Change”……With New Ominous Signal.

President Obama has opened a new front in the grab for power: The Supreme Court.
This is the selective but powerful new warning that the best political Blogger has tuned on:
“We must bring to the attention and warn the American people that this new power play represents the most dangerous development against our Democracy.”……they say at,
http://www.robbingamerica.blogspot.com

“The Hugo Chavez pattern is indistinguishable….”, they continue. Interesting and provocative premise.
Can we afford to ignore it?

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | January 28, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather just ignore everything YOU say from now on.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union. The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”

you must simply ignore everything berry says from now on.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Voters Feel Less Safe Under Obama


Only 22% of voters say they feel safer on airplanes under President Obama than they did under President Bush. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010)
Only 8% of voters give Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano an "A" for the job she is doing keeping America safe. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010)

Voters Oppose Obama's War on Terror Policies


Only 11% of voters think the U.S. detention facility in Guantánamo Bay should be shut down immediately. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010)
Only 33% of voters agree with the Obama administration's decision to grant U.S. constitutional rights and a civilian court trial to the Nigerian national who tried to detonate a bomb aboard a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010)
Only 13% of voters think the U.S. should not revoke the visas of all non-immigrant students in America who are no longer enrolled in school. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010)
Only 45% of voters agree with how Obama is handling foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan. (Quinnipiac poll of 1,767 registered voters, January 5-11, 2010)
Only 31% support the Obama administration's decision to grant American constitutional rights to foreign enemy combatants accused of terrorism so they can be tried in the U.S. federal court system as opposed to military tribunals. (Zogby poll of 3,616 voters, November 17-20, 2009)


Poor dribble. Looks like less than about 15% of the country is still stupid enough to fall for the empty suit any longer.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Voters Disapprove of Obama's Handling of the Economy


Only 34% of voters approve of Obama's effort to create jobs. (Quinnipiac poll of 1,767 registered voters, January 5-11, 2010)
Only 28% of voters trust the Obama administration (very much) to get federal legislation passed that creates jobs in 2010. (Zogby poll of 2,879 voters, November 10-12, 2009)
Only 41% of voters approve of the way Obama is handling the economy. (Quinnipiac poll of 1,767 registered voters, January 5-11, 2010)
Only 13% of voters think it is very likely that the Obama-Pelosi stimulus bill helped create or save 600,000 jobs. (Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters, November 17-18, 2009)
Only 21% of voters agree with the Obama administration that increased federal spending will help the economy. (Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely voters, November 17-18, 2009)
Only 35% of Americans think global warming is a serious problem. (Pew Research Center Poll of 1,500 adults, September 30 - October 4, 2009)
Only 37% would support a cap-and-trade bill that raises their utility bill by just $10 per month, even if it meant a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. (Associated Press-Stanford University Poll of 1,005 adults, November 17-29)

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Jake @1132,

In fact you did say you wanted Muslims on their own flights, so you can put your weasel-like amplifications away for the day.

snowbama: If McCain had bomb, bomb, bombed Iran on his first day in office, I can practically guarantee you this terrorist would not have been on that plane Christmas Day. I think that there should be Muslim and non-Muslim flights.

Posted by: JakeD | December 31, 2009 10:45 AM

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 28, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

dribble likes polls:

Voters Running from Obama


Only 43% of voters say they would vote to reelect Obama. (Zogby poll of 2,377 voters, January 19-21, 2010)
Only 45% of voters in competitive congressional districts this year would vote to reelect Obama today. (Zogby poll of 2,879 voters, November 10-12, 2009)


Voters Running from Obama-Backed Candidates


Only 43% of Virginia voters cast their ballots for Obama-backed gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds last November.
Only 45% of New Jersey voters came out for the president's gubernatorial candidate in that traditionally blue state last November.
Only 47% of Massachusetts voters cast their ballots for President Obama's candidate in the special election to fill the late Senator Ted Kennedy's seat.
Only 37% of Americans would vote to reelect their Obama-supported Democratic congressman. (Rasmussen poll of 800 likely voters, November 24, 2009)

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

And not surprisingly, Jake doesn't know what to say when the sacrifice of the people he hates is introduced into the discussion.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

A CBS instant poll after last night’s speech found that 83 percent of speech watchers liked President Obama’s proposals and 70 percent said Obama shares their priorities for the country, up from 57 percent before the speech. Forty-eight percent of speech watchers in a CNN poll had a very positive response to the speech while 30 percent had a somewhat positive response.

Republicans held their applause last night when President Obama declared that if bailed-out banks “can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.” “Of course, everybody hates the bankers, except the Republicans who sat on their hands when the president called for taxing them,” writes the New York Times’ Gail Collins.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

That's an improvement from when it was simply dribble and chrissy foxxy all day every day.

don't worry, she'll be back. not only is she pathological, she simply has nothing else to bide her time. It seems no one will hire her to voice her loony tunes opinion.

Wait, your chimp blog got a hit this month. quick, reply!

Like berry, they will not participate unless the universe can be tilted in such a way as to make them the center.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD:

Now that ferreners can legally contribute to campaigns, berry can self fund next time.

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I see we're down to about 5 posters and 4 of them are zouk/moonbat/snobama/drivl and whatever else he's calling himself today. And then there's Jake, who won't go away even though no one wants him here. You can ban him, he'll be back because he clearly has nothing else to do with his time. Empty lives.

Used to be decent chat here ... oh well.

Posted by: drindl | January 28, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The State of the Union address Obama delivered last night gave new meaning to the term "laundry list." It was an endless parade of campaign promises and presidential initiatives. It had no theme. The text literally could have been clipped together from the hundreds of speeches, press conferences, and town halls the president has delivered since beginning his run for the presidency three years ago.

People tuned in to see if the president would "pivot" to the center after Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. The answer is no. He doubled-down on the stimulus--indeed, he wants another, much smaller, version. He called on the Senate to pass a climate bill that has absolutely no chance in 2010. He provided no clear strategy for Congress to pass a health care bill. His feints to the center on spending and "tax cuts" were transparently gimmicky. He used his favorite crutch: blame Bush and the Republicans for every obstacle his presidency encounters. He attacked and distorted a Supreme Court decision in front of the justices. By the time he got to foreign policy, you were no doubt looking at your watch. I know I was. By the time he finished, the feeling in the House chamber must have been exhaustion.

What a disappointing presidential address. What a bad omen for the Democrats in November.

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-dirty-laundry-list

Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Jake D
Isn't it your time for a 'stewed prune' break, a diaper change and a little nap?
Go with God, JakeD, but GO.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | January 28, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

drivl:

Which is why Justice Alito said "not true" under his breath. I noticed that Obama changed the text of that part from what had been released before the speech.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

bgreen2224:

Murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a human like. Justified homicide is not "murder" either. I hope you didn't go to ANY law school and not learn that.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.


Posted by: drivl | January 28, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Jake I don't care what name you post under. I don't care if you are banned or not. I care that my friends be treated equally. At a minimum, I want them to be respected as human beings, as patriots, and as heros who have shed blood defending your right to hate them for no reason.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

So now I can't even AGREE with Obama?!

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Jake D
For a Stanford Law Grad (with honors) as you claim to be, you seem to know little about capital punishment. In Texas, a KKKonservative state by any measure, death certificates issued for those 'executed' by the state record the cause of death as HOMICIDE, thus confirming that the prisoner was 'legally' murdered by the state.

But, hey, gramps, don't let facts get in the way of your sicko beliefs -- Stanford Law Grad that you claim to be.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | January 28, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, jimeglrd8.

Don't worry, elijah24, after the ban takes effect, I promise I won't post here under as many names as Chris Fox.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Oh, wow. I usually just skip over this guy's posts, so I missed it. Pretty screwed up.

"Back on topic: I actually agree that we should repeal DADT; let's go back to shooting homosexuals we catch in the military.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 12:11 AM"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-house/twittering-president-obamas-st.html

Posted by: DDAWD | January 28, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

No, margaretmeyers, what I asked was how much KLM could charge for NON-Muslim flights. Since AMERICAN carriers couldn't legally ban Muslims from flights, I thought that non-American carriers could charge a premium.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Although I voted for Obama and gave money to his campaign I won't be fooled by his skills as an orator again. Yakety Yak best describes his Presidency. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and on the way to spending a second trillion dollars on these useless and tragic invasions.
Those who support these stupid wars should ask. "Have these wars made our country safer". The answer is clearly "No". They have served as recruitment posters for our enemies. I doubt that Osama bin Laden is actually still alive but it makes no differences. Now there are hundreds of groups led by men like him who want to destroy the US. During the next few years the US will suffer many attacks both small and large. Our security continues to be compromised by the attention we are paying on foreign wars. The problems of our country cannot be cured by oratory. Their are few areas in which a US President can make a difference. One is foreign policy and the ability to wage or stay out of all these stupid little wars. We are providing billions of dollars to Pakistan, Yemen, the Philippines and other countries to fight the anger we are creating by the invasions we have launched. This money goes into the pockets of corrupt politicians and much of it ends up in the bank accounts of our enemeies. To President Obama I say shut up. Get the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Hey Hey Barack how many kids have you killed today.

Posted by: jimeglrd8 | January 28, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Jake, at some point, a person blessed with rational thought puts down the shovel.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"Smugness and arrogance, racism and hatred meet to hear a speech."

From bobbing-bubble head Joe Biden, to KMA Pelosi, to smirking just-crawled-outta-the-bottle Boehner, Americans were treated to a great look-see at the source and most assuredly not the solution to our nation's ills.

What we really saw were pictures of the most dispensable people in America. The number of those committed to anything but their re-election totaled zero, which is also the number that best describes the possibility that bipartisanship will break out.

The ONLY way I can imagine to get their attention is to simply not re-elect ANY of them, accepting that they have done their best and their best had to do with party allegiance, special interest profitability and nothing to do with you and me.

So, I hope we can stop being being seduced by purveyors of failed political philosophies and VOTE AGAINST EVERY INCUMBENT WE CAN. AND THAT WE WILL RE-ELECT NO ONE FOR AT LEAST THREE ELECTION CYCLES.

Should that happen political parties MIGHT get the idea that results are what matter, not you extremist views of how the world should work.

But, if we continue along these lines, the problems will continue to fester and continue to anger people and that's really OK...there's plenty of time for more and more voters to accept the fact that only by dumping these egomaniacs will we EVER move forward.

Good luck and GBA.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | January 28, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court took it upon itself by overtly political decisions. I would note that both Roberts and Alito claimed some deference to precedent during their confirmation hearings. As can be seen, that was a complete misrepresentation of their view.

As the justices have life appointments, they can hardly be intimidated. Now sending troops during the Civil War, THAT was intimidation!

Fortunately, there is a work around. Corporate governance laws can be rewritten. My guess is that Republicans would attempt to block it in the Senate. That'll lead to some interesting debates where Republicans try to justify giving foreign shareholders a say in our political system.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 28, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I am not advocating "murder" of homosexuals. The death penalty is not "murder." What I said was "If we repeal DADT, however, we should go back to court martials and firing squads." If anyone has a question about that, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Elijah24, Jake also famously wanted Muslims to fly on their own airplanes. This was how he proposed to solve the whole bombers on airplanes problem -- we just identify the Muslims and make them take a segregated plane. Simple.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | January 28, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Doof, I normally enjoy his comments too, but he advocated the murder of homosexuals. There can be no excuse for that. It isn't a joke. It isn't funny. It is dispicable, and he should be ashamed of himself, and the fact that he isn't has caused me to lose all respect i had for him.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I think the gaffe in the SCOTUS comments was the President's, not Alito's. (Although maybe Alito maybe should have tried harder to keep his lips from moving.) Alito suffers no repercussions from anyone who may have been offended. Obama, however, appeared to me to have been disrespectful to the Court -- and especially to Justice Kennedy, who could be the single individual with the most influence over certain things the President wants to do. The President should have chosen his words differently -- he could have voiced his disagreement with the Court's opinion without using the tone he took.

Posted by: acasilaco | January 28, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"To elijah24:

As someone who has spoken this language (or what passes for it) with an English (i.e., UK) accent since the approximate age of 7 and continues to do so, I think I am as qualified as anyone contributing comments to this blog to suss out another English accent.

I listened to every stage and every word of the SOTU speech last night and NOT ONCE did I detect even a hint of an English accent in any of the President's words. If anything, to my ear, his cadence was vaguely reminiscent of the Southern Revivalist at a prayer meeting (or should I say 'meetin'?), so one of us is not attuned to the accurate meaning of an English RP accent (in US, you'd probably say 'The Queen's English').

It occurs to me that perhaps you may have missed the forest for the trees.

Posted by: sverigegrabb"

It's you who is missing the point. Go back and read through the comments. He was actually being sarcastic.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 28, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Why was jakeD banned. I enjoyed reading his posts and everyone elses, good or bad. You should ignore a post you disagree with. Banning someone is stupid.

Posted by: doof | January 28, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

This was an outstanding, balanced analysis, and it would be nice if you republished it periodically to silence (or, more realistically, refute) those on the extreme Left or Right who periodically accuse you of favouring one side or the other.

To take up point 2: I read Greenburg's analysis, and it is a paradigm of what the WH, Congress, and unelected D. leaders should strive for. Perhaps you should circulate copies to all concerned?

To elijah24:

As someone who has spoken this language (or what passes for it) with an English (i.e., UK) accent since the approximate age of 7 and continues to do so, I think I am as qualified as anyone contributing comments to this blog to suss out another English accent.

I listened to every stage and every word of the SOTU speech last night and NOT ONCE did I detect even a hint of an English accent in any of the President's words. If anything, to my ear, his cadence was vaguely reminiscent of the Southern Revivalist at a prayer meeting (or should I say 'meetin'?), so one of us is not attuned to the accurate meaning of an English RP accent (in US, you'd probably say 'The Queen's English').

It occurs to me that perhaps you may have missed the forest for the trees.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | January 28, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I promise that I won't come back under as many new names as Chris Fox.

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

mock1ngb1rd said:

The republic can survive Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

---

True true. After all the Republic survived the disasterous presidency of George Bush but barely, and by the low standard of comparison, Obama's presidency has been a resounding success, a point with which I am sure that you agree, mockingbird, unless, of course, you are one of the fools whom you mention.

I voted for Obama and I am certainly no fool. I may take issue with many of Obama's policies (He is not nearly progressive enough but still he is a distinct improvement over that triumvirate of disasters - Reagan, Bush, Bush - that the Republicans perpetrated on this country in the last thirty years, a FACT that only a fool would disagree with) but he has ended torture, he is closing Gitmo (though not as quickly as I would like, and he is going to end the clearly unconsitutional policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell. If this is all Obama achieves, and I think he will certainly achieve more than that, it is pretty obvious who the fool is here, isn't it?

Posted by: nyrunner101 | January 28, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

"Folks,

An update: "JakeD" is either banned or will be banned shortly for comments he made last night on the blog.

If there are others violating our rules, please send me an email highlighting the offensive comment.

Thanks,
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza "

Loooong overdue, but thanks, Chris. He deserves banning far more than anyone else.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 28, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

So then we're in agreement: The President should always speak in the third person, and in a British accent, and this will unite the country. yay for bipartisanship!

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

The republic can survive Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 28, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

===
Lincoln was said to have made a statement something like "The union will survive any president". (Google it if you're that interested)

It was little solace during the term of the last administration.

Posted by: mikem1 | January 28, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"McDonnell was clear with a vision of what he represents and objectives he believes should be accomplished."

Um, the only specifics I remember was on health care. Tort reform and allowing people to buy insurance over state lines. Wonderful. A proposal that is cosmetic and a proposal that is already a part of the proposed legislation.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 28, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The republic can survive Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 28, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Folks,

An update: "JakeD" is either banned or will be banned shortly for comments he made last night on the blog.

If there are others violating our rules, please send me an email highlighting the offensive comment.

Thanks,
Chris

Posted by: Chris_Cillizza | January 28, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, reason5. Did you notice the part about the Supreme Court too?

Posted by: JakeD | January 28, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Some thoughts.

Who is the ringleader of counting "I"s? This seemed to pop up a bunch of times over the past few days. Limbaugh, I assume?

I thought the rebuttal was well delivered. Using the State house was a nice touch.

I think Obama was at his best when he was raking both parties over the coals for not getting more done. Democrats need to be spurred to action. Republicans have had no political incentive to even try to compromise. This will have to change in order to get anything accomplished. They seem to be fine with just allowing the nation to go to hell while they win in Massachusetts. Dems need to hit back hard. This is their only chance to stave off disaster in November.

I'm pleasantly surprised that two thirds of the country blame Bush for the economy. I would have thought it would be much less by now. This suggests that Obama's sagging approval isn't due to the fact that people blame the economy on him, but rather that he isn't doing enough to fix it. This means there is some room for some soft increases in approval with the focus on jobs.

Another soft area for improvement is by coming down on banks. People are still angry at TARP and perhaps will never not be. But if Obama can channel that anger into political will for getting money back from the banks as well as increased regulations, a lot can be accomplished. But like health care, Republicans will fight this tooth and nail. Democrats need to really take the lead with this one and not allow Republicans to control the message. I doubt they will. Obama probably fights this alone.

When did Kyl refer to the speech as a whine? I don't see it.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 28, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

>the prime minister of Britain speaks in the third person when he or she talks to Parliment.

Huh? Where do you get this from?

MPs refer to each other by their constituencies. They do not (often) identify them as 'you'. PMs do not refer to themselves in the third person.

Posted by: strum | January 28, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

In his State of the Union address last night, Obama clearly tried to intimidate and mock the Supreme Court. Who does he think he is? Obama is not above the Supreme Court of the United States, it is an equal branch of government that oversees the other two branches. It is obvious that this shameless man-child called Obama has absolutely no respect for the Constitution.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 28, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

The State of Union failed in comparison to Bob McDonnell's house of delegates speech. McDonnell was clear with a vision of what he represents and objectives he believes should be accomplished. President Obama's speech seemed to have been hurriedly written and very long on generalities but very short on real legislative substance. He did play the 'blame Bush' game a few times, but with contridictions. Obama has blamed Bush for the bank bailout calling it a "root canal". Well, last night he took credit for profiting from dividends that the bank has repaid from the loans they took out. He can't blame Bush for the bailout but take credit for the cash Bush's policy brought in. He can't have it both ways. Another problem I had was that Obama talked about "Washington." Well, when President Obama looks in the mirror he see's the face of Washington DC. In Congress, Obama has a super-majority in both the House & Senate. So Obama wants to blame Republicans when him and his party cannot legislate with a super-majority. What hypocrisy! He spoke on climate change, but at least he talked about off-shore drilling and nuclear power plants. If Obama wants a real and comprehensive energy bill, Republicans should rush to help the country get a comprehensive energy policy. That's something Republicans and Democrats can come together on. The "Don't ask-don't tell" policy should not be changed right now in the midst of 2 wars. Obama is going back to divisive politics here that he condemned during the election. The speech reeked of hypocrisy.

Posted by: reason5 | January 28, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

elijah24, I would have loved it if President Obama gave the State of the Union in the third person. It would remind me of the "The Rock Obama" character from SNL. "Republicans are going around saying Barack is hurting America by trying to reform health care. Well, Barack says that's a load of monkey crap, and Barack will layeth the smacketh down on allllllll your candy arses!"

jaxas70, I can see how the poll results you cited seem counter-intuitive to you, but -- and don't interpret this as a cheap shot at you -- I really hope you don't think the American people generally vote intuitively.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | January 28, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Elijah, the prime minister of Britain speaks in the third person when he or she talks to Parliment. If you've never seen it it's hilarious, but only cuase they do it in a British accent.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 28, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Dan Hynes would be the Comptroller of Illinois. The Treasurer, of course, is Alexi Giannoulias. He's limping toward the finish in the US Senate primary.

Posted by: kevk91 | January 28, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Mark, I didn't find it whiny either and I dont' know where Kyl is coming from on that. I would think that the GOP should embrace the idea of bipartisanship and say things like, "We are happy to work with the President, and I just hope that he is serious about giving us a real seat at the table." True leaders want to seize the mantle of leadership and I think the GOP had an excellent chance to do that after the speach last night and try show the American people that they are the better choice to run the congress. Unfourtanetly, what I heard was pretty much what we have seen from the GOP for the past year or so, 'hold the line and the voters will vote us in because they'll be so pis$ed off with the democrats'.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 28, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

I have little confidence in any of these polls Cillizza cites. Think about it for a minute. One part of this polls asks the generic question of which party you would favor on the ballot of the election were held today. Predictably, in this era of angry voters wanting to "throw the bums out", republicans won by respectable margins. Yet, in another part of the poll the question was asked, Who do you blame for the present state of the economy and the top vote getter was George W. Bush.

It is just this sort of counterintuitive result that makes me think these polls are completely worthless. Chris likes them because it fuels conflict and controversey which is his mother's milk. Indeed, Chris Cillizza suckles at the same teat as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and POLITICO. They all are sustained by this sort of trickery.

Look. Make no mistake about. Chris, along with all of the others I mentioned, want to keep the culture war going. They want to keep the Tea Party crazies healthy. And they get rich on all of this while the rest of us suffer.

Posted by: jaxas70 | January 28, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

During his State of Denial Speech last night, Obama not only blamed Bush, but he also disrespectfully took a swipe at the Supreme Court in an attempt to silence democracy. Once again, he sealed his fate as a one-term president.

Posted by: mock1ngb1rd | January 28, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Why would a supreme court justice simply calling out berry on his inflated sense of self be called a gaffe?

When the supreme court rules on something it is for a time, the law of the land and therefore a fact. It is not the branch of government assigned to the inept executive we currently have.

As always, berry shoots from the hip and gets it wrong. The cops are stupid. The bomber is an isolated extremist. Etc.

Until he has a few days to get his speechwriters to insert his thoughts into the TelePrompTer, he always flubs up.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 28, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

An iPad will be hitting the Blade's household sometime this spring. While the Air was simultaneously too much (too big for a supplementary computer) and too little (not enough for a primary computer), the iPad looks just about right.

===

How many times did he say "the" or "and"? It's HIS address to the congress and to the country, in which HE give HIS view on the state of the Union, and lays out HIS plans, and issues the challenges HE feels need to be met. Do you want him to speak in the third person?

===

Nah. Second person. That way President Obama would be criticized for using the royal Wii.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 28, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Who didn't get the finger of blame for berry's own failures?

Bush, cable tv, scotus, banks, corporations, joint chiefs, repubs, everyone but the guy actually in charge.

Posted by: Moonbat | January 28, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for posting the link to the transcript, CC. I was at the 'Horns bb game last night. The tax talk that permeated the speech is as close to a game changer as he could have managed, I think, in the political sense.

It does not read as a "whine", Sen. Kyle. I assume you have singled out the remarks about tax cuts during multiple wars and the Medicare drug giveaway of the decade's first eight years, and want those matters to be forgotten. In the transcript this reads as a neutral recounting of an unfortunate series of events. Was there another part that sounded like a "whine", to you, sir? Surely it was not the emphasis on tax relief and small biz lending.

I, who have often voted R, cannot tell what R strategy is right now, except on the purely political level where prescribing Nancy Reagan's advice on drugs is applied to common political discourse.

I, who have more often voted D since 1999, was simply amazed that with a super-majority the Ds could not pass universal health care and completely avoided even the housekeeping of dealing with the expiration of the Estate Tax. I do not think the Prez's mild rebuke of his own party in Congress was "whiney". It was very mild.

The only way I could see the transcript as "whining" is in comparison with HST calling out Congress angrily and in detail. Maybe that is what Sen. Kyle meant.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 28, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Yes, member. It is the Republicans who are refusing to vote for anything, and Supreme Court which was mostly appointed by Republicans that just passed a horrible, and terribly detrimental decision. It's partisan to lob pot shots and insult ones opponents. It isn't partisanship to state facts. When Republicans refer to the most important part of the President's agenda as "his Waterloo", it is obvious that they are not interested in principal as much as they are interested in hurting a president from the opposition party.

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

How many times did he say "the" or "and"? It's HIS address to the congress and to the country, in which HE give HIS view on the state of the Union, and lays out HIS plans, and issues the challenges HE feels need to be met. Do you want him to speak in the third person?

Posted by: elijah24 | January 28, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama took shots at the justices and the republicans. Then he said that partisanship must end. Is he for real?

Posted by: member8 | January 28, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Obama mentioned jobs 29 times. He said the word "I" 96 times.

Posted by: member8 | January 28, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Here’s a tag cloud of Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address:
http://robvstate.com/2010/01/27/tag-cloud-of-obamas-2010-state-of-the-union-address/

Posted by: robparisblog | January 28, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

I personally liked the speech, I thought he had some really amusing lines that lightened the mood in the room which was extremely tense at times. I think the president did what he does best, and as I said yesterday I think he has laid the groundwork for his administration to take the credit for any resurgence our economny experiences. Also I liked the way he squarely told the GOP that they now had to start playing ball too. This will be an important point over the next six months.

One other point that I think will be very important was when he said that the Bush tax cuts will expire for the wealthiest americans. This will happen very quietly and will have serious impact on the deficit in a year or so.

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 28, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

President Obama again said he has banned torture. But Homeland operatives defy him.

U.S. SILENTLY TORTURES AMERICANS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVES, SAYS VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Regional Homeland Security- administered fusion centers use a nationwide microwave/laser electromagnetic pulsed radiation "directed energy" weapon system to silently torture, impair, subjugate unconstitutionally "targeted" Americans and their families -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight.

• Victims' own cell phones may be used to target them.

• How a young FBI agent's 'I believe you' gave victim the faith to go public.

For the full story:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list).

NOW IT'S OBAMA'S GESTAPO USA. WHEN WILL TEAM OBAMA ACT?

• Homeland "fusion center" network: "Ground Zero for Homeland domestic torture"

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 28, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

It was a speech that helped the president more than it helped Democrats. He is forcing the base to make very tough decisions that they will most likely shirk from. But it's possible the boot to Obama from the SOTU could rub off on the Dems in general.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 28, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company