State of the Union 2010

Here is the full text version for those who didn't see it.

As I sat there watching him speak, I was almost immediately reminded why/how he got elected. This man is probably one of the best orators I've seen.

I found it interesting, compelling and revealing. His stance was decidedly different.

From: spend our way out of oblivion ...
To: a spending freeze.

From: Being a part of a larger global community and partners ...
To: "not accepting second place for the United States of America".

He also focused on "Don't ask, don't tell"
Its an issue, but not near the top of importance, IMO.

He said jobs must be the "number one focus in 2010" - Great - to me its a year late. They should have been a higher priority than healthcare, but better late than never.

That was one hell of a State of the Campaign Address.

I give it a 9 out of 10.

The bloggers are atwitter this morning about Alito's mouthing "Not True" at Obama's contention over their Supreme Court ruling. My observation: it was so tiny, it would not be visible on a standard definition TV, unless the camera was directly focused on him. The shot they were taking was a shot of the entire Court.

Welcome to the High Def era: it's not just good for sports.

Focusing on jobs before this year would have been a complete failure. The economists all agreed on the way a recession/depression works, is jobs go fast and are the last thing to recover. They said from the gitgo, employment would not recover before the end of 2010. The only way to beat that, is for the government to hire zillions of people... or institute a draft.

Just watched it and I will say I was impressed. He is a great speaker and he did bring up some core issues which I strongly agree with. This thread will need to brought back from life in 364 days to see how it really went...

@bruce - So instead we spent billions on what again? That was part of the plan. They were touting "jobs created" till that wasn't so great & now they're using "jobs created or saved." Seems a little contradictory.

@pierce - yes he did. Seems like I've heard a lot of those ideas before from the other side of the isle. Perhaps an excellent preemptive move.

xoxoxoBruce;630586 wrote:

The only way to beat that, is for the government to hire zillions of people... or institute a draft.

. . .or have it happen in a census year when you're gonna get 1.2 million workers. :eyebrow:

classicman;630581 wrote:

He said jobs must be the "number one focus in 2010" - Great - to me its a year late.

Yea, he and Pelosi made that promise in Feb 2008. Maybe he forgot about that. Most of the public didn't forget he made that promise.

Can you cite when/where they made that promise?

classicman;630602 wrote:

. . .or have it happen in a census year when you're gonna get 1.2 million workers. :eyebrow:

Clever speculation. Makes one go humm.

He certainly was even-handed. He criticized Wall Street, The banks, The Supreme Court, The Democrats, The Rebuicans, and The Senate, as I recall.

yeh pretty much blamed attacked and chastised everyone else for everything.

like wall street. Ya know those big bad bankers we all hate . . .
Then the VERY NEXT DAY he invites them to a teleconference.

or the Insurance companies whom he lambasted for their profits then had private meeting with to discuss reform.

or the unions who got that sweetheart no-pay deal in the senate version of the now on life support healthcare bill.
Go figure. :eyebrow:

Seems like the only one he didn't blame was Reid who aptly fell asleep during the speech.

What got the most rousing applause from all aisles? Obama criticized the banks and their obscene bonuses. Even Republicans were appalled at how conservative bankers act.

classicman;630824 wrote:

like wall street. Ya know those big bad bankers we all hate . . .
Then the VERY NEXT DAY he invites them to a teleconference.

What Limbaugh et al say we must never do. Great leaders talk to everyone - even the enemy. A concept well understood only by those to admit to, challenge, avert, and solve problems.

classicman;630824 wrote:

like wall street. Ya know those big bad bankers we all hate . . .
Then the VERY NEXT DAY he invites them to a teleconference.

In fact, the conference call involved hundreds of representatives from dozens of organizations with an interest in domestic policy issues. I know this for a fact because my organization was invited and participated in the conference call..and we dont represent bankers.

I would guess there were reps from the American Bankers Association on the call, as well as reps from public interest groups, mayors and governors, faith-based organizations, unions, minority interest groups, economic development organizations, etc.

It is called outreach and dialogue with persons who represent numerous interests across the political spectrum.

classicman;630824 wrote:

yeh pretty much blamed attacked and chastised everyone else for everything.

like wall street. Ya know those big bad bankers we all hate . . .
Then the VERY NEXT DAY he invites them to a teleconference.

or the Insurance companies whom he lambasted for their profits then had private meeting with to discuss reform.

or the unions who got that sweetheart no-pay deal in the senate version of the now on life support healthcare bill.
Go figure. :eyebrow:

Seems like the only one he didn't blame was Reid who aptly fell asleep during the speech.

:lol: Well stated.

Redux;630912 wrote:

It is called outreach and dialogue with persons who represent numerous interests across the political spectrum.

It is called outreach and dialogue with Lobbyists who represent numerous interests across the political spectrum.

classicman;630962 wrote:

It is called outreach and dialogue with Lobbyists who represent numerous interests across the political spectrum.

So the administration should not be briefing any interest groups?

No conversations with industry groups, public interest groups, state/local elected officials, faith based leaders?

Why not? You prefer setting policy in a vacuum?

classicman;630962 wrote:

It is called outreach and dialogue with Lobbyists who represent numerous interests across the political spectrum.

It is called making back door deals with special interests groups who supported your election and you hope will support you in the next election. It is not about doing the business of the people, for the people. They are pimps.

Redux;630963 wrote:

So the administration should not be briefing any interest groups?

No conversations with industry groups, public interest groups, state/local elected officials, faith based leaders?

Where did I say any of that?

classicman;631031 wrote:

Where did I say any of that?

Relax.....I simply asked you questions to better understand your earlier critical (?) comment in light of the fact that numerous interest groups across the political spectrum, not just bankers, were invited and participated in the conference calls.

So the administration should not be briefing any interest groups?

No conversations with industry groups, public interest groups, state/local elected officials, faith based leaders?

Why not? You prefer setting policy in a vacuum?

Get off the fence and take a stand.

I was pointing out that the Pres looked rather hypocritical.
And your questions are nothing more than absolutes which we both realize aren't applicable in the real world.

Now that I think about it, perhaps the one who should "Get off the fence and take a stand. " is the president.

classicman;631106 wrote:

I was pointing out that the Pres looked rather hypocritical.
And your questions are nothing more than absolutes which we both realize aren't applicable in the real world.

Now that I think about it, perhaps the one who should "Get off the fence and take a stand. " is the president.

IMO, it is only hypocritical if you are unwilling to understand that there is a huge difference between innocuous but helpful briefings to a large and diverse audience of organizations (btw, many of the participants are not lobbyists, but policy analysts) interested in domestic policy issues as opposed to providing lobbyists an "insider" role in developing those policies.

But nice dodge. :thumb:.

classicman;631106 wrote:

I was pointing out that the Pres looked rather hypocritical.
And your questions are nothing more than absolutes which we both realize aren't applicable in the real world.
Now that I think about it, perhaps the one who should "Get off the fence and take a stand. " is the president.

I don't see your point? This wasn't a back door meeting with bankers. If a shitload of people are invited to listen to where Obama wants to go, and are invited to put in their 2 cents on how to get there... in front of that all those people... how is this fence sitting?

You know damn well he's not a dictator, he can't just make things happen on his own. He has to drum up support for these ideas. And since the public would rather watch American Idol with a bag of heart attack & dip, he has to do it the hard way, by convincing these policy wonks, and power players. This has always been the way it works, you're just not used to seeing it done in the open.

Redux;631109 wrote:

opposed to providing lobbyists an "insider" role in developing those policies.

puhlease. :headshake

But nice dodge. :thumb:.

no dodge at all just an honest response to bogus questions.

Perhaps your right again xob. Perhaps its just my impatience coming out.

classicman;631120 wrote:

puhlease. :headshake


no dodge at all just an honest response to bogus questions.

Perhaps your right again xob. Perhaps its just my impatience coming out.

LOL...I get a "puhlease" and xob gets a "you're right" when we're both basically saying the same thing! (not a back door meeting w/bankers..but a briefing to lots of people representing lots of diverse interests)

And, IMO, you are still sitting on the fence.

Whats wrong with the president/administration officials proving briefings (with a little more detail) to a diverse group of interested organizations following a major policy address?

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful. :p


Got to get the power players on board, because the own the lobbyists, that control the congress.

xoxoxoBruce;631128 wrote:

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful. :p

Don't hate me or fear me because I'm a policy wonk.;)

PolicyWonks are kinda hard to explain. However, you know one when you hear one. Above all else, PolicyWonks are smart…really smart. And they like to talk and listen, but mostly to debate...

PolicyWonks, then, are not always the most well-liked people. But they are respected. Sometimes even feared....

http://www.policywonk.com

Fear? :haha: :lol: :lol2: Get serious.

xoxoxoBruce;631134 wrote:

Fear? :haha: :lol: :lol2: Get serious.

Policy wonks also know how to network.

I have friends in low places all over the government...in all those alphabet agencies...watch your back. :D

Redux;631126 wrote:

Whats wrong with the president proving briefings (with a little more detail) to a diverse group of interested organizations following a major policy address?

He lambastes them in public in his SOTU and then has nonpublic nontransparent meetings/video conferences with them the next day?
That seems to be hypocritical to me. I never said he shouldn't get input from them.

Bewaur Ye With Crosses wi Me. :p

Redux;631131 wrote:

Don't hate me or fear me because I'm a policy wonk.;)

"PolicyWonks are kinda hard to explain. However, you know one when you hear one. Above all else, PolicyWonks are smart…really smart. And they like to talk and listen, but mostly to debate...

PolicyWonks, then, are not always the most well-liked people. But they are respected. Sometimes even feared....

http://www.policywonk.com"

Now that is funny as shit! :lol2: What a fucking maroon...

classicman;631137 wrote:

He lambastes them in public in his SOTU and then has nonpublic nontransparent meetings/video conferences with them the next day?
That seems to be hypocritical to me. I never said he shouldn't get input from them.

Anyone who thinks this administration is doing things in public and not behind closed doors is a fool. It wouldn't make a difference were it not for the fact that this administration and the Demoncrats promised something different. So far they have not delivered.

classicman;631137 wrote:

He lambastes them in public in his SOTU and then has nonpublic nontransparent meetings/video conferences with them the next day?
That seems to be hypocritical to me.

Why? Talking with people he criticises?

Read the last few pages - I think I was clear on my opinion, but if not...

I did read them. It was mostly Redux saying "did you mean this?", and you saying no. If it isn't any of Redux's interpretations, what is it that makes talking with people you criticize hypocritical?

Seemed like he was blaming them for being the problem and then going back to them the next day looking for solutions.

classicman;631498 wrote:

Seemed like he was blaming them for being the problem and then going back to them the next day looking for solutions.

How is that hypocritical? If they are problem then you go to them and find a way for them NOT to be the problem.

Guess it isn't a problem then.

classicman;631513 wrote:

Guess it isn't a problem then.

I just volunteered to participate in conference calls with DoE and DoT this week on the 2011 WH budget proposal.

I will report back if bankers get out of line. :D

Who's to report back when YOU get outta line? :p

Redux;631544 wrote:

I just volunteered to participate in conference calls with DoE and DoT this week on the 2011 WH budget proposal.

:lol2: Oh yea. We believe that bull shit. :lol:

Dont get so excited, dude.

Its really not that big of a deal...I talk with program staff people at federal agencies all the time. It only differs from the post-SOTU calls in that there are a bunch of calls on the proposed budget occurring simultaneously, which requires more than one person from those dozens of invited domestic policy organizations to be involved.

There is no dark conspiracy.....and you and I both know I can address many of those policies issues now w/o having to cut and past endless columns to explain existing federal policy/budget issues or make my point or contribute to a discussion.

Can you say the same?

Or perhaps you should stick to what you do best and what really makes others laugh (at you and not with you) and post your childish "Obama and Democrats are Nazis and Socialists" pics and edit the quotes of others when you cant offer a cogent contribution of your own...very classy. ;)

I leave you to the regurgitation of the White House and Demoncratic talking points. That does not give you credibility. Yea, Nancy Pelosi is still a Nazi and the Demoncrats are leading us down a path towards Big Government take over, spending like the whores they are, making backdoor deals without the change, transparency, or millions of jobs from a failed stimulus package they promised us. :D

Talking points?

Nazis, Big Government take over, spending like whores, backdoor deals, failed stimulus.

:D

Redux;631805 wrote:

Talking points?

Nazis, Big Government take over, spending like whores, backdoor deals, failed stimulus.

:D

Facts. And the electorate has taken notice. How did your election in Mass go?

Here, let me show you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nEoW-P81-0

I'm not even a Republickin and that was pretty damm accurate. :D

TheMercenary;631813 wrote:

Facts.

I know you think it is factual to consistently refer to American politicians as Nazis or Socialists...or somehow it is funny and/or intended to offend.
Others know it for the ignorance it is.

Redux;631818 wrote:

I know you think it is factual to consistently refer to American politicians as Nazis or Socialists...or somehow it is funny and/or intended to offend.
Others know it for the ignorance it is.

Eh, we will let the voters decide. I think you are deluded if you don't think that is how the majority have come to view you and your party.

Redux;631126 wrote:

LOL...I get a "puhlease" and xob gets a "you're right" when we're both basically saying the same thing! ...

I noticed that. What a classhole!:brikwall:

:lol2:

Shawnee123;632052 wrote:

:lol2:

Hey Shaw. Where 'ya been?

Wow spexxie - you had to go back 25 posts and two pages to say that.
Stop stalking me. Ya creep.

State of the Union - A Tea Party perspective

From the National Tea Party Convention....

...the opening speaker bashes Hispanics and Blacks and suggests that Obama, "a committed Socialist ideologue", would not have been elected if not for the fact that "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote."

... a second speaker shouts out that Obama " "has ignored our history and our heritage, arrogantly declaring to the world that we are no longer a Christian nation. He's elevated immorality to a new level, setting aside the entire month of last June to celebrate gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender pride…"

... followed by speeches from the "birther movement" proclaiming the Obama presidency is illegal.

And on the lighter side:

... amidst cries of "Run, Sarah, Run", Palin wrapping it up, during which, she mocked Obama for using a teleprompter, but had to write her top three priorities for America on the palm of her hand (her version of a palm pilot?)
[INDENT] [/INDENT]

WTF? Can't remember six words w/o a crib sheet? Energy, Budget (scratch) Tax Cuts and Lift American Spirits

Does all of the above "lift your spirits"?

I've thought about it, and I've decided the Palin hand note is not a thing.

It says nothing about her, except maybe that she's a commoner, which is actually an asset for her.

Like the Alito lip-reading it says more about our HDTV era than anything else.

Two of my smartest friends use hand notes routinely.

I don't think the problem was that she had stuff written on her hand; it was the fact she had previously mocked Obama for using a teleprompter for his long speeches; yet she needs notes on her hand, for a few short items. If she'd never had a go at Obama for his needing a teleprompter, i doubt anybody would have noticed, or indeed cared that she wrote notes to herself.

I'd say nonevent as well. Notes are not the same level of preplanning as a teleprompter but neither matter.

Undertoad;633217 wrote:

...
It says nothing about her, except maybe that she's a commoner, which is actually an asset for her....

Which is why Im thinking it was done with intent...to make her look less polished.

Pico and ME;633276 wrote:

Which is why Im thinking it was done with intent...to make her look less polished.

Hmmmmm....that could be a good strategy. I really don't think it would be that hard for a public speaker to memorize three bullet points.

I like the change from [strike]budget[/strike] (unpopular) to tax (popular) cuts.