State of the Union

[Ravariel]

Tonight, Barack Obama gave what could be his final State of the Union address to Congress. He also, has effectively made his first major positional stance in the 2012 campaign.

You can find the full text of his speech here

A liveblog, with various reactions from around the blogosphere can be found here

He has effectively put real distance between his and his Republican opponents' positions, carving out a huge portion of the center/center-left that will be difficult for the Republicans to shift him from. This could hurt, especially if the Primary drags on much longer and the candidates continue to fight over portions of the far right base. Still a lot of areas about which Obama is weak (leadership, failed policies, etc), so this is hardly a knockout, but expect the Republican establishment to scramble to get a nominee but fast, and try to take back some of the independent center.

Should be an interesting couple weeks with Florida coming up. If Romney can't manage an emphatic win there, then the batch of primaries in March will be the thing to watch.

[Light]

I was extremely pleased with his State of the Union Address. For the first time since he took office, I approve of the way he's handling his job as president.

I agree that this may make the presidential election a little more difficult for the Republicans to win, but let's not forget that slight increases in approval ratings caused by State of the Union Addresses usually wear off some time afterwards.

I hope Romney can take down Gingrich at Florida. If he can't, I don't think he'll win the nomination.

[Warforger]

Honestly the whole Mitt Romney v. Newt Gingrich with all this anti-Romney propaganda coming ranging from attacking his religion to attacking that he speaks French to attacking his heritage in general is pissing me off and makes me want Romney to win, sure there is the standard "LIBERAL" attacks for when you take out of context and logic that he doesn't support all Republican idea's because apparently politicians aren't supposed to disagree with anything their party comes up with etc. etc. that's pretty standard bullshit that goes on in Attack campaigns ever since the 1930's, but come on, the attacks on Mitt Romney by Gingrich and Paul are so shallow it kills all potential support I may have had for either and gives it to Romney.

Well I guess that's a bit off topic, but whatever, it's not like anything Obama said is going to sway too many Republican voters.

[marchohare]

At 1/24/12 11:51 PM, Light wrote: I hope Romney can take down Gingrich at Florida. If he can't, I don't think he'll win the nomination.

I know the Republican primaries are volatile as hell, but here's where the Florida polls stand now. They're showing an average of a +7.4 spread for Gingrich. With the Florida primary less than a week away, it doesn't seem likely that Romney can catch up.

It'll still be a race, but it's a weird one. I find it hard to believe that the more urban, populous states would go for Gingrich, but who knows? Herd mentality and momentum are powerful things, and the Republican "Big Tent" appears to be burning down. It's always been a party of small government fiscal conservatives, big government cultural conservatives, and big government defense wonks. The last two groups say they're "small government," but that's a load of crap -- they'll spend money like drunken frat boys at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch for the Drug War, military adventurism, and the enforcement of abortion bans if they could get them. Those three groups aren't getting along as well as they once did. This is chaos.

The thing is, Gingrich can't beat Obama. His numbers are even worse than Santorum's (an 11 point spread and a 9.8 spread respectively). Paul's are better at 5.1 behind the incumbent, and Romney's are the best at only 1.9 behind him. However, I'm not sure individual Republican voters care about winning. They care about their agendas, particularly in rural areas. You might not like this, but it's the party of provincialism. Rural Republicans in particular live in a cultural and informational vacuum. They don't know which way the wind is blowing. They just know what Joe Bob and Betty Lou think.

I'll stand by my prediction that it's going to be Romney for the Republican nomination and Obama for the win, but I'm starting to feel pretty uncertain about the former. It just might end up being Gingrich for the nomination and Obama for the REALLY BIG win.

The Republican Party seems to have lost its mind. I'm not sure what they're going to do.

[Gustavos]

Watching republican primary debates always puts me in an annoyed and uninterested mood. Watching one of Obama's state of the Union speeches always gave me really patriotic feelings and ideas, and an overall warm feeling about the future. Even though this has been the same consecutive, unchanging feeling I was left with the past two years. The only change since then was we haven't fulfilled the prophecies of either everybody speaking mandarin or being at "war with Islam".

Like, I should be just as annoyed and uninterested in Obama as I am with the republican primaries, but the man knows how to give a speech.

Well, here's to another few days of optimism before business as usual.

[PrincessLuna]

Mitch Daniels said "It's not fair and it's not true for the President to attack Republicans in Congress as obstacles on these questions". Funny, aye? The Republicans have been behaving like the corporate funded petulant multimillionaire zealots that they are.

[Korriken]

I ponder the intellect of anyone who is moved so much by words, myself. The State of the Union address is just that, words. Say what you want, I'm watching your actions.

personally, I'm not in favor of any of the candidates or the president.

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/25/12 04:38 AM, PrincessLuna wrote: Mitch Daniels said "It's not fair and it's not true for the President to attack Republicans in Congress as obstacles on these questions". Funny, aye? The Republicans have been behaving like the corporate funded petulant multimillionaire zealots that they are.

Classic Republican maneuver.

>> Mitch Daniels punches a baby in the face.

>> Mitch Daniels says, "God dammit Obama, why'd you punch that baby in the face?!?!"

>> Republicans believe Obama punched a baby in the face.

At 1/25/12 07:38 AM, Korriken wrote: I ponder the intellect of anyone who is moved so much by words, myself.

Then get the fuck off the internet and become a deaf mute.

Most idiotic statement of 2012. Don't worry, its words. If they move you, you're not very intelligent. ;)

[Korriken]

At 1/25/12 08:42 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 1/25/12 07:38 AM, Korriken wrote: I ponder the intellect of anyone who is moved so much by words, myself.

Then get the fuck off the internet and become a deaf mute.

Most idiotic statement of 2012. Don't worry, its words. If they move you, you're not very intelligent. ;)

funny... well, not really. this statement is kind of sad. also, given that you cherry picked one sentence and left the rest out. Anyone who had an orgasm over last nights speech without asking, "so... how much of this is true?" is either a zombie or has a total lack of critical thinking skills. How much was it was true?

factcheck.org's assessment
politifact's version

politifact was much kinder to Obama than factcheck.org was. Fact check seems to have more in depth articles all around anyway, so its no real surprise.

here's my favorite one:
Obama: I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.

Factcheck.org: Actually, Obama has increased the Border Patrol only modestly since it nearly doubled under George W. Bush, when the number grew from 11,264 in fiscal year 2005 to 20,119 in fiscal year 2009 (which began Oct. 1, 2008). After that, the number went up to 21,444 by the end of fiscal year 2011, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. About 85 percent of those guards are stationed along the southern border.

yeah... and of course all the zombies are shuffling around praising Obama for it too... When it was BUSH who double the border patrol and of course the shit state of the Us economy is keeping them in Mexico because, seriously, what's the point of sneaking over when there are no jobs to do?

[J1993]

Id prefer Obama to win but out of Gingrich and Romney Id rather the one who isnt a religious fanatic won (not saying all religious people are fanatics but most of us would accept fanaticism is dangerous religious or not).

[SmilezRoyale]

The fact that the disappearance of the middle class or rising income inequality is still widely taken as prima-facie evidence that Washington needs additional power and money. [whether this formula is presented directly or indirectly] Is what worries me the most.

The fact that Uncle sam can take a sledge hammer to the American dream by manufacturing a housing bubble, then claim that the american dream is under siege and implicitly argue that they need more money [presumably to buy more sledge hammers?] to fix the problem, and that people buy into this reasoning, suggests that we have a very long way to go.

Most of the factchecking i've seen done with Obama's State of the union isn't saying that Obama is an outright liar, simply that his statements are exaggerations. I can't hate the guy for trying to spice up his record in this particular manner. Enhancing the truth about one's record is less of a problem than appealing to a general ignorance about the nature of government, and economics.

[morefngdbs]

Once the American Dollar was what all Nations around the world used to purchase oil, commodities etc. it has been stretched to the limit & many players are looking to find some other alternatives
That is no longer the case. The embargo of Iran has forced the issue...the US IMO has really fucked itself.
Unlike Iraq, Russia , India & China are refusing to back them.
They are & will continue to do business with Iran.

Not only will they do business with them, they have worked out payment in other ways,
1. India has become the first buyer of Iranina oil to agree to pay with gold
2.China has said it wil folow India's move
3.approx 40% of iranian oil is presently consumed by China & India
4.Settling Oil accounts in gold enables Iran to circumvent the EU's upcoming freeze on Iran's Central Bank Assets & the oil embargo announced Jan 23
5.Due to the magnitude of the transactions, the price of gold could be pushed up, & US dollars move down & will see loss of 'world reserve currency' status.
6.The EU only accounts for approx 20% of Irans oil output
7.Transactions with Iran will now be done between 2 Indian owned banks & a Turkish one.
8.Financial mechanisms have been put in place for Iran & Russia oil purchases to be paid in something other than US dollars.

The Union is going to be in some state all right !
Why was there no report about that I wonder ?

[adrshepard]

Herd mentality and momentum are powerful things

Hell, they worked for Obama.

they'll spend money like drunken frat boys at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch for the Drug War

I'm okay with legalizing drugs like heroin and cocaine, aren't you? What could go wrong?

military adventurism

Yeah, the whole "dictator with nuclear weapons" thing isn't that big a deal, when you think about it.

and the enforcement of abortion bans

As if that would outweigh the amount of taxpayer dollars already going to support and provide abortions.

The thing is, Gingrich can't beat Obama. His numbers are even worse than Santorum's (an 11 point spread and a 9.8 spread respectively).

Numbers which could never, ever change in the next 11 months.

They care about their agendas, particularly in rural areas. You might not like this, but it's the party of provincialism. Rural Republicans in particular live in a cultural and informational vacuum. They don't know which way the wind is blowing. They just know what Joe Bob and Betty Lou think.

Epic tolerance from a liberal.

[TotalN]

I really liked Obama's speech, although I wasn't 100% in agreement with all of what he said.

Can't wait to see the republicans topple over themselves trying to get a nominee.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/25/12 03:38 PM, adrshepard wrote: Hell, they worked for Obama.

Nah, I think it was a combination of 8 years of a president who had become unpopular with much of the country, and the knee jerk reaction that the economy going down was somehow all bush's fault is what got him in the chair. The election was very close until the economy went in the shitter, if you think anything else tipped that election, I just don't think you paid attention.

I'm okay with legalizing drugs like heroin and cocaine, aren't you? What could go wrong?

Amsterdam seems to be doing ok. But you're right, clearly if the War on Drugs is criticized the only possible conclusion to draw is that you either like that, or you want to legalize everything...there is of course no middle ground.

Yeah, the whole "dictator with nuclear weapons" thing isn't that big a deal, when you think about it.

It kind of isn't really. N. Korea has them and what have they done? Some unstable countries have them. Deterrence theory may be insane in it's principal and all...but it's insanity that seems to be working. I'm not buying that a nuclear Iran would suddenly start firing ICBM's hither and yon because at the end of the day I think dictators are pretty much the same as everybody else in one key respect: They like living. Firing ICBM's shortens your life expectancy tremendously.

As if that would outweigh the amount of taxpayer dollars already going to support and provide abortions.

How? Where? When? Also abortion bans are certainly a health issue, and potentially a civil rights issue as well.

Numbers which could never, ever change in the next 11 months.

They could, but for Gingrich to get the White House you'd need another major game changer like the economic melt down in 08, or another terrorist attack like 9/11. Gingrich is the kind of candidate that I think would cause even people who don't like obama to say "better the devil I know...then the crazy a-hole that seems determined to rewrite history and show an ignorance of how things work".

Epic tolerance from a liberal.

Other then the last sentence (which was clearly a low blow) I think there was actually a pretty accurate representation of the mindset of people who vote Republican. Certainly that's been my experience personally with Republican voters.

[orangebomb]

At 1/24/12 11:22 PM, Ravariel wrote: Tonight, Barack Obama gave what could be his final State of the Union address to Congress. He also, has effectively made his first major positional stance in the 2012 campaign.

I was rather impressed with his State of the Union address, although the feeling of general optimism will probably begin to fade away in about a week, so I'm not going to hold my breath on any major improvements. At this rate though, Obama has got this election in the bag, considering the Republicans are too busy attacking each other, and possibly providing more ammo for the Obama reelection camp.

Should be an interesting couple weeks with Florida coming up. If Romney can't manage an emphatic win there, then the batch of primaries in March will be the thing to watch.

If Romney doesn't win Florida's primary, then it will certainly be an uphill battle for him to pull this one out. Romney might be the only Republican candidate that a shot of winning over the independent voters, {like what Obama did in '08} and get enough votes to win the election, or at least make it close. As for Gingrich and the rest of the Republican candidates, I can't really see them having much of a chance against Obama, unless something drastic happens between the nomination and November. I don't think that people are ready to vote for a crazy person becoming the president, now that we are just getting out of the lowest pits of the recession.

[gumOnShoe]

At 1/25/12 09:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/25/12 03:38 PM, adrshepard wrote: Hell, they worked for Obama.

Nah, I think it was a combination of 8 years of a president who had become unpopular with much of the country, and the knee jerk reaction that the economy going down was somehow all bush's fault is what got him in the chair. The election was very close until the economy went in the shitter, if you think anything else tipped that election, I just don't think you paid attention.

That and Palin. McCains numbers didn't really start dropping off until she got on the ticket. I think it was a combination of the two.

[Korriken]

Given that the election was close until the economy tanked, despite Obama's rockstar image and media gushing all over him, trying to make him out to be some sort of god, along with them beating McCain and Palin in the face over his age and her 'stupidity', I would say Obama's in deep shit this time around. 3 years later the economy is still in the hole, the rockstar image has faded, he now has a record of nonleadership, he was as divisive as any other president, among other things.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/26/12 08:41 AM, Korriken wrote: I would say Obama's in deep shit this time around

You assume the people will somehow like a Romney candidate, or the nation will have collective amnesia with regard to a Gingrich candidate. If the Republicans were taking a good look at the inside of their own bowls they might have had a slam dunk. Frankly, I don't want a party that's too inept to pull this off having a spot at the top of government. If they can't win what should have been something easy, how are they going to solve the multitude of complex problems our country faces?

[marchohare]

At 1/25/12 11:45 PM, orangebomb wrote: If Romney doesn't win Florida's primary, then it will certainly be an uphill battle for him to pull this one out.

The Republican primaries are a very weird. When I posted these poll results 48 hours ago, Gingrich was ahead of Romney in Florida by 7.4 percentage points; however, now that same page is showing Romney leading by 5.0. If you look at the graph below the table, you can see where Gingrich spiked and Romney tanked, then the numbers immediately began to reverse.

Perhaps cooler heads are prevailing down there. I'm not in Florida; I'm in South Carolina where the idiocy started. If Republican want even a snowball's chance of winning in November (and it would still be a long shot), they'll vote for Romney. If they want to see Epic Fail, they'll nominate Gingrich. It's as simple as that.

What I'm hearing here in South Carolina (when I hear anything at all -- none of my friends are Republican), it's that Gingrich scored big by telling off the media. He did what Bill Clinton SHOULD have done when questioned about Monica Lewinsky. Rather than confirming or denying anything, he called them all bottom-dwelling vultures and basically said, "It's none of your goddamn business!"

Crappy human being, smart move.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/26/12 07:12 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: That and Palin. McCains numbers didn't really start dropping off until she got on the ticket. I think it was a combination of the two.

Palin hurt, since the reaction to her was an almost immediate negative (certainly for me before any stuff coming out about her intelligence, I was against the nod because when you put a woman you admittedly don't know on your ticket...and a woman was shot down for the Pres nod on the other side and did not get the VP consolation prize...clearly you're pandering). I think Palin however was negligible and he still had a chance. The meltdown won Obama that practical landslide he got, pure and simple. Never underestimate how little the average voter actually understands what a President does and doesn't do.

[Korriken]

At 1/26/12 09:23 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

If the Republicans were taking a good look at the inside of their own bowls they might have had a slam dunk.

one thing I've always wondered, CAN a party say, "No, you can't run on our ticket, we're not even going to let you be in our primary."? I've never heard of anyone crying foul over such a thing.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/26/12 07:48 PM, Korriken wrote: one thing I've always wondered, CAN a party say, "No, you can't run on our ticket, we're not even going to let you be in our primary."? I've never heard of anyone crying foul over such a thing.

While they don't outright say it, when they're telling certain candidates they can't participate in primary debates and other such events that would give their message a forum...yeah, they really are effectively saying you can't run on our ticket and you don't get to be in our primary.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/26/12 07:48 PM, Korriken wrote: one thing I've always wondered, CAN a party say, "No, you can't run on our ticket, we're not even going to let you be in our primary."? I've never heard of anyone crying foul over such a thing.

Well, technically, the parties in the US are private clubs. They are merely private colaitions of people focused together in order to collectivize their wealth, time, power, and influence in order to make it easier for members of the club to be elected to the President.

[camobch0]

It's basically all of the same stuff he promised in 2008, pretty much all of which he did not deliver on. I take it with a few truckloads worth of salt.

[marchohare]

At 1/26/12 09:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: While they don't outright say it, when they're telling certain candidates they can't participate in primary debates and other such events that would give their message a forum...yeah, they really are effectively saying you can't run on our ticket and you don't get to be in our primary.

^THIS^

Exactly. You'll hardly hear them crying foul, because they've effectively been deprived of a voice. If you do hear anything, you'll hear it in a venue that assures it'll come off as the butthurt whining of an unsportsmanlike pipsqueak at best, and the ravings of a lunatic at worst. The medium, as McLuhan so rightly pointed out, is the message.

[adrshepard]

At 1/25/12 09:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

The election was very close until the economy went in the shitter, if you think anything else tipped that election, I just don't think you paid attention.

True. Just like how Obama's poll numbers on how he is handling the economy went up since last month in connection with more positive growth reports. Of course, no one really did anything in that time, but since Obama's at the top, he gets credit for it.

I'm okay with legalizing drugs like heroin and cocaine, aren't you? What could go wrong?

Amsterdam seems to be doing ok. But you're right, clearly if the War on Drugs is criticized the only possible conclusion to draw is that you either like that, or you want to legalize everything...there is of course no middle ground.

All I meant to convey was that the drug war would still be expensive even if drugs like marijuana were legalized. It's not fair to blame prudish obstinancy over marijuana for the costs of enforcement.

Yeah, the whole "dictator with nuclear weapons" thing isn't that big a deal, when you think about it.

It kind of isn't really. N. Korea has them and what have they done?

Other than harass S. Korea and occasionally kill some of its people? Nothing, if that behavior doesn't count.

Firing ICBM's shortens your life expectancy tremendously.

If your enemy has enough ICBMs to wipe you out, too. If he only has a few and his delivery isn't reliable, then MAD doesn't apply. An arms race among Middle Eastern nations would be pretty sloppy compared to that between the US and USSR.

Plus, some of these WMD-holding regimes aren't stable, like you said. Wouldn't you be disconcerted if Ghaddafi had nuclear weapons and they fell under the control of some cruddy militia?

How? Where? When? Also abortion bans are certainly a health issue, and potentially a civil rights issue as well.

Planned Parenthood recieved about 300 million from states and the federal government in 2009, if wikipedia is correct. The organization's services include abortions, the majority of which are probably elective, judging by other data about abortions in general (I think we talked about this in another thread).

Other then the last sentence (which was clearly a low blow) I think there was actually a pretty accurate representation of the mindset of people who vote Republican. Certainly that's been my experience personally with Republican voters.

In that case, let me say that people who vote Democrat tend to live in an environment that tolerates a lack of personal responsibility and moral fortitude in the name of compassion and understanding, even at the expense of one's own values. I know more than a few people like that.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/27/12 08:32 PM, adrshepard wrote: True. Just like how Obama's poll numbers on how he is handling the economy went up since last month in connection with more positive growth reports. Of course, no one really did anything in that time, but since Obama's at the top, he gets credit for it.

Just like he gets blamed when things go down, even if that downward trend has nothing to do with him or his policies. Like I said, that kind of thing is based completely on people's lack of understanding as to what government does and doesn't do to stimulate the economy.

All I meant to convey was that the drug war would still be expensive even if drugs like marijuana were legalized. It's not fair to blame prudish obstinancy over marijuana for the costs of enforcement.

It could still be expensive, but not AS expensive, and maybe a little more effective as well. Currently in Jersey we've passed a Medical Marijuana law, but thanks to no movement on creating dispensaries patients with perfectly legal prescriptions are arrested and charged over possession. Before we continue to fight a "war" that we can't really win...maybe we should try and figure out what the rules are first?

Other than harass S. Korea and occasionally kill some of its people? Nothing, if that behavior doesn't count.

What does that have to do with Nuclear weapons though? N. Korea would be doing those things anyway with or without the nukes. The only thing it seems to me having nuclear weapons changed in NK is it made The US less likely to want to invade them and the rest of the world more likely to listen to them. I see Iran looking for the same thing if they are pursuing the tech.

If your enemy has enough ICBMs to wipe you out, too.

We have enough to blow up the world several times over, so do a few other allies...I'd say we've got enough.

If he only has a few and his delivery isn't reliable, then MAD doesn't apply. An arms race among Middle Eastern nations would be pretty sloppy compared to that between the US and USSR.

It would, and other then Iran and Israel...who really has the capability at this point? I'm not a fan of jag offs like the Ayatollah getting their hands on that stuff...but I also don't buy for a second it's the doomsday scenario most people envision. Especially since it's usually based on erroneous claims about motivation and how fervent they are in their radical religious ideas.

Plus, some of these WMD-holding regimes aren't stable, like you said. Wouldn't you be disconcerted if Ghaddafi had nuclear weapons and they fell under the control of some cruddy militia?

I would indeed...but hey, know how it would most likely fall into their hands? By somebody destabilizing the region and toppling the government! You know...the crap you and others tend to advocate?

Planned Parenthood recieved about 300 million from states and the federal government in 2009, if wikipedia is correct.

You do know abortions are a very small part of what Planned Parenthood does, correct?

The organization's services include abortions, the majority of which are probably elective, judging by other data about abortions in general (I think we talked about this in another thread).

We did, and I questioned the reliability of your data then and found your conclusions highly speculative. Same applies now. I'd also point out once again abortions aren't illegal in any way.

In that case, let me say that people who vote Democrat tend to live in an environment that tolerates a lack of personal responsibility and moral fortitude in the name of compassion and understanding, even at the expense of one's own values. I know more than a few people like that.

The whole reason we have stereotypes is because in some cases their true. That's what I endeavored to point out through my experiences both personally in my IRL world, and what I see, read, and experience online and in the media. I'm well aware of course that your opinions are just as valid to a degree (I get a little stuck on "moral fortitude" since morals are a subjective thing).

[HoboPorn]

At 1/24/12 11:51 PM, Light wrote: I was extremely pleased with his State of the Union Address. For the first time since he took office, I approve of the way he's handling his job as president.

It's easy to like what someone who's a great liar says...

... Even harder to believe that he believes what he says :[