President Obama will be giving his second State of the Union Address on Tuesday evening on 1/25/11.



I imagine there will be some discussion of the lame duck accomplishments such as the New START treaty, the 9/11 first responders bill, and DADT repeal. Obviously there will be continued efforts to heal the nation after the events in Tucson. And, as always, there will be an effort to lay out the priorities for the coming year. Those priorities likely being largely economically oriented and looking at ways to find common ground during a period of divided government.

An interesting proposal:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/bipartisan-state-of-the-union-seating-gets-traction/

Quote :

"Bipartisan State of the Union seating gets traction Washington (CNN) - Colorado Democratic Sen. Mark Udall's idea of having members of both political parties sit next to each other at this year's State of the Union address is gaining traction - some positive and some negative. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Udall's "thoughtful suggestion" is worth "serious consideration." "I spoke with Democratic Whip (Steny) Hoyer and Sen. (Mitch) McConnell about the proposal and we will discuss it further next week," Reid said in a statement.""

Quote :

""Beyond custom, there is no rule or reason that on this night we should emphasize divided government, separated by party, instead of being seen united as a country.""

Will you be watching? Any predictions on what will be said? Anything you want to see said?

1/14/2011 2:16:40 AM

I want the supreme court to boycott.

1/14/2011 8:25:14 AM

ibt state of the union drinking game rules

1/14/2011 8:48:10 AM

clearly we could have used the thread from last year for this

1/14/2011 11:37:19 AM

I agree, one thread per year is too much!

1/14/2011 11:42:32 AM

I think we basically know what to expect. Obama isn't one for getting hung up on details - he's a big picture guy. We need jobs. We need robust economic growth. We need to address health care, which means looking at the skyrocketing cost of health care and health insurance. We need bipartisan cooperation. And, of course, we as a nation need to not be violent psychopaths.

What I don't expect to happen is for Obama to acknowledge the fundamental, structural weakness of the economy, or any coherent plan for how to deal with it. Doing so would require him to reject his policies of the past two years and do a complete 180. While I expect it to be an eloquent speech, the magic of Obama has dissipated. Even friends that I consider strong Democrats are not buying it anymore.

1/14/2011 6:12:31 PM

Maybe he'll promise to focus like a LASER on the economy...















...for the 25th time.

1/16/2011 11:49:58 AM

Looks like at least some of them are doing it:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/16/top-senators-to-sit-together-at-state-of-the-union-address/

Quote :

"Top senators to sit together at 'State of the Union' address By: CNN's Tom Cohen WASHINGTON (CNN) – In a symbolic gesture toward more civil political discourse, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer and Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said Sunday that they will sit together at the upcoming State of the Union address. Appearing on the NBC program "Meet the Press," Schumer and Coburn called for political debate based on issues and ideology, rather than motives and personal attacks"

I doubt that resolve will last long, but it as about as good of a sentiment as one could hope for when entering a period of divided government.

1/16/2011 5:05:46 PM

Similar to when Nancy Pelosi blocked Republicans from adding any amendments to any important legislation?

The Democrats are doing this because they got shellacked in November. And they know unless they turn themselves around and try and convince people they do want to work with Republicans , they are going to get shellacked in 2012.

1/16/2011 5:58:54 PM

Quote :

"The Democrats are doing this because they got shellacked in November. And they know unless they turn themselves around and try and convince people they do want to work with Republicans , they are going to get shellacked in 2012."

I don't really care because this is petty, but I have to ask: Why would the burden of responsibility have been on the Democrats to reach across the aisle when they were in the majority? I'm curious as to what your rules are for who should be held responsible for bi-partisanship and under what conditions.

[Edited on January 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2011 6:10:13 PM

it's always the dhimmicrats

their durty libhurlz who hate america

1/16/2011 6:52:35 PM

Quote :

"I'm curious as to what your rules are for who should be held responsible for bi-partisanship and under what conditions."

I figure if a person says they are going to pledge bipartisanship when they are in power, then they are responsible for bipartisanship. As for what it means, I think that person determines what bipartisanship means.

If Nancy Pelosi pledged to treat the 110th Congress fairly, that's a good expectation to set. If it doesn't happen (see above), I hold her responsible.

If the Republicans eschew a pledge of bipartisanship and, instead, work to do the things they were elected to do (with overwhelming majority), then they are responsible for doing those things.

All I've heard from the Democrats post-election is to get Nancy Pelosi elected as House Speaker again (Rep. Steve Israel - D-NY 2).

So, from my point of view, based on what both sides have said they are going to do, the Republicans have this Pledge to America (http://pledge.gop.gov/), and the Democrats have the pledge to themselves (http://www.dccc.org/pages/about).

1/16/2011 9:17:02 PM

bipartisanship is a good buzzword for campaigning but who actually votes for bipartisanship?

1/16/2011 9:23:08 PM

oh, ok. I see. So you buy into all that crap. Pledge to America...haha. good one.

1/16/2011 9:23:31 PM

You think there will be any of these moments?

1/16/2011 9:36:37 PM

Quote :

" oh, ok. I see. So you buy into all that crap. Pledge to America...haha. good one."

Wrong argument. If you want to talk about that, go to another thread.

My point was that people should do what they say they are going to do when in power.

Obama hasn't.
Pelosi didn't.
Boehner should.

1/16/2011 9:39:25 PM

so, just for shits and giggles: if democrats had more balls (and I personally think they should) would you be cool with them getting their agenda accomplished? Like, if they said, "fuck republicans, we're gonna get this done" would you be cool with that?

1/16/2011 9:43:40 PM

Quote :

"Obama hasn't. Pelosi didn't. Boehner should hasn't."

After committing to open rules, allowing amendments, and debate, he has tried to bypass all those things already this session. He called for spending cuts, and when asked in an interview wouldn't say any specific program to cut:
message_topic.aspx?topic=604354

And he wants to clean up Washington when he's been a part of it for 20 years:


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/30/gop.ad/index.html
"House Minority Leader Boehner releases Web ad attacking Obama on security"

An image of the Pentagon on fire during the 9/11 attacks is used in a new GOP Web video attacking the president.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202571_pf.html

Quote :

"He handed out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House floor in 1995 while lawmakers were weighing tobacco subsidies. In 2004, he allowed Sallie Mae to throw him a fundraiser while the student lending outfit was lobbying his committee. And he is a frequent flier on trips paid for by special interests."

Maybe he'll use the rest of session as a second chance though?

1/16/2011 10:15:35 PM

I intend to drink every time he says "jobs".

1/17/2011 3:37:47 PM

^I think you need this:

http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/

1/17/2011 5:59:53 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/cnn-poll-obamas-job-approval-rating-on-the-rise/

Quote :

"Fifty-three percent of people questioned in the poll approve of how Obama's handling his duties in the White House, up from 48 percent in a CNN poll that was conducted last month, as a very productive lame duck congressional session was nearing completion. "Obama's approval rating among Democrats and Republicans is virtually unchanged since December, but among independents it has grown from 41 percent in December to 56 percent now"

Quote :

"Nonetheless, Obama's 53 percent approval rating at the start of his third year in office is six points better than Bill Clinton's at the same time in his presidency and 16 points better than Ronald Reagan's figure in January of 1983."

First time he's broken 50% in a while on a CNN poll. Same for gallup.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145442/Obama-Job-Approval-Reaches-First-Time-Spring.aspx

Quote :

"PRINCETON, N.J. -- Barack Obama's job approval rating reached the symbolic 50% mark in the latest three-day average from Gallup Daily tracking. Obama's approval rating has been in the mid-40% range for much of the latter half of 2010. He last hit 50% approval in a three-day average near the end of May/beginning of June."

Quote :

"following a highly publicized pre-Christmas session with Congress that resulted in the passage of several major pieces of legislation. Obama's current approval rating is 80% among Democrats, 47% among independents, and 16% among Republicans in the three most recent days of polling. The figures for independents and Republicans are slightly higher than what Gallup has measured for Obama in recent weeks."

Up with independents, and better than Reagan or Clinton at this time. That maybe gives him a little political capital wiggle room, but not much. Which makes me think things like environmental protections/climate change and immigration reform will come more incrementally than in larger bills. I do wonder what he's going to say. If he doesn't say jobs 5 billion times he's got to get bashed for not focusing on the economy enough, and if all he says is jobs he'll get criticized for that too.

[Edited on January 18, 2011 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2011 4:38:36 PM

It may be an interesting one, if only because of the Republican insurgence. Obviously some of the rhetoric has to be toned down, but just as obviously he still has shit he wants to go down.

Of course, there's the argument made in the thread about Obama playing his hand perfectly -- he passed a lot of shit in two years, particularly in the last little bit of the lame duck session. He might be able to afford to slow his roll for a little bit, pick some low-hanging fruit as far as bipartisan support goes. Not sure what there is as far as that goes, but finding weird shit to support is a SOTU tradition (see: Bush wanting to go to Mars)

I will be watching because I've seen every goddamn SOTU since I knew they existed, because it's the fucking President and plus I like to giggle when I see the fasces behind him.

1/19/2011 1:35:32 AM

NO WE CANT

1/19/2011 1:44:44 AM

And the Tea Party's state of the union response will be given by.........

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/21/bachmann-to-giver-her-own-state-of-the-union-rebuttal/#more-143901

"Bachmann to give her own State of the Union rebuttal"

Quote :

"The Minnesota Republican, who has said she is considering a presidential bid, will broadcast her response to Tea Party activists on the Tea Party Express' website after the president's address. According to the organization, one of the most well known chapters of the grassroots organizations, the conservative firebrand will "take on Barack Obama.""

1/21/2011 5:45:11 PM

Hagan is sitting with Ellmers

1/21/2011 6:07:16 PM

It starts at 9pm tonight. I heard NPR/WUNC say they will be broadcasting it on the radio. I believe it will be online here, among other places online:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2011

Here was the preview he sent out a few days ago to the OFA supporters listserv:

1/25/2011 5:53:38 AM

Quote :

""Bachmann to give her own State of the Union rebuttal""

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2011/01/25/ac.kth.bachmann.history.cnn?hpt=C2


Will this finally be the straw that breaks the camels back? Not likely. I'm sure she'll spout off some "Americans can do anything," and "we need to deregulate the markets to help create jobs." You know, the same talking points they've been saying for the last billion years.


I sincerely hope this woman runs for president. It would be beautiful

[Edited on January 25, 2011 at 7:35 AM. Reason : ]

1/25/2011 7:28:24 AM

Look forward to Paul Ryan

1/25/2011 9:12:23 AM

1/25/2011 9:37:21 AM

The President is supposed to talk about a "spending freeze" tonight...great considering:

Quote :

"Mr. Obama's major contribution to deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009 expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the overall spending increase was 22%. In one year."

Quote :

"CBO confirms that Democrats have taken federal spending to a new and higher plateau: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% this year, and back to an estimated 24.3% in 2011. The modern historical average is about 20.5%, and less than that if you exclude the Reagan defense buildup of the 1980s that helped to win the Cold War and let Bill Clinton reduce defense spending to 3% of GDP in the 1990s. This means that one of every four dollars produced by the sweat of American private labor is now taxed and redistributed by 535 men and women in Congress."

Quote :

"Mr. Obama's touted spending freeze for some domestic agencies is the politics of gesture. It would apply to only 17% of the budget, and these programs have already had a 22% increase in their annual appropriations in the past two years, and another 25% increase including stimulus."

and

Quote :

"As for the deficit, CBO shows that over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history. By 2019, the interest payments on this debt will be larger than the budget for education, roads and all other nondefense discretionary spending."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html

1/25/2011 2:59:34 PM

^ from the article:

Quote :

"If this borrowing were financing defense investments or tax rate reductions to spur the U.S. economy, we wouldn't be worried."

1/25/2011 3:23:51 PM

An "Enhanced" SOTU will be broadcast online, which charts, etc.

1/25/2011 3:28:35 PM

if the borrowing was onshore vs. from international interests, I would not be as worried.

the debt service is staggering and it is leaving to fund international interests instead of our own.

1/25/2011 6:19:49 PM

Quote :

"if the borrowing was onshore vs. from international interests, I would not be as worried"

Why does it matter who loans us money? Investors are investors are investors.

1/25/2011 7:17:47 PM

the debt service (cash) flows overseas to foreign investors, governments, economies, etc... vs. the interest payments staying here being put back in our economy.

1/25/2011 9:12:15 PM

I really like his points so far on education.

1/25/2011 9:33:48 PM

to move businesses to the US we need high speed internet and mass transportation? really? really?

to move businesses to the US they need to be able to make more money here (taxes) than where they are currently.

1/25/2011 9:39:11 PM

20th century solutions for 21st century problems.

1/25/2011 9:56:10 PM

Yes, some of them are gay

1/25/2011 10:07:42 PM

cheap, efficient bandwidth for the multitude of large American companies that serve various content cannot be discounted so easily. It is a BIG deal how weak we are related to many other countries. Cost and capacity are huge limiting factors in the scope of any business online, be it Joe Jackass and his site that sells dildos, or a big company like Netflix serving mass amounts of streaming data, or some education service like Vista or Webassign or Mastering Physics. Also consider our migration to centralizing our info into the cloud (sorry for buzzwords ) and how common it is to collaborate on, share, and generally pass data around in everyday business...faster, more reliable infrastructure relates to more money in hardworking peoples pocket.

Sorry for tipsy rambling

[Edited on January 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2011 10:12:58 PM

sure, it certainly helps, but cash/taxes will drive the bus.

1/25/2011 10:15:20 PM

Quote :

"to move businesses to the US we need high speed internet and mass transportation? really? really? "

Because that is all he said...

Quote :

" to move businesses to the US they need to be able to make more money here (taxes) than where they are currently. "

Looks like you jumped the gun, 'cuz Obama also mentioned this (they had a nice slide showing how high US corporate taxes are compared to other countries if you were watching the enhanced online version).

1/25/2011 10:16:28 PM

^^its all related, man. I just got my sweet annual bonus from my tech job and I'm more than happy to pay the near 40% that came out of it. You have to give up value to get value.

1/25/2011 10:18:32 PM

I feel like i wrote half of that speech though, because I sent an email on whitehouse.gov a few months back saying the infrastructure investments were misguided, and we needed to focus on communications investment, and focus on scientific/engineering creativity (referencing Apple and Google) since manufacturing was dead in America, and Obama spent a good part of the speech talking about exactly these things.

1/25/2011 10:19:49 PM

I think it's more telling on how messed up the whole situation is that us common folk can easily identify necessary courses of action yet it seems like unknown or innovative territory when introduced to our government.

[Edited on January 25, 2011 at 10:27 PM. Reason : good speech, we'll see what will come of it]

1/25/2011 10:25:07 PM

This speech seemed less ambitious than his last one in terms of the variety things to achieve, but more focused on the things he did want to accomplish.

1/25/2011 10:25:15 PM

Why does Paul Ryan look like he's about to cry?

1/25/2011 10:26:45 PM

Quote :

"Looks like you jumped the gun, 'cuz Obama also mentioned this (they had a nice slide showing how high US corporate taxes are compared to other countries if you were watching the enhanced online version)."

i did not jump the gun...the left loves to demonize big business, profits and the "rich." if you are a wealthy CEO, why would you move your company to a country that will tax you at "40%"?

if you want to attract business, and do it fast, you cut their taxes and give incentives. simple as that. the infrastructure is great, but it will not start a moving truck.

1/25/2011 10:26:53 PM

Quote :

"i dont know how to ask this in a non-racist sounding way, but who is that dark skinned guy sitting on the aisle with the slicked back hair that has a weird curl at the bottom/back?"

1/25/2011 10:27:08 PM

^^ You and Obama are in agreement on that point. What is your issue...?

1/25/2011 10:27:58 PM