The State of the Union Address is tonight. The speech will run about an hour and 15 minutes with a little time built in for applause. Feel free to comment on points being made. The is President Obama’s first State of the Union Address.
The one and only time I attended the State of the Union Address I was in awe of the raw power in the room. I enjoy reliving that special night. Who is not there? There is always someone who isn’t there and I cannot remember who it is.
I guess everyone is just spell-bound, right? 🙄
Guy always gives a great speech. Don’t usually agree with much of what he has to say but he’s a great speaker.
Great speaker, if you don’t mind the professorially slow, staccato tempo. Took a few jabs at the Republicans, managed to blame Bush at least twice (“I’m just stating the facts”), and is sticking to his guns on health care and cap and tax.
I say go for it, Mr. President! Forge ahead with the same agenda that got Scott Brown elected, and your party will hit freefall in November. Great strategy.
Virginia looks good!
Why don’t we just let the american people do what we’ve always done. If we begin something and we see it isn’t working, well, we try the next most sensible thing. If that works, halleluja, carry on. If not, then let’s (all) rethink this thing. When the only people who have a say in the “plan” are as lost as the ones who implement it there’s not much hope. I’m grateful that I have hope in Christ. Pray for this president even if you don’t like him. If you’re a praying person that is.
Actually, his intellect really shines through in his speeches and I believe in his personal beliefs, and like so many other republicans turned independants. I thought it was a fantastic speech.
Its a shame both republicans and democrats are the ones that are so stupid in congress today. I predict that if the republicans continue to hold everyone hostage to a 60 vote supermajority to make progress on health care, jobs, and refuse to punish the greedy and self serving interests in America, and continue to allow illegal aliens to cross our borders and steal our jobs while they are the ones most benefitting from the economic recovery act (hmm 2 million americans helped, while 15 million people are illegal….wonder who is really getting that 1 trillion dollar deficit without paying taxes on it? Greedy business owners wanting cheap illegal labor at the cost of losing jobs for the middle class (for this you can blame lobbyists and super greedy companies looking out only for thier own interests and buying off congressional votes (yeah slam the Supreme court on thier stupid stupid political decision), then come November, independants like me are going to clean house and senate of old republican religious fanatic diehards, as shockingly as Japan removed 75% of its congress in one single vote of the people’s voice. Politicians you better start listening up, and do what Obama is telling you to do, take care of the averages citizen, not your own greedy self interests.
It was really interesting to see Obama engage in a conversation with the nation and really talk about the realities and the difficulties, at this at time when so many Americans are wondering what’s going on with this dude? Where is his head? I am usually bored by these speeches but this was the most entertaining SOTU speech I’ve ever seen. Not only because of the Massachusetts drama, but also there was a lot of humor.
Obama was having a lot of fun at the Party of No Clapping. It was hilarious, they couldn’t even clap for tax cuts?!?!?! Why the F not? Because the wealthiest 5% were left out? I don’t know NOBODY in the wealthiest 5%. How about looking out for the rest of us R’s?!? Seriously, tax cuts for 95% of Americans were exactly what we needed because the economy had just collapsed, and this was a way to put money in people’s pockets so they could keep buying the essentials and keep our economy flowing. Sure it added to the Bush deficit by 2 percent or whatever, but it those tax cuts were needed. Fricken’ clap for it R’s, you look so petty and small and partisan.
Obama summed it up. Being the Party of No can bring short term political gain, but it’s not leadership. Some would say, well we won a few state wides so that’s partisan leadership at least. But that’s not why we put you in office, to sabotage your own country so that you make your base happy and make the rest of the country look away in disgust.
I can’t believe that anyone but the most cynical partisan would watch that speech and say “give me more Party of No, more party before country, and more hoping America fails.” D’s have to reach across the aisle, but will the R’s put “country first?” At long last R’s! Have you no patriotism?
Fabulous speech by Obama! Obama cares more for middle class Americans than Republicans who don’t want to do anything for anybody except rich people, or who pose nekkid in magazines, like Scott Brown. I am very proud that Obama is my President!
I’m guessing the DNC is shedding tears now to think they made Kaine chairman and not you.
Ah today the real fun beings. Fox and Friends is on doing a post mortem of the State of the Union Address. Friends? Not even close. Fair and balanced? Sort of like a firing squad is fair and balanced. Gretchen isn’t there for her little Stanford jabs so they have brought in Michele Malkin to make sure enough hate is generated. Steve D. is giving his little morning jeers and jabs and curling his lips and nostrils as he speaks.
They really need to get rid of the ‘fair and balanced’ logo. On the other hand, I can see their followers rising, getting their coffee, and salivating in anticipation of another day of good ole Obama bashing, Life is good for them!
Starry, I thought it was a good speech also. I thought his speech subtly responded to some of his most unfair criticism also.
New Gov didn’t too too badly. He didn’t embarrass me at least. Only criticism there was the response would have been more meaningful to me had I not had to endure another speech with clapping. I would have rather he just stepped out of a closet like Jindal did. 2 speeches with clapping was just annoying. I fell asleep because of it.
“The party of ‘no'” is a worn-out cliche and a falsehood that even the President was perpetuating last night.
What part about allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, thus broadening risk pools and lowering costs, suggests “no”?
What about tort reform, to lower malpractice costs that get passed on to patients? Where is the “no” there?
What about the drug reimportation issue, that now allows foreigners to buy American-made drugs much more cheaply than we do? Where is the “no” there?
Answer: The Democrats. Whose interests are THEY protecting?
The Democrats were the party of no the last 8 years. The opposition party is always “the party of no”, so no one should be surprised by that. That’s how the two party system works. It is funny now hearing this, given how the Democrats acted the last 8 years.
On the other hand, I thought for the most part it was a good speech, and definitely interesting. I don’t agree with all of it, but I don’t deny it was a good speech.
However, in Massachusetts the people spoke, and everyone might as well accept that and try to work on a bipartisan healthcare bill. The Democrats shut out the Republicans, and they do have ideas on healthcare. I think that’s what should happen, and if we had a true bipartisan healthcare bill, it would probably get passed and make a lot of people happy.
This “party of no” thing is silly. And, the people of Massachusetts proved it with their recent senator election.
Yes Emma,
Lets do the same old tired strategy of the unfunded mandates of the republicans, now THAT was a great strategy, look at where Bush left us when his term was up. I especially thought two wars, medicare prescription drug act, and NCLB worked out great for all of us, especially the deficit Bush left behind. Please, enlighten me, how were those endeavors payed for again? Oh that’s right, they were not.
GR,
Democrats DID work with Bush and Congress, ergo the Medicare Prescription Act and NCLB AND two wars. Lets not forget, the Republicans did not have a fillibuster proof senate. Somehow, enough democrats crossed the aisle. Besides several judges being fillibustered, exactly how were the democrats the party of no? Boy, I’ll bet the Republicans are breathing a huge sigh of relief that they didn’t go through with the “nuclear option”!
Emma,
The Medicare Prescription Act made it ILLEGAL to get your drugs from outside the country, like Candad, Democrats fought that during the debate of Medicare but Republicans refused to take it out of the bill. Seriously, you want to talk about special interest? There were drug companies in the halls of congress during that vote. Never before had a vote been kept open so long for the deals to be made behind closed doors. THAT was dirty business.
The speech was good, but not great. His delivery was very good but the content was ill-suited for a State of the Union address. A little too combative for the context. I don’t have a problem with Obama getting more combative but the State of the Union isn’t the right forum. The jab at the Supreme Court was particularly discordant.
The problem is that I don’t think it’s going to help Obama much. He’ll get a short term bounce in popularity but he didn’t offer new ideas for the problems that concerns the public. (And who ever thought Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was an issue the public was clamoring to revisit right now needs to get out more.) Obama’s personal popularity is being driven down by his policies which have always polled lower than him personally. If he wants to improve his standing in the polls, he needs to adopt different policies, not do a better job of selling policies the public has soured on.
In short, it needed a little less Audacity and a little more Hope. The tone would have been OK if he were in the upper 50s to mid 60s but in the upper 40s you need to be a little less combative. Obama needed to pull of the classic George H.W. Bush line “Message: I care” and I’m not sure he did that last night.
Side bar, JustinT, you really don’t know anyone in the top 5% of households? That’s only $157,176 for a household income. There are plenty of people in Prince William county earning that and more. I’m sure there are plenty of people on this blog that have household incomes north of $157k. The county median is about $87k so $157k isn’t that far above average statistically speaking. (less than two sigma I’m sure) Even per capita income is about the same. Top 5% there is just a bit over $100k. (I don’t have the exact numbers.) I’m sure you know plenty of people who have incomes on the sunny side of six figures. They just aren’t obvious because they don’t fit the stereotype of “the rich”. Being in the top 5% isn’t that unusual in a higher cost of living area like ours.
I think the reason why Fox News and other Republican water carriers are trying to distract America from the content of Obama’s speech is that his words are irrefutable. This speech was a call for courage from elected leaders who are afraid of the future. It was also a reminder that the nations we are competing with to lead the global economy are NOT afraid. They are taking the initiative we fail to grasp because too many Americans put partisan gamesmanship before the national interest. This was the speech that asked POLITICIANS to ask not what their country can do for them (or their position of power and leadership). President Obama asked Republicans and Democrats to ask what their position of power and leadership can do for our country.
I also loved when he told Democrats to get things done, not run for the hills, and reminded Republicans that with 41 votes, it’s their responsibility to join the team, grab a mop, and help American clean up after the Bush disaster.
I could list a zillion ways the democrats were the party of no not just in Bush years but in other years where they were in the majority. I did not mean just the Bush years.
One was to sharply reduce funding of several key defense contracts, which later proved not to be such a smart idea.
Again, each party is the party of no when it is not in power, this is nothing really new, as much as people do their best to try and make it be.
I suppose to, the people of Massachusets must be the “people of no”. Apparently, disagreeing is verbotten these days. That’s the message I get with this “party of no” hype.
The Republicans early on tried to be involved in the healthcare reform, and actually were resoundingly told NO, by Pelosi and others. In fact, Pelosi is the “woman of no”!
I mean to say “I suppose too, the people of Massachusets …” above
And I don’t disagree it’s time for Republicans to work together with Democrats.
But to paint the past as if Democrats have always worked in a bipartisan spirit is a vast revision of history.
Democrats didn’t need the Republicans last year, and let it be known to them very loudly, and that very much helped the Republicans become “the party of no” if you want to use that term.
Democrats made it loud and clear since they were the majority, Republican input was not needed nor wanted. Pelosi, Reid, and others made it ABUNDANTLY clear.
Thus, the Republicans maybe became much more vocal than the Democrats were in the Bush years when the Republicans did not have a fillibuster proof majority.
It just shows how very very dangerous it is for any one party to have that kind of majority. The Democrats are just as much as responsible for creating the “party of no” atmosphere as the Republicans.
BOTH sides are equally responsible, if you ask me. To lay the blame only on the Republicans is really distorting things.
Is it blaming Bush to state that you inherited a huge mess? I don’t think so. It states facts. We had just narrowly avoided another great depression. We still aren’t out of the woods yet.
I don’t think Bush can be blamed nor do I think Obama is blaming him. Were some practices in place that allowed some of the crash to happen? Absolutely. Did this crash happen anywhere else? Absolutely. Check out the rest of Europe. Bush’s fault? Bush has control over the UK? Obama has control over the UK? Preposterous.
Apparently people do need reminding that Obama took office almost in the middle of a financial crisis. Stating that is not blaming Bush and I am tired of hearing it because it has just become the rhetoric and drum beat of partisan politics. Most people are really tried of the finger pointing and blame gaming and going no where.
I don’t like everything Obama has done, by far. I could take some serious issue with a few things. However, I also don’t like it that the guiding light of TV news has set out to destroy a man and to bring down a president, and that is what I am hearing. They are rapidly making themselves some new democrats. I can hear them being born right on this blog as a matter of fact.
I know, isn’t it terrible the way Dan Rather tried to destroy George W. Bush with those forged memos.
Oh wait, you mean something else.
(Sorry I couldn’t resist. Yes, the more conservative media outlets have been critical of him, but it’s hard to say that Obama hasn’t had very favorable media coverage from 2004 until the present. Compare his coverage to the coverage that Bush or Clinton received and Obama has nothing to complain about.)
The press seems to think Obama is blaming Bush – right away on WTOP this morning they said Obama took some shots at Bush during his speech.
FA has a good point about the fiasco with Rather and the forged memos. Rather never has really taken proper responsibility for that, in my own opinion, and seems to think his CBS career was improperly affected. Rather was definitely partisan.
Obama speaks = stock market tanks. At this rate all the
“change” I will have are a couple of pennies. Hard to believe in that.
BobbyMac looked good and ceratinly came across better than Jindal last year,
but the Potemkin staging and audience helped him — no foes
with arms crossed to frown at him.
I don’t understand why every political response has to be along the lines of ….yes but look what someone else did. It doesn’t matter what Dan Rather did to George Bush at the moment. It did then, but it has nothing to do with what happened then and what is happening now. Look where Dan Rather is now.
It is wrong for one news station to continue to have one and only one goal which appears to be destroying anything that is Democrat. That’s the kind of behavior that breeds new Democrats. (or anything else that rises up in opposition)
Poor Richarad, that backdrop for McDonnell got on my last nerve. I was already tired of listening to it in the State of the Union Address. I find it horribly distracting. I know it is traditional in the SOTUA and it won’t change but I sure hated seeing it in our state house right after.
Gainesville, then how does Obama remind people that he walked in on a huge mess? He is being blamed for the entire thing. I don’t blame either president, It was a perfect storm and it certainly did not just hit the United States.
Moon-Howler,
The reason for my response pointing out that Presidents have been savagely attacked (fairly or not) regardless of party is because you didn’t. You only took exception to the coverage of what I am assuming is Fox News.
Calling out Fox News for attacking Obama is perfectly fine if you similarly call out Air America or Dan Rather or others for doing the same thing. But singling out Fox News while ignoring far worse from the other side makes you look partisan and implies there is something particularly unique about Fox News. There isn’t. Certainly nothing that is as significant as the anchor of one of the big three TV networks passing off forged documents to attack Bush in 2004. Dan Rather had an audience and credibility that Fox News could only dream of and he used it very unethically.
My comments aren’t meant to be an excuse for excesses on one side, but to point out that neither side is innocent, and singling out one side for particular condemnation seems kind of silly. (Again, I really don’t think Obama has much chance of winning the “Worst Press Coverage” game among recent Presidents. Frankly, Clinton and Bush are the only two that have a chance in that game.)
I just want you to be “Fair and Balanced” (And for the record, I’m not a big fan of Fox News but I do oppose the current Two Minutes Hate that is being directed against them. Government officials putting pressure on unfriendly media outlets is never a good thing.)
THIS is why I love Obama!
“What frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent – a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game.”
FOX news HATED Clinton, he could no right, then suddenly, Bush jr comes to town and he can do no wrong, and YET look at the mess he left us in. NOW shockingly, Obama can do no right. Even Kathleen Parker was objective about what Bush did wrong!
Nooo, I didn’t go after Dan Rather. I never even thought about Dan Rather. He was fired. Why would I go back ten years or so to complain about how an entire news station castigates everyone and everything that is Democrat, all while hiding under an umbrella called “Fair and Balanced?’ If they called themselves the Republican Tea Party Fox News Station I probably wouldn’t give them as much hell. Dan Rather is one person. He was a pain in the ass as far back as the Democratic Convention of 1968 if memory serves me. But he is one person. He isn’t an entire news
teamstation going out to brainwashing or convert people.From the moment Fox and Friends comes on in the morning until they are mercifully off and a freshment band of T & A troops comes on replace the warn out culture warriors of early morn, there is absolutely nothing but Democrat bashing, with the bullseye painted on the president’s forehead.
As for Air America and why I don’t bash it? Why would I bash something I had never heard? That makes as much sense as trash trapping 9500 Liberty if I had never seen it. That just isn’t me. And as for being partisan, I freaking hate everything Fox News stands for. If that is partisan, then I will just goose step right on over to the podiom and snap off a crisp salute.
Fox News is influencing a lot of people’s thinking. Some of that influence is not what they intended. I consider myself an independent. I have voted for Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George Bush Senior in my lifetime. After just listening to Faux News for an hour this morning, I would probably cut my hand before voting for another Republican.
It was a speech. Period. A bunch of words, sentences, and paragraphs. Now let’s see how he does with the actual work. It looks to me like he is acknowledging plenty of missteps during the past year and trying to reverse course in some areas without alienating those who brought him to the party in the first place. That is not going to be easy.
I do think he has to get over the “party of no” business. Somehow I get the feeling that “bipartisanship” in his mind is the other side caving in completely to his own views and desires. It doesn’t work that way. It works when you sit down with the other side and come to a working agreement on issues based on the “possibles.” The last couple of elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts should be a signal to him that it is not only the Republican Party which is balking at his current policies but also that a growing segment of the population is unhappy as well. The answer is to sit down with the other side and find that middle ground. He digs in his heels and he is in danger of “losing” his presidency He finds the middle ground and he could do much better for himself and the political peace of the country.
He still seems to believe that the November 2008 election represented an elevation of himself and his ideas to the pinnacle with an open book to do as he wished. I think he forgot that his election was also came in large part from a tiring of the electorate with Bush II and a panic created by the sudden arrival of an economic downturn never before seen by citizens under a certain age. An electorate disgruntled with one president can just as easily become disgruntled with the next. And I do believe this electorate is rethinking its willingness to go along with extremes and refocusing on the “possibles” of the middle ground which will effect changes on which we can all agree. The time for “I won” and the rest of you guys lost is over.
Wolverine, don’t you think each party has the I won now get over it mentality?
I really hate politics. I have dabbled only deep enough to see that we the people don’t really know anything but the tip of the iceberg. What really goes on is too ugly to see the light of day.
I left you a message about our charity. Very sad. I can send you the letter I got via the email you left behind the scenes if you can’t find it. Fr. Steve. 🙁
Formerly, I don’t know about the 2 minutes of hate you referenced. More info por favor.
So, watch 95% of the State of Unions over the past fifty years and it is BS –
piled high by both parties. Only a few -very few – shining moments.
(Like what ever happed to “W”‘s Switchgrass Revolution? Or his great
new adventures in space?, etc.)
I would like to start out with a big fat ‘YOU LIE’… there, now onto my grades.
I give the TOTUS an ‘A+’, what a wonderful job! I give Obama a solid ‘B+’ for delivery (the guy reads a good speech) but an ‘F’ over all because you can’t believe a word he says. Actions speak louder than words and so far Obama has proven just how much his actions differ from anything he has said or promised.
From closing Guantanamo Bay in 1 year, to lobbyist in his admin (7 waivers so far) to lobbyist influence on policy decisions. His right hand man (aka the most frequent White House visitor) is a lobbyist and some how met directly with the President on Health Care Reform and walked out with a 60 BILLION dollar tax exemption for the people he lobbied for. Of course I’m talking about Andy Stern, the SEIU douche Obama ‘talks to first’ on health care issues.
And another thing, the only reason he talked about jobs and the economy being issue #1 and tax cuts and/or credits was because of one person, Scott Brown. Had Cokely won Massachusetts this speech would have been completely different.
So much to think about, and I don’t have the luxury of blogging from work.
@Moon-howler “I don’t understand why every political response has to be along the lines of ….yes but look what someone else did.”
Isn’t that what Obama did last night–and Democrats continue to do– to a very large extent? Elena did exactly that in response to my earlier post. Obama last night complained about what he was left with, and took several jabs at the Bush administration. It’s time to move on.
@Elena “Lets do the same old tired strategy of the unfunded mandates of the republicans, now THAT was a great strategy, look at where Bush left us when his term was up. I especially thought two wars, medicare prescription drug act, and NCLB worked out great for all of us, especially the deficit Bush left behind. Please, enlighten me, how were those endeavors payed for again? Oh that’s right, they were not.”
No reason for me to argue with those issues, except that many Democrats were on board with the wars and with the unfunded mandates. The biggest one I can think of is the DNI–an entire agency created as an unfunded mandate that essentially robs from all of the other intelligence organizations in order to function.
And my disillusionment with the Republican party has been no big secret here. But how can we move forward if “bipartisanship” means “the Democrat way or the highway”? In the interests of moving forward, why not consider tort reform and interstate insurance competition? The Democrats can harp on past Republican failures as a reason to shut the opposing party out, or they can give the Republican proposals serious consideration. Or they can sit back and assume that Massachusetts voters were just mad at Wall Street, to their peril.
And who is this “Washington” that President Obama kept referring to? Why does he detach himself, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid from that “Washington” establishment? Or has he vacated 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Moon, please do e-mail that letter to me. Thanks.
I especially like the way that our President chose to belittle the Supreme Court in front of the entire nation… nice.
I agree with everything Elena said.
@hello
What President Obama said last night:
“”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.”
The President grossly exaggerated the impact of this ruling and gave Congress the opportunity to jeer the Supreme Court justices sitting right in the chamber. Absolutely unconscionable, and no less rude than Joe Wilson yelling “You lie!”.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, in authoring the dissenting opinion, said that the court was not specifically overturning barriers to foreign campaign spending, but basically said it was outside the scope of the opinion. Kennedy said, “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process.”
They simply didn’t deal with the question of foreign campaign contributions. That’s a very far cry from “opening the floodgates.” Hard to imagine that Obama, a Harvard Law professor, would twist this to his advantage and think no one would notice.
It is Obama’s opinion that the floodgates will be opened. He wants legislation that will short up those flood gates. I don’t think he belittled the Supreme Court. Belittled? He didn’t call them little people in black robes.
How appropriate was it for Justice Alito to be caught mouthing Not So. Not So? At least he didn’t shout it.
You know, if everyone agreed on court cases, there would be no need for a Supreme Court. I believe most people have concerns over removing restrictions on corporate and union campaign financing. Very few people want corporations or unions to have equal status with individuals.
I agree Emma, and I find it completely dishonest coming from a man who received over 30 MILLION just from SEIU alone… what a classy guy and so ethical too. Nothing says class like talking down to the Supreme court with the nation watching.
Floodgates Moon? What about the floodgates the unions opened during his campaign? What did that do, it got them a front row seat at the negotiating table for health care and Obama rewarded them with 60 BILLION in tax exemptions. Yeah, floodgates….
I wonder why CSPAN wasn’t filming during that negotiation at the White House? Special interest lobbying at it’s best from the ‘most ethical admin.’….
I don’t disagree that it’s tough for Obama to say things like he inherited the bad economy without people saying he’s attacking Bush. On the other hand, we all know he did, he can stop saying it at this point really. Reagan inherited a disaster from Carter in terms of what he did to the economy – rampant inflation, super high interest rates, so it works both ways.
And, the Democrats did have the attitude last year that the Republicans should accept everything without question, and there was also this “rush rush rush ram everything through Congress” thing that I didn’t like. What was the big hurry? Yes, the problems needing fixing, but why ram it through. Just what exactly was the big hurry on that climate legislation that was zoomed through the House – and we all heard how it had to be done right away! Same with the healthcare, and a lot of that was done behind closed doors – which Obama had promised would all be out in the open. Not only that, the final bill in each case wasn’t even given enough time for people to read it to have a clue what they were voting on, instead it was it had to be voted on within xx hours of it being finalized. Most house/senate members really couldn’t possibly know exactly what it was they were voting for. I just didn’t like that rush rush rush attitude. Pelosi also is on record for basically saying she didn’t need the Republicans nor want their input on several major things, and that definitely caused a lot of anger. All of that is just what led to Massachusets, a very Democratic state, voting in a Republican senator. That should be a wake-up call that obviously what was going on last year didn’t go well with the people in that state.
Obama made great promises about bipartisanship, but he too right away after being elected didn’t really seem all that serious about fostering a true bipartisan atmosphere. I think that too caused a lot of anger among some Republicans. I’m not saying that some Republicans aren’t at fault here too, but this business about them being solely responsible for being “the party of no” is hogwash. The Democrats bear some responsibilty for that too.
@hello
I believe those union floodgates are what ultimately cost Coakley the election in MA (aside from the fact that she ran such a poor campaign, arrogantly assuming she was a shoo-in for the seat). Giving unions the temporary exemption for their “cadillac” healthcare plans was a deal with the devil that has helped ignite the anger that the administration is deliberately mischaracterizing as anger with Wall Street.
You mean where the Democratic Congress under Pelosi and Reid left us when Bush’s term was up? Funny part is, Ododo, as senator, voted FOR all the Bush spending he cried about during the SOTU address. Now, you were mentioning unfunded mandates……like….say….social security? Medicare? Oh, just those little over-70-trillion-dollars-in-unfunded-mandates thingys??? Or maybe the unfunded mandates to the states tied to the porkulus money, those kind of unfunded mandates?
Oh, and anyone caring to do a little research will find out that Alito was right, Obama did tell an outright LIE about the Supreme Court decision and foreign campaign contributions.