Running blog….boo hiss…clap cheer. Make fun of the funny people. We have SOTU Address, Rebuttal by Paul Ryan, and the tea party rebuttal given by (snicker) Michele Bachman.
111 Thoughts to “SOTU Address: Running commentary”
Comments are closed.
Archives
Categories
Blogroll
- 9500Liberty
- Bacons' Rebellion Blogspot
- Bearing Drift
- Blue Virginia
- Citizen Tom
- Counts of Monte Cristo. The
- Derecho, The
- Dixie Pig, The
- My Side of the Fence
- My Star Journey
- NARAL Pro-Choice VA Blog
- New Dominion Project
- Nova Common Sense
- NovaTownHall Blog
- One Libertarians's Point of View by Al Alborn
- Pete Candland's Blog
- Potomac Local
- Prince William Muckraker
- PW Conservation Alliance
- PWC Moms
- PWCPolitics.com
- PWCPolitics.com
- Red NoVA
- Shad Plank, The
- She the People
- State of NoVA, the
- The Jeffersoniad
- Townhall
- VEA Daily Reports
- VivianPaige
- WDGolden.com
- You, Me and the Lamp Post
All contents copyright Moonhowlings.net
Blogroll
- 9500Liberty
- Bacons' Rebellion Blogspot
- Bearing Drift
- Blue Virginia
- Citizen Tom
- Counts of Monte Cristo. The
- Derecho, The
- Dixie Pig, The
- My Side of the Fence
- My Star Journey
- NARAL Pro-Choice VA Blog
- New Dominion Project
- Nova Common Sense
- NovaTownHall Blog
- One Libertarians's Point of View by Al Alborn
- Pete Candland's Blog
- Potomac Local
- Prince William Muckraker
- PW Conservation Alliance
- PWC Moms
- PWCPolitics.com
- PWCPolitics.com
- Red NoVA
- Shad Plank, The
- She the People
- State of NoVA, the
- The Jeffersoniad
- Townhall
- VEA Daily Reports
- VivianPaige
- WDGolden.com
- You, Me and the Lamp Post
Bachmann – if we don’t repeal Obamacare we risk the finest health care in the world. How does Obamacare impact Sweden?
MH, here’s some read meat for you since I know you were looking for someone being uncivil.
Rep. Paul Broun (R-Tenn.) apparently didn’t pick up the post-partisan vibes that President Obama was attempting to thread into his State of the Union address on Tuesday. As Obama was ending his speech, the Tennessee Republican (or at least a member of his staff) tweeted the following: “Mr. President, you don’t believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism.”
That was the sharpest of the congressman’s jabs. The other tweets were devoted to accusing Obama for being high on rhetoric and short on substance.
Awww.. C’mon. Give the President a pass.. It was a funny joke about TSA..
http://twitter.com/ACLU/status/30093672670298112#
President Obama makes funny about TSA pat-downs, but the violations of the Constitution are NO JOKE!
Tennessee sure doesn’t have gentlemen any more. Rep. Cohen was also from Tennessee.
Bachmann was her usual sophomoric self.
What did Iwo Jima have to do with anything?
I wish Michelle Bachmann had looked into the correct camera. However, putting that aside, could she have been anymore confrontational? How many times did she say “obamacare” ?
Furthermore, does she really think deregulation is what will prevent another catastrophic abuse on wall street or in the real estate lending market?
furthermore, her “symbolism” of the Iwo Jima and brave men joining together to defeat the evil tyranny was very confusing. Is she suggesting people need to come together because Obama represents tyranny?
I need oxygen I am laughing so hard! Stop it, I am begging you Moe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spending the most (by far) of any country on health care doesn’t mean we get the finest health care. I believe we ranking about 39th in the World Health Org rankings and our longevity ranks about 50th. Here’s an article today saying of 21 developed countries our increase in longevity is growing the least of any because we’re fat and we smoke. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/heart/articles/2011/01/25/smoking-obesity-slowing-us-life-expectancy-report-finds
From Twitter: Obama is the salesman assuring you can afford the new sportscar. Ryan is your accountant reminding you that you can’t.
Priceless.
Mr. Happy Ryan was the Eeyore, like always. He could ruin a …..never mind.
AARP isn’t too happy with the SOTU.
A. Barry Rand, CEO of AARP, released this statement:
“We’re pleased to hear the president acknowledge the vital importance of Social Security and the need to protect this lifeline for future generations, but we are disappointed that he, like his fiscal commission did last late last year, seeks to address this bedrock of financial security in the context of reducing a deficit it didn’t cause.
“Moreover, any attempt to control spending in Medicare and Medicaid without addressing the causes of skyrocketing costs throughout the health care system will not reduce these costs, but rather shift them on to the backs of people of all ages and generations.
“While efforts to reduce the deficit are important, we will continue to speak out against any plan offered by the administration or Congress that would target these critical safety nets for changes based on budgetary targets instead of their impact on the lives of everyday Americans.”
Bachmann needs to be stuck under a truth-o-meter.
@marinm
Their membership starts at age 50. They won’t go far if they throw part of their demographic to the wolves. Good for them for standing firm of Medicare and SS. I don’t know why medicaid and medicare are being compared in general. Medicare is a system all working people have paid in to. What isn’t being talked about by those not involved is how much of the actual cost is picked up by the individual.
@Moon-howler
I think they sort of lost that high ground when they supported HCR on the first go round.
Why did Mr. Ryan vote to increase medicare spending on prescription drugs back in 2003 if he was so concerned about deficits?
I don’t know what point Bachmann was trying to make with the Iwo Jima image. I mean, yeah, it’s a great photo and all, but what does that have to do with reducing deficits?
I’m looking forward to the coming debates – not between Obama and the Republicans but between Republicans and the teajadis. The next two years will be very, very interesting.
So, what drinking games did you use to get through it? I didn’t watch it. It gets my wife upset when I talk back to the TV.
And I’ve fisked it over at UCV. Had to put MY two cents in….
Starry,
That was different, that was under Bush, THOSE deficits don’t count silly goose!
oh, and lets not forget the medicare actuary being threatened with losing his job if he actually shared the real numbers with congress. Where was that conservative outrage then? Crickets, I can tell you, cause I was yellin’ it about it then and can’t remember TEA party like people raising their voices, nope, the silence was deafening.
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-17/politics/medicare.investigation_1_medicare-actuaries-thomas-scully-drug-bill?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
“The Department of Health and Human Services has launched an internal investigation to see whether a senior government staffer was pressured to withhold information from Congress about the true cost of the Medicare prescription drug bill.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced the probe Tuesday.
Rick Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has said that then-agency chief Thomas Scully threatened his job if he answered questions from congressional Democrats about the cost of the bill before a series of key votes last summer.”
I’m hetro enough to admit I have a man crush on Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Obama’s speech wasn’t too bad but I think the bipartisan seating threw off his rhythm. Speech was broad and really didn’t get into any specifics. I don’t think the progressives were a fan of it. As a person leaning more conservative there were a few parts that sounded really good but I’m not sure if it was meat thrown in our direction or indicating REAL movement.
I think anyone that’s centrist would’ve enjoyed the speech for the most part as they recognize that govt is too big, needs to be trimmed down and be more effecient. Not that we have to get rid of it but that we need more bang for our buck.
@Elena
an’t remember TEA party like people raising their voices,
There was no TEA party in 2003 or 2004. We’ve only been around for about 18 months. As for conservative outrage, where did you expect to see it? The media? Yeah….they don’t tend to cover the conservatives too much. But, again, want to see the result of conservative outrage….who won the freaking election in 2006 and 2008? Until the Tea Party and 9/12 projects, the only organized protests that conservatives did was NOT vote for the GOP.
Moon,
I read the parts of the President’s speech released prior to his delivering it. The language was optimistic, and I could see the attempt to unite, inspire and motivate the American people. There were bits for each side of the isle, and bites for each side as well. I did like the parts where he pointed to the “messy” nature of our system of government, but it is still the best system in the world. While watching the speech, I got the impression that the President was not delivering the speech he wanted to give, almost as if there was resentment that the American people are forcing him to go in a direction different from the one he would prefer. Afterwards, I read the entire speech again, and had a hard time reconciling the text, with how the speech was delivered. I got the sense that he’s committing his administration to doing the things he outlined more for political survival, rather than the economic survival of the Nation. I’d give the speech a “7” overall, but acknowledge the “high degree of difficulty” post-November 2010.
On the flip-side, Congressman Ryans speech was (IMHO) spot-on, in content, delivery, and tone. In fairness to the President, the requirement to be “inspirational” was much smaller for the Congressman. He spoke in urgent terms, but not terms intended to shock and terrify. We need to understand the size and scope of the issues, and the differences in the respective parties approach to those issues. I think Congressman Ryan was critical of the President and Democratic leadership, but not overly so. I’d give this response an “8.5” with a lesser “degree of difficulty.”
I just read Bachmann’s transcript. Except for the Iwo Jima paragraph, it was pretty good. She’s 100% right.
@Steve Thomas
But, did the President ever, actually, tell us what the State of the Union was? There was no detail in the speech. It was full of generalities and pablum. He wants to expand spending on all sorts of thing while at the same time, enacting a total freeze on domestic spending.
What?
Cargo,
I do see your point, but I wasn’t expecting a radical departure from the President’s normal mode of addressing the Nation. Then again, I’d have to go back to Reagan to recall a SOTU speech that was more “steak” than “sizzle”. I can recall G.W. Bush floating the “guest-worker program” as the center-piece of a broader immigration reform bill, in at least three SOTU’s, but it wasn’t until the last year of his admin, before the “amnesty bill” was attempted. Mostly, I see the SOTU’s used by Presidents as a “focus group” sort of exercise, where they float concepts, goals, and a few objectives, and see what resonates most, then try to figure out how to get there. It’s also used to set the tone for the coming year’s agenda.
Cargo, what exactly did you hear that made Bachmann appear ‘right?’ (right meaning correct rather than more conservative than a John Birch member)
Did she overlook the fact that we are recovering from a depression? Why would anyone listen to someone who thinks slavery ended with John Quincy Adams?
@Steve Thomas
You are right. Senator Ryan really didn’t give a bad rebuttal. He just always seems so doom and gloom and unhappy and well…like Eeyore to me. I also realize he toned down HIS personal politics a lot. So I saw him and heard HIM rather than his words, if that makes sense.
For those who thought Paul Ryan was right on–here is an interesting article about him and what his “Roadmap for America” will cost us and how long it willt ake to get to where he wants to take us. Does arriving in 2064 and $62 TRILLION sound like the right road to take?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/paul_ryan_is_not_what_you_thin.html
If you think it is the right way to go then you should read or watch Professor Jerry Harvey’s “Abilene Paradox”. Although it was first published in 1988, it is as relevant today as it was 33 years ago. The paradox is about management decisions, but it also applies to other situations.
Probably the last real report on the “State of the Union” was when George Washington reported it.
One can only hope this bunch of windbags who just came in don’t destroy the country with their fife and drums. Wishing us back in another time doesn’t solve much and sure could run us into some obstacles.
People who are green need to ripen. Those who think they are ripe when they aren’t are often rotten.
A disappointing State of the Union address
Tuesday, January 25, 2011; 10:35 PM
PRESIDENT OBAMA entered office promising to be a different kind of
politician – one who would speak honestly with the American people
about the hard choices they face and would help make those hard
calls. Tuesday night’s State of the Union Address would have been
the moment to make good on that promise. He disappointed.
It’s not that everything he said in the speech was wrong; on the
contrary, we agree with much of it. To remain competitive in the
world, and to reverse the trend of rising inequality at home, the
government will have to invest, as Mr. Obama proposed, in scientific
research, education and infrastructure. To stay safe abroad, the
country can’t stint on national defense or foreign aid. Republican
visions of dramatically smaller government are unrealistic and
potentially dangerous.
But where will the money come from? “We will make sure this is fully
paid for,” Mr. Obama said as he grandly pledged to “redouble” road
and bridge repair. With higher gasoline taxes? Traditionally, that
has been the way. Mr. Obama didn’t elaborate.
The president promised to freeze discretionary spending – exempting,
that is, defense, veterans affairs, homeland security, Medicare and
Social Security – for five years. Given that he’d already promised a
three-year freeze, this was more incremental than earthshaking and,
as he acknowledged, in any case affects only 12 percent of the
federal budget.
The reality, as Mr. Obama understands, is that the country is headed
for fiscal catastrophe unless it does some politically unpopular
things: unwind the Bush tax cuts, including for the middle class;
reduce projected Social Security benefits for future retirees,
exempting the poor and disabled; rein in the cost of health care;
limit popular income tax deductions. Mr. Obama knows this, but last
night he did little to prepare Americans for any of it. The best you
could say is that he left the door open to work with Congress on
these issues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012504573.html”
I am rather gleeful that HuffPost is in a huff over the SOTU… Progressives are not happy which makes me have a tingle in my leg.
Why would you take delight in knowing someone else was unhappy? I simply don’t get that.
That further advances my point about mean-spiritedness.
Why do progressives take glee in trying to further tax the top 1%? Why lobby for such a success tax?
I simply don’t get that.
I’m almost afraid to ask but what is a teajadi and did you make that up all on your own or did you hear that at one of your D&D sessions in your mom basement?
@marin, I don’t think it is glee. I think it is recognizing that those at the top of the head probably don’t need to be exempt. We aren’t talking about quantum leaps. Even a little more might be appreciated.
Why are those making 120k maxing out of FICA? There is a quick fix on SS. Remove that ceiling. Even if there was a flat rate rather than a percent, it would still help out the problem.
When people’s social security and unemployment are taxed, perhaps those making a million could pony up a bit more instead of having their rich friends in Congress protect them. No one is protecting the unemployeed or the retired.
Cargo,
That was my point actually, why wasn’t there a TEA party with all the spending and excessive exec orders under Bush? My question is actually rhetorical though, I am pretty sure I know the answer.
@Elena
I think I know the answer also. And let’s face it….all those who are so vocal now weren’t without speech back in 2001.
Does it take a brick up side the head? Do not come on here and start insulting people. Starry is not your punching bag. If you want to know what something is, ask the person. No need to insult him or anyone else.
Point taken Moon, sorry Starry… what is a teajadi?
Also, playing D&D in your mothers basement is a favorite past time with some people. I happen to know a few progressives that LOVE dressing up in costume, turning out the lights, lighting a bunch of candles and playing D&D all night in their mothers basement. Hopefully none here (possible D&D players) take it as ‘insulting’ that you refer to it as ‘insulting’. 🙂
Elena,
The TEA Party was a direct result of the GOP losing it’s way, getting tossed out, being replaced by a liberally controlled Democratic Majority. Lest we not forget, the punishing of the GOP began in 2006, and concluded in 2008. The TEA party is primarily reforming the GOP.
Did the GOP really lose its way? One has to question that considering George Bush won a second term in office. Apparently a whole bunch of folks liked what they were seeing. After all, that wasn’t the election that was so hotly contested.
I don’t think the tea party concept is the answer to what might be wrong with the GOP. IN fact, the more I see, despite all the denials, the less likely I am to come around to their way of thinking.
Drums and fifes aren’t the answer to 21st century, post-depression problems.
medicare precription happened first term, along with Iraq war, along with NCLB, and the creation of DHS, a huge new government department. No, what I think happened was that Bush was hugely unpopular because of so many wrong turns. You had lots of questions, towards the middle of his second term, even from within his own party. Let’s not forget the entire federal judge debacle. No, GW allowed the presidency to and its reputation to falter. In the end, faced with the reality of an economic meltdown not seen since the depression, he had to finally turn to the government that he believed was not the fix. He approved the bailout and the democrats agreed with some restrictions, allowing the President to save our country from complete collapse. THAT was his fatal mistake, actually seeing that government had to play a pivotal role and then acting upon that a realization.
If the democrats were to follow in the same steps as the GOP, you would see an extreme left wing faction rise like the TEA party, suggesting the President had forgotten his “progressive” base. No, going to the extreme for any party is not a positive development in my opinion.
MH and Elena,
I can see your points, but disagree with some of them. Please understand my perspective is one of “inside” the GOP. First, the dissatisfaction went far deeper than the Oval Office, so I’m not going to lay the rise of the TEA party squarely at the feet of GW. When campaigning for Bush’s re-election, I had to address concerns coming from committed conservatives, GOP and indepents, regarding spending and growth of government. The response was “do you think Kerry will do better?” Unfortunately, some of the trends continued 2004-2006. Conservatives stayed home and independents voted “D” in the mid-terms. This was a redpudiation of many of Bush’s policies, and punishing the congress for going along with them. In 2008, the GOP couldn’t make the case that they had seen the “error of their ways”, and weren’t able to motivate conservatives sufficiently enough to get to the polls, nor were they able to convince independents that there was a dime’s worth of difference between the parties. But, once the Democrats controlled both the Congress and the Whitehouse, conservatives and independents saw what the Democrat approach to governance meant, and grew very concerned, and frustrated. The TEA party grew out of this frustration. While the average TEA party member historically voted GOP, they weren’t ready to fully support the GOP unless or until they saw signs that the GOP had learned its lesson began to “reform” itself. They challenged GOP incumbants, secured the GOP nomination in many races, and even got a few elected. Or, they threw their support behind “establishment” GOP candidates who where historically small-government, fiscal conservatives.
So with this in mind, maybe you can see why I argue that the TEA party’s very existance is an expression of outrage over GOP performance while they were in power, as much as it is an expression of outrage against the policies of the Democrats.
And then there are so many who would have let the country go in to depression.
I am just not too impressed with followers of Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann. And yes, those were 2 leaders in the beginning.
Steve — You have hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head. This is one conservative without party affiliation who was fuming throughout most of GWB’ second term not at the Democrats but at the Republicans and their failure to live up to expectations. I have to agree with some “progressive” claims here that the current mess got a good jump start in the GWB era because so many Republicans bailed out of the responsibilities expected of them —- although this in no way excuses the Dems for their then concurrent role in pushing us into the problems and their continuing refusal to deal with them in a rational fiscal manner.
We got a double negative whammy from both major parties; which is exactly why I personally went into a “Tea Party” mode aimed initially at the Republican side. In my opinion, when you find yourself in dire distress, the first thing you do is look to see how you can reform and reconfigure your own current forces for better effectiveness. Going third party is, in my view, way far down any list of possible actions. The first action plan worked to a great extent in the the November 2009 election. But that was just a toe in the water in my opinion. Now comes the really heavy lifting —- and the monitoring. At this point, I would say that the Republican leadership in the House especially is still the entity under the most acute “Tea Party” scrutiny.
Moreover, we need not just a conservative effort to right the ship of state but a combined effort, which makes me hope that the President himself realizes this and is genuine in putting that realization into action. It is not MY credit card that is maxed out and MY credit rating which is nearing toilet status. It is the NATIONAL credit card and the NATIONAL credit rating — meaning all of us are in the same leaky ship and all of us had better start bailing together as fast as we can.
Make that the “November 2010 election.”
Why did they turn against John McCain? I believe he was concerned about many of these issues and voiced them, much to the chagrin of his party. In fact, he was one of only NINE R’s to vote against the prescription drug act! He called Rumsfeld out when the Iraq war was clearly NOT going well. He was a maverick and proud of it, and yet, those very people that seemed to demand their GOP go back to conservative roots, hated McCain…..why?
From an outsiders view Steve, I do not see what you are saying. From here, it looks like people got angry about losing the 2008 presidential election and they took it out on the GOP. Parties lose elections, it’s the ying and yang of democracy. Bush had eight years and the country was in crisis, people were desperate for new solutions.
I don’t trust politicians not to turn my country into a third world nation. Just a small example: our national parks are our gem. Since 2000, those national parks have gone into ill repair–some more so than others. They weren’t an issue. War was the issue.
I believe in preserving our national resources. Now that to ME is a fairly conservative value. I also believe the government is who should be guarding our national resources–not corporations. When are the ‘stop the spending’ yahoos going to sell off the parks? Yellowstone was nearly decimated before the feds took it over. Geysers were stopped up by people throwing a variety of crap into them. Buffalo and other animals were driven off, big chunks of rock were chipped away as suveniers.
It is those things I fear greatly. I also don’t trust myself with macro economics. Yet these wonderbars who can’t speak standard English are shouting at everyone else what needs to be cut and what doesn’t (bad summer flashback). No no no.
Elena, McCain was seen as the biggest RINO of all…mainly because of immigration. (my opinion)
I could never support him because he turned into creature of the wind.
The founding fathers also had great distain for the non intellectuals of society. They didn’t trust them with full governance. I grew up in the shadow of one of the greats. I think they were all on to something.
Friggin’ unbelievable. A couple of hours ago the light skiff of snow on the ground was melting. Then came thunder and lightning, along with rain, Now there is a blizzard out there.