iamshack Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Just read the transcript of the speech. Very well done. Just wish I could believe in the process, even in the slightest degree. One thing I do know, neither Romney or Gingrich has a chance to beat Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 After thinking about it a little more, it's a pretty empty speech. Lots of populism, lots of applause lines, but really, it won't go anywhere policy-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) After thinking about it a little more, it's a pretty empty speech. Lots of populism, lots of applause lines, but really, it won't go anywhere policy-wise. What SOTU speech is any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:01 AM) What SOTU speech is any different? Sometimes they get a little more specific than "send me a bill that does a thing, I'll sign it!" and sometimes they're a single issue, more or less, like 2003 and Iraq. It works as a campaign starter, but it won't be remembered as some great speech or for putting forth some bold new initiatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:06 AM) Sometimes they get a little more specific than "send me a bill that does a thing, I'll sign it!" and sometimes they're a single issue, more or less, like 2003 and Iraq. It works as a campaign starter, but it won't be remembered as some great speech or for putting forth some bold new initiatives. My guess is they were somewhat deliberately vague so he could still enjoy the "rah rah" stuff without creating ammunition for the Republicans during the lead-up to the election. I read the transcript this morning to see his statements on clean energy (as energy is my field) and I was pretty surprised to see how little substance there was on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Every SOTU speech is like that. Every. Last. One. In terms of real value you won't get anything out of the SOTU, but in an election year the president's job is to basically kick his election year campaign into gear without sounding too slick about it (they said last year's SOTU was doing this, but that's just the chattering class who doesn't really have s*** else to do than talk about an election that's almost 2 years away). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:10 AM) Every SOTU speech is like that. Every. Last. One. In terms of real value you won't get anything out of the SOTU, but in an election year the president's job is to basically kick his election year campaign into gear without sounding too slick about it (they said last year's SOTU was doing this, but that's just the chattering class who doesn't really have s*** else to do than talk about an election that's almost 2 years away). They're sometimes a little more focused, though, instead of trying to appeal to every single voting bloc in a little over an hour. Sometimes they lay out actual policy goals instead of "let's [bring jobs back home/reform taxes/better education/reduce deficit/reform immigration/be awesome]! send me a bill that does this, I'll sign it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) They're sometimes a little more focused, though, instead of trying to appeal to every single voting bloc in a little over an hour. Sometimes they lay out actual policy goals instead of "let's [bring jobs back home/reform taxes/better education/reduce deficit/reform immigration/be awesome]! send me a bill that does this, I'll sign it!" Hmm, if they would have gotten into actual details of how to fix all the problems the speech would take days instead of an hour... Edited January 25, 2012 by iamshack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I'd disagree that it was totally empty, as he did mention numerous specific initiatives. The problem is a lot of them won't get done, and THAT is what happens with all SOTU speeches. One thing I liked hearing him say, though, which I want to see get more public debate, is the assinine 60-vote procedural filibuster rule needs to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) I'd disagree that it was totally empty, as he did mention numerous specific initiatives. The problem is a lot of them won't get done, and THAT is what happens with all SOTU speeches. One thing I liked hearing him say, though, which I want to see get more public debate, is the assinine 60-vote procedural filibuster rule needs to go. He should have specifically mentioned the 60-vote number. But it'll never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The actual content of the SOTU speeches isn't empty. Those are real policy ideas... that the presidents know full well will not actually happen. Did anyone take Bush seriously when he talked about going to Mars? It sounded cool though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Middle Buffalo Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The ovations are ridiculous. One side sitting on their hands while the other stands and cheers kind of devalues the whole thing for me. It's like it doesn't even matter what is being said, just who is doing the saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 08:47 AM) Politifact, in their endless effort to be non-partisan, rated this statement by Obama as "half true": The problem is that it is entirely true. They rated it as untrue simply because it was a positive political narrative for Obama. Between this and their "lie of the year" actually being a "true statement, though maybe a little polemic," I'm not sure how they maintain any credibility. Politifact is backtracking and now claims that this is "mostly true" because they insist Obama is implicitly trying to take all the credit for every job. Sorry, it's still 100% true. I guess there's no way for Obama to mention these facts and have it rated as true. The same is true for their rating on Obama's statement regarding oil production. Sure, it's 100% accurate, but Politifact believes he may have implied his policies played a larger role than they did, therefore it's only "mostly true". I guess they really want to destroy all of their credibility in a couple of short months. Edited January 25, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Saw this on twitter last night an LMAO I like Obama and all, but this would be way better with President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho at the podium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Funny facebook post: You know I'm a big supporter of President Obama, so naturally I thought he hit his State of The Union Address out of the park last night. Then I get up this morning to the news that even while he was speaking, he had U.S. Special Forces Operations conducting a rescue mission in which two kidnapped aid workers were freed, while nine of their Somalian pirate captors were killed. Haven't we seen this movie before. This is not the first time he's conducted 'family business' like Michael Corleone during the christening scene in The Godfather. The next time he enters The House Chamber, instead of all that hand clapping and back slapping, they may be kissing the ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 10:29 AM) The actual content of the SOTU speeches isn't empty. Those are real policy ideas... that the presidents know full well will not actually happen. Did anyone take Bush seriously when he talked about going to Mars? It sounded cool though. That Mars line was not SOTU, I believe, and importantly, even if they never put any funding behind it, they forced NASA to pretend it would actually happen until Obama came in and said that it was BS without money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) That Mars line was not SOTU, I believe, and importantly, even if they never put any funding behind it, they forced NASA to pretend it would actually happen until Obama came in and said that it was BS without money. What speech was that from? I was overseas and I don't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-14/tech/bu...ions?_s=PM:TECH (https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS442US442&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=bush+mars+speech) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 11:33 AM) The ovations are ridiculous. One side sitting on their hands while the other stands and cheers kind of devalues the whole thing for me. It's like it doesn't even matter what is being said, just who is doing the saying. Personally I'm always a fan of the accidental opposite party applause, when I cared about these we'd get one of them every year or two. Where the pres says something that shouldn't be an applause line but the other party applauds it because it supports something they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The speech is polling very well: 91 percent of those who watched the speech approved of the proposals Mr. Obama put forth during his remarks. Only nine percent disapproved. Last year, 83 percent of viewers approved of Mr. Obama's State of the Union remarks.This year, 82 percent of those who watched the speech said they approve of the president's plans for the economy, up from 53 percent who approved before the speech. Eighty percent said they approved of Mr. Obama's plans for the deficit -- in contrast to 45 percent before the speech. Eighty-three percent approved of Mr. Obama's proposals regarding Afghanistan, which received only a 57 percent approval rating beforehand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) The speech is polling very well: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029581-503544.html I'd imagine similar numbers appear every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) I'd imagine similar numbers appear every year. Last year was 82%, as the article states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) I'd imagine similar numbers appear every year. Did you not read what you quoted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) Did you not read what you quoted? I think the point was 91 percent, 82 percent, it's all massive approval because it is also massive fluff nonsense. There is no difference between 91 and 82 because those ratings almost never happen when you have to reveal actual policy you intend to be accountable for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2012 -> 02:26 PM) I think the point was 91 percent, 82 percent, it's all massive approval because it is also massive fluff nonsense. There is no difference between 91 and 82 because those ratings almost never happen when you have to reveal actual policy you intend to be accountable for. I disagree, I think it does mean something. And more importantly, look at the 30 point difference about the economy, which will be issue #1 in November. Does it mean he personally has 91 or 83% approval? Of course not. But the difference is definitely meaningful in some ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts