|
|||
|
State of the Union Math TestPosted on Jan 28, 2010Editor’s note: This column has been revised. WASHINGTON—There was an unexpected poignancy to the moment. Barack Obama, who once strode across the political landscape as a master of the persuasive arts, found himself needing to prove that mastery all over again. In a single speech, his task was to: prevent the result of one special Senate election from calling into question his agenda or his power; respond to the discontent that poured forth from and after Massachusetts; reestablish his popular standing; and, in the process, both ignite the left and win back the center. So, in his State of the Union address, Obama sought to pass a political math test by solving several simultaneous equations. He distanced himself from Wall Street but also reassured the businesses of Main Street. To independents, he insisted he still seeks a Washington that can work across partisan lines, but he also challenged Republicans to end their obstructive ways. A speech he once hoped to give in celebration of a victory on health-care reform became instead a passionate plea to save his policy dream from political oblivion. “By the time I’m finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance,” Obama declared. “Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small-business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans. And neither should the people in this chamber.” Advertisement His aides insist that there is no new Obama, that his latest populist-sounding economic proposals were foreshadowed by campaign promises. Indeed, his call for both parties “to work through our differences” and to turn away from “the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades” could have come from the Obama of 2004 or 2007. But yes, aides insisted in briefings before the speech, the president has been tempered by combat. A calm, cerebral man can know when he has to fight. Obama pledged to spend money to fix the economy now while pushing for longer-term efforts to cut the deficit. He continued to strike a populist tone in calling for tougher rules on banks and for rolling back a Supreme Court decision vastly expanding the influence of corporations in electoral politics. “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests,” he declared, “or worse, by foreign entities.” At the same time, Obama sought to grapple with public unhappiness over the economy, a particularly strong sentiment among working-class voters, who have most felt the lash of hard times. It was clear that if Obama did nothing else, he would identify himself with the word “jobs” and shout his determination to bring them back. It was also obvious that he realizes his administration lost two critical battles last year: to define his stimulus plan and his health-care proposal. Polls show that Republicans’ negative claims have stuck with voters, while the administration’s arguments for the merits of both plans have not. Obama made the case for his ideas again, but he also challenged Republicans to do more than criticize. “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,” Obama said. “Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can.” And Obama underscored the Democrats’ determination to highlight the GOP’s role in creating Washington’s sour atmosphere. “Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics,” he said, “but it’s not leadership.” Barack Obama had once hoped to be a conciliatory president who understood his philosophical adversaries. He is still that man, and much of his speech described ideas, especially in education and energy, that could well win support across ideological lines. But it was clear that the Obama who addressed the nation on Wednesday also understood that he confronts a Republican Party that sees unflinching opposition as blazing a path to victory. And he offered himself as a president ready to do battle. “We don’t quit,” he said. “I don’t quit.” E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By djnoll, January 29, 2010 at 7:40 am Link to this comment
All right, I guess I am the only one in America who actually paid attention the other night. Even the Republican Response was written before the speech, so many parts of it were so obviously not correct it was pathetic. But, what I did hear and what I was listening for were fighting words. Perhaps America has become so deaf or dumb that they do not understand when someone calls them out, but that is what I heard. I heard him talk about Jim DeMint obstructing the appointment of the head of TSA who might have prevented the Christmas Day airline situation because of his dislike of unions. I heard him call out the Supreme Court for handing over our electoral process to corporations, domestic and foreign both. I heard him talk about GOP obstructionism to every policy just to win over a base. I heard him take on the pundits who twist and turn every fact into a lie.
But, I also heard something apparently no one else did - I heard him say that he never promised to do it alone! He also chastised us, the American People, for acting like fools. We elected one man to the White House, but we elected 535 people between 2006 and 2008 to do the people’s business in DC and we got screwed by THEM! He was telling us to give him a Congress that is not controlled by the corporations and he will win for us, but until we do, he feels like he is fighting this battle alone. Did anyone else see the face on Pelosi when he pointed out that he could not do the job alone, or the pan to Harry Reid? He was calling them out on their poor leadership in controlling the Democrats, and neither one of them liked it. He has not forgotten that the first day they met with him, they proceeded to the lawn of the White House, and announced that they would not be dictated to by this Administration. In case anyone of you has forgotten, they allowed themselves to be dictated to by the Bush Administration and they have continued to allow themselves to be dictated to by the Republicans for the last 4 years! Obama was making it clear, subtly, that they would be dictated to not by him, but by the people of this nation if they did not start acting like OUR representatives, not corporate one.
Yes, I heard things I did not like, and I will oppose them when they come up, but what I finally heard from this President is that he is not giving up, and what I saw on his face as he left the podium, and during the speech, was controlled anger at the people in front of him who have sold out our nation to the corporate and military interests, and he is prepared to fight and get angry (albeit in private)with those who continue to block his hopes for a better form of government and governance.
I recently wrote and noted in several videos that I would not vote for Obama in 2012 because of the actions he has taken, or allowed those who advise him to take in direct opposition to his stated positions. I saw it as a sign of weakness, and demanded that he take more direct action in cleaning out his White House staff starting with Rahm Emanuel, and his cabinet of Clinton retreads. Now I hope and pray that he makes those choices, and that we the American People make similar hard choices in November to replace incumbents who do not serve the people with newly elected officials who will, starting with Pelosi and Reid, the GOP, and the Blue Dog Democrats. Put in Independents. Obama took money from the corporations when he ran for president, but when you total the amount vs what individual Americans contributed, and realize that it was all after his nomination when the DNC took control of much of his campaign, the American people paid the tab for his election, and it is time for us to show that we are willing to put our actions where we put our money. Elect Independents and progressives who are not aligned with either party. These are the ones who truly understand what our Founding Fathers wanted: Liberty and Equality for all citizens, and not corporations!
Report thisBy gerard, January 28, 2010 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment
“It was also obvious that he realizes his administration lost two critical battles last year: to define his stimulus plan and his health-care proposal. Polls show that Republicans’ negative claims have stuck with voters, while the administration’s arguments for the merits of both plans have not.”—Dionne
Problem? The stimulus plan was loaded with concessions to corporate power. The health-care proposal was bargained away to corporate power.
Report thisCorporate power won bigtime on both issues, and that without any significant “change we can believe in.”
Now along comes the Supreme Court awarding corporations still another huge concession.
Why should ordinary people believe in such policies, weighted as they are in the direction of monied interests at the expense of everybody else?
By nick, January 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The authors equivocation between BO’s rightward shift and marginal populist
Report thistone comes from the same place as BO; they are both establishment liberals
that have staked their careers on working peoples expectations although
neither can deliver. One can rally the troops and the other write critical articles
that never offer anything constructive. Obama said he wants a jobs bill on his
desk, yea what ever, what does he propose to do to create jobs, tax cuts thats
it, tax cuts are the only pathway washington seems to have these days to fix
anything other than drone planes. Considering BO’s concern with deficits his
claim to do any significant working person relief is simply manipulative on BOs
part, sad really that we all came together in hope and we got taken. Last nights
speech was his swan song. He will be a one term disappointment, the Jimmy
Carter for the 21 st century and remember after carter we got the new wave of
anti government corporatism ushered in by reagan, wait till we get the new
version, history repeats itself first as tragedy than farce however that farce will
be cruel and harsh like most of American has never known.
By tropicgirl, January 28, 2010 at 10:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Absolutely pathetic. A total embarrassment.
By the way, apparently the state of California and the taxpayers had enough
money to throw at a political campaign, AS A MAJOR DONOR, which did not do
anything for the actual students.
Don’t feel sorry for California. An example of the fact they are a taxpayer “money-
Report thispot. (thx Vic)
By bozh, January 28, 2010 at 8:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Some of the things BO said sounded comical to me while many other utterances appeared contradictory.
For one thing, the in-effect-system of rule, contradicts his lamentations ab what wall street, bankers-bank are actually doing and seemingly in accord with the law and the constitution.
So is BO right? Are bankers braking any law? For if they have, wld a sane system of governance actually reward lawbreakers? tnx
Report thisBy Blackspeare, January 28, 2010 at 8:45 am Link to this comment
It is becoming more obvious that the US is transforming to a South American like republic where there are great divides between the left and the right and never the ‘tween shall meet. Whichever party is in power has to push through their agenda without bi-partisanship or nothing gets done.
Report thisBy pundaint, January 28, 2010 at 7:30 am Link to this comment
Not just math, but English test results don’t look so good. He hasn’t mastered
Report thishis two-letter words yet. “No” seems to be one he has particular problems
grasping. There is other evidence of vocabulary confusion such as his
understanding of mandatory insurance requirements as laughable in 2008, but a
good idea now, same thing with spending freezes. He also confuses Republican
and Democrat, and seems to have no concept of majority.
By Vic Anderson, January 28, 2010 at 7:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
E.J., your Obametrics just don’t balance your equation! It’s voodoo mathematics!
Report thisBy Samson, January 28, 2010 at 6:51 am Link to this comment
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Obama’s top contributors to his 2008 Presidential campaign.
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
So, the guy who took nearly a million dollars from Goldman Sachs now says “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests,”
He shows he’s a highly skilled politician by being able to keep a straight face while he says that. Bet that took a lot of practice. There’s probably an out-take video of his practice sessions that shows him cracking up and laughing every time he tries.
Report thisBy Samson, January 28, 2010 at 6:47 am Link to this comment
Obama’s speeches have always been about stringing pretty words together. He always goes for a bunch of cheap applause lines that mean nothing. He always has a Bill-Clinton-like ‘feel your pain’ section. All of which makes for a nice sounding speech ... as long as you aren’t listening too closely.
When you listen closely, what’s always missing is what to do to actually help Americans.
What Obama’s proposals really add up to is that military spending keeps skyrocketing. We still budget the wars ‘off-budget’, and the costs of those keep rising every time we ‘surge’ somewhere else. Today’s headlines elsewhere on Truthdig point out that we just easily found another $120 million to give to Yemen of all places.
Meanwhile, when the topic turns to maybe spending a little money to help Americans, Obama turns the cold shoulder. Suddenly, he’s all about ‘deficit reduction’. Obama’s big plan is to ‘freeze’ the spending on the programs that actually help Americans.
Of course, should wall street need it, billions and billions of dollars are always available just for their asking.
Obama says ‘screw you America’ with such nice and pretty words that most people don’t seem to catch what he’s really saying.
Report thisBy dihey, January 28, 2010 at 6:15 am Link to this comment
Just in case I had missed something I looked up definitions for poignancy: intensity, emotion, deep sadness. Take your pick. I don’t understand a word of what is written here. To me the speech seemed more like juggling with words than poignancy. The juggler-in-chief dropped most of them.
Report this