|
Post by hoyawatcher on Jan 28, 2010 11:32:03 GMT -5
This was a speech almost totally directed at his base. Which I guess is fine if he wanted to rile the troops up. But his problems seem to be in the independent voters who are deserting him and I don't think they found much there to get excited about. The spending freeze is pretty transparant and the rest of the jobs stuff was pretty weak. The supreme court thing plays really well to the base but the middle takes a dim view of an aggressive call outs like that. Let me get this straight - a speech that calls for more nuclear power, tax cuts all over the place, spending freeze, bipartisan budget commission to slash spending, and securing loose nukes, is a base speech? Exactly who do you think is his base? This speech was aimed at independents. I don't think anyone actually believes there will be new nuclear plants, drilling for oil or any real tax cuts (not sure how the speech defined all over the place). If there is the center - including me - will be impressed. Right now few believe it. The budget commission went down in major league flames the day before the speech. Doing it by executive order isn't a legit proposal. Freezing spending at inflated levels isn't a legit proposal. Every review I have read today - from CNN to WSJ characterizes the speech as "repackaging", "same agenda", "no move to the middle", "looking to recapture the magic of Obama". I am not even referring to the more conservative reviews. There was no retreat from either healthcare reform as is (despite the rhetorical give me your ideas comment) nor from cap and trade (despite the growing fraud of the data). Yes it was directed at his base. If he thought it was directed at the middle no one noticed.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Jan 28, 2010 11:43:07 GMT -5
There was no retreat from either healthcare reform as is (despite the rhetorical give me your ideas comment) nor from cap and trade (despite the growing fraud of the data). Yes it was directed at his base. If he thought it was directed at the middle no one noticed. Even Elvado gets this - this was not a base speech. Here's a base speech : Pass the goddamn Senate bill. Just do it, House - I know the Senate blows - pass the effing thing and we'll use the budget to fix it up. Pass Cap and Trade or I'm gonna EPA the crap out of you. And Lisa Murkowski sucks. I'm repealing DADT on the spot and Defense of Marriage Act is next. Say goodbye to the Bush tax cuts. Stimulus 2, baby! Geithner, you're out of here and I just changed my mind and I don't support Bernanke anymore. And then he kicks Joe Lieberman in the balls on the way out. But guess what? None of that was in there. Some of that stuff may still come to pass but it wasn't what he talked about. You might not have liked the speech he gave - but it was not targeted at the base - that would have been a VERY different speech.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Jan 28, 2010 11:55:02 GMT -5
LOL - would have been a much more entertaining speech for sure.
I would differ with you in that some of it was in there - goodby to the Bush tax cuts was if just by ommision to extend.
Maybe he can put that version of the speech on pay per view and use it to raise funds for the re-election of the blue dogs. That ought to be fun.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 28, 2010 11:55:51 GMT -5
Lots of words and motives have been assigned to me in this thread so I'd like to respond. First, all of my comments so far have been made not having heard or read the President's address. And all of my comments, except my contest with Ambassador over the use of the word, I, were anticipatory, not post-speech analysis.
Just finished what I thought was the complete text of the speech, as listed on Huffington's site, and, lo and behold, it omitted the Supreme Court reference and the references to nuclear power and off-shore drilling. So, Huffington's "text" was one where issues were deleted.
From what I have read (incomplete text), I have to say it wasn't a bad speech. He pretty much said what he has said many times in the past about health care and cap and trade. He offered some olive branches to conservatives and I hope he follows through on those, Overall, not a speech that will be remembered far into the future, but adequate.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2010 12:10:43 GMT -5
Let me get this straight - a speech that calls for more nuclear power, tax cuts all over the place, spending freeze, bipartisan budget commission to slash spending, and securing loose nukes, is a base speech? Exactly who do you think is his base? This speech was aimed at independents. I don't think anyone actually believes there will be new nuclear plants, drilling for oil or any real tax cuts (not sure how the speech defined all over the place). If there is the center - including me - will be impressed. Right now few believe it. The budget commission went down in major league flames the day before the speech. Doing it by executive order isn't a legit proposal. Freezing spending at inflated levels isn't a legit proposal. Every review I have read today - from CNN to WSJ characterizes the speech as "repackaging", "same agenda", "no move to the middle", "looking to recapture the magic of Obama". I am not even referring to the more conservative reviews. There was no retreat from either healthcare reform as is (despite the rhetorical give me your ideas comment) nor from cap and trade (despite the growing fraud of the data). Yes it was directed at his base. If he thought it was directed at the middle no one noticed. You will be receiving tax cuts in your paycheck starting in April. They are already on the books.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 28, 2010 12:21:24 GMT -5
I just checked Huffington, and the SCOTUS remark is in its text version. If you control-F for "deference," it will be the first hit.
To clarify my methodology above, 126 includes the number of times he used I, me, my, or a contraction with I. His prepared remarks only included 96 uses of I. I don't think too many people care about the underlying attack, except possibly the MoveOn-like elements of the political right. Nonetheless, if it is worth .1% in the latest Gallup, there's no doubt the attack will be made whether or not it is empirically accurate or fair. My only dog in the fight is that I find the argument and its implications a bit offkey.
I just checked Ford's 1975 SOTU, and his rate was 1.7%. Where's the outrage?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Jan 28, 2010 12:56:28 GMT -5
I just checked Huffington, and the SCOTUS remark is in its text version. If you control-F for "deference," it will be the first hit. Maybe Ed got distracted by Huffington's world class coverage of nip slips and the enthralling takes on the SOTU by that guy who used to be on Wings and the bassist from Spinal Tap. The nuclear and oil stuff is in their transcript too.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 28, 2010 14:18:49 GMT -5
For those of you who think my senility has caught up with me, the Huffington text of the speech shown on the following link does not include the SCOTUS remark or comments on off-shore drilling or nuclear power plants: www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/obama-speech-tonight-vide_n_169671.htmlAnd, Ambassador, Obama made a large number of references to himself, whether or not any previous president, prime minister, pope, emperor, king or ambassador equalled or exceeded his number, percentage, root-mean-square, median, square root, average, or any other number/Roman numeral you might bring up. I'll await your six paragraph response to this.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Jan 28, 2010 14:35:34 GMT -5
Um, Ed, that's because the speech you linked to isn't the 2010 State of the Union address. Notice the 2009 in the date of your URL.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 28, 2010 15:05:50 GMT -5
For those of you who think my senility has caught up with me, the Huffington text of the speech shown on the following link does not include the SCOTUS remark or comments on off-shore drilling or nuclear power plants: www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/obama-speech-tonight-vide_n_169671.htmlAnd, Ambassador, Obama made a large number of references to himself, whether or not any previous president, prime minister, pope, emperor, king or ambassador equalled or exceeded his number, percentage, root-mean-square, median, square root, average, or any other number/Roman numeral you might bring up. I'll await your six paragraph response to this. No response is needed. I feel confident that my methodology is the right one to conclude that Obama's speech was not out of the ordinary in these regards for presidents and that the attack is not well-rooted in clear eyed analysis.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 28, 2010 15:15:19 GMT -5
For those of you who think my senility has caught up with me, the Huffington text of the speech shown on the following link does not include the SCOTUS remark or comments on off-shore drilling or nuclear power plants: www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/obama-speech-tonight-vide_n_169671.htmlAnd, Ambassador, Obama made a large number of references to himself, whether or not any previous president, prime minister, pope, emperor, king or ambassador equalled or exceeded his number, percentage, root-mean-square, median, square root, average, or any other number/Roman numeral you might bring up. I'll await your six paragraph response to this. No response is needed. I feel confident that my methodology is the right one to conclude that Obama's speech was not out of the ordinary in these regards for presidents and that the attack is not well-rooted in clear eyed analysis. Oh my god. Are people really arguing about percentages of pronouns and methodologies? Do you people realize how stupid and wonkish you sound at the same time? Do you really think that 99.9% of the populations cares if it was 126 times of 125 times or whatever?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 28, 2010 15:19:57 GMT -5
My point was that the 125 v. 126 counting/attack was stupid and that most people don't care. It seems like history bears the issue out quite well.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2010 15:25:09 GMT -5
No response is needed. I feel confident that my methodology is the right one to conclude that Obama's speech was not out of the ordinary in these regards for presidents and that the attack is not well-rooted in clear eyed analysis. Oh my god. Are people really arguing about percentages of pronouns and methodologies? Do you people realize how stupid and wonkish you sound at the same time? Do you really think that 99.9% of the populations cares if it was 126 times of 125 times or whatever? Thank you for your dash of sanity. The idea that the President, like most politicians, has a huge crush on himself is really beside the point. More troubling than his word choice is his solution choice. He is either adroitly whistling past the graveyard or really does not understand the current disconnect between himself and the independents who put him in the White House. As has been pointed out here many times (see I do read and comprehend) he has no chance with blind partisans like myself. I would respectfully posit that there are a few partisans on the other side as well who need a guide dog. Thus, the great battle for the middle (independents if you will). Thus far, the man who promised change has delivered none (his fault? Congress' fault? Doesn't really matter) and has now come back after one year in office with no tangible accomplishments. That is not to say he isn't working at change or trying to deliver change; however, convincing people their life is still bad but would have been worse except for his policies is not really a winning argument. He made glorious proclamations of policy throughout his campaign and most independents find the shopping cart of deliverables empty after one year. Whether the expectations were fair or not is of no moment. Promises were made and thus far, to most of the middle, not kept. He's got a fair bit of work to get them back in time to head off a mid-term disaster, which will begin some serious Presidential cogitating in Chappaqua or wherever the Clintons hang their hats.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2010 15:33:11 GMT -5
Oh my god. Are people really arguing about percentages of pronouns and methodologies? Do you people realize how stupid and wonkish you sound at the same time? Do you really think that 99.9% of the populations cares if it was 126 times of 125 times or whatever? Thank you for your dash of sanity. The idea that the President, like most politicians, has a huge crush on himself is really beside the point. More troubling than his word choice is his solution choice. He is either adroitly whistling past the graveyard or really does not understand the current disconnect between himself and the independents who put him in the White House. As has been pointed out here many times (see I do read and comprehend) he has no chance with blind partisans like myself. I would respectfully posit that there are a few partisans on the other side as well who need a guide dog. Thus, the great battle for the middle (independents if you will). Thus far, the man who promised change has delivered none (his fault? Congress' fault? Doesn't really matter) and has now come back after one year in office with no tangible accomplishments. That is not to say he isn't working at change or trying to deliver change; however, convincing people their life is still bad but would have been worse except for his policies is not really a winning argument. He made glorious proclamations of policy throughout his campaign and most independents find the shopping cart of deliverables empty after one year. Whether the expectations were fair or not is of no moment. Promises were made and thus far, to most of the middle, not kept. He's got a fair bit of work to get them back in time to head off a mid-term disaster, which will begin some serious Presidential cogitating in Chappaqua or wherever the Clintons hang their hats. I'm not sure how you -- a declared partisan -- can really voice how independents -- like myself -- feel about Obama. If anything I'm tired of Congress and the media, not the President. He's the only one who looks like a mature adult. Is it really his fault that he's dealing with the reactionary, myopic cretins who run DC?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2010 15:40:32 GMT -5
Thank you for your dash of sanity. The idea that the President, like most politicians, has a huge crush on himself is really beside the point. More troubling than his word choice is his solution choice. He is either adroitly whistling past the graveyard or really does not understand the current disconnect between himself and the independents who put him in the White House. As has been pointed out here many times (see I do read and comprehend) he has no chance with blind partisans like myself. I would respectfully posit that there are a few partisans on the other side as well who need a guide dog. Thus, the great battle for the middle (independents if you will). Thus far, the man who promised change has delivered none (his fault? Congress' fault? Doesn't really matter) and has now come back after one year in office with no tangible accomplishments. That is not to say he isn't working at change or trying to deliver change; however, convincing people their life is still bad but would have been worse except for his policies is not really a winning argument. He made glorious proclamations of policy throughout his campaign and most independents find the shopping cart of deliverables empty after one year. Whether the expectations were fair or not is of no moment. Promises were made and thus far, to most of the middle, not kept. He's got a fair bit of work to get them back in time to head off a mid-term disaster, which will begin some serious Presidential cogitating in Chappaqua or wherever the Clintons hang their hats. I'm not sure how you -- a declared partisan -- can really voice how independents -- like myself -- feel about Obama. If anything I'm tired of Congress and the media, not the President. He's the only one who looks like a mature adult. Is it really his fault that he's dealing with the reactionary, myopic cretins who run DC? Actually, you're probably quite right that it is most likely DC. However, it was Mr. Obama who promised to change that. It hasn't changed and he's getting the flak. My point was that right now he's getting the brunt of the public scorn because he provided the hope. He said "Yes WE Can" but so far "no they haven't". Finally, as a purely stylistic commentary, I found his speech to be inappropriately glib and somewhat churlish, not the work of a "mature adult".
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 28, 2010 15:59:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you -- a declared partisan -- can really voice how independents -- like myself -- feel about Obama. If anything I'm tired of Congress and the media, not the President. He's the only one who looks like a mature adult. Is it really his fault that he's dealing with the reactionary, myopic cretins who run DC? Actually, you're probably quite right that it is most likely DC. However, it was Mr. Obama who promised to change that. It hasn't changed and he's getting the flak. My point was that right now he's getting the brunt of the public scorn because he provided the hope. He said "Yes WE Can" but so far "no they haven't". Finally, as a purely stylistic commentary, I found his speech to be inappropriately glib and somewhat churlish, not the work of a "mature adult". I'd say the note was beleaguered optimism.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 28, 2010 16:30:32 GMT -5
Um, Ed, that's because the speech you linked to isn't the 2010 State of the Union address. Notice the 2009 in the date of your URL. Sorry, my boo boo. Amazing how last year's sounded like this year's.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Jan 28, 2010 17:17:09 GMT -5
Um, Ed, that's because the speech you linked to isn't the 2010 State of the Union address. Notice the 2009 in the date of your URL. Sorry, my boo boo. Amazing how last year's sounded like this year's. Nice set up, Ed (I don't buy the senility thing)!
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 28, 2010 18:19:36 GMT -5
First, let me say the ed exchange is one of the funniest things I've read on this board recently.
Second, just wanted to say I didn't mind Alito's head-shaking. He's a human being and maybe it's "rude" but let's also remember the context here. Obama had just pulled kind of d*** move, not by calling out the decision but by doing the old "I believe will lead to" trick. By that I mean he basically implied to the audience that the decision allowed foreign corporations to give money from their treasuries directly to campaigns. It doesn't and Obama knows this. But if anyone points that out, he can just say "I didn't say that, I said I believed it would lead to" but of course to the audience it's the same thing. Political playbook page 1: Scare the population, preferably with "furners."
Also, Alito and Obama really do hate each other and it's kind of fun to watch these robots get upset.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 29, 2010 14:38:34 GMT -5
|
|