Obama's first SofU speech: TBD

**Mikeg** · January-15-10, 02:20 PM

Historically the President's annual State of the Union Speech is given in the latter half of January. Here we are at the half-way point of the month and the date for Obama's first SotU speech hasn't even been been announced. [source]

Typically the President uses the speech to trumpet the accomplishments of the Executive and Legislative branches and to propose his Administration's initiatives and legislative proposals for the upcoming year.

Perhaps the President and Congressional leaders are waiting to set the date until after they have a health insurance reform bill that will pass both the House and Senate? Or maybe they are waiting until after Tuesday to see whether the result of the Mass. special election makes it a moot point?

After Obama covers his pretty thin list of accomplishments in the speech [[or attempts to excuse it more more time with a "remember, I inherited a mess from Bush"), watch for him to reiterate his intentions to pivot and focus like a laser beam on a second attempt to fix the economy and the festering unemployment problem. Too bad for us that he didn't let his Administration and Congress do that sooner instead of getting bogged down on health insurance reform..

Retroit · January-15-10, 05:45 PM

Or it could be he doesn't want to upset his targeted constituency by pre-empting American Idol on January 26 or Lost on February 2. [[ http://www.tvguide.com/News/State-Un...t-1013442.aspx )

Kind of ironic he would have to pre-empt a show which describes him so accurately.

**ejames01** · January-15-10, 06:55 PM

I believe that the President is too busy saving America to be dealing with such silly stuff.

**Gistok** · January-15-10, 07:39 PM

.... yeah... even if he announced when it will be, the naysayers will just twist it around and say that he has more important things to do than deliver a speech.... funny that!

Maybe it would have been a better idea to start this thread AFTER he delivered his speech.... more mountains out of molehills.... meh.....

**Zacha341** · January-16-10, 06:19 AM

Indeed. ROTFL!

Originally Posted by Retroit

Or it could be he doesn't want to upset his targeted constituency by pre-empting American Idol on January 26 or Lost on February 2. [[ http://www.tvguide.com/News/State-Un...t-1013442.aspx )

Kind of ironic he would have to pre-empt a show which describes him so accurately.

**Detroitej72** · January-16-10, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Maybe it would have been a better idea to start this thread AFTER he delivered his speech.... more mountains out of molehills.... meh.....

Its a slow day at the right wing spin machine, they are waiting on dear leader, Rush to give them more talking points.

**Mikeg** · January-16-10, 07:06 PM

Who needs talking points?

Obama's been making himself an easy political target lately.

It's been a long time since President Obama has held a formal news conference. He held four during his first six months of office but there have been none since July. Why is he suddenly hiding from the press? They were his best friends!

Surely it can't be argued that he is too busy when he can find the time to make trips to Copenhagen [[Oct., lost and Dec., lost) and Oslo [[Dec., won), plus trips to personally campaign for Corzine [[July, lost), Deeds [[Aug., lost) and now Coakley [[?) - not to mention all those closed-door meetings he has been having with lobbyists [[two broken campaign promises: 1) providing transparency and 2) limiting health care lobbyists involvement in the health care reform process).

Now he is delaying his State of the Union Message. After the rude reception he received when he last spoke to a joint session of Congress, I suppose we can understand.

Retroit · January-16-10, 08:37 PM

Maybe he's having a hard time convincing the teleprompter guy to type in "The state of the Union is strong."

**MCP-001** · January-16-10, 08:45 PM

The results of the Mass. election will not matter in the health care debate.

Mass. officials have already indicated that they will delay the process as long as it takes to keep Kirk in office.

If that fails, Reid & Pelosi have made plans to use the reconciliation [["nuclear") option to cram their version of health care down our throats whether we want it or not.

**Mikeg** · January-16-10, 09:01 PM

Maybe he's having a hard time convincing the teleprompter guy to type in "The state of the Union is strong."

Brilliant!

**MCP-001** · January-16-10, 09:25 PM

Yeah, it's kind of hard to say how "strong" you are when you need closed door meetings with the insurance and phama lobby, to say nothing about bribing senators and unions to sign on to your health care "reform".

I'm going to love to see what he'll do when immigration and the national debt [[including unfunded) comes up for discussion.

**gibran** · January-16-10, 10:59 PM

those that do get criticized compared to those that protect the status quo...well they usually don't ..funny...how that works... here's a guy that tackles health care reform...and then gets criticized for that...he tackles the wars gets criticized...gets criticized for tackling an inherited economy...

but where is the acknowledgement that these were issues that didn't need status quo solutions...that we have been asked to reform health care by those who care to eliminate suffering...

ok put forth alternatives verses the typical "cut taxes"....free market ...stop regulations...war is the answer....typical solutions...that got us her ein the first place.

give us an answer to the number of unisured [[to their families and the 2900 who die each year)
give us an alternative to the high unemployment that started two years ago...
give us an alternative to eightyears of war with no end result in sight...
gibe us an answer to the sliding stance of our beloved nation in the eyes of the world...

oh thats right we didn't elect that party,,,but from day one we have expected change to be immdiate...

well change is painful when done correctly and it takes a courage to do it slowly when everyone wants it done quickly...i know that people are suffering and thagt is what they are trying to change..it would help if all of us worked collectively...but when one party uses this crisis for their own gain, then no wonder the one that is trying to make changes get the hits...

But it is also true that our congress is useless and bought off by foreign and domestic lobbies...

**Mikeg** · January-17-10, 12:20 AM

here's a guy that tackles health care reform...

.... and instead of addressing health care affordability as he promised by "bending the cost curve", he ends up focusing on health insurance "reform" and shifting the costs around....

he tackles the wars gets criticized.....

by his own supporters for backing off of his campaign promises.....

gets criticized for tackling an inherited economy...

and making it worse by signing a pork-laden "stimulus" spending bill....

well change is painful when done correctly and it takes a courage to do it slowly when everyone wants it done quickly

"do it slowly"? Obama insisted that the stimulus bill be passed immediately so that the "official" unemployment rate wouldn't exceed 9%. Congress obliged and passed the 1,073 page bill before anyone could completely read the provisions of the bill and find the non-shovel-ready "pork"...

but when one party uses this crisis for their own gain,....

you get this:
Attachment 4863
and this:
Attachment 4864

**ejames01** · January-17-10, 02:35 AM

President Obama is 78.2% better than President Bush was [[and God forbid that we would have had to live under McCain).

**Zacha341** · January-17-10, 03:27 AM

The poor option of a McCain/ Palin run IS our salve for what we have... I suppose. But IMO opinion the Obama/ Biden - McCain/ Palin duo was the worst presidential option the US voter had in some time.

BTW... I am not a republican or so-called right-winger - or Rush-bot. Just an independent thinker, who simply has to get off the "partisan" buss of endorsement from time to time.

Originally Posted by ejames01

President Obama is 78.2% better than President Bush was [[and God forbid that we would have had to live under McCain).

**MCP-001** · January-17-10, 09:14 AM

Gibran,

You forget that Pres. B.O. ran on a platform of transparency and openness.

We were supposed to have one of the most open administrations on record.

So how did that turn out?

Not so well, in fact.

In fact, it's something that his administration is moving farther and farther away from.

Even when he is reminded of his promises, nothing changes.

The same thing hold true for other elected officials, as well.

And people wonder why the President's approval numbers are falling like a brick?

**Zacha341** · January-17-10, 09:28 AM

Yep, promises like pie crusts - made to be broken. Beyond partisan loyalty it becomes apparent that certain actions and behaviors are common to the right AND the left. Especially when there is full control of one party ideologically speaking - whichever party! Regardless of the "reaching across the isle" bipartison rhetoric.

Just another election pie crust! Broken.

Originally Posted by MCP-001

Gibran,

You forget that Pres. B.O. ran on a platform of transparency and openness.

We were supposed to have one of the most open administrations on record.

So how did that turn out?

Not so well, in fact.

In fact, it's something that his administration is moving farther and farther away from.

Even when he is reminded of his promises, nothing changes.

The same thing hold true for other elected officials, as well.

And people wonder why the President's approval numbers are falling like a brick?

**Detroitej72** · January-17-10, 07:10 PM

Excellent essay, yet again, Gibran. Keep them coming, this forum is better served because of them.

One thing the righty's on here fail to see is that the president is just continuing the coarse of his predecessor, who was it that gave us the first "porkalus" bill, who was it that gave Wall Street billons in gifts... oh yeah, the messiah of the right G.W. Bush. Obama is pretty much center/right, but those who criticize him are so far to the right they can't see the forest for the trees.

**Zacha341** · January-17-10, 07:42 PM

Everyone who criticizes the current admin or a proposed policy therein is not far right or even conservative. Nice package that would be if all discord could be so neatly summed up.

There are some who voted for Obama who are now having second thoughts.

Not to mention the moderates and independent voters.

Yep, porkulus spending went on under Bush, WHICH is even more reason why it needs to be "addressed" under Obama, not just continued because the repubs did it - now it's our turn! That's sorta "revenge" politics.... it can be argued....

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Excellent essay, yet again, Gibran. Keep them coming, this forum is better served because of them.

One thing the righty's on here fail to see is that the president is just continuing the coarse of his predecessor, who was it that gave us the first "porkalus" bill, who was it that gave Wall Street billons in gifts... oh yeah, the messiah of the right G.W. Bush. Obama is pretty much center/right, but those who criticize him are so far to the right they can't see the forest for the trees.

**ghettopalmetto** · January-17-10, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Yep, porkulus spending went on under Bush, WHICH is even more reason why it needs to be "addressed" under Obama, not just continued because the repubs did it - now it's our turn! That's sorta "revenge" politics.... it can be argued....

I think you missed the entire part where money wasn't flowing through the economy, making the government the spender of last resort to get things moving again. You write as if the 2009 stimulus bill [[or even the automaker bailouts in 2008) was passed just for the hell of it.

**Zacha341** · January-17-10, 09:49 PM

I did not miss a point, the emphasis of my comment was to point out that criticism of the Obama administration is NOT just a manifestation of the right.

My other comments were generalized to the spending amount over all, not the specifics items such as you cite which are expenditures receiving the most coverage. In addition to the specifics you mention there were alot of "promises" made during the presidential campaign to fund various special interest groups and future constituents.

Now at a point, that spending [[ala the promises) has to be re-evaluated as we go along. Or you just forge ahead with the "our turn" thing, regardless to the deficit?

There's plenty of pork spending not getting the headlines. This is especially so when one's ideology is grow government and reward constituents. I am not saying the repubs don't do this too, but where and can we keep borrowing the money? Or is it flipping the switch of the printing press? No wonder the value of the dollar is shrinking...

Yet some of the spending was and is of course necessary.

Now, speaking to "a" specific you mentioned: it is still up in the air rather or not the bail out of the auto industry [[Chrysler and GM) will net long term results/ benefits... It may be death by thousand cuts, especially for Chrysler, which still remains insolvent - without even a flagship car - with continued slumping sales, withstanding the cash for clunkers deal.

Re. another specific: The economy... well I'm not an economist and will be brief, but from what I glean the generalize hope is that the economy will turn recover within the next 24 - 36 months. We are seeing some hopeful signs. And moneys will again flow naturally without these "unsustainable" government infusions... [[withstanding who is endorsing the infusions: dem or repub).

As resources and loan granters are not an infinite this must occur.

However, the more government bureaucracy grows, relative constraining free market [[I am NOT talking about giving banks a pass without any constraints) the more cautious employers become [[in their hiring and expansion). And some have decided to take a binocular view of it all off-shores [[more business leaving US).

The constraining factor is especially true for the small under 500 employee deals who hurt the most under too much government control. And there were always more of them then the "big threes" or at least there used to be......

I have a friend struggling with a small business, finding herself spending more and more time and brain trust in trying to keep her expanding tax payout low in order to keep her employees hired.

Innovation and progress does not thrive well in that kind of setting....... or perhaps we can all get jobs with the government.

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I think you missed the entire part where money wasn't flowing through the economy, making the government the spender of last resort to get things moving again. You write as if the 2009 stimulus bill [[or even the automaker bailouts in 2008) was passed just for the hell of it.

**East Detroit** · January-18-10, 10:39 AM

Since we still have the Patriot Act, he is a failure.

**oldredfordette** · January-18-10, 11:23 AM

Just a small point, many people who are disappointed in Obama do not regret their vote, there was no choice. An angry old man and a batshit crazy woman were impossible to vote for. I wish Obama was a better president, but the fact that he is a right leaning centrist is not exactly a surprise to anyone who was paying attention.

**MCP-001** · January-18-10, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by oldredfordette

Just a small point, many people who are disappointed in Obama do not regret their vote, there was no choice. An angry old man and a batshit crazy woman were impossible to vote for. I wish Obama was a better president, but the fact that he is a right leaning centrist is not exactly a surprise to anyone who was paying attention.

You only had two people on your ballot?

**oldredfordette** · January-18-10, 01:42 PM

It was important to be sure the Republicans got out of the White House. As bad as it is, it would be infinitely worse. I'd like to live in a world where Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader could be president, but I don't. Given the choices, I did what I had to do.