President Barack Obama gave an outstanding State of the Union speech tonight, but one with an attempt to promote bipartisanship as he begins his second term.
He asked for cooperation to avoid constant budget battles that undermine economic recovery, and reflect badly on our image internationally, considering that we are a world leader.
He called for investments in energy, infrastructure, and education, including a preschool program for all young children.
He called for action on climate change, and indicated he would take executive action if nothing was done on the issue.
He called for a program of immigration reform that apparently impressed Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, in an interview on CNN after the speech.
He backed the need for Medicare and Social Security reforms, as long as they did not harm the long term stability of the programs.
He appealed for basic gun legislation to try to cut down the widespread violence, with more than 1,400 people killed by gun violence in the past month and a half alone!
He informed us that half of the remaining 68,000 troops in Afghanistan were coming home within the next year. This made clear his goal to focus on domestic reform, and wind down the overseas commitment of military forces.
He called for an increase in the minimum wage, and for prevention of laws that interfere with the right to vote, informing us that this is basic justice for all Americans.
Any reasonable person would have to say that his speech set a series of goals that were very mainstream and reasonable, but of course, the opposition will see it otherwise. One can hope that a lot of his ideas and initiatives can be accomplished, but it will not be easy to do so!
Very good speech by President Obama. 🙂
Mainstream?? Says who? According to a Gallup poll, 42% of Americans approve of Obama’s gun policies while 54% disapprove. On taxes, 41% approve and 57% disapprove. On the economy, 39% approve and 60% disapprove. On “the situation in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” 36% approve and 55% disapprove. And on the federal budget deficit, 31% approve and 65% disapprove. The only area in which Obama gains the support of a majority is on “national defense” issues, but the poll was conducted before North Korea reportedly tested a nuclear weapon on Monday as Obama seeks to diminish America’s nuclear arsenal. Gallup conducted its poll from Feb. 7-10. See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/160385/obama-rated-highest-foreign-affairs-lowest-deficit.aspx So apparently there is no consensus. How could there be when Obama only won by 3% of the votes, got around 4 million votes less than in 2008 and Romney got 3 million votes less than McCain in 2008 as the conservative base stayed home! There can never be a consensus when less people voted overall than in 2008. The only consensus it that people showed more contempt for the establishment politicians than ever.
Juan, you act as if many Presidents win by a landslide, which is not the case. The fact that Obama won popular vote majorities twice, only the fourth President in the past hundred years, does not phase you. And it depends on which public opinion polls one utilizes, and how the questions are worded. According to your standard, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon the first election, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton both times, and George W. Bush the first time, had no right to be seen as legitimate and mainstream based on the election results, because their margins of victory were small or nonexistent, or they did not win a MAJORITY of the popular vote! And we could go back to other “minority” Presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford Hayes, Abraham Lincoln, and John Quincy Adams as lacking legitimacy and “mainstream” status! So I guess winning a majority of the popular vote twice is not enough to give Obama legitimacy and mainstream status, heh?
Sometimes a President’s policies are mainstream sometimes they are not, regardless of the elections results. At least that is what Democrats have taught us all our lives. After all, when the people elected Reagan, or any other Republican, would you admit that the mainstream was anti-abortion? Yet that didn’t seem to matter then did it? All the left has always said of conservative or Republican policies , even after conservative/Republicans won elections was that they were not mainstream. And Democrats fought tooth and nails to prevent those policies from being enacted. They filibustered the Senate , they stopped perfectly legitimate judicial nominations, they, the Democrats never ever gave up on their principles, not a single inch, even though they had lost Presidential elections. So now it is our time to fight and not give in just as the Democrats have done all their lives.
Ok, go to it! LOL But all it does is guarantee long term defeat for the Republican Party, until and when they return to the sanity of a Richard Lugar or Chuck Hagel or Jon Huntsman, all sensible CONSERVATIVES, who understand “crossing the aisle” as the only way to gain progress and change. So stick to Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and their ilk, and they will retain their seats probably, but the party and the nation will suffer long term, and sound defeat will come when 2014 and, particularly, 2016 come up for voters to assess!
Why would we elect “moderates” establishment beltway types who always lose? That’s irrational! At least it’s irrational for us, though it is perfectly rational for you, so you guys keep winning elections. While the Democrats elect unwavering leftist (even leftist who lie and say they are center), they may lose, but they insist until they win. I really do not understand. Hagel is an anti-Israel guy, he agrees with the left in his pro-Palestinian positions, in other words he is pro-Obama, why should we elect people like him? Just might as well vote Democrat! Huntsman another liberal moderate, might as well vote Democrat. And Lugar Obama’s favorite RINO!? The gun-banning big government RINO?? Good grief! He is a good example of what destroyed the Republican Party since the 90″s!
I disagree, Juan. Lugar, Hagel and Huntsman represent the SANITY of the GOP, the men of principle, who understand that compromise and “crossing the aisle” work, rather than being “flame throwers” who destroy any chance of change and progress! And Hagel is NOT pro Palestinian, and he has been trashed by such low lifes as Ted Cruz and James Inhofe, two true embarrassments to the Senate and their party! Even John McCain said Hagel is a good man, a man of principle, who was being trashed unfairly!
Of course you would disagree since historically “compromise” meant advancing the left agenda. LOL! I am not surprised you disagree, after all “sanity” for you means agreeing to compromise and advance what the left believes in. After all , only the left’s worldview is based on rational sane thought so if you disagree you must be irrational and insane! LOL
You know, Juan, I must say, that IF we ever met in person, I am sure we would have a spirited debate, have some laughs, and you would realize as I do about you, that I am NOT a monster, just because I am a liberal and a progressive. That, actually, I am a real nice guy who cares about others, and believes government is there to help fight the evils of unregulated capitalism!
Actually I just think progressives, (except the wacko extremes) are not bad people, just misguided friends. I am not a monster either and I care about people, I want people to be their best, to succeed and to have a good life. I also know that government cannot achieve all that by just giving a one fits all remedy. People make choices and always will, some good and some bad. Government cannot solve all the bad choices people make. I don’t oppose a safety net for hard times, but I do oppose welfare as a lifestyle which unfortunately many promote and many abuse. The thing is I judge government programs and policy not by their intentions but by their results, and the scoreboard is not good for the intentions side. After all if we were to judge by intentions only then the world would be a panacea. That’s all. I believe in free market economy without over burdensome red-tape. Which nobody I believe can deny we have now and had for decades despite efforts to deregulate. Finally I consider my self a liberal in the original classic sense. I know its old fashion and to speak of liberty is not cool these days.