
President Obama's State Of The Union address last night helped Obama reconnect with the angry Independent voters he's lost during his first year in office. That's one takeaway from a pair of instant polls published by major TV outlets last night. Though the quick overnight polls are rarely given the credibility of other opinion polling, the large jumps in positive impressions of Obama's leadership from respondents last at least point to a potential turnaround for the White House when it comes to communication.
Polls from CBS and CNN overnight showed Democrats were more likely to watch the speech than either Independents or Republicans. That's not rare, according to pollsters -- supporters of the president in power usually tune in the speech more than opponents. But in both polls, Independents represented more than a third of viewership -- a number in keeping with the electorate as a whole, according to CBS. The high marks viewers gave the speech suggest Obama connected with some of the Independents, a critical constituency Democrats have lost in the most recent elections.
On the economy, which the White House said before hand was the central focus of the speech, viewers polled afterward were on board with Obama's policy proposals. In the CBS poll, 71% of respondents said Obama's economic plans will help ordinary Americans, up 16% percent from before the address. The CNN poll had similar results.
The policy plans in the speech also connected with viewers. The CBS poll found 70% of speech viewers said Obama shares their priorities. That's up from 57% in pre-speech polling. In the CNN poll, more than half of respondents said Obama "has the right priorites," while 44% said he "hasn't paid attention to the most important problems." Those numbers were flipped in pre-speech polling.
Of course, it's doubtful the speech will have a similar effect on the electorate as a whole as it did on those who tuned in last night. But independents have increasingly become a hostile audience for Democrats, and the reaction to Obama's return to campaign-style rhetoric in the speech suggests he may have found a way to reconnect with him. Most polling shows Obama still has high personal approval ratings from the public -- it's his ability to do the job where voters have started to have doubts. Last night's insta-polling shows those concerns still exist -- the number of people who thought Obama would be able to get his legislative agenda accomplished was much smaller than the number who approved of the agenda itself -- but they also show that people are still ready to let a president they like lead them.
Late Update: CBS emailed me their party breakdowns from last night's polls. The Obama boost among Independents appeared to bear out, keeping in mind that the Independents who chose to watch the speech are probably not the hardest of the hardcore anti-Obama set. Still, according to CBS' figures, the Independents who did tune in were down on Obama's handling of the economy and health care by significant margins. After watching Obama explain his plans in the speech, a big majority approved of his health care and economic proposals. The numbers shifted for other viewers, too, as we reported. But the results are even more evidence that Obama may have reconnected with Independents last night.
Schmed
January 28, 2010 12:34 PM
Did The SOTU Bring Independents Back To Obama?
Not this one, not yet. Walk the walk, actions speak louder, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 28, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to Schmed
Agreed. We've had pretty words stuffed down our throats since Obama first announced his candidacy. We need actions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
January 28, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to Schmed
so you'd vote Republican huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
numediaman
January 28, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to plan69
LOL. Not that old line!
Ok, I'll play that game: yes, I would vote Republican instead. There, feel better?
I will vote for any candidate that advocates what Obama did in the campaign, and I can believe their word (that eliminates the President from getting my vote again). But since no Republican holds these views then it is obvious that, as an independent, I will be searching for someone to support. Democrats will simply not get my vote because they have a (D) next to their name -- that is not being a citizen that is being a lemming.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
January 28, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to numediaman
Yeah but since no Republican holds those views it's logical to assume you vote Dem %98 of the time. If it walks like a duck.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 2:23 PM in reply to plan69
Are you really that stupid? If you drive a Ford, does that mean you can't rent a Toyota when you're on out-of-town business?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
January 28, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to Schmed
Your low brow response means that I must have hit a nerve. Please, please show me a Republican that you would "rent while you were out of town".....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to plan69
My "low brow response" means that I stoop to conquer. I guess you answered my question.
Let me make this really simple for you: I am not a Democrat. I choose not to be because I have lost faith in them (see 2009 - 2010 for instant examples of why). Does this mean that I must automatically vote Republican?
No, it doesn't.
Okay, here comes another rhetorical question:
Can you understand that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
numediaman
January 28, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to plan69
"Hit a nerve". Yes, just like Michele Bachmann. You both sound the same sour notes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 28, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to plan69
Don't be an ass. It's not purely an "R" vs. "D" equation. There's one other very viable alternative: Stay home on election day.
Part of Obama's problem - part of the Dems' general problem, as a matter of fact - is that they share this unearned sense of entitlement you're spouting off. They - and you - need to get over yourselves.
If the only choice is between shitty candidate A or shitty candidate B, then screw them both. You may march in lock-step with the Party and mindlessly vote for the one with the "D" after his name. That only proves you'd make a mighty fine Republican. It doesn't mean your candidate is worth crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loria
January 28, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to EastWest
Kind of like Shitty Candidate Gore or Shitty Candidate Kerry were the same as Shitty Candidate Bush? I think the SC decision last week shows that there are ideological differences between the two parties, and that Bush did more damage than most any of could have imagined back when he was first selected. I don't agree with the GOP platform and would never vote for it. I see long term and would prefer that a Dem president be appointing the justices for life. I have a feeling we'll be dealing with Bush appointees for years and the composition of this Court may not change for some time.
I also don't agree that it's been status quo or that Obama is different now than he was as a candidate. He said we'd get out of Iraq in 18 mos, and we are. He said the real fight was in Afghanistan, so I don't know how people thought he'd end that war immediately. He campaigned on hcr and did talk of the public option, but that wasn't all he talked about. I never heard him campaign on single payer.
I don't see much about Obama that looks like Bush. Plus, Obama made about 500 campaign promises and has come through on 91 in his first year. About another 275 are in the works. He did that with few GOP votes on any of the legislation. I hope he gets as much done next year as he did this year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bk
January 28, 2010 11:32 PM in reply to loria
Thanks for your positive comments. People should just chill. He's doing a great job, not perfect, but great compared to Bush. I can't understand how little patience people who claim to have voted for Obama, but will now not vote for him ever again after only 1 year. It is precisely because Obama respects the 3 branches of government and our separation of powers, that this is taking so long. I appreciated his remarks to both the Senate and the House and their behavior and I wish him a better 2nd year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
January 28, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to EastWest
Stay home? Whatever. If 2012 is Obama v. Palin, and you choose to stay home, then I label you an awful citizen. Not as awful as those that vote for Palin. Only about half.
Still pretty awful. It's okay, I was awful too -- I voted for Nader, which was essentially the same. But I learned. The hard way. It IS always a Democrat vs. Republican thing. Learn it. Love it. Live it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loria
January 28, 2010 9:18 PM in reply to dudeguy
I don't fault Nader for running. It would be great if there were a real third party in this country. But, I recall Nader saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore. I don't believe that for a minute. We never would been at war with Iraq. Plus the make up of the SC would be much different. There is no way Gore would have appointed an Alito or Roberts. The decision last week highlights how dangerous this Court is. I wish we could go back to 2000 and erase the Bush years from the country's history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
January 28, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to EastWest
"Stay home". This country was built on great men "staying home"......LOL!! Giving up is the last resort of men with no answers. It reminds me of a quote by John Adams in reference to Thomas Paine: "Thomas Paine knows how to tear down but he doesn't know how to build".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
January 28, 2010 12:36 PM
I think it is way too early to determine something like this. Seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 28, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Isn't that the truth. I am really am getting sick of these stupid headlines from TPM and all the rest. I came here because I thought it was different and it used to be but not anymore. This is so stupid. All it does is invite the trolls and give the independents a chance to prove how fucking independent they are, like for instance schmed-ley.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to lousgirl84
You have exposed yourself as a troll and a thug.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 28, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to Schmed
According to you, anybody who spanks your dim-witted ass is a troll and a thug.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to FreeRider
Well, someone must be talkin' shit, 'cuz the big shit-eating flies are all here now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 28, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Lousgirl,
You're a disgrace to the Democratic Party. And you're the reason we lost real Democrats like Schmedley.
Now it's just corporate prevaricators like yourself who CALL themselves Democrats.
I'll still vote Democratic - I don't feel I have a choice right now. But I'll be damned if I let corporate apologists like you call yourselves "Democrats".
BTW, your response to the bad photoshop of Obama as a "pimp", which was "he can be my pimp anytime" was not only disgusting, but insulting to the President. It was also sadly indicative of your brainless partisanship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 28, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to again
The Democrats lost Schmedly because of what some anonymous poster said in blog comments? LOL! If that's the case, Schmedly isn't worth having . . . and neither is anyone else who votes based upon what's posted online.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 28, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to FreeRider
Fair enough. Let me clarify:
The type of "leadership" promoted by Lousgirl in her constant cheerleading for corporate conservaDems and her constant derision for real Democrats who hold their leaders to their promises is exactly how we lost Schmedley.
With that, few rational people would disagree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 28, 2010 5:12 PM in reply to again
The constant negativity about the president and the Democrats in Congress by folks like you and Arianna and Kos because you haven't gotten your pony is very much responsible for driving healthcare reform into the ditch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 8:55 PM in reply to FreeRider
So, they're all reading the blog comments from anonymous posters after all? You need to get your whinging story straight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
January 28, 2010 1:10 PM
It probably is too early to judge long term, but you have to think the short term is assisted by a generally favorable response among Independents to the speech. Still, some of the CNN questions are bizarre: one asked whether Obama "will succeed in improving the economy"; in another, "speech-watchers are split on whether the address shows that the president will change his administration's goals"; in yet another, "people who viewed the address were split on whether Obama will be successful in improving health care and reducing the deficit."
It seems to me that the CBS results, which basically asked for reactions rather than predictions, was a better barometer of the success of the speech.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 1:11 PM
Independents, a/k/a Finger-In-The Winders. How do you get the lasting support of uninformed, unprincipled couch potatoes who view government as a benefactor, and not as a mutual obligation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to brewmn61
Generalize much?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
felix
January 28, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to Schmed
Generalizations are often true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to felix
Well played, sir! Offering a generalization to defend the practice of generalizing!
Which generalizations are often true? Which are not? What is "often"?
See, that's the logical part of the logical fallacy adventure. When a sample is held up as representative as the entire population without any effort being made to quantify the population and how the sample relates to it, any conclusions drawn about the population cannot be deemed valid.
But, you knew that -- right? You were just playin' with me -- right?
Right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
felix
January 28, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to Schmed
Not at all.
Independents are mouthbreathers. Everyone knows that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to felix
Just in case this isn't snark....
You have me there, sir! A fallacious double feature! Leading with yet another generalization, you add the ever popular Appeal to the Masses fallacy! Shall I give examples? If you ain't snarkin', I got me a Felix-load!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
January 28, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to felix
Yeah, I remember when "The Horse" (the author of the website "Media Whores Online") used to refer to independents as "Moron Americans", as if they were a minority group like "Italian Americans". It's so true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
January 28, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to Schmed
Schmed: I'd be interested in reading the short form of your Independent politics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to plan69
This should be short enough for you. The salient part:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
January 28, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to Schmed
It appears the trolls are afoot, trying to create a rift between Dems and independents. As one can see from my icon photo, I've taken sides; however, what I like about most independents I know is they think for themselves. And, I respect that, for many of them, it is less about ideology and more abut results... who can get the job done? And this is where Dems are currently shooting themselves in the foot... by not getting it done. Apparently, the biggest 'change' that needs to take place before all the other 'change' happens, is within the Dem Party. And, it better happen pretty fast, or it's gonna get ugly by November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to DaddyD
Thanks for that!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 28, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to DaddyD
DD,
I'm a loyal traditional Democrat, but I appreciate what the Independents may be able to accomplish in terms of holding both parties to their ability to meet their promises.
No, I don't think independents are mouth-breathers; I know many tenured academics and respected physicians who left the Democratic and GOP parties to be "independents."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
January 28, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to again
That's the spirit!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 28, 2010 4:02 PM in reply to again
That was my reasoning as well. I was sick of the DNC and establishment ideologues. I've voted Republican before too. I'd rather evaluate the candidate and not the party. My fear (which has been rapidly materializing) is that they're becoming one in the same.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
January 28, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to Schmed
I'm not saying that I have a problem with you being an Independent or that you don't have a reasonable philosophy for doing so. I am saying that, if you call yourself progressive or have progressive ideals, you'll never find a Republican candidate that comes close to being an option. Dems OTOH have several progressive options albeit I'll grant you that they have a lot of annoying candidates as well. As Bob Dylan says "ya gotta serve somebody"....that is until there's a viable 3rd party. Withdrawing support because of a distaste for politicians isn't a position. I'm more interested in what a person is FOR not against.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
January 28, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to plan69
If a politician professes to be for something, and doesn't deliver on the goods because they were just lying to get votes (say, like Ford in N.Y.) you wouldn't expect people to still support that candidate, knowing they probably won't deliver, right?
So, what's the difference if the candidate can't deliver for other reasons - including an incumbent?
For many, competence and capability rank above ideology. They look at the results. Who can deliver?
I have no problem with that, and as you can see by my icon, I've taken sides. Dems need to deliver, or else they will lose big in November - and deserve it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to plan69
I am saying that, if you call yourself progressive or have progressive ideals, you'll never find a Republican candidate that comes close to being an option.
Perhaps not, but there are Republicans who do have progressive streaks. For example, Cindy McCain just came out in favor of gay marriage. Bill Weld was considered to be fairly progressive, so much so that he got 2 terms as governor here in MA.
Also, there are progressive third party candidates nowadays like Bernie Sanders. It isn't always a Dem vs. Rep thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 28, 2010 4:40 PM in reply to Schmed
I agree, but Weld bothered me. He enabled a really insidious trend: socially liberal people who only look at their own immediate economic well being.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
January 29, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
You take the bad with the good. I disagree with a fair number of his policy priorities, but admire his good governance preference.
I'd have preferred him to Celluci, Swift, and Romney.
Hands down.
And he was a hair across Ed Meese's ass - gotta give him points for that.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/31/us/ex-justice-aide-deeply-troubled-by-meese-role.html?pagewanted=1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to Schmed
From Nate Silver:
"Part of the problem is that 'independents' are not a particularly coherent group. At a minimum, the category of ‘independents’ includes:
1) People who are mainline Democrats or Republicans for all intents and purposes, but who reject the formality of being labeled as such;
2) People who have a mix of conservative and liberal views that don’t fit neatly onto the one-dimensional political spectrum, such as libertarians;
3) People to the extreme left or the extreme right of the political spectrum, who consider the Democratic and Republican parties to be equally contemptible;
4) People who are extremely disengaged from politics and who may not have fully-formed political views;
5) True-blue moderates;
6) Members of organized third parties."
I would argue that categories 1, 2, 4 and 5 are often uninformed or ideologically incoherent, and that those categories make up the vast majority of I's overall.
This is no way means that ALL Independents are ignorant or lie about their affiliations in order to feel they are freer thinkers than they are, just that a vast majority of them can be described as such. I will say that, by virtue of being on this site, you demonstrate an interest in politics that puts you in the minority of independents as I describe them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to brewmn61
I take your point, but I prefer the way Silver expressed it. I also think that being "uninformed or ideologically incoherent" is a far piece from being lying "unprincipled couch potatoes." I'm extremely uninformed and incoherent when it comes to coding in C#, but it doesn't mean that I should be subject to scorn or derision because I work in IT and don't do C# stuff. (for now)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to Schmed
It's not your basic civic responsibility to pass a minimum knowledge threshhold in C+, though. And, if it's a knowledge deficiency that is preventing your career advancement (for example), it's harming you alone. Politically ignorant people who vote based on who they'd like to have a beer with or are swayed by a slick marketing campaign on a given issue harm all of us.
Look, I have no doubt there are Independents who are very well versed in ths issues, and vote for specific candidates based on that knowledge. But the fact that Independents can vote for George W. Bush, get so turned off by his mis-and-malfeasance that they throw his party out of office with extreme prejudice, then start returning to those same failed policies a year later, makes my head hurt (after it stops spinning, that is). There is no rational explanation for voting patterns like that except susceptibility to jingoistic appeals to greed and freedom from responsiblity to your duties as a citizen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 4:17 PM in reply to brewmn61
Politically ignorant people who vote based on who they'd like to have a beer with or are swayed by a slick marketing campaign on a given issue harm all of us....There is no rational explanation for voting patterns like that except susceptibility to jingoistic appeals to greed and freedom from responsiblity to your duties as a citizen.
Well, the rational explanation is that democracy is basically....irrational. It's based on an appeal to popularity which is in and of itself irrational. People vote for emotional reasons as well as logical. Civics and patriotism have emotional components to them and as such render voters vulnerable to rhetorical excess, manipulation, and flat out lies. Even well-informed citizens aren't immune to the "fooled some of the time" effect. I consider myself one of them, particularly because I voted for Clinton -- once.
When you consider that most Americans are non-voters, it's frankly a miracle that the system creaks and groans along at all. Independents that I know are independent because they're well informed and because they're civic-minded. They have no stomach for party chicanery and they don't think that any party is owed a lifetime allegiance. If they didn't give a damn, they could join the majority and not vote at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
January 28, 2010 5:49 PM in reply to Schmed
Funny. You get your little feelings hurt when someone calls indies couch potatoes but you have no problem calling people "stupid" when they ask you if you'd vote Republican. Judging by the tenor of your psychologically erratic posts I'd say that you're more self-righteously angry than Independent. And using Cindy McCain as the cornerstone example of a "Republican progressive" is just, how should I say- stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 8:52 PM in reply to plan69
Let's see, where to begin....
Okay, first of all I asked if you were stupid when you bifurcated my voting choices to Republican if Obama fails to win back my confidence. You respond with an insulting reference to being low brow and hypersensitive. I'd say that "stupid" pretty much covers it.
Now, you're suggesting to psychoanalyze me from the internet. Yeah, "stupid" is a pretty kind assessment.
Finally, Cindy McCain is a pretty prominent Republican. I also mentioned Bill Weld and talked in greater depth about his politics, yet you think Cindy McCain is the "cornerstone" of my argument. You fail to notice that I never agreed that a progressive Republican was my only alternative to the Democrats -- didn't you see the Sanders reference? Of course you did, but it didn't fit into your little bi-polar political perspective.
At this point, stupid is the kindest thing I could call you. But it would be kinder still just to ignore your ignorant petty little ass. You're dismissed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
January 29, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to Schmed
are you stupid?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 28, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to brewmn61
You're new on this planet, aren't you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to EastWest
You make an idiotic comment like the one above, and accuse me of being clueless? But I'm sure you're one of those "Independents" who just happens to only vote for Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
January 28, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to brewmn61
Idiodic is, as idiodic does.
What's idiotic is one who professes to support Democrats, doing their utmost to alienate those same independent voters Dems need to keep seats in congress and help Obama win a 2nd term. Well played.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to DaddyD
I probably wouldn't describe a snarky comment on a left-of-center blog as "doing my utmost" to alienate Independents from Democrats. Besides, that task has been taken up in earnest by the FDLers, aka "true progressives," so I'm late to that party anyway.
Oh, and it's "idioTic."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to brewmn61
Sorry. I see you got it right the third time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 28, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to brewmn61
You are wasting your breath on these trolling slime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
January 28, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I think it's healthy to distinguish between those here who are real allies of progressive causes, and those who are either trolls, or don't realize how they're hurting their own cause. In addition, I'd like independents to know that most of us on the 'left' honor their opinions, respect their criticisms, and hope we can be allies in making good things happen in the political arena. Someone needs to say it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to DaddyD
Take a look at "EastWest's" home page here. I think "trolling slime" gets it about right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
January 28, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to brewmn61
Actions count more than whether one is a trolling slime, or simply appear to be a trolling slime. If the speech delivers the same results, who cares? So, if you're not a troll, and truly support Democrats, I'd suggest considering that Democrats NEED independents, and alienating them would be counterproductive. EastWest may have similar issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to DaddyD
Well, since you and the rockhead replying below you won't link to it, here's a sample, from the diplomatically entiteld post, "Omabamots Are Filth:"
"For most of this election cycle I've been convinced that the average Obamabot was a mindless lemming, blindly following an empty-suited avatar of "change". I've also thought they are an extremely nasty lot, practicing the worst sort of "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy...
[Link to some other website]
Filth. Absolute, utter, mindless filth. And these idiots don't have the sense to understand the stupidity of bringing this kind of racist shit into their camp.
Congratulations, 'bots. Your Dear Leader certainly is the candidate of "change" isn't he?"
As was said, "trolling slime" pretty much hits the mark. But keep defending that swill if you must. After all, we can't alienate any precious "indepdendents" like EastWest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
January 28, 2010 3:55 PM in reply to brewmn61
I didn't defend EastWest. If anything, I acknowledged the problem you pointed out.
But, I'm not letting you off the hook either. I mastered diversion tactics with my son when he was a toddler - you can't pull that on me.
Signing off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 28, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to brewmn61
Well, it's sweet you know how to use the InterWebz and all, breweryboy. I notice, however, a bit of selective editing on your part. The link you so blithely snipped out was to an Obama fan-site showing a pic of Bill and Hilary Clinton Photoshopped into a 1930s lynching. Apparently you think that short of thing is okay. I didn't then, and I still don't. The fact that you do like it really only proves I was right: You are filth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 28, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to brewmn61
I don't look at the attached websites. But I do know plenty of "independent" physicians and academics whose opinions I respect, and whose goals I often share.
So "independent" does not equal "mouth-breather" as someone earlier here wrote, and the fact that someone calling themselves independent has an asinine website does not really influence my view of my independent friends and colleagues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 3:58 PM in reply to again
"I don't look at the attached websites. But I do know plenty of "independent" physicians and academics whose opinions I respect, and whose goals I often share."
Why not do your own reading, and make up your mind for yourself?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 28, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to brewmn61
I do - but the question wasn't "who are the Democrats?" of which I am one, but "who are the independents."
You're distorting what I wrote to make an ineffectual point.
And no one's buying it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 5:23 PM in reply to again
"And no one's buying it.'
How do you know this? Did your "physician and academics" tell you so?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
January 28, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to brewmn61
You do what you say you will, of course.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to kgb999
I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. I vote my politics as they are imperfectly represented in the available candidates. Since my politics are considerably to the left of the Democratic Party, and the Dems are the furthest left option available, they have my vote unless and until a viable challenger comes along that more closely supports my political views.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tropicgirl
January 28, 2010 1:20 PM
Its not going to help Obama to keep spinning him. He's like a top.
Here is the problem I see here with this post...
It states that most people who watched this address were Democrats. So, we will assume that the poll that was done includes more Democrats, since the poll alludes that it asked only those who watched.
If this poll represents Independents as only a third watching, and therefore polled, then that is not going to tell you anything. Independents make up a larger group than Democrats or Republicans.
To me, this speech indicates:
1. Obama is turning his back on the message of Massachusetts.
2. Obama is going "full steam ahead" toward "centrists", who he thinks are independents. They are not.
3. Obama does not necessarily care about the future Democratic party or their candidates. HIS agenda is much more important than that. Even though he will probably be one term. He'd like that for them, also.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
January 28, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to tropicgirl
This seems a little harsh.
1. What is the "message of Massachusetts"? If Scott Brown votes like a tea bagger for the next 2 years, will he be re-elected in 2012?
2. Assuming that Obama is "going towards" centrists assumes that he hasn't always been there. The left has always been uncomfortable with the fact that most of the country isn't as far left as it is. I think Obama is and has been governing from center.
3. I think he's a lot less interested in re-election than the rest of his party. He seems utterly frustrated that his party, with only 59 votes in the Senate, can't seem to muster the courage to let the R's filibuster everything and grind the gov't to a halt, as Clinton did with Gingrich. Calling the dems to task for "running for the hills" is accurate, isn't it? If the Dems can't get health care done after the last year, the party has no future, Obama or no Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 28, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to George C
"2. Assuming that Obama is "going towards" centrists assumes that he hasn't always been there. The left has always been uncomfortable with the fact that most of the country isn't as far left as it is. I think Obama is and has been governing from center."
But I'm not left. I'm a traditional Democrat. And Obama isn't hewing to traditional Democratic goals. He's acted as a corporatist in pursuit of ever-higher levels of regulatory capture.
"3. I think he's a lot less interested in re-election than the rest of his party. He seems utterly frustrated that his party, with only 59 votes in the Senate, can't seem to muster the courage to let the R's filibuster everything and grind the gov't to a halt, as Clinton did with Gingrich. Calling the dems to task for "running for the hills" is accurate, isn't it? If the Dems can't get health care done after the last year, the party has no future, Obama or no Obama."
I agree with your point that it was right to ask them not to run for the hills. I would add that he bears some responsibility for the failures in the Senate, as his leadership and advocacy for legislation that he himself proposed and made priority was almost entirely absent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
January 28, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to tropicgirl
Statistical analysis aside, the "message of Massachusetts" was that voters have no idea what's in the healthcare bill(s) or how it will benefit them.
It's a conservative wet dream that a solid majority of voters support a more limited government or have grown tired of "liberal arrogance" but when was the last time the average person really paid attention to their government or the proposals being put forth? Since when does the majority of the population have any real interest in the issues? Hell, there's a high percentage of people who can't identify Liberia, Poland or Iran on a map. The average voter turnout has been about 54% from 1960-1995. This indicates a very high degree of apathy and so to say that voters have "sent a message to Washington" based on their obvious ignorance of most things political is, frankly, horseshit.
They voted for the tall, dark-haired man who promised tax cuts and more jobs while riding around in a pickup truck - plus he knows Massachusetts popular culture better than his opponent. Never mind that he can't do any of what he promised in a very minority party. He may as well have promised them a unicorn and sung "Dirty Water" at the local bar on karaoke night. If voters were actually informed, they would realize that. But they're not and they bought it.
Obama did exactly what he needed to do last night - he explained what's happened and where we're headed in plain terms. Terms that your average voter can relate to, on issues that they can relate to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to worthy9
Statistical analysis aside, the "message of Massachusetts" was that voters have no idea what's in the healthcare bill(s) or how it will benefit them.
It's this kind of thinking that will keep the Democrats losing to the likes of Scott Brown. As James Carville said, It's the economy, stupid.":
Obama did exactly what he needed to do last night - he explained what's happened and where we're headed in plain terms. Terms that your average voter can relate to, on issues that they can relate to.
Still missing the point: the average voter wants results, not words.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jarl van Hoother
January 28, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to Schmed
The average voter knows about 1/10th of what they SHOULD know before stepping into a voting booth. They're ignorant (sometimes willfully so) about what is and isn't being accomplished in Washington and who's to blame. The average voter--well, don't get me started about the average voter. 4 out of 5 Scott Brown voters don't have a rational reason for why they voted for him--they vote as if they're still in Junior High, and anyone who points this out is accused of being "arrogant." Now excuse me as I walk away, muttering under my breath about the average voter...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to Jarl van Hoother
Wow, that's quite the assessment of the average voter....
....the people that actually get off their butts to go out and vote on a cold, snowy January Tuesday.
I would ask you what you think about the average non-voter (you know....the majority of Americans in non-Presidential election years), but I think I already know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
January 28, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to Schmed
I think that this is a very fair point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
January 28, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Schmed
2nd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
January 28, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to Schmed
You're right, they want results but they're not going to get results if they vote for Scott Brown who can't possibly deliver the results they desire. That's where the ignorance comes in. They don't know that healthcare reform will help the economy in a huge way. They don't know that the Recovery Act helped stave off even higher unemployment. They don't know that Republicans have tried to filibuster almost every single bill, even ones they eventually voted to pass, standing directly in the way of the results the voters want.
It's absolutely true that voters aren't looking for words and they want their politicians to get results. They just don't know about the results that have already accrued and will accrue from existing and proposed Democratic policies. That's where communication comes in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
January 28, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to worthy9
Worthy: It isn't just that they don't understand that Scott Brown can't deliver the promises he made to voters in MA, it's that they don't understand why, much less appreciate that the things he proposes are the ones that drove us into this economic mess we find ourselves in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
January 28, 2010 3:54 PM in reply to acf_ma
Agreed. That's a big problem, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to worthy9
That's where the ignorance comes in. They don't know that healthcare reform will help the economy in a huge way. They don't know that the Recovery Act helped stave off even higher unemployment.
You do them a disservice by presuming to know what they don't know. Maybe they don't know all that you claim. But maybe they do. Maybe they know all that stuff and it's far less important to them than the issues that Brown was able to capitalize on. Maybe they're tired of doing the same thing over and over and over again (voting for the Democrat) and hoping that they get a different result.
They just don't know about the results that have already accrued and will accrue from existing and proposed Democratic policies. That's where communication comes in.
The talking's done. Now what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
January 28, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to Schmed
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I'm convinced that the average voter is woefully uninformed and that their voting preferences are determined primarily by whether they believe the candidate will help them personally and, to a lesser extent, if they like the candidate's persona. I wouldn't say I'm doing them a disservice so much as I'm being realistic about it but neither of us really has any direct evidence so it's probably best to leave it at that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jarl van Hoother
January 28, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to worthy9
Nicely put.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
January 28, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to worthy9
But, but, but...
The tea-party backed Brown and Brown won, so that proves that "independents" love the tea-party. Right?
Er, but wait, the tea-party backed Hoffman and Hoffman lost to Owens. So what exactly does this prove? Perhaps it proves that nationwide trends should not be extrapolated from isolated local elections. Somehow, however, I doubt that TropicGirl and her ilk would like that conclusion quite as much as the "message of Massachussets", so they will not likely think through these things quite thoroughly enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lalo35adm
January 28, 2010 2:28 PM
Well, that was easy!.....No, it was magical!
The best strategy for Obama is to NEVER STOP TALKING.
I'm sure he can hit a 99.99% approval with independents if he goes from here until Sunday night.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 28, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Obama's talking is not and never has been the problem. The problem is no one fears him. That's why he can't even keep his own caucus in line. I think we'll see within the next couple of weeks whether he's learned to modify his leadership behavior. If not . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bk
January 28, 2010 11:47 PM in reply to wbgonne
I think no one fears him because he's reasonable and intelligent, and so they misunderstand him. I think he's being judged differently because of his race, and I think he is determined to govern his way, not the way we think he should govern. In the end, I think he will get things done. He's prepared to push Congress and has already boxed the Repubs in regarding the banks, so I don't buy this notion that he's done nothing during this year. He gave the Congress a chance to do their job, they failed. The Senate is broken, and I thought the speech really showed this. It's time for people to vote for Senators who are willing to work with each other to get something done for us or risk losing their jobs. We should be holding their feet to the fire.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EricR11
January 28, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Exactly. The basic problem with our President's first term was a failure to communicate. Once anyone actually gets to listen to him they can't help but agree and be supportive. It's just those little weevil pundits, lobbyists and massive corporate controlled media outlets screaming bald-faced lies that are the issue here. Can't they just go away?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EricR11
January 28, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to EricR11
Look out, I said "first term" here and not "first year". Uh oh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
January 28, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to EricR11
Kinda eerie. What are the power ball numbers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 28, 2010 2:32 PM
I think Obama did the best possible job last night but it's WAY too early to see how much it will help in the grand scheme of things.
Actually the one I'm most interested in seeing him set up is the monthly leadership meetings. It will be interesting to see if he really pushes for that since none of the party leadership on either side will want to commit to this. It will show that he can bring them together to the table and I think it's what Americans want to see happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
January 28, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to kgb999
I'll have a Dogfish Head 60 Minute!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 28, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to Schmed
Dogfish 90 Minute. Ridiculously expensive but, mmmmm, so good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 28, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to wbgonne
Yeah, but still not as expensive as San Miguel Dark here in New England. Damn, I miss San Fransico....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
January 28, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to kgb999
I agree with your reaction, but I think the optics of it could work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 28, 2010 3:56 PM in reply to kgb999
Meetings are never that productive. But it makes people seem productive, and at the very least, that's going to help Obama in the polls. Now if something positive comes out of that, then fantastic!
Last night was about parenting Congress and monthly meetings is a step toward seeing some visible results of that rhetoric. And again, if he can pull THAT off, then it's going to give people hope that he can lead others to the table to pull his other initiatives off. It will make for a good litmus test.
For all you geeks out there...Obama is adopting agile methodology with monthly SCRUMs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cassady
January 28, 2010 2:39 PM
With the caveat that this may all amount to nothing, it does seem reminiscent of how his speech on health care helped turn things around in Autumn, and I think both of these point towards a major failure of Obama in his first year: he's not taking the lead. He should be giving speeches like that on major policy issues more frequently, using the presidential soapbox to get more people on board with his agenda. He's good at that. Probably the HCR bill would have passed now even without him lobbying Congress more directly if he'd just done a better job at reaching out to voters to quell unfounded anger, play up its strengths, and get electoral pressure on Congress to speed up and act decisively. Maybe he should start now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
January 28, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to cassady
2nd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 28, 2010 2:41 PM
You have got to be kidding me. At least one of those polls was an online poll, and those are absolutely worthless.
But this article reiterates a theme we have been hearing from Obamabots since the start of his presidency: the notion that giving flowery speeches is more important than actually fucking doing anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 28, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to masanf
Ah, but "flowery" it certainly wasn't.
And you got some spittle on your shirt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
For Want of a Nail
January 28, 2010 2:41 PM
I've already seen him give speeches. I just haven't seen much materialize from them. Still waiting.
http://forwantofanail.com/2010/01/the-state-of-our-union/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 28, 2010 2:45 PM
Everyone here should follow that link to the CNN article and actually read it. Trying to spin that as evidence he reconnected with independents is a fucking stretch that would make Plastic Man proud. And the CBS poll was an online poll, and those are absolutely worthless. And as both stories make clear, the overwhelming percentage of those who watch the thing are predisposed to Democrats as it is, so the notion that independents were won over by a speech only about 15% of the nation watched, at best, and will be forgotten in a week, is fucking hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 28, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to masanf
You sound worried.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
January 28, 2010 2:47 PM
THe best quote from the CNN article:
"The 48 percent who indicated they had a very positive response is down 20 points from the 68 percent of speech watchers who felt the same way a year ago about the president's February 24 prime time address to a joint session of Congress."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 28, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to masanf
So now you want us to pay attention to the poll...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
January 28, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to Dorn76
Yep! If the poll says what I want it is good to quote a poll, if a poll says what I don't want it is foolish to quote a poll. That is some brilliant thinking!
The truth is this is a battle between what benefits corporations and what benefits people. In healthcare you either side with corporate profits or human suffering and death. If you think people are expendable and money is god you are a republican and will do anything to keep the corporations in power. You now also think corporations are in fact people themselves and have all the protections of the human citizens to "free speech" which is "money speech" and since you have most of the money it is yours by default. Brilliant! Except 45,000 are dead every year from lack of insurance ..... oh yes but Aetna is hugely profitable ..... that's your bargain. Republicans are basically political mercenaries, they kill off 45,000 people a year and split the profits with insurance corporations. Pure fucking evil.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
January 28, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to masanf
I guess so, if you're a Republican hack, cherry-picking only the results you like, and dismissing the rest as "absolutely worthless". Whatever they pay you to post here... they're not getting their money's worth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kJCUWzUl
January 28, 2010 3:32 PM
think the bias might be on independents who watched the speech.
once his new promises dissolve like his old ones he will lose more support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
manyamile
January 28, 2010 3:34 PM
i was listening with a friend who votes Republican and has always ribbed me about my vote and support for Obama.
Since we listened n radio, we missed all the theatrics and audience side show, thank goodness, and paid attention to the actual speech content.
Afterwards he said , i can't believe it , I actually agreed with most of what he said tonight. As did I .
I was shocked . HE was shocked.
we looked at each other. what is going on?
this is not supposed to happen...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 28, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to manyamile
The question, Manya, is "will anything come of it?"
We've heard these wonderfully powerful speeches before. And then Obama disappears into the WH. Will he reappear on Groundhog Day? Perhaps if we're lucky.
Look, I support the President. But he needs to step up to the plate. And he's not been doing that. And there have been too many times where his leadership was entirely absent, then he appeared for a conciliatory speech, and then he disappeared again and everything fell apart.
Anyway, I'm glad you both liked the speech. There was a lot to like in it, and there was also a great deal of specificity that was entirely lacking. The question is, these are great notions, but WHERE IS THE PLAN FOR THIS BEAUTIFUL VISION?
So far, it's been status quo all the way...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boredwell
January 28, 2010 5:13 PM
The president's rhetoric is in default. His non-action speaks louder than words. The dream of bi-partisanship and lack of Dem cohesion have conspired to negatively enlarge every issue, impacting the efficacy and limiting the executive branch's capacity to effect change. Mr.Obama needs to focus his energies on ONE topic-the economy; develop a master plan, explain it clearly and concisely to the voters, line up votes and work to tirelessly for passage sans filibustering. He must show us he will not accept NAY from either party for an answer, that the stark reality of our problems demands deliberative pragmatism rather than deliberative procrastination. The president must lead with definitive banking regulations; job stimuli and incentives as well as a safety net structured to stop those who are free-falling. This will be the lynch pin. Get us back in shape and leave the cheer leading to us, Mr. President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armchair Firebrand
January 28, 2010 7:56 PM
For me, last night’s State of the Union address will forever be entwined with next week’s season premiere of Lost, and not just because of the much publicized scheduling conflict between the two, television events. By imploring Congressional Republicans to cooperate with Democrats on confronting the many, critical concerns facing our nation, President Obama echoed the rallying cry of Lost ’s motley crew of castaways: “live together, die alone.”
Read more @ http://armchairfirebrand.wordpress.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armchair Firebrand
January 28, 2010 7:59 PM
For me, last night’s State of the Union address will forever be entwined with next week’s season premiere of Lost, and not just because of the much publicized scheduling conflict between the two, television events. By imploring Congressional Republicans to cooperate with Democrats on confronting the many, critical concerns facing our nation, President Obama echoed the rallying cry of Lost ’s motley crew of castaways: “live together, die alone.”
Read more @ http://armchairfirebrand.wordpress.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?