President Obama's first ever State of the Union - Page 5

Seemed like too many of them were going for the "Gotcha!" moment rather than asking real questions.

That makes sense, although obviously the stimulus probably had little to do with businesses slowing the cutting of their inventories (which was probably due to how drastically they cut them over the last 16 months). The remaining 2% of GDP growth obviously can be contributed to government spending.

Of course, Im not necessarily saying this is a bad thing. I guess my point is that, just like how Obama should not in any way be held responsible for the high unemployment rate right now (as it's extended growth is a natural byproduct of any recession), I don't see this report as going into his "win" column either.

Since it was brought up during the Q&A (and Im too lazy to search and see if it was discussed before), where does everyone stand on the line-item veto power? I would love to see it enacted.

Personally, I don't think line item veto is actually a good thing. If a comprehensive law is passed that needs various components to work effectively, allowing those pieces to be individually vetoed could be quite harmful. It really gives too much power to the president and Executive branch as far as crafting legislation goes.

I have to agree with Obama that the better more balanced (as far as separation of powers goes) approach would be to just make sure that those who add earmarks are forced to undergo at least some scrutiny.

I agree, the bills shouldn't have the fluff in the first place, but the intent of the line item veto is to get rid of the totally unrelated riders that get added to bills all the time because they know the main bulk of the bill is too good to get rejected.

Line-item veto is unconstitutional... didn't Congress already walk down that road?

I'm not sure if they were referring to a constitutional amendment perhaps?

That's almost a slippery slope. I understand where you are coming from, but to re-write it would not change much change sadly, and in doing so, who stops the next person from re-writing it yet again, and again.

They did back in '95 or '96 I believe.


ETA from Wikipedia:

Yes, i believe it was Rudy Giuliani who effectively killed it. Obama seemed too gracious to remind the GOP of that fact.

The Republican's fucked up on several levels. As you say, they weren't interested in real engagement with the president but rather they were hoping to walk away with some campaign commercials. That's a real shame. There was a real opportunity for Republicans here for an image makeover and they messed up. Instead of being seen as a party with ideas, they come off as butt hurt cry babies trying to trip the president up. Hell, even one or two of them used the immature "Democrat Party" line right in front of the president. That would be like some lefty referring to the GOP as the "Repuke Party".

What I love about the exchange is that Obama is acting like the mature adult in the room with talk like " You gotta give me something that actually works instead of wishful thinking" or "Your tone makes it impossible for you to work with us on anything".

The thing I'm most impressed with is how cool Obama was in there. He was never flustered, he never showed aggitation (except maybe with Jeb near the end and with good reason), and he was ready for everything the GOP could throw at them and then some. I doubt even Clinton would have done as well. He would have been great with the policy side but I don't think he would have been able to keep his cool and make jokes to way Obama did.

I know it would never happen and the security risk would be too high but I would love for Obama to crash the Tea Party convention next week and take on all those people calling him Nazi to their faces. It would be great but it would be beneath him. Hell, after the Q&A yesterday, I'm beginning to think the Republican Party is beneath him.

Sorry for the long post but I'm just happy to see the president I elected again.

Yeah, the whole thing was a disaster for Republicans. Fox even cut away from the Q&A early so they could start spinning it against Obama. Some Republicans are now claiming cameras shouldn't have been allowed at the event.

This is why the Limbaughs and Hannitys never have credible opposition on their shows. Reasoned, intelligent debate deflates empty talking-points instantly.

Clinton v. New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).

Line-item Veto is a bad, bad idea. Certainly a violation of separation of powers.



oh and kate... i'm really interested in what you wish to have in "your" constitution. principles? details?

Surprised you haven't seen it yet. I guess I was holding out hope that the GOP would act like adults in a more dignified setting but that hope was dashed with this Q+A. It was still fun to watch and even more fun to imagine Bush doing the same with a room full of Congressional Dems.

Two Republicans I know are bitching that he's a) blaming the Republicans when "he didn't need Rep votes to pass anything", b) he's telling the Republicans that they need to work with the Democrats instead of vice-versa, and c) he needs to invite Republicans to the WH instead of doing things like this. Incredible.

I thought the Republicans were pretty respectful on the whole, but they were talking in sound bites designed to put in their reelection ads. But I have to say, I think this was a great moment for Obama to explain what he's going for, what he sees, how he wants to move forward. His people were brilliant during the campaign at communicating his vision, but his PR since taking office has been bush league at best.

I wish the campaign would use this moment to proactively underscore how the GOP "solutions" to things like healthcare and the economy as presented in this Q&A (not all, but most) are rife with loopholes and corporate thievery, i.e the whole "crossing state lines" for health insurance. I am of the opinion that crossing state lines would just enable all the corporations to base their operations in states with the laxest regulations, but Obama brought up the idea of corporations taking all the low-risk people and leaving the high-risk to Medicaid, which would bankrupt a state.

I liked that he said out loud that when Republicans talk about "across-the-board" tax cuts, they're including millionaires and billionaires, who have had a mostly free ride for the past 30 years, enjoying benefits not shared by the dwindling middle class.

I hope they do this monthly or regularly. I hope he also does this with the progressive caucus. I'd be interested to hear his explanation on Bernanke and Geithner and get some solid info on his plans for pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and exactly what he means by "clean coal."

That's what I mean. I was hoping for something like a presidential debate where the theater of a campaign rally was put aside in favor of a real give and take. When Mike Pence uses phrases like "so called stimulus bill" and "boutique tax cuts", it's not totally respectful. In fact Pence demonstrated again and again his immaturity in front of the president. Not a good thing for someone with presidential aspirations.

Also, are we sure we don't want to break off the Q+A into its own thread?

While I was impressed with Obama's performance (and he was performing just as much as the Republicans: it was like Robert Deniro at his peak acting in a play with the Des Moines High School Acting class), I think you guys are mistaken about how people in the country will respond.

I've already heard on Talk Radio guy play selected clips and spin it that Obama was showing himself to be the typical Elitist Look down your nose at the unwashed type of Liberal.

I think people will see what they want to see and no net change in opinion will follow.

I do look forward to competing campaign ads showing Republicans as heroes and the clips from their opponents showing them to be jackasses.

I guess those two Republicans have never heard of Blue Dog Dems, Filibusters, or Joe Lieberman.

And I guess they don't know what hypocrisy is when they blame Obama for not bulldozing legislation through Congress without Republican input, then in the next breath criticize him for not being more inclusive of Republican ideas.

Overall, I thought Obama did a pretty good job in a hostile environment. The Repubs certainly could have been more antagonistic, and they seemed to be itching to attack the President outright, and Obama refrained from making it a lecture - except when he had to. The campaigning going on was so obvious as to be funny, and they were called out on it to their faces and seemed not to care. When you have the President's ear, you don't fumble away an opportunity the way the Repubs did just then. You want Obama to consider your ideas, present them instead of dicking around.

"We made two promises to you Mr. President: One is that we would pray for you and your lovely family."

"Uh...thanks...that's...thanks."

"I'll pray for you" is such a dickish Mid-Western sort of thing to say.

Hey, don't pin "I'll pray for you" on the mid-west.

Well bless their hearts.

Down here in Georgia, "Hello" apparently doesn't exist anymore. It's been replaced with "Praise the Lord."

Since this has morphed into the Question Time with Barack Obama thread, I thought I'd give a heads up that Obama will be doing the Q+A with the Democratic Caucus on TV on Wednesday. Should be interesting how he takes on the Blue Dogs and people to the left of him as well.

I think it's plainly obvious that the republicans in that room weren't the slightest bit interested in the president 'considering their ideas'. This was a gigantic point scoring session to look like the guy with the biggest dick to the sort of constituents that see politics as game of football.

As good as I think Obama came out looking from this I'd be delusional if I thought this changed one persons mind either on the TV or at home.

Your system is broken.

For the record, I think it's perfectly fine and wonderful to pray for people. Which is precisely why it's such an asshole thing to say when what you really mean is "You are desperately wrong and will be eternally damned, and I will entirely hold that against you, but my superficial understanding of Christianity demands that I acknowledge some hope that you come to see how wrong you are and how right I am, praise be Jesus."

I guess that´s the most appropriate running thread to post this: