Watch Obama’s State Of The Union Address

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Obama, Video

Just over an hour…



Let me know what you think in the comments below!

More as it develops…


This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 and is filed under Barack, Democrats, Obama, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

13 Responses to “Watch Obama’s State Of The Union Address”

  1. mdgeorge Says:

    I hate when a failed captcha swollows my comments.

    One note that I liked was that while he exhorted the congress to get off their bums, he also repeatedly pledged to take administrative branch action if they failed to act. Last year he laid out an ambitious agenda and asked congress to rise to the occasion. I’m glad he’s acknowledging that one of America’s biggest problems was sitting in front of him. I hope he uses his reelection campaign to ask us for a better congress.

  2. Tully Says:

    Of course, if Congress does not agree with his agenda, they SHOULD “fail to act” on it. Likewise if Congress is sufficiently divided amongst themselves on how to act, the default is to not act, and that’s by intnetional design on the part of those who originally created our government. Congress’ job is certainly not to ask “How high, master?” when the Prez shouts “JUMP!”

    “Do what I demand or I will do it anyway” sounds just a wee bit autocratic, no? Why, almost like the prelude for an Enabling Act. I seem to recall reading somewhere about a concept called “seperation of powers.” I wonder whatever happened to that.

  3. mdgeorge Says:

    Oh come on Tully, you know that’s a misreading of what both I and the president said. The president has some authority that has already been granted to him. All he’s done is acknowledged that congress isn’t using it’s authority to solve problems, but said that he will use his towards that end.

    In light of the events of the last year, I much prefer this approach – not assuming/hoping congress will get it’s act together – to last year’s.

    And you’re right, Congress’s job isn’t to say “how high master?” when the president says “jump”, it’s job is to say “how high master?” when the people say “jump”. THE big fights over the last year have been about tax policy and deficits. The public largely supports a progressive tax system, which means increasing taxes on the wealthiest. The Republicans shouldn’t do that because the president says it. They should do it because their constituents say it.

  4. Jeremy Young Says:

    Anyone that blames the American people for “being” on food stamps has no business being president. So that pretty much eliminates all the Republican presidential candidates.

    It’s hilarious that Republicans make so much of social services for needy Americans yet what the does the Republican party stand for? They are the kings of welfare, corporate welfare, tax evasion and corporate subsidies. When the two are compared, they aren’t even in the same league!

    Republicans talk about patriotism, is it patriotic to steal from your fellow Americans by profiting from our political system yet you aren’t paying for its upkeep?

    I guess I am left to vote for the lesser of the evils, Obama it is.

  5. khaki Says:

    @ Tully: “if Congress is sufficiently divided amongst themselves on how to act, the default is to not act, and that’s by intnetional design on the part of those who originally created our government. ”

    Sure, and in 2012 Congress is divided between those who are acting for the purpose of preventing Obama from being reelected and those that aren’t. We are being asked to swallow, then, that inaction is patriotic? Hardly, it is partisan. Obama is betting that the majority will see GOP inaction for what it obviously is, and acknowledge that he MUST, therefore, take unilateral action. The GOP has tried to box Obama in: 1) He looks ineffective if he tries to negotiate or 2) he looks like a tyrant if he tries to act alone. That will pay off for them only so long as independents don’t punish them for it. We’ll see if that gamble pays off.

  6. cranky critter Says:

    The President has certain powers within his grasp to do things which are also part of the intended design.. And which Presidents routinely avail themself of when they decide congress is obstructing his agenda.

    Which you well know Tully.

  7. Tully Says:

    The President has already overstepped his constitutional authority. Why should I think he meant anything else?

    it’s job is to say “how high master?” when the people say “jump”.

    Well, no. Maybe you should read the oath of office. A Congresscritter’s job is to represent his/her constituents’ best interests within the bounds of that oath. If the job was to grovel everytime the general public had a bare majority behind something, we wouldn’t need them at all, just referendums. Of course, there’d be no reason to worry about their character, and we wouldn’t have a nation anymore.

    Once again, this is by design.

  8. khaki Says:

    @ Tully: “if Congress is sufficiently divided amongst themselves on how to act, the default is to not act, and that’s by intnetional design on the part of those who originally created our government. ”

    Sure, and in 2012 Congress is divided between those who are acting for the purpose of preventing Obama from being reelected and those that aren’t. We are being asked to swallow, then, that inaction is patriotic? Hardly, it is partisan. Obama is betting that the majority will see GOP inaction for what it obviously is, and acknowledge that he MUST, therefore, take unilateral action. The GOP has tried to box Obama in: 1) He looks ineffective if he tries to negotiate or 2) he looks like a tyrant if he tries to act alone. That will pay off for them only so long as independents don’t punish them for it. We’ll see if that gamble pays off.

  9. mdgeorge Says:

    Tully, are you really arguing that this congress is doing a good job of fulfilling it’s responsibility to govern this country in the best interests of the people? Really?

  10. khaki Says:

    mdgeorge, I think Tully genuinely believes that congressional Republican intransigence is patriotic (while you and I see it as obviously partisan). And I think that is a good place one can draw a distinction between the GOP and Dems in general. Repubs equate partisanship with patriotism (“if it’s not Republican, it aint American” – evidenced by the birthers, “you lie” and many other instances where they question Obama’s or any Dem’s legitimacy), while Dems, I think, are wisely skeptical of partisanship. So when we ask Repubs to “put the country first”, I think they genuinely believe that they are doing that when they make their number one priority preventing Obama from being reelected, the rest of the country’s agenda be damned.

  11. khaki Says:

    Let me add: that’s an easy position to take when “the rest of country” is illegitimate.

  12. cranky critter Says:

    The President has already overstepped his constitutional authority. Why should I think he meant anything else?

    I think you mean “he’s overstepped his authority in my opinion once or twice, and because I hate him, I’m going to presume that’s what he meant even though I know that’s not what he meant.”

  13. Tully Says:

    Wrong, the lot of you. I think they’re doing their job as they see it, and as the system was designed to allow them to do it. That is not the same as thinking they’re doing a good job. I don’t see too many in Washington doing what I consider a good job — I do see the designed inherent roadblocks built into the system working more or less as designed (that whole checks and balances thing) bys talling out closely divided issue from being decided on teeny temporary bare majorities, which pisses off people whose agendas are being frustrated.

    Cranky, we’ve had this discussion before, and had it long before Obama was elected in assorted contexts. He’s not the first president to try to exercise authorities he doesn’t (legally) have, and it’s somewhat scary every time it happens.

    What would be really scary is if Congress lets him get away with it, and does not defend their own territory. Power once ceded has a tendency to stay ceded, and I am no fan of the expanded unitary executive approach, whether it’s Obama or Truman (look up the Steel Seizure case) or Roosevelt (Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, Executive Order 9066) or Bush2 (military detention of US citizens captured on US soil, though we can lob that one at FDR and Lincoln as well, among others).

    When they ride up to the very edges of the grey area but respect the borders of it, that’s one thing. When they march past that border and start staking out the territory of the other branches as their own, they are BY DEFINITION establishing themselves as autocrats, no less than Hugo Chavez or any other tin-pot dictator.

    All that differs is the matter of degree. If they color within the (Constitutional) lines, I am somewhat indifferent. As long as they’re not (to paraphrase Jefferson) breaking my leg or picking my pocket, I can live with it. And if they are picking my pocket or breaking my leg, I have options. But when they go outside the lines, our options start to vanish.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: