Denouncing Trumpism, Right And Left
Tonight, Barack Obama gave his final State Of The Union speech, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley gave the Republican response. Both speeches were unusual -- not in a negative way, but in a more literal "not the usual thing" sense. Obama's speech was not a laundry list of legislative agenda items, but rather a definitional moment for Obama and for the Democratic Party platform. Haley's speech was not a vitriol-filled rejection of all things Democratic while glossing over her own party's faults. The speeches, or at least the general tone of them, were actually more similar than different (again, not on policy but rather on tone).
I'll get to some snap reactions to Obama's speech in a moment, but what struck me the most about both speeches was the biggest thing Haley and Obama agreed upon: Donald Trump is not where American politics should be headed. We saw a denunciation not of Trump by name (neither uttered it) but a sweeping condemnation of stoking the angers and fears of what might be called "Trumpism." Both Haley and Obama used the same basic theme, in fact, which might be summed up as: "Shouting at each other is bad for American politics."
Obama singled out both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz specifically, if obliquely. Cruz got mentioned (again, not by name, but by idea) for his plan to "carpet-bomb" America's enemies. Trump got smacked around quite a bit more. In Obama's opening remarks he talked quite a bit about the politics of fear, and how America should reject it no matter which side it comes from. In specific, he decried those who bragged about "restoring the past glory" of America, which is almost a copyright violation of the Trump campaign slogan: "make America great again." Over and over again, Obama made the case that this is not who America is -- or should be, at any rate. Obama instead issued a rousing defense that America is already great, which was one of the major themes of his speech. All of which was directed not just at Republicans, but directly at Donald Trump and his supporters.
Haley, astonishingly, largely agreed on this point. I can't remember ever hearing a partisan State Of The Union response speech where the politician called her own party out in such specific fashion. Haley showed some Southern charm and said a few nice things about Obama up front, and then showed the steel of Southern women by following up with some snide putdowns of Obama and his record. That's all to be expected from these response speeches, of course. But what was jaw-droppingly unexpected was what she followed it up with -- the bold statement (for any politician) that the opposition party does not bear all the responsibility for the problem. As she put it, "there's more than enough blame to go around."
Haley then spent almost the entire rest of her speech smacking Trump around (she did have the usual "here's what Republican Utopia would look like if we got the White House back" sort of thing at the end, but it was really secondary to the anti-Trump points she made). She started with her story: "I'm an immigrant." She did sort of half-heartedly call for no open borders and tighter screening of refugees, but her main point was that people like her should be welcomed in to the Republican Party, even if they look different.
She followed this up with the moving story (which, quite obviously, still personally emotionally moves her -- you could see it in her face and body language) about the racist terrorist attack which happened in Charleston last year. She has plenty of authority on the matter, seeing as how she got South Carolina to take down the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds as a direct result of the shooting. That was a very big deal -- for her, for her state, for the entire South, and for Republicans in general. She deserved a victory lap, and she took it. But again, the story only served to further the anti-Trump theme of her entire speech. She ended by essentially agreeing with Obama, telling politicians of both parties to "turn down the volume" and instead maybe listen to what the other side is saying.
A few more things about Nikki Haley before I get to my Obama reactions. First off, the Republicans chose well this time around. I'm assuming (without having the time to fact-check this) that the Republican National Committee picks who gets this coveted speaking spot. They've had a few noticeable not-ready-for-prime-time choices while Obama's been in office (Marco Rubio's water, Bobby Jindal's... well, whatever that was...). This time they didn't miss, they scored, big-time. To put this another way, Nikki Haley is now right at the top of pretty much every Republican presidential candidate's short list for vice president -- excepting maybe Trump's, of course. Her delivery was smooth, relaxed, and she showed emotion at precisely the right moment (when talking about the Charleston tragedy). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she runs for president herself one of these years.
OK, enough from the Republican side of the aisle. Instead, let's talk about the main speech of the night. As always, quotes were hastily scribbled down and may be slightly inaccurate, although the gist of the quotes is as accurate as I could make it (for snap reactions).
Barack Obama announced before he gave his final State Of The Union speech that he'd be foregoing the traditional format modern SOTU speeches have. He wouldn't be requesting a long list of proposals be passed by Congress, which was no more than an open admission of what everyone in Washington already knows anyway -- the final year of a two-term president in the midst of a presidential election (with both houses of Congress in the opposition's hands, no less) means that not very much is going to get done. The last two Congresses (from the Republican Tea Party wave in 2010 through the beginning of last year, in other words) were the least productive in American history. With the election looming, everybody knows nothing's going to get done other than a massive amount of political posturing.
Faced with this reality, Obama essentially said: "What the heck, if nothing's getting through Congress, I'll just use the speech to lay out the case for both my own legacy and for the near future of the Democratic Party and America at large." And that is precisely what he proceeded to do tonight.
He started with a mini-list of agenda items he'd like to see passed, and sprinkled others throughout the speech. He is, after all, still president, and is still doing a pretty good job of driving the agenda in Washington even with both houses of Congress in Republican hands. But it was more pro forma than actually expecting Congress to react favorably to any of it.
Instead, he spent much of his speech either (choose your metaphor) lecturing in a professorial manner, or preaching to the better halves of America's nature. He devoted his speech to what he thought were the best things about America (and how he's made some of them better during his term in office), and what we should aspire to in the future.
Because of this, the cadence of the speech wasn't normal either. Because the media loves to count (every year), I'd be willing to bet that "fewer applause breaks" will be one of the stories written about Obama's speech in tomorrow's press. There were fewer applause breaks because Obama wasn't tossing red meat out to Democrats (and occasionally Republicans) throughout the whole speech. It wasn't that type of speech at all. The audience tried to treat the speech as normal, but they sounded kind of discordant, even when the applauding and huzzah-ing was at its loudest.
It was a speech of four bullet points, not forty lines guaranteed to get Democrats on their feet. Like any good lecturer, he laid out his bullet points at the beginning, then went through each in detail, one by one.
Obama was strongest and most heartfelt when he was speaking about two broad subjects. The first might be called: "America is great right now, dammit!" Whether Obama was speaking of the economy, the military prowess of our country, or our moral leadership on the world stage, Obama again and again made the case: "Those say America is in decline are peddling fiction." The most heartfelt -- a clip that should put to rest forever those who grumble Obama "doesn't believe in American exceptionalism" -- concerned America's military. Obama got one of the biggest standing ovations of the night when he said (the repetition was because there was so much applause):
The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. Period. It's not even close. It's not even close. It's not even close.
He immediately followed this up with:
The rest of the world doesn't look to Beijing or Moscow to lead [when hotspots develop in the world]. They come to us.
That's about as jingoistic as I've heard from a Democrat, at least since the depths of the Cold War. Which, as Obama noted tonight, is now officially over due to him opening up Cuba. Obama spent some time directly refuting the rampant fear on the Republican side of the presidential race by pointing out the we are not in World War III against some "guys in pickup trucks." The Islamic State is simply not an existential threat to the United States, no matter how many times Republicans quake in their boots over the prospect. And, returning to his anti-Trump theme, Obama pointed out that the Islamic State does not represent Islam. The entire foreign policy and security part of Obama's speech might be accurately labeled Obama's own attempt to clearly define what is already being called the "Obama Doctrine."
Fully the last fourth of his speech was a refutation of Trump's style of politics and Obama's own (for want of a better phrase) hopes for change in American politics. Obama very honestly admitted that this was one of his few regrets during his entire term -- that he had simply failed to reduce the amount of partisan "rancor" and hatred in Washington. He even openly admitted that it had gotten worse during his tenure. He made a final plea for everyone to tone it down just a wee bit, and start working towards actual goals both sides could agree upon rather than spending 100 percent of the time scoring meaningless political points off each other. Other frustrations shone through in this section, most notably: "We need to make it easier to vote, not harder."
Of course, if Obama hasn't made things better over the last seven years in this regard, it's doubtful that comity will break out all over Washington during his last year in office -- while there's an election happening to replace him, no less. If Obama's last portion of the speech were reduced to a tweet, it might be: "Really? Trump? Cruz? That's all you got?!? Pretty angry guys...."
Barack Obama had two obvious goals in tonight's speech. The first was his own attempt at defining his own legacy. This is important, because he quite simply hasn't done a great job of communicating these things to the public up until now. I personally live, eat, and breathe politics, and there were facts in there I hadn't heard before (we have more clean energy jobs than the coal industry?). Obama's legacy is a pretty impressive one, and there were plenty of achievements he didn't even bother to mention tonight (the one that surprised me by its absence was the increase in overtime pay for tens of millions of working-class Americans, which was all Obama's doing). Getting a jump start on the historians was one major goal of tonight's speech, and Obama cleared that bar easily. But then, he's got the numbers on his side to prove that things are much, much better in America in many, many ways than they were when he entered office.
His second objective tonight was to set the stage for whomever is the eventual Democratic nominee. He didn't really play favorites, and kept out of the Bernie-Hillary fray, but he did strongly lay out what the party stands for, the goals for the future that all Americans should believe in, and an absolute rejection of Trumpism.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that tomorrow, at least one enterprising blogger will have a "Who said it?" post which directly compares sentences from Nikki Haley's speech to almost-identical phrases from Obama's speech. They were truly that interchangeable, at least some of the time. Hey -- maybe President Obama's been more successful than everyone thinks at bringing the parties together. After all, both sides equally (and quite directly) denounced the two rowdies currently far out front of the Republican pack. See? There are some things most Americans can agree upon! Or, perhaps, where Barack Obama and the establishment Republicans see eye-to-eye, at the very least.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I especially enjoyed the president's depiction of the United States as exceptional, beyond compare.
Though, I think he could have played that up to much greater effect, particularly in comparison to what entities like ISIS stand for.
LizM -
I dunno, I thought he did a pretty good job of pumping up the jingoism. But then I'm not that jingoistic of a guy, normally, so there may be some bias there.
-CW
The entire foreign policy and security part of Obama's speech might be accurately labeled Obama's own attempt to clearly define what is already being called the "Obama Doctrine."
Thank-you!
I knew there was an "Obama Doctrine"
:-)
To all:
Don't know how I forgot to add this:
"Obama's best line of the night was his riff on Sputnik and how there were no Sputnik-deniers at the time. For some reason, the television camera was focused at this point on Al Franken, who got a gigantic laugh out of the line."
Meant to include that one, hasty writing and editing left it out...
:-)
-CW
Well, Chris ... you know me ... I'm the biggest fan of America around here!
LizM -
The Obama Doctrine is a slippery eel, actually. I'd call it "a strong belief in limited warfare, air power versus lots of American troops, and local troops should handle the bulk of the fighting."
Others might define it differently, I realize...
-CW
Well, I have a longer definition of the Obama Doctrine ... but, there are some folks who don't believe there is one, at all ...
What did you make of Obama putting Biden in charge of the moonshot to cure cancer ... in charge of mission control, I believe ...
LizM [5] -
You'll notice I've refrained from blaming you Canucks for Ted Cruz, out of respect for you personally...
Heh...
:-)
Here's one for Michale and you:
Now, now, the Canadian Government has apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions!
-South Park (movie) "Bigger, Longer, and Uncut"
:-)
Always thought it should have been "Celine Dion," personally. Heh.
And Michale, watch what you say... William Shatner's Canadian, I hasten to remind you....
-CW
Always thought it should have been "Celine Dion," personally. Heh.
I concur.
Although, no one could have sung the theme from Titanic better.
LizM [8] -
More power to him, and good luck! Did you catch the Biden story today about Obama offering him financial support, should his family or Beau's need it? I thought it was a very human story for both of them. I think Biden's right when he claims that he and Obama are closer personally than any other P/VP team in modern history...
Biden's a good guy. So's Obama. That's what I took away from the story....
-CW
Michale is now wondering about the apostrophe in Shatner's ... HEH!
Chris [11]
I agree completely ... that Biden interview made me cry.
LizM -
Glad to see you're up! I've missed bantering with you -- my fault entirely, one of my NY's resolutions is to pay better attention to the comments...
Anyway, I gotta go to bed now. These snap reaction columns are exhausting...
But, like I said, glad to chat!
:-)
-CW
G'nite
Always thought it should have been "Celine Dion," personally. Heh.
"Because, if I heard that god-awful Celene Dion song I was going to have to smite myself!"
"Who'se 'Celene Dion'??"
"Oh, some destitute lounge singer in Quebec and can we keep it that way, please!?"
-SUPERNATURAL
:D
Michale
Obama complaining about Trump's rhetoric?? Really!??
This, coming from the Party who refers to political opponents as "terrorists" and "arsonists" and "enemies"...
Too little too late Democrats... Too little too late..
If Obama and the totality of the Left Wingery REALLY want to turn the page on "stoking the angers and fears", then let Democrats FIRST apologize for their OWN ridiculous attacks..
Until that occurs, it's nothing but partisan rhetoric from gross and perverse political hacks...
The more the Left *AND* the Right attack Trump, the stronger and better Trump becomes in the eyes of the American people...
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win..."
-Mahatma Ghandi
Ya'all have to admit.. That Ghandi quote fits the Trump situation PERFECTLY...
Glad to see you're up! I've missed bantering with you -- my fault entirely, one of my NY's resolutions is to pay better attention to the comments...
I, for one, would really like that. You have been missed around here.. :D
Michale
My response to Obama's "Big Shue"
“As frustration grows, there will be voices urging us to fall back into tribes, to scapegoat fellow citizens who don’t look like us, or pray like us, or vote like we do, or share the same background. “We can’t afford to go down that path.”
Unless, of course, doing so furthers the DEMOCRAT PARTY agenda..
Because it's been Democrats who have been scapegoating Americans for the last 7 years...
Mr. Obama opted for symbolism to make some of his points, leaving a chair empty in the first lady’s guest box to symbolize the victims of gun violence.
Hmmmm.. So when a Republican does an "empty chair" schtick, it's "bizarre" and "ridiculous"..
When a Democrat does an "empty chair" schtick, it's meaningful and deep symbolism...
Double standard much?? :D
He called for an end to gerrymandering — the gaming of political districts to ensure one party’s advantage — reducing the influence of secretive campaign contributions and making voting easier.
I am all for making voting easier.. As long as we correspond that step with making gun ownership easier...
The president called for compromise with Republicans on an overhaul of the criminal justice system,
Translation: DO IT MY WAY OR ELSE I WILL IGNORE YOU AND DO IT MY WAY ANYWAYS...
About the ONLY factual statement that came last night was from Haley...
"We are facing the most dangerous terrorist threat our nation has seen since September 11th, and this president appears either unwilling or unable to deal with it.”
Almost a dozen terrorists have reached their targets under Obama..
Michale
“We would make international agreements that were celebrated in Israel and protested in Iran, not the other way around.”
That, too, is a pretty powerful statement..
A dead on ballz accurate condemnation of "The Obama Doctrine"...
Screwing our allies and enriching and empowering our enemies...
Because no one.. I repeat NO ONE... can deny that Obama's actions have caused pain to our allies and have enriched and empowered our enemies..
"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed.."
-Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale
Chris:
You were right about the 'who said it' quotes:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/politics/barack-obama-nikki-haley-state-of-the-union/index.html
A rare sound: adult talk from Washington from both sides of the political divide. Haley is the real deal - she could have been the establishment's flag bearer. One wonders if she was one of the sane candidates that was fooled by Bush's "shock and awe/I've got all the money already" approach.
I hope, if Cruz wins the nomination, she rejects any VP overtures - she is better than a second fiddle to that evil little man. As you said, Trump is unlikely to choose her after last night.
Overall, I felt Obama was talking to the future - talking to a generation that will look back on the crazy times we are going through with climate denial, gun lunacy and a rise of fascist tendencies and see that there were voices of reason.
Trumpism is too close to fascism, way too close for America to accept ... I hope.
If Israel is our ally, they will accept that sometimes we have to do what is right for us. A true test of an ally is not when we are fighting their wars, but when we agree to differ and still remain united. BiBi's acceptance of a frankly partisan invitation from congress moved Israel from ally to political player - like religion, they will learn that if you become a political player instead of an observer, you lose your immunity and can becomes vilified.
Avoiding a war with Iran was one of Obama's greatest achievements, but is one that will take a decade to receive widespread recognition.
Trumpism is too close to fascism, way too close for America to accept
And THAT is too close to a Godwin :D
If Israel is our ally, they will accept that sometimes we have to do what is right for us.
If by "us" you mean The Democrat Party, I would disagree with you..
No other context makes any sort of sense..
BiBi's acceptance of a frankly partisan invitation from congress moved Israel from ally to political player
You mean, like Pelosi went to Syria at the behest of Assad??
You mean like that??
Avoiding a war with Iran was one of Obama's greatest achievements,
Yea... Chamberlin thought the same thing about avoiding war with Germany...
We know how THAT turned out.. :^/
Michale
Re: Pelosi - no, I didn't mean like that, because Pelosi was already a political player - Bibi turned Israel from an ally into a partisan political player.
Re: Iran - did you miss the part where we all agreed that America is completely dominant from a conventional military perspective, and is capable of mutual destruction from an atomic weapon perspective? Stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is what is also stopping Saudi Arabia from going balls out for one right now. The Chamberlin line is just another Godwin loss for you - much more so than equating Trumpism with fascism.
Trumpism is too close to fascism, way too close for America to accept
And yet, 20% of the Democrat Party DOES support this "fascism"...
Kinda points a kink in the description, eh??
"JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED!"
"Kinda puts a crimp in the ole job description, eh Padre??"
-Night Court
:D
Re: Pelosi - no, I didn't mean like that, because Pelosi was already a political player - Bibi turned Israel from an ally into a partisan political player.
In your opinion..
What I saw was a guy who was so passionate about saving his country that he would defy political norms to make his case...
Re: Iran - did you miss the part where we all agreed that America is completely dominant from a conventional military perspective, and is capable of mutual destruction from an atomic weapon perspective?
Relevance??
Stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is what is also stopping Saudi Arabia from going balls out for one right now.
Actually, the facts on the ground say different.. Now that Iran can pursue a nuclear arsenal with the tacit approval of the US, SA is beginning their own nuclear weapons program. As are other nations in the ME...
The Chamberlin line is just another Godwin loss for you -
Again, that's your opinion.. The facts clearly say otherwise. :D
However, I'll throw you a bone. The Chamberlin line IS close to a Godwin... :D
Michale
Bibi turned Israel from an ally into a partisan political player.
I am also constrained to point out that the responsibility for this lies completely with Obama and the Democrat Party..
If Obama had done what was best for this country, Israel, the region and the world, instead of what was best for Obama's legacy, then Netanyahu would not have been put in the position of going against Obama...
But Obama chose the empowerment of Iran over the safety and security of Israel..
THAT is what it all boils down to..
Michale
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-releases-humiliating-images-of-u-s-sailors-in-captivity/
There's yer Iranian buddies, people...
Michale
"To use the State of the Union response to publicly attack her own frontrunner must be unprecedented, and certainly serves as more proof to Trump's supporters that the Republican Establishment is much more interested in DC media love than winning elections and advancing their legislative agenda," - Briebart
Love it.
Michale:
In your opinion, slapping the hand of peace from Iran out of the way was the right thing to do. Most people think it would have been a mistake for the following reasons:
1. Our sanction partners, including Russia and China, would have concluded that we were not interested in reaching a reasonable outcome, and would be led by the nose by a belligerent Israel. They would then have cut their own deal with Iran without our involvement.
2. Iran would also have concluded that the U.S. was just a puppet of Israel and nothing they could do would have been enough. They would have cut the best deal they could with China, Russia etc. and probably have managed to keep more of their program operational.
3. Saudi Arabia, recognizing that Iran had no further need to stop proliferation, would have ramped up their own program.
4. The current Iran/Saudi stand-off would have been far worse as both accelerated to become a nuclear power - so we would have a couple of theocracies playing nuclear stand-off for the foreseeable future.
See Economist cartoon here: https://www.nytsyn.com/cartoons/cartoons/1311194.html
In your opinion, slapping the hand of peace from Iran out of the way was the right thing to do. Most people think it would have been a mistake for the following reasons:
The "hand of peace"???
From IRAN!!??? What "hand" would that be?? The "hand" that commandeers our naval craft and holds soldiers hostage??
Than "hand" that continues Ballistic Missile testing in violations of ALL agreements??
The "hand" that executes gay people solely for their lifestyle choice??
The "hand" that is THE world's sponsor of terrorism??
The "hand" that targets our Carrier Group for missile attack??
Is THAT the "hand of peace" you are referring to??
Our sanction partners, including Russia and China, would have concluded that we were not interested in reaching a reasonable outcome, and would be led by the nose by a belligerent Israel. They would then have cut their own deal with Iran without our involvement.
And we should care what China and Russia think because... why?? I mean, Obama already handed Russia The Crimea and Hillary gave all our State Dept secrets to China..
3. Saudi Arabia, recognizing that Iran had no further need to stop proliferation, would have ramped up their own program.
Again, you are not up on current events..
SA is already pushing a nuclear weapons program BECAUSE of Obama's BJ to the Iranian Mullahs...
Basically, Obama's BJ GUARANTEES all the bad things you predict.. Not prevents them...
Michale
Love it.
And I am sure you will love President Trump just as much...
Trump beats an indicted Clinton every day of the week and twice on Sunday.. :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"I am all for making voting easier.. As long as we correspond that step with making gun ownership easier..."
Texas just made it legal for people in mental health facilities to have guns. How much easier can it get???
Texas just made it legal for people in mental health facilities to have guns. How much easier can it get???
Go buy a gun or get a CCW and then come tell me how easy it is.. :D
Michale
Texas just made it legal for people in mental health facilities to have guns.
Cite??
Michale
But then, he's got the numbers on his side to prove that things are much, much better in America in many, many ways than they were when he entered office.
all true, but considering our standing when he entered office, that's not exactly setting the bar very high. for heaven's sake, he became the darling of the international community and won a Nobel peace prize essentially for not being bush.
JL
all true, but considering our standing when he entered office, that's not exactly setting the bar very high. for heaven's sake, he became the darling of the international community and won a Nobel peace prize essentially for not being bush.
Excellent point..
Yea, if one cherry picks numbers, one can paint a rosy picture of how things are..
But the REAL test is to ask Joe and Jane Sixpack if their lives are any better...
Hell, don't even have to ask them..
The warp speed ascension of Trump proves beyond ANY doubt how bad Obama has frak'ed this country up...
Michale
The warp speed ascension of Trump proves beyond ANY doubt how bad Obama has frak'ed this country up...
Imagine if you will...
Some universally despised GOP President really frak'ed up the country and some unknown yahoo Democrat, known for only a single uplifting speech came out of nowhere and beat the Democrat's Democrat in the primary and went on to become POTUS....
Oh.... wait.... :D
It's so easy to prove my points just by switching Democrats and Republicans around.. :D
Michale
@Michale [#33]
Go buy a gun or get a CCW and then come tell me how easy it is.
I've picked up a rifle at the local sporting codes store after filling out a form and walked out with it and ammo after a few minutes. Felt about the same as buying decongestant nowadays.
My first CCW permit (in ID) involved a 4-hour class at a local gunsmith's shop. The 4-hours included an overview of laws for using and carrying a firearm a brief firing range session. Once finished, just took a form proving I took the class and went to the sheriff's office for fingerprinting and paid some nominal fee (~$30?) for my permit, good for 5 years. Far less involved than my first driver's license and far, far less training.
Things might be more involved there in FL, but then again, it is FL. ;)
I've picked up a rifle at the local sporting codes store after filling out a form and walked out with it and ammo after a few minutes. Felt about the same as buying decongestant nowadays.
Talking handguns here.. Which I am sure you knew :D
My first CCW permit (in ID) involved a 4-hour class at a local gunsmith's shop. The 4-hours included an overview of laws for using and carrying a firearm a brief firing range session. Once finished, just took a form proving I took the class and went to the sheriff's office for fingerprinting and paid some nominal fee (~$30?) for my permit, good for 5 years. Far less involved than my first driver's license and far, far less training.
When was the last time you got a DL???
First time drivers have to provide ID up the wazzooo and jump thru dozens of hoops..
But, as I said.. Let's just make owning a gun as easy as voting..
Easy Peezy....
Michale
Yer lucky... Florida is around $120....
Michale
neilm [20] -
Thanks, hadn't seen that. I was right about the applause-o-meter stories, too. Here's the top lead story at the Post right now:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-sotu/speech/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_sotugraphic-10am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
An excruciating dig into a completely meaningless statistic. Kind of like when the football announcers obsess over something like "that's the 438th catch he's made while landing on his right foot -- a new record, folks!"
Cue: eye-roll....
:-)
neilm [21] -
Nice use of "flag-bearer" for Haley... heh...
As for Bibi, I saw it differently -- as the GOP selling out the floor of Congress to Israeli politics. Bibi was in a tight re-election fight, and the speech was scheduled for primetime, Israel time zone. That alone speaks volumes.
-CW
As for Bibi, I saw it differently -- as the GOP selling out the floor of Congress to Israeli politics.
Which is infinitely preferable to Obama selling out Israel and the entire Middle East to fulfill a legacy agenda...
Michale
The warp speed ascension of Trump proves beyond ANY doubt how bad Obama has frak'ed this country up...
@michale,
disagree. more like obama has made some very modest positive changes to a dire situation (band-aid on shrapnel), and people are desperate enough to believe anyone brash enough to toss around blame and propose a quick fix (i.e. trump).
As for Bibi, I saw it differently -- as the GOP selling out the floor of Congress to Israeli politics. Bibi was in a tight re-election fight, and the speech was scheduled for primetime, Israel time zone. That alone speaks volumes.
@CW
agree. just like any other allied politician, bibi is doing everything he can to exploit our support and advance his political standing back home. not unusual at all.
JL
Over at Betfair, both Rubio and Cruz have slumped, and The Donald is priced at dead even with Rubio, both rated a 32% chance of winning the GOP nomination, Cruz is at about 21%. Bush 10%, Christie about 3%.
At the Democratic nomination market, Sanders has bounced up to almost 20%!!!
These trends closely coincide with the recent polls from NH and Iowa.
No appreciable change in which party wins The White house next November, still 60:40 Democrat:Republican. The markets are juggling personalities, not parties. At least for now.
There are now markets for the VP picks, but hardly anybody is buying or selling yet.
@Michale [#39]
Talking handguns here..
Well, I am toying with picking up a S&W 686+. I know they ran a quick background check when I got the rifle so was expecting the same with the revolver. If I do it sometime soon, I'll let you know. Would be nice to get one though...
JL,
disagree. more like obama has made some very modest positive changes to a dire situation (band-aid on shrapnel), and people are desperate enough to believe anyone brash enough to toss around blame and propose a quick fix (i.e. trump).
So, the people who follow Trump are idiots..
But the people who followed Obama are intelligent and rational..
That about sum it up?? :D
The facts and recent history clearly indicate that Trump would not have been able to rise as he has without SOME sort of stimuli..
And the ONLY stimuli that could possibly have this kind of effect is the crappy governance of the Obama Administration..
I have tons of facts to support my contention..
You?
agree. just like any other allied politician, bibi is doing everything he can to exploit our support and advance his political standing back home. not unusual at all.
Exactly. Democrats do it all the time..
Yet, it's only when the GOP does it, Weigantians heap scorn upon scorn upon scorn..
What is that??
TS,
Over at Betfair, both Rubio and Cruz have slumped, and The Donald is priced at dead even with Rubio,
Apparently, you are not up on current events.. :D
Trump New Favorite to Take Republican Nomination, Betfair Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-13/trump-new-favorite-to-take-republican-nomination-betfair-says
RD,
Well, I am toying with picking up a S&W 686+. I know they ran a quick background check when I got the rifle so was expecting the same with the revolver. If I do it sometime soon, I'll let you know. Would be nice to get one though...
Don't forget the waiting period...
We need a waiting period for voters... Give them time to really think over their vote before they do something REALLY stoopid...
Like vote Democrat... :D
Michale
RD,
Speaking of "Silence Gives Assent"... :D heh
A 5th possibility exists on why Weigantians don't respond to my challenges..
They know I am dead on ballz accurate and don't have any facts to refute my claims.
95% of the time, THAT is why I get no responses to my comments.. :D
Michale
Obama’s Legacy
http://www.ramblingmanblog.com/obamas-legacy/
Here is a point by point analysis of why Trump is so wildly popular and has defied ALL pundit-predicted flame-outs...
It all comes down to one thing and one thing only..
Obama and the Democrats have run this country into the ground... There is not a SINGLE unqualified or unequivocal success that Democrats can point to.
Not.. A... Single.... One....
Over 70% of Americans think our President's governing is WRONG.... More than 2/3rds of Americans think this country is heading the wrong way.. Race relations are at a 20 yr LOW... They were BETTER under Bush, fer chreest's sake!!
These are facts that point to one inescapable conclusion...
Obama has beget Trump...
No other explanation fits all the facts..
Michale
Michale wrote:
"Texas just made it legal for people in mental health facilities to have guns.
Cite??"
FROM: Time, The NY Daily News, and USA Today....
"Licensed gun owners can now bring their firearms into Texas’ 10 state psychiatric hospitals.
Until this year, guns were banned at the state-run facilities, which house people with serious mental illnesses. No one — visitors, delivery people and the like — could bring firearms anywhere on the hospitals’ campuses. Even local law enforcement officers, who were allowed to bring their weapons into the facilities, regularly lock up their guns before entering Austin State Hospital out of an abundance of caution. That isn’t expected to change.
But state officials say two new laws made it clear to them that they can’t keep guns off the hospitals’ campuses. The open carry law allows gun license holders to openly carry their firearms. A second law fines state agencies for wrongly hanging “no guns” signs.
The unexpected feature of the open carry law became apparent when the Austin State Hospital recently took down its "no guns" signs. The development was first reported by the Austin American-Statesman and affects 10 mental health facilities, according to the Department of State Health."
"Texas just made it legal for people in mental health facilities to have guns.
See, it's spin..
Texas didn't make it legal for people IN mental health facilities to have guns..
Texas made it legal for those who are VISITING mental health facilities to have guns..
Big difference... BIG... HUGE....
Michale
http://www.thecollegefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/PennPoster-258x400.jpg
Thought Crime Prosecution...
Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Democrat Party.... :^/
Michale
M-46
It's a market, prices fluctuate moment to moment. For practical purposes, the trend lines say it's a tie...but Trump's trend is up while Rubio's is down. There is merit in paying attention to the second derivative,,...also the residual variance around the trend. Trump bobbles more.
TS,
Second-whatsawhoosits?? :D
I'm just givin' ya a hard time. I respect your prowess in this particular issues, despite my comments that might contradict that.. :D
Michale
M-54
I know, no offense taken.
Talk of a brokered GOP convention is starting to go mainstream. The prowess to understand the possibility of THAT scenario may come down to understanding the GOP delegate allocation process in 50 states + territories and knowing just how bound a bound delegate really is. I'm not sure anybody knows. I can't help but suspect the Establishment that wrote the rules has included some double secret clauses for emergencies. Food fight!!!!
"When you've got immigrants who are coming here legally, we've never in the history of this country passed any laws or done anything based on race or religion. "
-Nikki Haley
Uh.... Yes we have...
Even OBAMA's immigration regulations are religion-dependent...
Silly person.....
Michale
"a strong belief in limited warfare, air power versus lots of American troops, and local troops should handle the bulk of the fighting."
I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of an Obama Doctrine, if you add the Navy for sea lane control and getting air power and marines on station where you need them quickly. (The Navy gets the most money of the 3 military departments). The Obama Doctrine is pretty much written into practical policy by the US Force Structure.
The Obama Doctrine can be summed up in his own words..
LEADING FROM BEHIND
If ya'all don't like that assessment, blame Obama.. He coined it..
Michale
Michale,
I thought you didn't like spin ... ahem.
I thought you didn't like spin ... ahem.
It's not spin..
"a strong belief in limited warfare, air power versus lots of American troops, and local troops should handle the bulk of the fighting."
I think that's a pretty accurate assessment of an Obama Doctrine, if you add the Navy for sea lane control and getting air power and marines on station where you need them quickly. (The Navy gets the most money of the 3 military departments). The Obama Doctrine is pretty much written into practical policy by the US Force Structure.
THAT is spin...
"leading from behind" is the plain-english, easily understandable, no spin, succinct way of saying what CW/TS said..
Michale
"leading from behind" is the plain-english, easily understandable, no spin, succinct way of saying what CW/TS said..
Coward Of The County is MY spin on that.. :D
Michale
So, the people who follow Trump are idiots..
But the people who followed Obama are intelligent and rational..
That about sum it up?? :D
@Michale [46],
no. the people who follow Obama are correct about the direction of the change but deluded about its magnitude.
the people who follow Trump have a legitimate gripe (poor governance by both parties), and are desperate enough to support a bone-headed solution.
as to the factual basis for my conclusions, i'll stack my evidence up against yours every day of the week and twice on sundays.
JL
no. the people who follow Obama are correct about the direction of the change but deluded about its magnitude.
And yet, 73% of Americans DISAGREE with Obama's direction..
That would seem to indicate your conclusion is in error..
and are desperate enough to support a bone-headed solution.
In your opinion..
Maybe they are right and you are wrong..
Is that possible??
s to the factual basis for my conclusions, i'll stack my evidence up against yours every day of the week and twice on sundays.
Ooohhh goody!!!! A Challenge!! :D
Have at it, because the facts are these..
73% of Americans disagree with Obama's direction..
Over 2/3rds of Americans think this country is heading in the wrong direction..
Your turn...
Michale
73% of Americans disagree with Obama's direction...
if so, that's down to their inability to notice. the unemployment rate is half what it was in 2008, and the rate lacking health insurance went down by just as much. the consumer protection bureau has begun to protect consumers, and osama bin laden is dead. most people's lives are a bit better (not a ton better, but better nonetheless) thanks to obama, whether they choose to believe it or not.
JL
if so, that's down to their inability to notice.
Really??
73% of Americans are wrong??? :D
the unemployment rate is half what it was in 2008,
That's because over 5 million Americans have left the workforce...
and the rate lacking health insurance went down by just as much.
And health insurance rates are climbing by as much as 400% and people were thrown off their health plans..
and osama bin laden is dead.
Thanks to torturing terrorists for intel..
most people's lives are a bit better
YOU think that people's lives are a bit better..
But EVERY POLL that you can find shows that THEY don't think their lives are ANY better..
Except for the rich. Oh yea, THEIR lives are better...
Michale
Obama tells Baton Rouge: 'Thank you, New Orleans!'
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/265894-obama-tells-baton-rouge-thank-you-new-orleans
"Whatta maroon..."
-Bugs Bunny
:D
Michale
For the record, the above is a very lame nit-pick.. Everyone makes little mistakes like this on a daily basis..
I only bring it up because it's identical to the lame nit-picks that the Left Wingery indulged themselves in on a daily, oft-times HOURLY basis during the Bush years up thru today...
:D
Michale
@Michale,
Perception is a funny thing. Even if that seventy three percent figure were accurate, which is unlikely, it's the wrong question to ask if you're measuring improvement, or lack thereof. Gallup polls show that more people are satisfied with their lives now than prior to Obama taking office; comparisons to the past as it actually was are more accurate in my view than comparisons to the past as it is now remembered.
JL
... or comparisons to some imagined "direction" the future might take. And feel free to quote me on that if by some chance both sets of numbers flip.
Even if that seventy three percent figure were accurate, which is unlikely,
Oh, it's accurate.. And it's current..
it's the wrong question to ask if you're measuring improvement, or lack thereof.
So, what you are saying is that polls measure the bias of the poll takers, depending on how the question is asked..
Hmmmmmm
Where have I heard that before. :D
Gallup polls show that more people are satisfied with their lives now than prior to Obama taking office; comparisons to the past as it actually was are more accurate in my view than comparisons to the past as it is now remembered.
You'll have to prove that to me..
Yes, Democrats will say their lives are better because they can't go against the Messiah..
But Joe and Jane Sixpack??
Michale
comparisons to the past as it actually was are more accurate in my view than comparisons to the past as it is now remembered.
So, what you are saying is that those who support Obama remember the past "as it actually was"... And those who do NOT support Obama are not accurately remembering the past...
Is that the gist of what you are saying??
But we agree on Obama's Common Core, right?? :D Just wanted to make sure your evil twin hasn't supplanted you. heh
Michale
Oh, it's accurate.. And it's current..
@michale,
i found the line of polling that you're citing (general satisfaction with the united states), and in fact it's even more negative than your citation - 79% wrong direction in december, 76% wrong direction in january. mea culpa on that. in addition, the perception that our government is corrupt has gone up significantly.
nonetheless, the two problems with that line of polling is first that the question asks people to speculate on the potential future consequences which may or may not ever come to pass, and second that it doesn't establish any sense of who is being held responsible for that speculation. the president? congress? the supreme court? state government? corporations? labor unions? mothers in law? purple goat monsters?
So, what you are saying is that those who support Obama remember the past "as it actually was"... And those who do NOT support Obama are not accurately remembering the past...
not in the least. no matter what our political bent, it is a human trait to remember the past and anticipate the future less objectively than we experience the present. that is why i believe the poll that can be most believed is one that compares cross-sections of polls taken that ask our current situation.
since 2008, gallup has been taking a 5-domain survey of well-being, which is how randomly surveyed people rate their present lives as:
this measurable has gotten better since obama took office - more people thriving, fewer people suffering. therefore, i can confidently infer that people's actual well-being on the whole has gone up.
JL
of course, we still run into the problem of attribution. maybe people's lives are better because there's a conservative supreme court and a GOP-dominated congress to keep the president in check? that would certainly be a republican interpretation. on the other hand, liberals would say the conservative resistance is what's preventing a more dramatic improvement in people's lives.
JL
Actually, the poll I was citing asked Americans if they would want the future POTUS to govern differently than The Messiah..
73% of Americans said that they would...
and second that it doesn't establish any sense of who is being held responsible for that speculation. the president? congress? the supreme court? state government? corporations? labor unions? mothers in law? purple goat monsters?
Responsibility was well-established during the Bush years... EVERYTHING was Bush's fault, according to the Left Wingery...
Ergo, the only logical inference is that the POTUS is completely responsible when he/she has a '-R' after their name and everyone else BUT the POTUS is responsible when he/she has a '-D' after their name..
of course, we still run into the problem of attribution. maybe people's lives are better because there's a conservative supreme court and a GOP-dominated congress to keep the president in check?
The President has been kept in check???
Who knew!?? :D
Michale
The President has been kept in check???
Who knew!?? :D
the president knew, and admitted as much. the framers of the constitution also knew, which is why they gave the SCOTUS and Congress the power to check the president in numerous ways. voters knew, which is presumably why they elected more republicans in 2014.
JL
Actually, the poll I was citing asked Americans if they would want the future POTUS to govern differently
in that case i take back my apology, as that's the dumbest poll question ever. i can't think of a president who people didn't have significant aspects that most people wished were done differently, in one direction or another.
the president knew, and admitted as much. the framers of the constitution also knew, which is why they gave the SCOTUS and Congress the power to check the president in numerous ways. voters knew, which is presumably why they elected more republicans in 2014.
So, you consider that Obama has been "kept in check"..
Despite a plethora of Executive Orders that were designed to push his unpopular agenda that the American people have, time and time again, said they didn't like or didn't want??
Obama's imperialist way of governing is Richard Nixon's wet dream....
in that case i take back my apology, as that's the dumbest poll question ever.
Most questions that question one's political ideology usually are.. :D
Michale