Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

2013 State of the Union

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics 2013 State of the Union

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #95859

    News
    Participant

    Obama To Congress: With Or Without You

    by ALAN GREENBLATT

    February 12, 201311:54 PM

    President Obama called repeatedly on Congress to address issues of paramount importance to the country during his State of the Union address Tuesday. But he also made it clear that when Congress fails to act or agree with his policies, he intends to push ahead on his own.

    READ MORE: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/02/12/171859768/obama-to-congress-with-or-without-you

    #534099
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    I didn’t see the whole thing but the highlights were good for Obama.

    I like the Rubio response as well, love the new friendlier El GOP.

    #534100

    bjones7
    Participant

    I personally had mix feelings about his speech. As I listen to the President, then the Republican response I couldn’t help but feeling like I’ve heard/seen all of this before. I personally think that both Republicans and Democrats in D.C need a new direction(somehow?). To me its like a great production that goes stale after a while. The production introduces new cast members which work out great for while , but eventually they form into the same role as their past cast members and the production gets stale once more. Oh gotta love politics!

    #534101

    gramarye
    Participant

    I thought it was good but not great, but I also think it was pretty clear that it wasn’t drafted as a standalone event for the history books (the way the Inaugural might have been). Nothing wrong with that, by the way. The less lofty focus meant that the speech was able to get closer to real specifics–in some cases quite specific (proposed $9/hr federal minimum wage). I approve of that even if I don’t approve of the specific specifics in question. I’ll be interested in seeing further specifics about some of the proposed reforms and programs, such as reducing waiting times for citizenship for skilled immigrants (a matter of immense personal relevance to me) and putting people to work rebuilding dilapidated neighborhoods and infrastructure.

    Of more interest to me was what was completely ignored, except in the Republican response. Obama basically never mentioned Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. With those programs consuming more than two thirds of all federal budget and the deficit still deeply in the red, those are elephants in the room.

    #534102

    myliftkk
    Participant

    I only caught part of Obama’s, but did hear all of Rubio’s (I listened, didn’t watch).

    Actually I tend to dislike response speeches as a general rule, I can’t remember ever liking any one of them as it’s no different than listening to someone read a power point. I think it would do well for “up & coming” pols to avoid them altogether because it’s so easy for them to come off sounding petty and thin-skinned. For example, someone would have done well to remove the slide from Rubio’s where he cried about how their ideas are being demonized (which is pretty hilarious).

    Put on your big boy pants Marco, it ain’t beanbag…

    #534103

    myliftkk
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    Of more interest to me was what was completely ignored, except in the Republican response. Obama basically never mentioned Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. With those programs consuming more than two thirds of all federal budget and the deficit still deeply in the red, those are elephants in the room.

    Not surprised. If Obama said, “nothing will change” for the 3, GOP would go wailing and moaning about the deficit, and if Obama said, “we’re going to improve/shrink them”, GOP would go wailing and moaning about Obama cutting the big 3 (along w/ some Dems). Better to say nothing, politically speaking. There’s nothing to be gained by bringing them up.

    #534104

    Jman4ever
    Participant

    myliftkk said:
    I only caught part of Obama’s, but did hear all of Rubio’s (I listened, didn’t watch).

    Actually I tend to dislike response speeches as a general rule, I can’t remember ever liking any one of them as it’s no different than listening to someone read a power point. I think it would do well for “up & coming” pols to avoid them altogether because it’s so easy for them to come off sounding petty and thin-skinned. For example, someone would have done well to remove the slide from Rubio’s where he cried about how their ideas are being demonized (which is pretty hilarious).

    Put on your big boy pants Marco, it ain’t beanbag…

    Pretty much every rebuttal to a SOTU address as summed up by Joe Pesci…

    #534105
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    Obama basically never mentioned Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. With those programs consuming more than two thirds of all federal budget and the deficit still deeply in the red, those are elephants in the room.

    the biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging population. And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms. Otherwise, our retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/transcript-obama-state-union-speech/#ixzz2Kno8EVAd

    On Medicare, I’m prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/transcript-obama-state-union-speech/#ixzz2KnoNuYea

    the reforms I’m proposing go even further. We’ll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors. We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital. They should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive. And I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don’t violate the guarantee of a secure retirement.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/transcript-obama-state-union-speech/#ixzz2KnoXurCW

    #534106

    gramarye
    Participant

    myliftkk said:
    I only caught part of Obama’s, but did hear all of Rubio’s (I listened, didn’t watch).

    Actually I tend to dislike response speeches as a general rule, I can’t remember ever liking any one of them as it’s no different than listening to someone read a power point. I think it would do well for “up & coming” pols to avoid them altogether because it’s so easy for them to come off sounding petty and thin-skinned. For example, someone would have done well to remove the slide from Rubio’s where he cried about how their ideas are being demonized (which is pretty hilarious).

    Put on your big boy pants Marco, it ain’t beanbag…

    True, but he wasn’t playing beanbag, either. I’m pretty sure the softer face was an act. Very few U.S. Senators are genuinely soft. They’re just mostly good at acting like it.

    As for response speeches in general, I would avoid them if I were in politics, too, because you have very little time to prepare anything specific to the occasion; you have to basically assume you know everything that’s going to be said. Of course, since much of what comes out in any State of the Union really isn’t a surprise, that’s technically possible, but it’s very hard to match the specific words in such a way that it really sounds like a response.

    #534107

    myliftkk
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    True, but he wasn’t playing beanbag, either. I’m pretty sure the softer face was an act. Very few U.S. Senators are genuinely soft. They’re just mostly good at acting like it.

    As for response speeches in general, I would avoid them if I were in politics, too, because you have very little time to prepare anything specific to the occasion; you have to basically assume you know everything that’s going to be said. Of course, since much of what comes out in any State of the Union really isn’t a surprise, that’s technically possible, but it’s very hard to match the specific words in such a way that it really sounds like a response.

    I agree on the act part, I just don’t know what crowd he’s acting to?

    I just can’t quite understand why the party pushes their advertised christ childs into the SOTU response duty. Jindal’s pretty much made him look like a joke, and Rubio’s while fairly innocuous, still contained the huge whopper about the federal government size being responsible for the housing crisis, vis a vis the unmentioned CRA (and that’s just a huge sop to the worst elements of the tea party). I know they like to think of it as the big chance to introduce up and comer x to the voters, but really, I can’t barely remember who even gives the SOTU responses except for the ones that get laughed about afterwards. Party conventions are much better platforms IMO.

    I understand why they don’t want to put The Turtle up there to give it, but honestly they should stick with the real party leadership if they’re do it at all.

    #534108

    gramarye
    Participant

    Hah! Maybe the leadership knows something and the established power players know that it’s a bad risk.

    #534109
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    Speaking of particularly well-spoken and thoughtful Republicans, Michael Steele was excellent on MSNBC. Now if they’d just get rid of Al Sharpton, they’d have a terrific panel for these things.

    #534110

    mrsgeedeck
    Participant

    Did the GOP let Michael Steel back as an official mouth piece? After he was replaced as chairman of the GOP I kind of had the impression it was a bad break up with party members deciding they’d prefer to pander to Tea Partiers. He was on The Daily Show during the election and came across in a reasonable manner.

    #534111
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    He’s definitely not an official voice, but with the apparent split developing with the GOP and the TP, he may be again.

    ETA: BTW, one of the things I respect is when someone on the opposing side can acknowledge a good speech and ideas, even if they don’t completely agree with them. Krauthammer actually did the same thing on Fox as Steele, which just gives them some credibility IMO.

    #534112

    myliftkk
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    He’s definitely not an official voice, but with the apparent split developing with the GOP and the TP, he may be again.

    ETA: BTW, one of the things I respect is when someone on the opposing side can acknowledge a good speech and ideas, even if they don’t completely agree with them. Krauthammer actually did the same thing on Fox as Steele, which just gives them some credibility IMO.

    Not an official voice (except of the not-crazy segment) as long as Prince Rebus is in charge…

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE