Live Blogging the State of the Union

Hey guys.

I am going to try and live blog the speech and would love to have your input.

The President starts the evening with a nice shot in the arm as a result of the Romney tax return release.  I've got to believe that as he lays out some of the inequities and injustices of the tax system -- and the manner in which the Republicans would like to exacerbate those issues -- that Romney will be the example that a goodly number of people will think about.

I think it is fair to say that every initiative that Obama highlights this evening is going to be dead on arrival if it has to be approved by Congress.  It is clear that the Republicans on Capitol Hill have no interest in anything that might make the President look successful or effective, so this is largely a positioning speech for the election. 

"I intend to fight obstruction with action" after saying he will work with anyone.

He vows to rebuild American manufacturing.   

"Some said we should let it (the auto industry) die."  To whom would the President be referring?

"We can make it happen [the rebuilding of manufacturing] in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Raleigh" to name three cities chosen entirely at random.

(I popped over to Sullivan's place and note that he finds the idea of industrial policy, economic nationalism, and protectionism to be depressing.  I am heartened by his depression.)

I don't like the applause line for firing bad teachers -- it's probably good politics, but it feeds a pernicious myth. 

A quick pitch for comprehensive immigration reform and -- I believe -- the DREAM Act.

Now extolling the growth in American oil production.  Not exactly my appaluse line of choice either.  Followed by a pitch for natural gas fracking with the caveat that producers must disclose the chemicals used in extraction.  He notes the crucial role of federal financing of research in developing the fracking technology. 

Pledges exectuve action and the use of the Department of Defense to develop alternative energy. 

Banks must have a "living will."  I like that.

Sullivan continues to hate on the speech for all of the reasons that I like about it.

Clap Eric clap, you sneaky little shit.

"If you make more that a million dollars a year you should pay at least thirty percent in taxes."  And no, this is not the politics of envy.  Hmmm -- who could that be aimed at?

And finally an attack on the filibuster, the central political problem of the moment in many respects.

I do agree with Sullivan that the speech is Clintonesque, i.e. a stem-winding laundry list -- which were more effective than one might think -- and rhetorically the weakest of Obama's SOTUs so far.  The language is pretty pedestrian and there are no real admirable rhetorical flights that I can recall.  But I think the substance of the speech is aimed in the right places for the election. 

It was, as Rachel Maddow described it, an assertive speech without necessarily being a terribly memorable one.  It was very nationalistic -- in a way I thought effective.  Lawrence O'Donnell aptly described it as having a lot of "tax fairy dust sprinkled throughout,"  something which O'Donnell viewed skeptically. 

And now here's Mitch:

After a nod to civility, Mitch engages in a litany of Republican disinformation about the President's program.  He's aiming somewhat at young people who have suffered high unemployment in recent years.  He tries to make the case that becoming rich is the greatest public service one can do.  And that Steve Jobs created more jobs than the stimulus.  (I am skeptical about this -- unless he is talking about jobs in China.)  Mitch is going to save the safety net by destroying it.

The "Obama Administration's constant efforts to divide us."  That is rich.

I propose that the phrase "shining city on a hill" be forever banned.

Mitch is a dour, grim little man -- how the fuck he could be anyone's beau ideal of a presidential candidate is a mystery to me. 

Comments

[kathy a.]

warren buffet -- my man.

[Sir Charles]

And his secretary.

[paula b]

Looking good. Clever, co-opting at every chance, showing strength--with or without this Congress.

[corvus9]

Sullivan's lack of political acuity is truly impressive. Proposing a bunch of tax cuts is about forcing Republicans to be against tax cuts, Since its the only form of social government change they allow for. If there was a better way to get things done, he'd do those. And what's wrong with tariffs?

He also sucks on policy. Obama was not supporting SOPA. SOPA is about regulating the use of the internet that endangers American Tech companies in a vain attempt to fight international piracy. Obama proposed using trade incentives to get other countries to go after piracy in their countries for us. It's a way of dealing with the same issue, but in a way that doesn't hurt the internet and trample on free speech. Jesus.

[corvus9]

The point of the speech was look at all these solutions to our problems that we could implement and look how positive and forward thinking I am and in no way like what the Republican nominees say I am. Also, I saved the American economy. Your welcome.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

Yeah, the SOPA reference puzzled me -- I took it as you did as an attack on piracy of intellectual property in China, in particular.

[low-tech cyclist]

I've been putting the kid to bed (takes longer than you think, some evenings) and I just got back to my computer.

Went to whitehouse.gov to look for the transcript of the SOTU speech. And got reminded of why I've basically stayed away from the White House website for three years: I can't find shit there.

Yeah, it's got a jazzy design, and under Bush, the site had a rather pedestrian design, but you could find stuff on the Bush White House website.

But here it is, 10:20 at night, the speech is given, and they don't have the text up on the White House website. Or if they do, it's cunningly well hidden. First thing you see is a big splash screen about the speech, but no link to the text. At 6pm, they posted a handful of excerpts, but so far, that's it.

So I have no idea what I think of the goddamn speech, because I can't read it, and I don't have the time to listen to it.

10:32. Still no text. Fuck this shit, going to bed.

[paula b]

Why does Eric always walk in behind Obama? Some Protocol,or does he just like to practice shadowing POTUS? Scott Brown jumps in there for a photo op.I'm sure we'll see that shot ad naseum soon in campaign commercials.
Listening to GOP response---big and bossy jumps out at me. Yes, our young people are being short changed. That will get worse if we cut$ to education, and do away with other cabinet-level agencies affecting youth,as pubs propose.

[Jim S]

I noticed Sullivan's unhappiness as well. In fact I sent him this letter:

Mr. Sullivan,

You say in your live blogging of the SOTU that “It isn't unleashing the free market through tax reform.”. That’s because there is no tax reform in existence that can unleash the free market to create jobs. Just do a bit of research and you’ll discover that when asked the modern businessman will freely admit that it’s not their job to worry about how many jobs their business creates or destroys. Consider this from a recent New York Times article, “How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work”.

‘Apple executives say that going overseas, at this point, is their only option. One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhonemanufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.

“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”

Similar stories could be told about almost any electronics company — and outsourcing has also become common in hundreds of industries, including accounting, legal services, banking, auto manufacturing and pharmaceuticals.

But while Apple is far from alone, it offers a window into why the success of some prominent companies has not translated into large numbers of domestic jobs. What’s more, the company’s decisions pose broader questions about what corporate America owes Americans as the global and national economies are increasingly intertwined.

“Companies once felt an obligation to support American workers, even when it wasn’t the best financial choice,” said Betsey Stevenson, the chief economist at the Labor Department until last September. “That’s disappeared. Profits and efficiency have trumped generosity.”’

The emphasis is mine. Is this really where we want to be if that’s the only way to have jobs? Are all jobs equal regardless of wages, benefits or working conditions? I ask you to consider instead this possibility: There is nothing in the free market system, no matter how you might encourage it, that will provide enough jobs in an age of offshoring to cheap large labor and high tech automation to employ everyone who needs a job. Given that possibility we need to undertake the science fiction exercise of “What if?”. Ask the hard questions about how we as a society can deal with that new kind of reality if in fact it is where we are going. Since U6 is at 15.2% that kind of question deserves some serious consideration.

[paula b]

Brooks says he wishes Gov. Daniels, who gave rebuttal, was running for GOP nomination.This was on PBS post-speevh analysis.

[Sir Charles]

Jim S,

Excellent letter.

Sullivan puzzles me. He surely understands why most of us are Democrats, including Obama. It is not to unleash the free market through tax reform. Most of us, including the President, are skeptical about the free market for the reasons you cite.

Ironic too that Governor Daniels cited Steve Jobs as the fairy godfather of job creation -- I guess he is if your idea of a good job is getting a cup of tea, a biscuit, and a 12 hour shift with your 8,000 dorm mates.

I believe Jobs to be one of the most overrated human beings who has ever strode the earth.

[corvus9]

Oh, yeah, I hate Steve Jobs. Autocratic type A with an obsession with design. Loved sweatshop labor (that comment Jim S quoted from an Apple exec sickens me). Apple really is kind of an evil company, and I will never understand people's obsession with them.

[Jim S]

The local news just showed a gathering of Johnson County Young Republicans (5th richest county in the U.S.) and of course their chosen spokesman criticized Obama for proposing all of these things without any idea of how to pay for them. Any chance that he'd make the same critique of a call for massive tax cuts from a Republican President?

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

I am sure Brooks was mooning over the mini-hoosier.

Corvus,

Fuck yeah.

Jim,

No.

[Paula B]

SC--yes, Brooks was gushing. Said Daniels gave better speech than anything he's heard so far from all the GOP front-runners. Brooks looked like he could have been peeing in his pants.
Sorry for typos. I am writing on a Kindle Fire. I should say tapping with one finger, not typing. Hate writing like that.

[nancy]

Andrew is being predictably schizophrenic I think. Wait a couple days for the pendulum to swing back.

Why does Eric always walk in behind Obama? Some Protocol,or does he just like to practice shadowing POTUS? Paula, didn't he do this last year too, Virginia swell smarmitude in place?

Also, I saved the American economy. Your welcome. Yes.

and

Clap Eric clap, you sneaky little shit. Watching him figure out when and for what camera was mahvelous.

[Paula B]

Nancy---I've seen Eric do that at least 3 times over the years. It's like they walk in as a couple.

[Jim S]

If we're talking Eric Cantor I think it's just to help his fantasy of slipping a knife in Obama's back.

[Linkmeister]

l-t c, Full text of the speech from the WaPo here.

[SlackerInc]

I too disagreed with Andrew. But I wasn't necessarily stunned, because I still remember well his conservative, pro-Bush days and never really fully trust him to be "one of us".

Love the characterisation of Daniels as a "dour, grim little man". I am puzzled by the near-unanimity elsewhere that he gave a strong speech. I missed the beginning, but I got a definite Calvin Coolidge roused from the grave vibe, and somehow that doesn't seem like the way to go after swing voters in the 21st century.

[Gene O'Grady]

I'm from Palo Alto. Got to see Steve Jobs up close over the past thirty some years. The cult is misplaced; he's a nasty self-centered little man, although Steve Wozniak was even worse.

On the other hand, Steve Young, Walter Hewlett, and David Packard (the younger, I never met the father) all have deservedly good reputations in the community. I even sort of like Nolan Bushnell, with reservations. This in case you thought I was coming from the politics of envy or just didn't like rich people.

[Linkmeister]

I kind of thought Mitch Daniels looked and sounded like Eeyore.

[Sir Charles]

Slackerinc,

Coolidge! Very nice analogy.

And Linkmeistter,

Yeah, watching this guy project optimsim over a year long campaign would have been amusing. It would have made John McCain's rictus like grin look positively warm.

[oddjob]

I wasn't necessarily stunned, because I still remember well his conservative, pro-Bush days and never really fully trust him to be "one of us".

Sullivan isn't a liberal and never will be. It's just that in today's American politics there's no home for what he is: a Tory.

He fits quite comfortably in Britain's Conservative Party.

[oddjob]

I kind of thought Mitch Daniels looked and sounded like Eeyore.

Mitch Daniels always looks and sounds like Eeyore.

[oddjob]

When considering Sullivan you will always fail to understand him if you only think of him as an American pundit. He's by no means that.

He grew up in Britain. It's always been very clear to me that his blogging continually reflects his British point of view with regards to politics. The relentless religiosity of American conservative politics still catches him by surprise now and again despite his being well aware of it, just as it has relatively recently come as a shock to British Tories. In Britain politics is a secular matter as is society in general. Religion is not a topic discussed in public by most people. Here, when discussing politics it's unavoidable if you want to do a thorough analysis.

[oddjob]

I saw a bit of the SOTU speech and largely agree with Corvus's assessment:

The point of the speech was look at all these solutions to our problems that we could implement and look how positive and forward thinking I am and in no way like what the Republican nominees say I am. Also, I saved the American economy. Your welcome.

[oddjob]

Obama's setting himself up well to run against a "Do Nothing Congress" if he chooses to do that.

(I doubt he will since his temperament isn't as pugnacious as Harry Truman's was, but nonetheless.)

[oddjob]

"The idea that Daniels would be seen now by many Republican as a White Knight who could save them from Newt and Mitt is a testament to how weak they see the current field."
- Josh Marshall

[oddjob]

Well, It Sure Worked

[nancy]

SirC -- Don't know if you caught it, but Andrew linked to your post in his wrap-up. The spouse and I have agreed to disagree about the speech. He thought it was too "busy" and that he especially missed an opportunity to go after the filibuster. I thought it was mostly fine, with extra points for the reminder that GOP brinksmanship bought us all a world of trouble. You've seen the recovery graph with the abrupt 'debt ceiling' dip. He sketched it out again which I thought was important. Lest anyone forget something as it approaches the six-months-ago, so-old-news threshold.

I appreciated his infrastructure remarks in particular, just as my comcast tubes connection -- only game in town -- returned after a five-hour outage due to 'weather'. What weather? Where? Another first world country where this is acceptable?

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

Yeah, I thought the speech was well calibrated for its intended audience. And as I said, Clinton always got a bump for these same kind of speeches, even if they were not always the most artful form of speechcraft.

nancy,

I saw Sullivan's link -- got a kick out of it too.

I thought he said enough about the filibuster. I think you can overdo it and we have to remember that to a lot of the viewing public that sort of thing is like inside baseball.

The polling would seem to confirm my sense that this was a solid political speech and it worked with its intended audience.

[low-tech cyclist]

Meanwhile, over on the Dark Side, Newt's headed down again, and Romney's headed back up. Not sure if I have any idea why.

[low-tech cyclist]

And in more local fun, I got a fundraising call this evening from the RNC! I had a great conversation with the guy (though I'm sure he didn't feel that he had a great conversation with me), I got a fundraiser to waste several minutes of his time talking with someone who wasn't going to give him a penny, and I'm sure he was off his game for the next hour or two afterwards.

His pitch was that they needed my money to make sure Obama was a one-term President.

"Why - what's Obama done wrong?" I asked innocently.

"What's he done wrong! Well, everything!"

"Well, can you give me one example?"

"He hasn't kept any of his promises."

"Seems to me like he's kept a bunch of them. And the ones he hasn't - like doing something about climate change - he hasn't done because you Republicans wouldn't let him, because you don't believe in climate change."

"He's been responsible for huge deficits."

"And why's that? Because of the Bush tax cuts, which you guys want to extend forever, and you won't let us cut them, even on rich people."

"That's what I mean, the Democrats are all about tax hikes."

"Do you realize that Obama's actually cut your taxes? And he wants to cut them some more, but you guys are standing in his way again. He wants to cut the payroll tax, which would cut taxes for ordinary Americans, but you guys are against it. Apparently you only want tax cuts for millionaires."

"You seem like a RINO."

"No, I'm actually a liberal Democrat. It's been nice talking with you, but I've gotta go."

And I hung up. My wife was even grinning by this point.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

I hope that call was recorded for quality assurance.

[low-tech cyclist]

I bet our number is now on their do-not-call list!

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

Nate is now saying the Newt's momentum has stopped in Florida and that Romney likely has a small lead in the polls.

I think the key here is likely the weight of negative television advertising that Romney is able to afford. It's what snuffed out his initial momentum in Iowa and I think will prove to be Gingrich's undoing -- he's vulnerable to attack and Romney has the resources to bring it. And Gingrich's biggest weakness is that he has no real friends to help him out, no public officials to turn to as surrogates to reassure people in the wake of these attacks.

[kathy a.]

translation for those of us who speak english: gingrich has burned his bridges. (except those people who gave his super-pac $10 million.) (and some bubbas, who don't know yet how fast he'll sell their asses off.) (and callista.)

[kathy a.]

um, i might be in a mood tonight...

[Sir Charles]

kathy,

To me it's actually the most striking thing about Gingrich. He has no fucking friends. There is virtually no one who served with him in the 90s who seems to be on his side. This is a guy who indeed seems to have burned every conceivable bridge with former colleagues, despite having accomplished some pretty impressive things back in the day.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Three quickies:

For those who didn't check my comment in the OT, Ed Kilgore is replacing Steve Benen.

Sir Charles, your description of Gingrich is spot on, and explains why he was -- and belongs -- at 5%. Little Ricky was an ineffective Senator who his constituents couldn't wait to get rid of, someone who also failed at being Mr. Collegiality, and who had almost no financial support. Besides, he's the priggish Perpetual Altar Boy -- appealing to some, but the type who, when he was arund, the other altar boys couldn't swipe the Communion wine because "Ricky'd tell Father!" He was -- and belongs -- at 5% as well.

And Ron Paul is Michelle Bachmann's crazy uncle, but he has a definite and devoted following. I'd wonder if Florida was a good place for him, but say he belongs at 10%. Which leaves 80% for Mittens, the Inevitable, the Electable, the Presidential-looking, the 'maybe he's lying now and will re-flip back' hope of attracting liberals and independents, Mittens the Money Man, who out organized, outspent, and out nastied his opponents.

Right? So why is Gingrich still with a good chance to win the race -- and I'm calling it for him right now because I saw the numbers before the tax returns came out. Gingrich was ahead in the National, ahead in Florida, and Romney's favorable/unfavorable rating had fallen to 31/49 compared to Gingrich's 29/51 -- no, I don't know why both total 20%. And I still expect Santorum to do better than expected -- Romney going negative against Gingrich might drive supporters of both to Little Ricky, and he's capable of a good debate performance -- and his anti-immigrant record isn't as well known.

But let's say that Romney wins with 35%, a 'stunning landslide' given the current numbers. That means there are 45% of Florida Republicans that 'should have' voted for him that didn't.

Third one takes off from there. You are a Republican businessman. You regularly give big bucks -- legally and/or illegally or CU-lly -- to the Republican Presidential race. Your contact shows at the door. Let's give you a thought balloon -- imagine the outline:

Migod, he wants me to contribute to a guy who had the organization, the backers. and still had to go all out negative and spend big bucks to beat two unlikable, underfunded, undersupported candidates who were jokes a few weeks ago, in a closed primary. If he wins, he'll be facing Obama's money, Obama's supporters, Obama's likability, and Obama's proven skill at campaigning, in the populace as a whole. He's supposed to have a chance to attract moderates, but he's had to take such extreme positions the only way anybody'll believe that is if they think he's a total bullshit artist. Migod, he's another fucking Goldwater, except Goldwater people liked and respected.

Okay, do you

a: sign the check, knowing it's going to a sure loser, but hoping it will help things from getting worse;

b: tear up the chek and tell the guy to come back in two years;

c: offer to double the size of the check if anybody but Romney gets the nomination?

Now pretend you are a professional politician being asked to throw the weight of your orgnization behind Romney...

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I'm actually trying for an early night's sleep, so two quick OT stories worth looking into:

a) Last Sunday night, the campaign manager for Ken Aden, Democratic Congressional Candidate -- AR2 -- arrived home with his family to find that he afmily pet had been brutally killed and the word 'Liberal' written across the body. Actually, it was his 5 year old son that found the body. What type of animal it was those who know me can guess from my inability to write the phrase. I have linked to the blog rather than the specific article to give you the choice to stick with the updates and not to look at the picture in the main article -- the 'least gruesome' the blogger could find.

b) According to Mitchell Plitnick of the Third Way -- confirmed by the delegate who wrote and proposed the resolution -- two weeks ago the RNC passed a resolution -- festooned with Bible verses and references -- supporting a one-state, greater-Israel solution for the Middle East --unanimously.

Plitnick admits the resolution was so foggy and word salad-y -- and he quotes it in full -- that some delegates probably didn't know what they were voting for, but it still used 'God's grant of the land, never rescinded' and biblical quotes as basis for a political resolution.

Just a taste of the goodies the Republicans will hand us, if we forget to concentrate exclusively on the Presidenial race and run against the party up and down the ballot.

More on these tomorrow. Now

g'nigh

[paula b]

Interesting dust-up between Brewer and Obama. The photo says it all. Did she really think she could wag her finger at the POTUS with no consequences? She must live on a different planet. The aggressive, hateful attitude among GOP leaders is not limited to those in the presidential race.

[paula b]

Huge investigative piece in today's NYT looking at working conditions and practices in Asian plants supplying US electronics industry.

[low-tech cyclist]

Three new Florida polls at RealClearPolitics, all taken either yesterday, or over the past two days, all show Romney up by 7-8 points.

SC, I agree that it must be the combination of a barrage of negative ads from Romney and his super-PAC, and Newt's near-total absence of allies.

That absence of allies is telling, given that he played the key role in ending the Dems' 40-year lock on the House of Representatives. But in a way, it's why I'd be less afraid of a Newt Presidency than of a Mitt Presidency: Newt would spend almost as much time arguing with the Republicans in Congress as with the Dems. Mitt, OTOH, would be the GOP Congress' errand boy.

At any rate, this game is basically over unless Newt can turn the tables in a big way tonight. At least it stayed competitive long enough to drive up Romney's negatives considerably, and provide plenty of clips so that the Dems could release attack ads against Mitt that put other Republicans in the starring role.

[low-tech cyclist]

Jim - concerning your thought balloon, the answer is that the GOP businessman contributes middlin' money - $100K, say - in order to maintain access.

He knows that Romney is going to ultimately win the nomination, and just might be President in a year. If so, that $100K is peanuts compared to what it does in terms of who picks up the phone in the White House when he calls.

And even if Romney loses (as the businessman surely expects), the right friends in Congress can be very helpful in getting those little clauses slipped into legislation that don't make a big difference to anyone else, but help his business out immensely. Giving the $100K shows that you're on the team.

[low-tech cyclist]

In the rest of the country, which hasn't been hit by the barrage of negative ads about Newt, he continues to do well: the Gallup 5-day rolling average has Newt 31%, Mitt 25%, and the other two at 13%.

I see a potential strategy for Newt in these numbers. While he can't be everywhere, it'll get pretty damned expensive for Mitt and his backers if Mitt's money has to be everywhere. If Mitt can only win in those states where he floods the zone with negative ads, then Newt can keep campaigning just to make Mitt keep on coughing up millions of dollars.

It's not a strategy for winning the nomination, but if he's willing to settle for making Mitt's life difficult, it's an effective strategy for doing that.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Tonight's the seond debate. Four days before SC, Nate the Knowing had Romney at 91%. I maintain my expectations. And 7-8% will be incredible, unless it is obvious that the Newt people went to Little Ricky.

[oddjob]

SC, I agree that it must be the combination of a barrage of negative ads from Romney and his super-PAC, and Newt's near-total absence of allies.

Gingrich got a bump from his debate performances in South Carolina, but it takes money to turn a bump into longstanding momentum and at the moment Gingrich appears to only have one deep-pocketed contributor (a wingnut of the "Greater Israel" sort). Romney's got lots more money to spend than Gingrich does.

Is it any wonder Gingrich complained yesterday about the last debate audience having to keep quiet rather than applaud & cheer?

[low-tech cyclist]

Ed Kilgore says that, last night, Newt "generally came across like a weasel who had finally been cornered by Animal Control."

Romney's going to win Florida, by a healthy margin.

I think Santorum will pick up some of the support Newt is losing, because for the anti-Romney crowd, there's nowhere else for them to go other than stay home. But I still don't see him doing any better than he did in SC.