State of the Union: We’ll See

Well, I was back chasing the belt on the treadmill this morning. And no choice really. It’s quite frosty here in NE Ohio this morning. Wonder if Prez O will find it equally chilly tonight when he gives the State of the Union address? C’mon. Give me a break. It’s early — and I had to make the transition somehow.

Anyway, the president’s State of the Union address is great theater: triumphal entries, spirited glad-handing, hugs and kisses, standing Os and loud cheers (or not). And the TV Talking Heads are opining that the stakes for Obama couldn’t be higher. (Aren’t they always?)  That this is the opportunity for him to regain the — “Yes We Can” — spirit and momentum that carried him and many Democrats into office.

Good luck with that.

The State of the Union address really doesn’t provide that type of forum — or venue. The speech typically offers a shopping list of policy and other items that the administration would like to accomplish — and a plea for a bipartisan coming together to make something (anything?) happen. Thank God there is no PowerPoint involved. Oops. I digress.

Anyway, good speeches and presentations are memorable because they highlight a few key items well — and inspire the audience to take some action.  So when it is all said and done, here are the three themes that I would like to see emerge from tonight’s talk.

  • How are we going to strengthen the economy and get millions of Americans back to work?
  • How can we reach a consensus on health care — not just to provide some necessary protection and level of medical care to everyone who needs it but also to control the costs that threaten us as individuals and our economy long term?
  • How do we strengthen education in this country in a way that enables people of all ages to succeed today — and in the years ahead?

Big issues — without easy answers and made all the more difficult because of concerns about deficit spending and the political realities of the upcoming mid-term elections.

Can Prez O use the State of the Union to get the country — and members of Congress — focused on the big issues in a way that will get us to some resolution?

We’ll see.


10 responses to “State of the Union: We’ll See

  1. Good post Rob I thing you nailed the top 3 issues. Honestly no more money for education! Americans are “dumb’ enough as it is! No more money for education until we get some results. I hope you check out my site I wrote a parody of tonight’s state of the union. It might make you laugh especially the health care part. Have a great day!

  2. I like this post. It avoids the snark factor, and focuses on serious matters. I would say, though, with the Supreme Court in front of him to hear and to be held accountable, that I would love to see the president add a fourth item to the agenda: an unambiguous and simply worded description of how the latest decision of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority will effectively turn an election process already awash in special-interest money into a strictly retail transaction.

    If and when you get tired of serious concerns, you might take a look at http://Drinks before, the blog my wife and I have started. It’s strictly for laughs–but, then again, it isn’t.
    Barry Knister

  3. Thanks for both of the comments. These are serious matters and concerns. But hey. Keeping things in perspective and having a sense of humor doesn’t hurt any either.

  4. At what point does this guy man up and admit that he has no clue and his policies do not resonate with the majority of the american people?? Civility begins with honesty and all I heard last night was anger, blame and he knows better than I do. Its all about him-100 times in a 70 min speech, I-I-I-I-I. Guess what, its not about him, its about us as a collective of 300 million people. And the majority of the “people” are not buying what he’s selling, the same as he has no chance of doulbling our exports.
    I speak for myself, but I hear the same fustration from a lot of people I know.

  5. burghthoughts:
    “At what point” do Obama’s critics stop insisting that the President’s policies “do not resonate with the majority of the american [sic] people”? It’s not the policies that have gotten him in trouble, it’s having taken far too long to accept the pointlessness of seeking bipartisanship. As for “IIIII,” would you prefer the British Crown’s use of the first-person plural, “we we we we we”?

  6. bknister…that last point is cute but really it is about his policies. We are a conservitive nation, 2-1, and would like to keep it that way.
    as for “an unambiguous and simple” explanation on the Supreme court decision-try this: the case was brought by Citizens United against the FEC be cause they were prohibited from releasing a movie critical of Hillary within the time frame dictated by McCain/Feingold. When the Justice Dept. testified that books that were either pro or con for a canidate would also be banned within the same time frame, it became a free speech issue. This was upholding the First Admendment and free political speech. It should have been a unanimous decision

  7. “We are a conservative nation, 2-1, and would like to keep it that way.” No, sir, you would like to keep it that way. And now that the right-wing majority on the Court has acted, the odds are much better that you will. Whatever precipitated the case, the decision makes much more likely a further erosion of honesty and legitimacy in elections. For obvious reasons, you approve.

  8. “Whatever precipitated the case”??? Your concern should be how four Liberal members of the court could rule against the First Admendment, which was inserted into our Constitutuion to specifically protect political speech.Not Conservitive Speech. Not liberal Speech. Not Whig Speech. Free Speech. Why should MoveOn.Org, George Soros, Arcorn and the Democratic-beholden Unions (who “donated” 60 million Dollars in the last election) be the only ones who have a voice in elections? Banning Free Speech, specifically political Free Speech, in either Movies, Books. etc. is wrong. I guess an even playing field bothers you.

  9. If I thought there were any chance of a “level playing field” being created by resurfacing the one we’ve got with mounds of greenbacks, I might see your point. But I don’t see any such chance, and neither should conservatives, liberals, whigs or members of the fly fishermen’s party. The only way anything approaching fairness will ever be introduced into our broken system is by establishing public financing for all federal elections.
    Now let the howling resume from the right.

  10. Hey, I think I have lost control here. But as long as you guys play nice (at least relatively speaking) I’m OK with it. I’m obviously a big believer in looking at various viewpoints.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s