Last night was President Obama's first address to Congress. I admit, I did not watch, nor have I read the transcript. I watched a couple minutes of his Chief of Staff's explanation of what he said, and I watched the 11 o'clock news and saw some of the president's comments. I also did not watch Gov. Jindal's response, but I did see him talking as I flipped channels. I intend to read both speeches.
However, I wanted to make some comments similar to my comments from a year ago (seen here).
The purpose of the State of the Union, as prescribed by the Constitution, is to "from time to time" address the Congress. Think of it as the CEO telling the Board of Directors where he plans to take the company. It's a good time for him to challenge the congress on the direction he wants to take the company. He is, after all, the President. I'm not sure why, but the press all billed this as NOT the State of the Union, maybe because this administration is still new. He does need more time to evaluate before he makes an assessment. I wish more time had been spent evaluating things before the economic spending package was passed, but that's another story. I respect the president for addressing congress.
But I do have four specific problems:
1) This is supposed to be an address to congress. While I didn't watch, I suspect most of the speech was addressed at the TV cameras.
2) It's supposed to be "from time to time". Recent tradition has been to do this every year. Maybe President Obama will change things, we really don't need it every year. The current administration is still too new to make a "state of the union" speech, but I'll give a pass on that.
3) Why have a response? Why must the party not in power feel the need to contradict the president and give their own view? Typically, the response just sounds bitter. The response is written ahead of time without hearing what the president has to say. Who are they fooling? That's not a response. It's like voting on a Trillion dollar bill without reading it. But that gets to the economic spending package again.
4) The political pundits. I didn't listen last night. I'm sure they said how great the speech was and how President Obama reassured everyone. How he inherited the debt (and ignored that he's doubled it) and that this is the worst recession since 1929 (or was it 1982?). I'm sure there were some pot shots taken on Fox. Where in the Constitution does it say that political pundits are required and can we please only make it "time to time"?
It will be a couple of days at best before I can digest the President's and Governor's speeches. Not sure if I'll blog about them, but I do intend to read them.
6 comments:
dont waste your time..the ONE will be applauded no matter what garbage and marxism he spews!
Phooey. I didn't watch. I watch enough bad TV without having to watch an Obama Love Fest. I had the choice between watching Obama or watching 3 different hockey games on three different networks. The choice was pretty damned easy. I ended up watching the Atlanta Thrashers beat the Colorado Avalanche 4-2 and saw a really nice goal scored by former South Carolina Stingray Rich Peverley.
So here's the real question....was he telling us what he really believes, or what he thinks we want to hear? This guy has a track record of living and dying by polls. He did it all through the campaign. In fact, so much so, he knew before the state-level nominations (primaries/caucauses) down to within half a percentage point what the final outcome was gonna be - win or lose. Only time will tell. But I must say, any President who doubles the national debt in his first month of taking office is treading very much on thin ice with me.....
Guess I gotta keep praying......
I was at work, paying for the porkulus bill...
I can't say Im interested on catching up on Obama's BS. I like my blood pressure where it is.
WHT, I don't like all the appluse interruptions as they seem so false. I also don't like it when objectors "politely" sit, while everyone elese stands. So I decided not to watch. I made an exception for President Bush's speech last year.
I also have decided that calling the president "The One" is disrespectful (even if it was started by Oprah). I've taken great effort to show him the respect that the office deserves.
Steve, wish I could have gone to see a hockey game. That would have been a better alternative.
Edge, was he telling us what he thought or what he thought we wanted to hear? Well, not having read the speech yet, I don't know. But at almost 2 months into this administration, I haven't seen a lot of "across the aisle" reaching. This is material for another post, but it seems he talks nice and does what he wants to anyway. More for another day.
Brooke, we all will have to work more to pay for the "porkulus" spending package. While I may not agree with the man, I have to read what he says because it at least indicates a direction he's taking us. I spent a lot of time studying him during the campaigns, and so far, nothing has suprised me. Disappointed yes, suprised no,
It's not the State of the Union address because Bush already gave the State of the Union address this year. I think they are trying to draw a distinction between the 2 speeches since it is typically known to happen only once a year.
Post a Comment