Impact of the First Obama State of the Union

[drone]

He also heals lepers, births unicorns, and snorts pixie dust.

I thought he rode unicorns. He may snort lepers as well, I can't verify my sources on that, but I'm pretty sure he rides unicorns.

[Aemilius Paulus]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Obama=Ayers

Tehehehee

What does Ayers have to do with anything being discussed in this thread? DD, did you take your medication today?

No, DD is absolutely fine. You see, there is talk of Ayers writing the Dreams from my Fathers book, which is why DD made that comment. Yes, the talk is mostly right-wing nuts, but it is not as if they are baseless - some of their arguments do make sense, and hell, I am a liberal and a staunch Obama supporter, so it is not as if I have any reason to support them.

Some of the arguments centre around stylistics differences between the first book and the second - Audacity of Hope. I read both of the books, and there is a large difference between them, although it is difficult to say if it was stylistic and not simply a result of different objectives for the two books. Dreams from My Fathers was the more sophisticated of the two, namely its beginning chapters. Then it simply turned into a narrative, but in the beginning, it was quite eloquent.

A few points to note are that Obama was rather an uninspiring writer while he was in the Uni and professor-ing, as well as the fact that his explanation for when he found time to write Dreams were quite fishy. I do not believe he simply let someoen ghost-write the book with Obama's guidance, but I do not discount this. Remember John Kennedy - and he got a Pulitzer for his fake autobiography. The truth could be in teh middle as well - Obama could have significantly collaborated with someone else for Dreams as well.

As for Audacity, it was his 'stump speech' book and indeed, it bore little difference from his speeches. The first chapters of Audacity are sickeningly non-confrontational, 'everyone is good, smart, blah, blah' but then the book takes a turn and begins real talk, which is somewhat rather inspiring.

[Vladimir]

As for Audacity, it was his 'stump speech' book and indeed, it bore little difference from his speeches. The first chapters of Audacity are sickeningly non-confrontational, 'everyone is good, smart, blah, blah' but then the book takes a turn and begins real talk, which is somewhat rather inspiring.

Sorry, but I had a mental image of the Koran when I read this.

[Lemur]

Some of the arguments centre around stylistics differences between the first book and the second - Audacity of Hope. I read both of the books, and there is a large difference between them [...]

That might have something to do with DOMF being penned by a freshman Senator nobody knew, who was darn lucky to get any book deal at all. AOH, on the other hand, was written as a campaign book.

Occam's Razor rips the conspiracies to shreds. Of course, If we're going to speculate about whether a failed '60s radical ghost-wrote it, why stop there? I hear Ron "The Hedgehog" Jeremy secretly services the president's wife. Can you prove he doesn't?

[Devastatin Dave]

What does Ayers have to do with anything being discussed in this thread? DD, did you take your medication today?

Lemur, personal attack deleted listern... His "I get it" speech showed that he DOESN'T get it. And I'm glad because his arrogance and his lust for power, as shown by his open disdain of the Supreme Court for everyone except perhaps for you to see, will be his downfall and along with all of his leftist buddies that have stunk up the Legislative and Executive branches. The Founding Fathers in there wisdom created a government of checks and balances to keep people like Obama or Bush from completely destroying the foundation of our nation. The government is way too big but Obama wants more. He talks about listening to those that oppose him but he shuts out the opposition from meetings and discussions. Do you think its "fair" the union workers should keep their healthcare while others get rationed or that certain states are exempt from paying into a system that won't be availiable for 7 years? I know you're in love but you're a smart guy, how can you sit here act as though this guy craps gold nuggets and pisses lemonaid?
His speech rang hollow and just because the guys reads well off a teleprompter and doesn't make him the intellectual giant you claim him to be. Again, I want to know his GPA in school and see if he earned where he was at or if his just another affirmative action hire used as a puppet for the George Soros's of the world to purposely destroy this country and its economy. I remember just before the election he said "We are ..Days Away From Fundamentally Transforming The United States of America". If he loves the United States so much, why the hell would he want to fundamentally change it? Do you think it needs to be "fundamentally" changed? What the hell is wrong you you Obama worshippers?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I didn't watch it, but reading it later, his remark about SCOTUS was unclassy, and wrong as well.

CR

[Devastatin Dave]

I didn't watch it, but reading it later, his remark about SCOTUS was unclassy, and wrong as well.

CR

So another "You Lie!!" moment....
This man is dangerous.

[Lemur]

The cool thing is that DevDave didn't address my simple question in that entire rant. A+ for energy, F for content. And you should ease up on the homoerotic stuff, it's gonna make your missus nervous. Does "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" ring a bell?

[TinCow]

And I'm glad because his arrogance and his lust for power, as shown by his open disdain of the Supreme Court

True, no decent American would do such a thing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Jefferson is different; unlike the vast majority of today's politicians, he actually cared about the constitution. Also, it doesn't say he criticized the judge in his state of the union notes (they didn't give speeches back then. Thanks for nothing Wilson).

CR

[TinCow]

Jefferson is different; unlike the vast majority of today's politicians, he actually cared about the constitution. Also, it doesn't say he criticized the judge in his state of the union notes (they didn't give speeches back then. Thanks for nothing Wilson).

You need to read up more on Marbury v. Madison. There has never been any incident in US history that has ever resulted in more venom and bad blood between SCOTUS and POTUS than that case. Jefferson, to his dying day, believed that Marbury would entirely destroy the balance of power in the government and result in a judicial dictatorship. He was pretty vocal about it too.

Right or wrong, SCOTUS is one of three equal branches of our government. They are humans, and they are part of the checks and balances system. SCOTUS can be overruled by Congress and the States via Amendments specifically because SCOTUS is not infallible. To claim that SCOTUS should somehow be immune to criticism by the Executive and Legislative Branches is to accord them a special status which does not exist. I don't see anyone complaining about Obama's criticisms of Congress; the difference being made for SCOTUS is totally nonsensical.

And for the record, I agree with the SCOTUS decision.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Jefferson is different; unlike the vast majority of today's politicians, he actually cared about the constitution. Also, it doesn't say he criticized the judge in his state of the union notes (they didn't give speeches back then. Thanks for nothing Wilson).

CR

Honestly, I don't know why there isn't more public criticism of decisions that are percieved as bad. It would be a bit ironic to judge Obama on calling a bad judicial decision out in public when I wish Republican presidents would do the same things on a regular basis. I disagree with this particular criticism. but wish there were more direct, less cushy relationships in government. Everytime I see a gathering it feels liek the whole group is gaming us, lets see them rip one another apart so that congress feels less like a club house of friends and mroe like a place where opposing parties argue their case and chastize those who make crap decisions.

[Subotan]

Adams ws better

[Crazed Rabbit]

You need to read up more on Marbury v. Madison. There has never been any incident in US history that has ever resulted in more venom and bad blood between SCOTUS and POTUS than that case. Jefferson, to his dying day, believed that Marbury would entirely destroy the balance of power in the government and result in a judicial dictatorship. He was pretty vocal about it too.

Well maybe you should've linked to something besides wikipedia, which had very little on any of that.

Right or wrong, SCOTUS is one of three equal branches of our government. They are humans, and they are part of the checks and balances system. SCOTUS can be overruled by Congress and the States via Amendments specifically because SCOTUS is not infallible. To claim that SCOTUS should somehow be immune to criticism by the Executive and Legislative Branches is to accord them a special status which does not exist. I don't see anyone complaining about Obama's criticisms of Congress; the difference being made for SCOTUS is totally nonsensical.

And for the record, I agree with the SCOTUS decision.

I'm saying doing it during the SOTU address was not classy, not that SCOTUS should be above criticism.

CR

[Gregoshi]

SCOTUS...SOTU...POTUS... What is with the recent assault of new acronyms? Like the government doesn't have enough already.

[TinCow]

I'm saying doing it during the SOTU address was not classy, not that SCOTUS should be above criticism.

Obama heaped a lot more criticism on Congress during that speech than he did on SCOTUS. Was that wrong too?

SCOTUS...SOTU...POTUS... What is with the recent assault of new acronyms? Like the government doesn't have enough already.

SCOTUS and POTUS are both standard abbreviations in government and legal areas, they're not new. I will admit I'd never seen SOTU until now though.

[Gregoshi]

I figured that might be the case TinCow, but their use here at the Org is recent and growing. I blame Kukri - at least he's was the first use of POTUS several months ago (that I can remember).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama heaped a lot more criticism on Congress during that speech than he did on SCOTUS. Was that wrong too?

No.

SCOTUS and POTUS are both standard abbreviations in government and legal areas, they're not new. I will admit I'd never seen SOTU until now though.

The POTUS PO'D SCOTUS in the SOTU.

CR

[TinCow]

No.

Then please then explain why the Judicial Branch and the Legislative Branch should be treated differently when it comes to criticism.

[Crazed Rabbit]

He criticized guests of Congress, lied about what law was overturned (didn't he teach about the constitution at one time?), and brought up the old DC specter of 'special interests'. And who can expect Congress to be accountable when there's "special interests" around? Anyway, the judges were guests and he called them out - incorrectly - to stoke his populist appeal.

Like I said, I didn't think it was classy.

CR

[TinCow]

lied about what law was overturned (didn't he teach about the constitution at one time?)

I'm guessing you got this from a sound bite or something? It appears that a lot of people like to comment on these things without actually reading them. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Obama's statement comes directly from Justice Steven's dissent:

The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210. The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).

(p. 89-90)

So... does that mean Stevens and his fellow dissenters are lying too? Perhaps it would be better to characterize the situation as it actually is... a difference of opinion.

If you want more background on the law, Stevens kindly includes 8 pages of discussion on the legislative history of campaign contribution restrictions since 1907. You can find it on pages 129 through 137.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm guessing you got this from a sound bite or something? It appears that a lot of people like to comment on these things without actually reading them. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Obama's statement comes directly from Justice Steven's dissent:

No, I got it from the NYT article I posted in this thread earlier.

So... does that mean Stevens and his fellow dissenters are lying too? Perhaps it would be better to characterize the situation as it actually is... a difference of opinion.

Stevens wrote that a century of history was rejected, while Obama said a century of law. And I would say that Stevens is wrong about the constitution in his decision anyways.

CR

[TinCow]

Stevens wrote that a century of history was rejected, while Obama said a century of law.

Last I checked, acts of Congress and SCOTUS decisions both qualified as law.

[Crazed Rabbit]

My point was that saying a century of history is more vague than a century of law. And the law overturned was from 2002, IIRC the older laws are still in effect.

CR

[TinCow]

My point was that saying a century of history is more vague than a century of law. And the law overturned was from 2002, IIRC the older laws are still in effect.

It would be more appropriate to say the older laws are now in limbo. While Citizens United specifically applies to 2 USC §441b, it makes several broad statements about the rights of corporations. Things like this:

this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.

The above statement essentially concludes that the specific reasons cited for campaign finance reform are illegitimate. This precedent casts doubt on all other laws that similarly restrict corporate campaign advocacy. Many laws which were previously accepted by corporations will now be challenged on the basis of the holdings made in Citizens United, and unless the composition of the Court changes before those cases are heard, they will likely be overturned as well.

I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it's the reality of the way our judicial system works. When the Court changes its mind on an issue, it generally has to then re-evaluate everything else related to that issue. It will take a long time to see how this thing finally shakes out, but I think it's little more than punditry to say Obama "lied." That's a very strongly-charged word, and under the circumstances it strikes me as an attempt to score cheap political points rather than an accurate description of the situation.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The speech has some good bits. But it is mostly harmless.

[Aemilius Paulus]

That might have something to do with DOMF being penned by a freshman Senator nobody knew, who was darn lucky to get any book deal at all. AOH, on the other hand, was written as a campaign book.

Occam's Razor rips the conspiracies to shreds. Of course, If we're going to speculate about whether a failed '60s radical ghost-wrote it, why stop there? I hear Ron "The Hedgehog" Jeremy secretly services the president's wife. Can you prove he doesn't?

Sheesh, as I said, I was merely speculating. Could have been anything. I find it unlikely he ghostwrote one of his books, but far from impossible. All politicians love to do it, especially when much is at stake.

If anything, the fact that Kennedy did it makes it only more likely for Obama to follow the suit. The two even share quite a bit of similarities (one that comes the quickest to my mind is that both had families with young children to take care of when not engaged in politics, thus leaving them with little free time).

[KukriKhan]

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union,

I believe he failed there. He did not give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union. The State of the Union is: fractured. A bit less than half of the Union objects to the Fed's direction, a bit less than half agrees with the Fed's direction, and 10 percent or so claim to not know (this is my understanding; CountArach may find polls otherwise).

Instead, he focused on the next part:

...and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

50 minutes (or 5 pages of text) got devoted to that. To be fair, he's not the first to use the SOTU for this - it has a long and (respectable/notorious) history.

My objection to the speech is his assumption of the knowledge of american's needs, wants, and requirements. Just like Bush, he assumes that since he got elected, by whatever neferious means, he has some kind of mandate, an order he must perform, some obligation of action...

In my humble opinion, such perceived mandates are ephemeral. And manufactured. And America knows it. And Washington doesn't know it, or won't accept it.

We have our agents: soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, under fire on our behalf in much of the world. Yet scarcely 3 minutes of a 58-minute speech is devoted to their (OUR!) aims. Except to mention that "don't ask, don't tell" is going away - which he could enact singularly as CinC, needing neither Congress nor SCOTUS.

In short, I was not inspired. My just-laid-off-from-Wal-Mart-probably-gonna move-into-my-house son and just-deployed-to-Afghanistan-after-two tours-in-Iraq soldier/son, both watched the speech and found little hope for change. We're gonna keep fighting wars, and down-sizing , 'til we get it right. Apparently.

[Vladimir]

My point was that saying a century of history is more vague than a century of law. And the law overturned was from 2002, IIRC the older laws are still in effect.

CR

This. This is also why I don't like the guy. He's too smart to be this ignorant which indicates it was intentional.

[Lemur]

This is pretty funny—Rudy Giuliani versus objective reality.