State of the Union

Rather than updating my facebook status every 5 seconds, I am going to just put my reflections and snarkiness about the State of the Union address here instead. Let's not call it live-blogging though. Because...I mean as opposed to what? Dead-blogging? In fact, let's call this a loose conglomeration of my thoughts during the speech, sorted out and embellished after the fact. Is there a name for that?

Consider yourselves warned, this entry turned out to be really freaking long.

Ok, first of all, it should come as no surprise to you, dear readers, that I am a big fan of OHSNAP moments. For instance."voters are frustrated and angry because Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve our problems. They're tired of partisanship and yelling." Congress got told.

Sometimes, politics makes me angry:
How does he stand up there and resist the urge to say "you fucking hypocrites. You applaud me on issues you've fought me on and will fight me on for as long as you draw breath."

I found it awkward that the camera closed in on Geithner as he spoke about taking money back from the banks. The poor man sort of got his ass handed to him in hearings today, and then they went and zoomed in on him as if to say "See this guy? It's HIS problem the president is talking about."

First standing ovation of the night: Take money back from the banks. Ok, it's probably a good idea. Still, isn't it kind of vindictive for that to be the first thing worthy of standing?

The president talks about tax cuts, and is met by stony silence from his left side. But the best thing was? Another OHSNAP! Way to call the Republicans on being hypocrites! "We only like the tax cuts we like, and not the ones you make!" I loved that he not only called them on it in the heat of the moment, but that he also did it with some amount of grace and humor. It sort of needed to be said, but he did it in a way that invited them to laugh at themselves. Does that change anyone's mind? Of course not. But it doesn't drive a deeper wedge between the sides. And we need more of that. Even if we just maintain the status quo of the existing wedges. Or wedgies.

It seems to me he is looking to his right disproportionately. I suppose it's understandable that he is looking to his supporters, but perhaps it would be better to cheat toward the people whose support he needs to win rather than the support he already has. I'm not sure if it's that noticeable if you're not looking for it, but I think that's the kind of thing you pick up on subconsciously at least. He needs to make them feel less like "them" and more like "us" and not looking over there isn't a good step in that direction.

Do you think the Republicans' clear lack of respectful support will only make them look more partisan? Or perhaps it's indicative of the fact that he's really giving more of a campaign speech right now, than a state of the union. (This was during his lead in to his discussion of businesses and jobs, a portion that understandably had them on edge)

Shout out to Elyria! What what! He was just there last week, and I'm glad to see it made an impression on him. Last time I was there was before the recession, and even then it was a striking example of the poverty and decline of the rust belt. I can only imagine what it must be like right now.

Everyone, including the "evil" Republicans, like the idea of building infrastructure, promoting green jobs, etc.. Yet I wonder, where does the money come from? I wouldn't have expected them to support spending projects by applauding before he even addressed the issue of funding.

Patriotism has its place, and if not in the State of the Union, then where? But that bit about not accepting second place for the US on the world stage was a touch heavy handed. My mom used to say "why does America have to be first, when it could just be great?"

Ah, luckily, we can all unite against the lobbyists. Everybody needs a common enemy. But maybe not a common enemy our politicians only hate in public...

Obama mentions nuclear power plants, and the whole room erupts. Surprising to me, as I didn't realize nuclear power plants had such widespread appeal right now. Interesting.

They are standing up every 5 seconds right now. Why even bother to sit down?

How can the Right sit there unashamed to be SO OBVIOUS that they don't support clean energy. I want to punch all of them.

My translation of his appeal to global warming skeptics: "I understand that some people are morons who don't believe in science. But look, even if you're a moron, it makes more sense to create jobs somehow, right? So just go with me on this one."

What? Education? Why would that matter in an increasingly competitive knowledge based world? This guy is such a misguided idealogue.

Oh, I see even the Right deigns to stand up for education. Maybe it was just time for them to stretch their legs. It's interesting to me that everyone applauds when the president says "such and such is important" and fewer do when he says "such and such requires reform (or attention or work etc)." And I know I'm being hard on the Republicans here, but it's not just they who are doing that. (I'm being hard on them because incredibly detailed and nuanced arguments get boiled down in this setting to "stand up" or "sit down." It looks bad, but in a lot of ways I can't blame them. You can't abstain from standing or sitting in this situation.)

You know this man can still give a speech. He's good at it. Where has he been for so long? Why aren't his routine addresses news? Do people tune in for his fireside chats? If more of us paid attention, would more of us understand what's going on in this country? On one level, that's an incredibly stupid question, but on a different, more tragic level, it's one that needs to be asked.

So this health care segment is likely the most important part of the speech tonight. He really needs to get the fire lit under the asses of the people on both sides who have gotten so caught up in the challenges and the politicking and have lost sight of the whole point of reform. I think he's doing it, but I'm the choir he's preaching to. I am just worried that so many people who oppose him for any number of reasons of varying validity and sanity won't stop to listen to what he's saying and will only hear a man they don't like talking about something they don't understand.

When he entered his section on the budget, he was trying to reinforce how things are, how they were, and to try to strip away some of the hype and spin. I think he needs to do that, but at the same time I hope it doesn't come across as buck-passing though, when he says "before I even walked in the door."

Ok, so I previously established that I like OHSNAP moments. HOWEVER, it only works when he OHSNAPs all of congress, not just the republicans. It's uncomfortable and counterproductive when he singles them out as the roadblocks. Because it's never quite that simple.

One of my favorite quotes: "I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern." With one sentence fragment, he reminds us that government has the word govern in it. Duh. And yet, it made me sit up and think. It's moments like that that make me say "damn, he gives a fine speech" even if he's just unnecessarily lambasted the republicans a few minutes ago.

And speaking of lambasting..."And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together." This is a man with good ideas and a command of rhetoric. (And a good speech writer, I'm sure)

This has now become much more of an address TO CONGRESS. About congress and what it needs to do. It took me years to realize that was technically what this speech was, and he makes it obvious. I, at least, am more used to this speech being an address to the people, about the country. But I think this year, we needed to see that SOMEONE in Washington is at least aware of the frustrations that are building up. Obama is popular or unpopular on his own (de)merits, but he is also a lightning rod for all the anger that is rightfully directed at congress. He's one man we can point and say "why aren't you fixing this!?" even while we rationally know there's only so much he can do.

We elected him to be a father figure. Why don't we ever see him any more?

I guess I just got bored because I was wondering how many people in that room right now aren't wearing underpants.

When he talked about Don't ask don't tell, both my chat-buddy and I noticed the military people in the front didn't stand. The justices also don't stand, and I think that makes sense. I don't know if the military views this the same way, but it makes sense to me that they would try to remain as apolitical as possible by uniformly (ha!) staying seated.

In conclusion: I know it's rhetoric, but it's good rhetoric. Why CAN'T we let him inspire us to hope?

Brief Epilogue from the Republican response:

We don't want rhetoric over results. WTF?! This is like saying we don't want oranges instead of jeeps. Why can't you have an orange in your freaking jeep! Particularly when the Governor of Virginia clearly has a pretty keen grasp of oranges himself.

And finally, he wants us to leave this nation a better place than we found it. Is the country a national park or what.

Final thoughts:
OHSNAP: Good
Justice Ginsberg's Death Glare: TERRIFYING
Not wearing underpants to the state of the union: Neutral