Is it Just Me? Or did Obama Call for More Bi-Partisanship Last Night?

[Bullet1987]

It was a good speech, don't get me wrong. But for me, the novelty has fallen off a little bit...I still want action and not just rhetoric. There was plenty to like about Obama first official SOTU though, he exposed Republicans for being obstructionists and saying NO to everything and not meeting him halfway. I liked that, but he still could've been more forceful. You can't shame people away from their habits by laughing it off and making jokes. I also liked how he mentioned the SCOTUS ruling and got a good applause. Wish he would've stayed on the subject longer though, he barely talked about it before he jumped to the next topic. That was really weird. He needs to express the dangers of this ruling and make it clear. When he called for the Congress to do something about it...no one clapped. The entire audience was dead silent. That's very telling, because I don't expect Congress to do shit about it personally.

But the thing I took away the most from last nights SOTU speech was Obama's continuing call for bipartisanship. Make no mistake, he's still throwing that out there. I personally say "to hell with the Republicans." I fail to see what Obama wants to get out of this. You're not going to change the culture of Washington with all of that money being thrown around. What did bipartisanship accomplish in 2009? Nada. Seeing as how this is an election year, I have my doubts it'll work in 2010 either. We heard some corporatist talk too, he defended the bank bailouts again even though it's been shown that a lot of that money was used to hand out bonuses. He called for that money to be paid back and given to Americans. Noble. But how is it going to work? And when?

All in all, I'm not creaming my pants over this speech. It was good, but I've seen better from him. I'm kinda tired of every speech that Obama gives being called "the best speech ever." He'll have a new "uber" speech in a few months. If you were watching this speech and expected him to go after "fat cats" and the banks...you were probably disappointed (as I was). I wanted to hear the same scathing rebuke of Wall Street and Banks as he's given in some interviews.

[phleshdef]

1. Every President likely would and SHOULD call for bipartisanship.

Its the Presidential thing to do. Its also the politically smart thing to do. And contrary to all the complaints, it does not hurt a damn thing to do so. And if you truly don't value rhetoric, then you shouldnt care.

[Bullet1987]

3. Calling for it is one thing

Using it as the basis for every major policy decision when it's clear the GOP is out to see you destroyed is something totally different.

[phleshdef]

5. The claims thats its been used as a basis for any policy decisions are fatally flawed.

The vast majority of policy compromises we have seen have been to get conservative Democrats on board and have not, contrary to the many bullshit claims, been to appease Republicans. You can complain about appeasing conservative Democrats if you wish. Thats valid. But thats also not bipartisan because like it or not, we have fiscal conservative and anti-abortion members in our party.

[tblue]

2. He's better than any Republican.

And I guess that will have to do. Nice delivery, a few crumbs and pointed jabs and centrism writ large. About what I've come to expect. I'm beginning to believe this is who he really, really is.

[RDANGELO]

4. That's what the independents want.

They think that what is wrong is that the two parties aren't working together to solve the problems.
The truth is, there is such a wide divide between the parties on issues that the results of any compromise would be unacceptable to either side. The real problems in Washington are the rules of the Senate and corporate money.

[BklnDem75]

6. Nothing wrong with an ask once policy

He asks, they refuse, he says 'Oh well, we tried,' and we get to work on a real bill.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Establishing that he is for bi-partisanship

and laying the groundwork to use other methods when they refuse.

[damonm]

8. Yes, but...

..this kind of bipartisanship is "I got the majority - YOU go along with ME" kind of bipartisanship.
I love how he called them out on the 60-vote BS.

[riverdale]

9. I thought that was terrible

It sounds like he'll keep on compromising and compromising and get nothing in return. I don't know why so many liked this speech. He desperately needs to make a strong stand for Democratic principles, and he did not. Bipartisan is so not working in the 21st century - when the other party wants nothing less than your complete personal destruction, regardless of the effects on America.

[MadBadger]

10. The Indies love that talk

And as long as hes still talking about, they at least think he wants that.

[Xolodno]

11. By calling for Bi-Partisanship he puts them into a nasty pickle.

Lets just assume that some Republicans do want to work with Obama (shocking thought I know but just suspend belief for a moment).

Well, even if they want to...they can't. Do you remember those old sci-fi/horror movies where the mad scientist creates this monster and soon as he releases him, it turns and attacks the scientist? That's exactly what the republicans did when they encouraged/created the Tea Party. Now if they so much say as "I think Obama is a pretty good guy"...they will get primaried by a wing nut.

[LatteLibertine]

12. IMO he's

setting the Republicans up to have zero excuses for sitting on the sidelines beside political games.