Obama '08?

Speaking of the State of the Union,

It was a smashing success for Obama.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6149049.shtml

Quote:

• 83% of speech watchers approve of the proposals the president made in his speech tonight. 17% Disapprove.

• 70% of speech watchers think Barack Obama shares the same priorities for the country as they do. 57% thought so before the speech.

• 59% of speech watchers think that Barack Obama has a clear plan for creating jobs. 40% thought so before the speech.

• 72% of speech watchers approve of Barack Obama's plans for dealing with government spending. 28% Disapprove.

• 56% of speech watchers think Barack Obama's economic plans will reduce the budget deficit in the long run, and 71% think they will help ordinary Americans.

Not bad!

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I missed it. Which dialect did he use?

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

I missed it. Which dialect did he use?

What do you mean?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo,
Come on... you know that polls taken just after a President's SOTU are meaningless. Couldn't find data on his 2008 SOTU, but in 2007 Bush had the same "smashing success" according to CBS:

"Eight in ten speech-watchers approve of the proposals Mr. Bush made in his speech ""

"81% of Americans who watched thought Mr. Bush struck the right balance between Iraq and domestic issues in his speech."

"67% think he will make the right decisions when it comes to energy conservation and consumption."

"56% of viewers said they approve of the President's handling of immigration, while 44% disapprove. Before the speech, just 31% approved."

I guarantee that those percentages will fall back to about 50/50 before the week is over.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo,
Come on... you know that polls taken just after a President's SOTU are meaningless. Couldn't find data on his 2008 SOTU, but in 2007 Bush had the same "smashing success" according to CBS:

"Eight in ten speech-watchers approve of the proposals Mr. Bush made in his speech ""

"81% of Americans who watched thought Mr. Bush struck the right balance between Iraq and domestic issues in his speech."

"67% think he will make the right decisions when it comes to energy conservation and consumption."

"56% of viewers said they approve of the President's handling of immigration, while 44% disapprove. Before the speech, just 31% approved."

I guarantee that those percentages will fall back to about 50/50 before the week is over.

Sure, maybe so. But it was hardly a bad speech.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

Bush proved it somewhere around -90 days into his cycle; does Obama have a time machine, perhaps?

BS...only the most partisan Bush detractors saw him that way "somewhere around -90 days into his cycle", just as the most partisan of Obama's enemies see your man that way now. Both views of both men are about equally true...

1 Reply

well i've gotta say, last night was the worst episode of LOST i've ever seen, so Julliet explodes the bomb and Walt becomes president??????

hope it gets easier to understand as the season progresses

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

Sure, maybe so. But it was hardly a bad speech.

Wasn't bad....I especially like the last five minutes or so where he rammed a strong vision of bipartisanship and looking out for what's best for the country, rather than either party's political agenda. But overall it was rather boring and predictable...I certainly don't think it was "a different class than other Orators on our modern scene." He's had far better....

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
Bush proved it somewhere around -90 days into his cycle; does Obama have a time machine, perhaps?

BS...only the most partisan Bush detractors saw him that way "somewhere around -90 days into his cycle", just as the most partisan of Obama's enemies see your man that way now. Both views of both men are about equally true...

No, they are not. I categorically reject your assertion that Bush's intelligence is in any way comparable to Obama's. Not even close.

I had more knowledge of Bush then most b/c I was familiar with him as governor of my state; and I can tell ya that his 2000 campaign was mostly unimpressive. If Gore hadn't been such a snooze, he would have won easily, but he thought he could coast across the line. Didn't work. But Bush certainly neither won nor lead based on his intelligence, I mean, pull the other one, man!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
Sure, maybe so. But it was hardly a bad speech.

Wasn't bad....I especially like the last five minutes or so where he rammed a strong vision of bipartisanship and looking out for what's best for the country, rather than either party's political agenda. But overall it was rather boring and predictable...I certainly don't think it was "a different class than other Orators on our modern scene." He's had far better....

I agree that Obama has had far better - but practically nobody else on the modern political scene has. This is the entire point of labeling him a great Orator; his average performances are as good as other people's best performances.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Well, what told me the most was how the republicans reacted to Obama's speech. They're still in the No Party mode, and will not change. That's the handicap that Obama must deal with for the next three years. Bipartisanship is an oxymoron in today's Washington politics.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
Sure, maybe so. But it was hardly a bad speech.

Wasn't bad....I especially like the last five minutes or so where he rammed a strong vision of bipartisanship and looking out for what's best for the country, rather than either party's political agenda. But overall it was rather boring and predictable...I certainly don't think it was "a different class than other Orators on our modern scene." He's had far better....

I did not care enough to even catch the speech. Why would I want to listen to a boring but carefully crafted regurgitation of his past speeches during the campaign and his inaugural, etc. etc.? Besides, I figure it would all be twisted mis-representations and lies, and why have to sit there and get mad? It seems the following fact check confirms my perception of what it would probably be. The man is self delusional, not well connected to reality. And an incompetent. After all, face it libs, the man is nothing more than a cheap Chicago street agitator, thats it, and a man that supposedly has great oratory skills, according to the main stream media, a claim that is also a farce.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/27/fact-check-state-union-compares-reality/

"His State of the Union speech skipped over a variety of complex realities in laying out a "common-sense" call to action."

1 Reply

@okie,

Suddenly okie is all against "common sense" now that Obama is for it.

1 Reply

@parados,

If you think Obama actually has any common sense, you have a problem, parados. He hasn't demonstrated any yet.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, Your use of the words "common sense" is an oxymoron; you have none.

0 Replies

I watched a late rerun of the SOU speech. The president remained in his usual form. However, the speech was more of a lecture than a report to the Congress. It was salted with excuses for himself and cheap shots at his opponents and the Senate. Altogether a well-delivered bit of campaign oratory, but inappropriate for the moment. It made him look rather self-important, whining, and weak.

I was particularly taken with one phrase when he said (loosely paraphrased) "With one of the greatest majorities in the Congress in recent decades, we ought to be able to pass legislation on our key issues." Missing from that oratorical flourish was any acknowledgement of the possibility that discordant views within the Democrat majority played a role in that outcome; or that the exhorbatant cost of the House legislation raised significant concern among both the public and in the Senate.

In short it was an immature and amateurish evasion of responsibility for his own stewardship and that of his party.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

; or that the exhorbatant cost of the House legislation raised significant concern among both the public and in the Senate.

Polling data to back this up, re: your assertion about the 'public?' I'm sure you mean 'by Republicans.' All the data I've seen re: Dems shows that they are pissed that the legislation isn't liberal enough.

I would also remind you that the CBO scored both bills very favorably; neither adds debt at all over 10 or 20 year periods. However, they both would raise taxes on the rich, which is exactly why I suspect you are so against the plan.

Quote:

In short it was an immature and amateurish evasion of responsibility for his own stewardship and that of his party.

Did you throw popcorn at the screen?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No popcorn.

The public isn't as stupid as you apparently believe. The timing of the taxes and the benefits in both pieces of legislation was done explicitly to create a needed illusion about the ten year deficit effect precisely so the Administration could make this duplictous claim. There are competing versions about public views on these matters based on different, selective interpretations of polling data. However, it is beyond doubt that there is widespread public dissatisfaction with the Democrat Helath care legislation and even more about cap & trade.

Moreover that was the elephant in the room that the president didn't acknowledge at all: a little wierd, I thought.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

No popcorn.

The public isn't as stupid as you apparently believe.

I dunno, they have proven time and time again - in this country and others - that they are that stupid, George.

Individuals are smart.

Groups are panicky and stupid.

Quote:

The timing of the taxes and the benefits in both pieces of legislation was done explicitly to create a needed illusion about the ten year deficit effect precisely so the Administration could make this duplictous claim.

Then why does it score so well over the 20-year projections? This is in direct conflict with your theory.

Quote:

There are competing versions about public views on these matters based on different, selective interpretations of polling data.

This is your way of saying 'I don't care what the polling data says or any evidence that you put forward; I am going to continue making my assertions without the need for providing evidence.' This is nothing new from you.

Quote:

However, it is beyond doubt that there is widespread public dissatisfaction with the Democrat Helath care legislation and even more about cap & trade.

You do not know the nature of the dissatisfaction; you are assuming that people are all against it on principle or b/c they disagree with the ideas. This is completely untrue and there exists plenty of polling data to back me up on that.

Quote:

Moreover that was the elephant in the room that the president didn't acknowledge at all: a little wierd, I thought.

It's because it's not true. How is that weird, that the Prez doesn't go in front of the country and repeat your unsourced and inaccurate partisan points?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If you are right about all of this, then please explain how it is , -with such an unusual commanding majority in both Houses of the Congress, and the widespread public support that you claim -, that the Administration has experienced failure after failure in enacting its legislative program; the President has kept so few of his campaign promises; and the tide of off year elections and candidacies (such as that of Biden's son in Delaware) is going so hard against Democrats ?????

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know