In his State of the Union speech, President Obama certainly reached out to the Republicans, praised American innovation and know-how, and for the most part avoided lightning rod issues on either side. It was a huge leap forward for a president who was close to life support just a few months ago. If his goal was to avoid getting into deeper trouble and getting as much bipartisan applause as possible, he certainly achieved those goals. And Supreme Court bashing was out, even though the ruling he complained about last year still stands.
The centerpiece was his praise of America and its ability to be competitive.
But, if President Obama hopes to "win the future" in 2012, his speech came up short Tuesday night. It was certainly a big and earnest move to the center, but it lacked the kind of specifics and innovative policies that the president needs to make America competitive in the 21st Century.
If you were unemployed, you were all but ignored at a time of great unemployment. And when it came to the specifics almost all of them were still being developed. In this speech, Obama proposed extending many Clinton ideas like the $10,000 college tax deduction but had few original ones of his own ready to go.
The lack of specifics is probably the result of the fast-paced reshuffle of the White House and no doubt many of the topics were probably chosen in the last few days, explaining why few were previewed for the public in a run up to the speech.
Let's review what he said and he didn't say.
He certainly said that innovation was the backbone of America, labeling this a Sputnik moment, referring to an event experienced and often spoken about by Hillary Clinton -- the moment Eisenhower rallied the country for science education, interstate highway system and other goals when we were beaten into space by the Soviets.
But while using that as an image, he carefully avoided any mention of the space program itself and instead called for "Apollo-like" programs in other areas. He has in fact gutted the manned space program. He also avoided mentioning the research and development tax credit or other programs popular with innovation-based companies, focusing instead on clean electricity, advanced railways and 98 percent broadband coverage (one wonders where the 2 percent left behind are).
He ducked mentioning the 9.4 percent unemployment statistics, failing in any way to connect to those millions of Americans facing unemployment. He never clearly spoke to them, especially those in the Midwest where he is in the greatest political trouble. There was no analysis of the unemployment problem and how he would fight it. Nothing on job training, pension reform, or economic security. No minimum wage or unemployment insurance discussion. He did not pledge to put America back to work or offer new policies to get there. He did back just about every trade agreement, including those for Colombia and South Korea.
When it came to education, his most memorable material seemed to center on an implied endorsement of the Tiger Mom philosophy, with science fair winners put on equal footing with Super Bowl winners, and renewed demand for discipline among our students. You will find similar language in President Clinton's 1996 SOTU where he called for parents to take greater responsibility and then called for the v-chip. Here President Obama offered few specifics except the extension of the $10,000 college education tax deduction, first developed in the Clinton administration and unveiled in the 1996 SOTU.
His government reform idea was perhaps most unexpected and relatively new to him, but of course a Clinton/Gore staple. Here he was both broad and ambitious, and had some funny lines on salmon regulation -- perhaps helping to frame my basic question about this speech as "Where's the Salmon?"
His full-throated call for malpractice reform was new, as was his willingness to accept some health care fixes that don't violate his fundamental principles. Obama was relatively strong on endorsing immigration reform, in threatening to veto legislation with earmarks, and in proposing a 5-year freeze on discretionary spending.
The president basically walked away from his deficit commission, and was vague in his call for entitlement reform. His bones to the left included reiterating he opposed permanent extension of the top income Bush tax cuts and taking a victory lap on gays in the military. His mentions of the problems with Iran and North Korea were brief and low-key.
Corporate tax reform and lower corporate tax rates are certainly important to business but not something typically for the broad audience of a State of the Union. Americans care about their own tax rates, not those of companies.
He avoided crime and he obviously made a decision not to take on the gun lobby in any way, even if banning clips like those used in the Tucson shooting had popular support in recent polls.
The president also avoided the looming municipal financing crisis. This was a chance to get out ahead of problems before they require emergency legislation and he decided not to bring that up.
This speech will poll well -- it has a lot of popular material and was very optimistic about America. But the failure to tackle the big problems and issues with specific creative ideas means the president and the White House have a lot of work to do. While these speeches are usually an end point to a furious policy making and agenda-setting effort inside the White House, this speech really marks a new beginning for Obama and his turn to the center. But making that turn real will require backing the rhetoric up with the changes and ideas that really put America back to work, bring our families together and keep us as the most innovative country on earth. He has had a great two months and now the chance to turn it into a great two years.
Paul Begala: Obama's SOTU: Putting the Jam on the Lower Shelf So the Little People Can Reach It
Obama's SOTU, Ryan's response, Bachmann's banality
Reactions to Obama's SOTU speech
In State of the Union Address, Obama Transcends the Clichés
Poll: High Marks for Obama's State of the Union Speech
Transcript: Bachmann's response to State of the Union
Gay-rights groups react to President Obama's State of the Union address ...
We gave the Tea Party credibility by passing up the last election. We can't afford that happening in
2012.
In the two short years of his Presidency President Obama passed important legislation with a DEMOCRATIC HOUSE and
Senate. He cannot run after 2016 (unfortunately) but much can be accomplished in these last 4 years...
if we VOTE !!!!
"if we VOTE !!!!"
If nothing else, you've definitely motivated me to vote in the 2012 US presidential election.
Page after page bellyachers say this is bad and that is bad about the SOTU speech. WAKE
UP to the fact that you are a minority of SEVEN PERCENT ACCORDING TO THE POLLS. !!!
The posts wree interesting for a while but now I have decided that they have left the universe of reality.
So, on that subject I sign off. CHEER if you stil have the energy after akk that stuff.
leaders WANT TO ABOLISH PUBLIC BROADCASTING CORP only a freaction of which even comes from the taxpayer. PBS does not merely pretend to be "balanced". It actually is.
The GEZ relies on the honesty, public spirit, and social conscience of the German people to voluntarily report the pertinent information to the GEZ and be billed accordingly. However, when the nice folks at the GEZ suspect that someone is cheating, they send nice agents to your house or apartment to ransack said abode for said suspected contraband electronic devices.
What happens to the offenders? Well, as Sergeant Schultz used to say, "I know nothing---nothing." To put it another way, if you want to know what the GEZ is like, just imagine PBS being outsourced to the Mafia.
can not be erased by one speech.
Most engage in the best way they see possible!
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sarah-palin-calls-obamas-sputnik-mention-a-wtf-moment/
Our Sputnik moment? I thought that moment was one of facing up to reality and doing something concrete about it now? It may be news to the President, but those really in need of immediate government attention are, for example, the unemployed and those with oppressive mortgages needing modifications, not those in the business community looking for handouts, like G. E. The Republicans are pointing out today that when Mr. Obama refers to investments in our future, he means more debt financed spending, adding to our already hugh deficit. It should also be noted that government financed investment, a la The Recovery Act, is really nothing more than corporate welfare divied up by the White House and the Lobbyists. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies got their government "investment" under the President`s health care reform law, now I guess its time for the Federal Government to take care of the rest of corporate America.
If the speech fell short on concrete specific on bringing national debt under control, before pointing the fingers, we should all look into our bathroom mirror.
When the AMERICAN PUBLIC comes out of its stupor and faces reality in terms of both spending and revenue (taxes), then and only then can Obama become more blunt and specific on the subject. MEANWHILE, he is wise to that negotiating on a different forum. Your Congressperson
from YOUR distrct might start the ball rolling if you will take the trouble to contact them.
He is right - the speech was "centrist" in the sense that it was quite average, designed to strike a chord in the mushy middle. It had just enough stirring verbiage to resemble an inspiring speech, but not enough specifics to commit him to anything.
Bull. That would assume that he wasn't already in the center or was maybe a wee bit on the left before. He wasn't. This was more appeasement and buying into the right wing extremist agenda and message.
i CAN HARDLY WAIT FOR 2012 TO SEE IF PALIN AND BACHMANN VOTE FOR HIM !!
No mention was made of the 99ers, outsourcing, or trade policy.
The speech might be remembered as much for, what it did not say.
Even if he is a one term president, he is financially secure for life. As are all those now serving in Congress.
If the ship of state goes down, the captain and crew will have a very comfortable life raft.
How many of us can make the same claim? Whatever happened to "Women and Children first"?