So What Was Substantially New and Good in the SOTU?

[MannyGoldstein]

Something that Obama hasn't promised in the past? Something with specifics?

[sandnsea]

1. We haven't finished his campaign agenda

Shouldn't we finish what we start before promising a bunch of new things?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Obama's Denying His Campaign Agenda

Now says he never ran on a public option, etc.

[sandnsea]

24. What was he denying in the SOTU?

I saw him pushing forward with his agenda. He did add some new reprimands to the recent SCOTUS decision and the bank tax though.

[babylonsister]

2. Manny, it sucked BIGTIME! Obama failed, and all is lost. Feel better? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

5. I Don't Think It Sucked - But I Didn't Hear Anything To Make Me Hopeful

What did you hear that was new and substantial?

[Cha]

10. I don't give a shit..you're always trying make everything

worse and bring down everyone to your level. I'm not playing your stupid whining game.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Just Use Facts.

I don't think I'm whining so much as asking questions that nobody likes the answers to.

[babylonsister]

13. You have been a negative bugger for a long time. I can't do that.

For a lot of reasons that are personal.

Go, Saints! :)

[eleny]

3. He admonished the SCOTUS

Not a promise but an uppercut delivered. Something new from any president.

[jobycom]

16. That's not new.

Abortion, school prayer, desegregation... Presidents attack SCOTUS as a matter of routine.

[eleny]

18. It was reported tonight that it never happened in a SOTU

I should have said that in my earlier reply. If it's not true, can you please provide the president who did in a SOTU and a quote? I'd like to send it to MSNBC.

[jobycom]

21. I don't know, that's possible. SOTUs have changed over the years.

They used to be more about the state of the union, now they are more often political stump speeches. You could wallow through Reagan's speeches to see if he attacked them over abortion or school prayer, though. Those were some of his favorite topics.

[eleny]

22. I'm not going there!

I was hoping you knew something specific. But please don't send me off to "wallow through". I don't have the stomach for all that sunny optimism 'n shit. :D

[depakid]

27. Not true- it has happened nine times since Wilson- Nixon & Reagan being the more recent examples

[eleny]

28. During a SOTU?

Which ones? I really do want to know when it happened so that I can send the correction to Olbermann.

If you can't provide the info today, please do PM me when you get the chance.

[depakid]

29. Absolutely- see my thread on point

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x157465

[eleny]

31. thank you, d!

i'll send him an email tomorrow morning and reference your posting. credit where credit is due.

i suppose that in the end nobody can say he broke bad, new ground with his uppercut. i'm not even feeling badly that i accepted incorrect info. at least i've got better info now. thanks again. :hi:

[Monk06]

19. Admonishing the SOTUS in a State of the Union Address is a declaration of war.

They are sitting right there twenty feet in front of
him.

Sparks will fly. And Obama was blinking mad when he
threw down the glove.

He said he would rather be a good one term president
rather than a bad two term one. The next SCOTUS nominee
will be reliably left of Sotomayor even. And don't rule
out an expansion of the court by adding a justice.

An even numbered court would prevent one justice from
becoming a majority of one. With no tie breaker the
court would have to take its job more seriously than
just being the handmaiden of one party or another.

[eleny]

23. "And don't rule out an expansion of the court by adding a justice."

I never thought I'd be for that. But at this point I'm for it and for Udall's proposal regarding the filibuster for the next Congress.

:hi:

[Renew Deal]

6. Why don't you watch it and tell us.

:dunce:

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Well, I Listened To It On The Radio - Did I Miss Hand Gestures?

Was Obama holding up signs?

[Zenlitened]

7. I think he issued his first veto threat, didn't he? Re: finance reform.

Or have there been other veto threats before now that I'm not remembering?

[MannyGoldstein]

9. And What Were The Specific Criteria That Would Cause The Veto? nt

[Romulox]

12. Any increase in domestic spending, apparently. nt

[Romulox]

11. Surge! bank into mandatory private insurance? Go ahead and ask (so long as you keep shooting)?

:shrug:

[cliffordu]

15. Bait, much?

you are the master.

[phleshdef]

17. Before you question the substance or the goodness of it, you should ask the same of your posts.

[gkhouston]

20. Does it have to be new if it's good??

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

25. Calling out the SC? Did you hear that, Manny? nt

[frazzled]

26. How about we're repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy?

He said that very clearly and forcefully.

Of course, he has to get congress to do it. But since that was passed through reconciliation, it will easily be undone there. Even the stupidest Democrat realizes that the till is empty, and we have to find a way to replenish it.

[VMI Dem]

30. Marriage not really only between a man and woman?

Really, I hope the DADT thing goes through this time.

[LWolf]

32. I was looking forward to reading all those positives

that I didn't hear last night; I didn't watch the whole thing.

Why is your post receiving attacks instead of authentic answers to your question?

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Because...

a. There was nothing substantially new and good.
b. That makes some people very uncomfortable.

[LWolf]

46. That certainly seems to fit. nt

[BklnDem75]

37. Because...

he's not interested in the answers. Just like his poll thread, it's looking for a reason to piss on the SOTU address. As shown in this very thread, every honest answer was met with his downplaying the speech. The only authentic thing is his bitterness.

[babylonsister]

38. Oooh, SNAP! Exactly!

:thumbsup:

[Jakes Progress]

39. Got no specifics?

So you do what you condemn the OP for doing. Show me where he replied to an honest answer by downplaying anything. You sort of play out your hand by replying with personal projections that show you haven't even read the thread.

He said the speech was good, but lacked specifics that he noted. Several here have replied with the things they found to be refreshing. But there is the usual gang to attack, without any substantive argument, anything that they decide is not pure enough.

Me. I liked the speech. I liked him calling out the Court. I love that there are videos of alito behaving like a nasty little child. I like that he says the war will end. I like it that he says we will do something about DADT. I like it that he suggests that the tax cuts for rich will go away. I like his suggestion that the banks pay us back.

But like Manny. I don't see anything really new other than a slight change in attitude. Let's see the suggestions made manifest. The rap on Obama has been that he says a lot, that it sounds good, that it usually crumbles in the cruncher of bipartisanship.

Those of us that are looking will see what happens with those words. Those that refuse to look will keep posting personal attacks on those who do.

[BklnDem75]

40. What were you expecting to see in a SOTU address?

President Obama merely stated his goals for the new year and how he plans to achieve those goals. Did you expect to see something happen as the words came out his mouth? Perhaps a proclamation that we will no longer work with the other party? While you may focus on the things that crumbled in the cruncher, I'll focus on the fact that he's at least TRYING to get things done.

[Jakes Progress]

43. Wasn't expecting anything. I watched

because he is my president. I watched because I campaigned and voted for him. I watched to see what he would say.

It was a nice speech. Probably best since the race speech.

But the OP simply asked if anyone saw anything new? Then the UC just started jumping up and down and having fits. I've already said what I saw and what I liked. I also said that I would wait and see if this stuff gets moved forward. I have a vested interest in him being reelected. I think if he can actually do the stuff he says, he might make it.

But the UC has to take any question as an attack, as heresy, as blasphemy. I guess your answer to the OP would be that, no you didn't see anything new or different. That is what OP asked.

[LWolf]

45. So the responders

are engaging in prejudice, preferring to attack the messenger rather than address the message.

I see. Politics as usual.

[Overseas]

34. Reminding Democrats of their majority and urging them not to run for the hills.

Pushing jobs in 2010, saying the freezing would not begin until 2011 and would not affect Medicare Medicaid and Social Security, specifying the trillions in debt left to him by the prior administration.

Still too much "New Democrat" junk that was outdated already in the 90's.

Nice new positioning of green jobs and green tech to get at jingoistic Republicans-- do you want the USA to be second best?

[avaistheone1]

41. We already are second best.

Places like China and Germany are way ahead of us on green technology like solar panels - while we are busy investing ourselves in worthless and endless wars and violence.

[Overseas]

44. Yes that's true but let's not let our greening leaves us as far behind as we are in health care.

Maybe we can be 6th in green stuff instead of 37th.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

35. I don't know if it's new but his proposal to increase Pell grants and relieve

student debt was good.

[harun]

36. What was new is the courage to blame those who deserve it. The Senate, SCOTUS, etc.

[dionysus]

42. wow, manny's not impressed... who'da thunk it?

:eyes: