For those who actually watched and listened: Was the speech, in your view, more Dem or more Repub?

[Stinky The Clown]

Reading comments here during the speech, some people aver the speech was repubicanish. Other said they heard a liberal Democrat speaking.

Both can't be true.

What do you think?

[Arkana]

1. Except for a few select comments about American exceptionalism

that are pretty much standard fare in any kind of big address I cannot honestly see why people are pissed off.

And then I remember where I am.

[Dappleganger]

2. His talking points sounded like a moderate republican to me.

He is an amazing, captivating speaker but most of the talking points were from the right.

[soleft]

3. Because it was truly post partisan - we don't know how to handle it

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. We aren't in a post partisan world.

The middle of the road is littered with squashed skunks.

[soleft]

10. Well we ought to be. It has to start somewhere

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. It doesn't come from unilateral surrender. n/t

[villager]

18. Yellow stripes and dead armadillos, as Jim Hightower correctly said

...about the road's middle! ;-)

[MadBadger]

4. I heard a Moderate Speech.

Probably more liberal than conservative, but still some things that people right of center like.

The kind of speech that somebody like Tweety would like (sounds like he does)

[MichiganVote]

5. They can both be true to the people who believe it.

I will say this. At least with King George I KNEW he was lying through his teeth. This guy is a lot smoother.

[rug]

6. Bipartisan.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Ooh. There goes that shiver down my leg again. n/t

[HighLowRoller87]

13. +1 on that. I agreed with some I disagreed with others but he's President to all.

[flvegan]

8. Neither. More like...tennis.

One side to the other. Not faulting it, he's in a tough position. Not lauding it, because it's really easy to talk about economic brilliance in a room largely filled with millionaires.

[Echotrail]

9. Centrist. Conflict avoidant n/t

[tridim]

12. A moderate speech by a Democratic president.

The speech was 100% Democratic in the reality based world.

[Cerridwen]

15. Bourbon Dem. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

16. Establishment, broadly corporate taintlicking party.

[snappyturtle]

17. Over-all, I think it was about 50-50....but probably the best he can

do at this time to keep some peace and create an atmosphere where something can be accomplished in COngress.
Time will time.

[bdamomma]

25. yes I agree with your comment

time will tell, but repigs I don't trust.

[humbled_opinion]

19. It was mostly Post Partisan

Many people will love it and he will get a renewed look by the American people, I say good for him.

[pacalo]

20. Pretty much to both. Terrorism talk for the R's; sending some troops home in July for the D's.

Strengthening education, keeping SS strong, improving infrastructure for D's.

Improving high-speed internet capabilities for all.

The job creation issue sounded very R: create your own damn jobs (innovation). Additionally, he bargained for 250,000 jobs from India & 50,000 (?) from Korea, & some jobs will be created from the result of high-speed rail/infrastructure construction & more tax breaks for corporations (R).

[frazzled]

21. It tried to transcend (not meld) those divisions

I would not characterize it as centrist. I think that to try to see if it was left, right, or center is to frame it in terms he was trying to characterize as outdated and unhelpful. I thought he was trying to say: we are Americans, and if we want to continue to make this a great nation for the future, we'd better damn well find a way to figure out how to get there, together. If we are going to sit around and say is this a D idea or an R idea we are going to be locked in a losing battle. We'd better come up with a new strategy. Because stasis is not going to help create a future.

He did draw a few lines in the sand (regarding Social Security, tax breaks for the wealthy, tax breaks for oil companies), but he did so in a way that fit the framework of moving the country forward in a manner that insures justice and prosperity for all -- that is to say, preserving the American dream: whether it be for education for all, a continued tradition of innovation, or inclusiveness in the military. I think he was trying to say if you believe in American values, you will put aside all these parochial concerns and Team A and Team B and get on the high-speed train to the future.

Maybe I'm sounding corny. But given the times we live in, I think this is our only option. We can't wait around for our team to win or their team to lose. We have to get on board and figure out some way to move forward. It doesn't mean there won't be fights about how to get there, but it should mean we stop the hysteria and hyperbole and roll up our sleeves and get to business.

I thought it was a pretty good speech, given the current situation of the country and its politics. He rose above it. He acted like the President of Everyone, even those who disagree with him. That's more than I could ever say of George W. Bush, who never tried to be my president at all.

[ceile]

22. I watched the entire thing.

Honestly, living in TX - did not hear anything different from Hair Perry. Teachers should be held accountable, not resources; recruitment on campus; protect our borders... Need I go on...?

[trayfoot]

23. INHO, it was absolutely a Democratic speech!

[PufPuf23]

24. SOTU speech sounded good. but does not match reality in

domestic economy and was hawkish regards to foreign military adventures -- where the applause was thunderous bi-partisan.

A resurgence in American regional and local economic niches and a decrease in war would benefit the USA and the World.

This strategy is counter to international corporations even if "American" in name.

At least, tax the rich fuckers if there is not the will to prosecute, seize assets, and imprison.

I am about 1/3rd through "A Peace to End all Peace" (Fromkin) about the Fall of the Ottoman Emprire and the formation of the current Middle East. Recommended book though close to 20 years old. A long but easy and entertaining read of history from a point of perspective perhaps more insightful than today's neo-liberal or neo-conservative narrative.