Opinion Forum

Obama’s State of the Union

January 31st, 2010

A number of the President’s critics have opined that he didn’t say anything new in the State of the Union Address and mainly tried to rally Democrats to support him. To the contrary, I think three important aspects of the address are pretty clear.

The first is what he actually proposed. Politico has an excellent article discussing the President’s proposals from the SOTU and the possibilities that they might happen. Two examples:

Despite the fact that health care reform was the centerpiece of his first-year agenda, it’s on life support at best. He didn’t talk much about it, but he did urge the majority to continue working on health insurance reform, saying “Don’t walk away from reform….” That was taken by some as a criticism of the Senate, which took so long to pass its version of the bill that there was no chance of final passage last year. In any case, given the negative dynamics between the House and Senate, the chance for passage of a version of the present bills is grim.

The President said he was ready to push for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year. He was vague about details, but based on past performance, he can be expected to push for Congress to take action rather than making the policy changes that are already within his authority. In any case, the time is ripe for repeal of DADT, and it’s likely to happen in 2010.

The second important thing to note in the SOTU is Obama’s direct criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which went against precedent and ruled that corporations may engage in direct financing to influence elections. Obama takes the position that the ruling permits foreign companies to make unlimited campaign contributions, which is an exaggeration. More significant than the issue itself is the specter of the President challenging the Supreme Court openly in a state of the union address. That was at least as inappropriate as Congressman Joe Wilson calling the President a liar during a speech to a joint session.

Finally, we saw the President backtracking in the face of pressure from electoral losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey; overwhelming public disapproval of his health care reform agenda; opposition to the way he’s handling captured terrorists; the looming failure of his energy agenda; and the overall inability of Congress to deliver, despite large majorities in both houses. As I wrote in an earlier article,

[Obama] ducks and weaves his way around obstacles, never confronting challenges head-on, never engaging in direct combat that can wound or kill. He’s the brilliant golden boy, after all, and everything can be forgiven. He’s not the kind of man who could fight his way through the corporate world to become a CEO, and he wouldn’t make it far in the military. But he’s a perfect politician, a force unto himself, who managed to become President of the United States without ever having done much that was hard or dangerous.

Instead of worrying about Obama the ideologue with a socialist agenda to destroy America, as some do, we might do better to worry about Obama the politician who bends and twists in the wind whenever he’s really opposed. We might be better off if he had fixed political ideas and more backbone.

Articles written by Tom Carter
Tags: Congress, DADT, health care, Obama, SOTU, Supreme Court
Categories: News, Politics | Comments (6) | Home

6 Responses to “Obama’s State of the Union”

Clarissa | January 31st, 2010 at 12:39 pm

“Instead of worrying about Obama the ideologue with a socialist agenda to destroy America, as some do, we might do better to worry about Obama the politician who bends and twists in the wind whenever he’s really opposed. We might be better off if he had fixed political ideas and more backbone.”

-Exactly! This summarizes perfectly how I feel about Obama. This is precisely why he is losing popularity and support and will continue to do so. It’s very hard to support a politician who keeps changing his position at the slightest provocation.

Great analysis!

Lisa | January 31st, 2010 at 3:19 pm

I thought it was interesting that Obama skirted national security and terrorism issues to the extent that he did not even introduce his guests, the 2 police officer heroes who apprehended the Fort Hood terrorist and ended his rampage. Introducing them would have brought up a difficult subject for Obama and set the stage for him to discuss national security which he chose to shirk even though it is a top concern for the citizens of this country.

Tom | January 31st, 2010 at 4:27 pm

Thanks, Lisa. I had read that the two Fort Hood police officers would be at the speech, but I didn’t pick up on the fact that he didn’t introduce them. There’s no rule that says he has to do it, but that’s been the tradition for a long time, and in Obama’s case it’s inevitable that not recognizing them would send a bad message.

I almost feel sorry for the guy at this point. His whole agenda is in disarray, his party is in deep trouble and beginning to snap at each other publicly, and he and the geniuses who work for him don’t seem to know what to do. But I said almost feel sorry for him — it really worries me that he doesn’t seem to have the leadership chops to actually lead when things get tough.

Lisa | January 31st, 2010 at 4:49 pm

I agree. Aside from being delusional, he does not ever take responsibility for anything. I agree that he would not have made it far in the military or up the corporate ladder. It is painful to listen to him at times especially when he continues to blame others particularly George Bush even now one year into his presidency, that in and of itself is not presidential.

Tom | January 31st, 2010 at 5:10 pm

That’s exactly right about continuing to blame everything on Bush. Even members of his own party are getting tired of it and saying so in public.

Out of all the millions of Americans who are constitutionally qualified to be president, Barack Obama isn’t the one I would have picked. But, as I’ve said before, once he was in the job I wanted him to be a successful president because the country needs it. He could still do that, if he can muster some leadership and back away from the more extreme elements of his original agenda. I think most people would support reasonable health care reform that deals with basic problems and doesn’t include bribes and sweetheart deals. Most people would support rational energy legislation aimed at encouraging lower oil use and protecting the environment. And so forth. Maybe Obama, having been smacked in the kisser a few times now, will get it together. I hope he does.

Lisa | January 31st, 2010 at 6:06 pm

I hope this is a lesson for the American people. In the future, let’s vote for someone who has demonstrated leadership ability with a strong executive resume to back it up.