mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

President Obama’s Best State Of The Union Speech

The State of the Union was upbeat and positive, and that’s saying a lot from me, a pessimist. Now I know those on the right will tell you everything that was  wrong with the president’s speech; heck, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Gov. Mitt Romney told  America what they thought of the president’s speech before he even uttered a  word!

Personally, I felt the president hit it out of the park—his best State of the Union speech and hopefully his fourth, not his last.

Starting out with thanking the U.S. military, he pointed out that for the first time in nine years  we’re no longer in Iraq, and more importantly, that we’re safer and we’re more respected throughout the world. And of  course, there was the huge applause when he  mentioned that for the first time in over two decades, we’re no longer fearful of the wrath of Osama bin Laden.

I personally loved when the president referred to how our military  operates, and how we as a nation and how the government should operate: focus on the mission at hand and do it working together. With the lowest approval rating of Congress ever and polls showing that Americans clearly want both sides of  the aisle to work together to get things done, the president, I believe, was  speaking to all Americans and  to all of our frustrations with our government.

I also liked how the president painted a picture of what could be. He pointed out America’s values; except for one remark about the  administration that preceded him, he didn’t blame former President Bush, which I found refreshing and necessary.

He was bold when he specifically stated that the banks were wrong and irresponsible in lending money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it  back.

He gave facts about job loss: 4 million jobs lost before he entered  office, millions more before his policies were implemented.

I found that the president was being humble when he spoke of the jobs that businesses  created–not he, his administration, or Congress.

When the president spoke of American values, it didn’t have to do with church or  religion; it had to do with our work ethic—from American  manufacturing to GM regaining its title as the number one automaker in the world. Even the Republicans had to clap on that one.

And for a president who is constantly accused of wanting to tax America to death, he was talking about a lot of tax credits going  around: tax credits for making  products here in America, tax breaks for  small business owners—rewarding those  who keep and develop jobs here,  and stopping the rewards going to companies that  send their jobs  overseas. (Sidenote: Eric Cantor looked angry about that–hmm…)

Then the president went on to other things America values, other things that make  our nation great, and what could make us greater: education. He linked education  with the ability to increase a person’s  income in the future. And he made it  personal when he spoke of every  person in the chamber who has a teacher they liked, remembered, etc. I  found myself nodding at that remark.

He reached out to Hispanics with the DREAM act, although never  mentioning it by name. He touched the unions in speaking about manufacturing, teachers, and the  auto industry. And he even gave a  shout out to us ladies with the desire for us  to earn equal pay for the  jobs we do that men do. (Woo hoo!)

The bottom line is, although this speech is about governing, it is a  campaign year. I felt the president reminded Americans of where we are, how far we’ve come, and where we could be headed with him at the helm. He spoke of the facts  rather than the fiction Americans so often  hear in the media. And if America were a ship, he showed us with his words that he is more than up to the task of being the ship’s captain for the next four years.

 

By: Leslie Marshall, U. S. News and World Report, January 25, 2012

January 25, 2012 Posted by | Election 2012 | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“A Club Of Coddled Millionaires”: Newt Gingrich Is Obama’s Best Surrogate

The most important figure in Tuesday night’s State of the Union address wasn’t on the House floor. In fact, he hasn’t taken a seat in front of the chamber in 13 years.

But as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination in Florida, former House speaker Newt Gingrich was doing more to boost President Obama’s reelection prospects than anything Obama himself could do.

Obama’s address, which marked the unofficial start of his campaign, aimed to take the economic misery that threatens to doom his reelection and turn it into class resentment: the privileged wealthy against ordinary Americans. “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by,” he said, in remarks prepared for delivery. “Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

Gingrich assisted in making this case by helpfully arranging for Republicans to serve as fat-cat foils. The former speaker, whose allies had already branded Mitt Romney  a job-destroying “predatory capitalist,” successfully goaded the former Massachusetts governor into releasing tax returns that reveal him to be making millions of dollars per year from investments and paying paltry tax rates — while tucking money in the Cayman Islands, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock and a Swiss bank account. Gingrich exulted Tuesday that the already rich Romney is “getting richer off Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

Romney, suddenly faltering in his bid for the nomination, found himself declaring in Florida on Tuesday that “banks aren’t bad people” — a version of his earlier claim that “corporations are people.” He continued to characterize Gingrich as an “influence peddler,” a tool of K Street and an exorbitantly compensated Freddie Mac lobbyist. Gingrich’s campaign, in turn, answered with the implausible claim that it “can’t find” all of the lucrative contracts the candidate had with Freddie. (Did they look under the sofa cushions?)

Obama strategist David  Axelrod couldn’t have arranged it better: On the very day the president tried to turn the campaign into a contest between the 1 percent and the 99 percent, the Republicans launched an all-out war between the Gingrich haves and the Romney ­have-mores.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows the damage done. Two weeks ago, Romney was viewed favorably by 39 percent of Americans and unfavorably by 34 percent. Incredibly, he is now viewed favorably by only 31 percent and unfavorably by 49 percent. Among independents, who will decide the outcome in November, Romney is viewed unfavorably by a margin of 2-to-1.

By no coincidence Obama has grown in public esteem over that time. His favorable rating is up to 53 percent from 48 percent in December, and his unfavorable rating has dropped to 43 percent from 49 percent.

Gingrich himself remains so unpopular that his own chances of beating Obama seem dim: His 29 percent favorability rating is about where it was before he was dumped as speaker by his House colleagues in 1998. But by making Romney as unpopular as he is, he has made Obama look good by comparison.

Gingrich has long regarded himself as a “transformational figure” in world history, and now he’s about to prove it: For the second time in his career, he is about to reelect a Democratic president.

After he led Republicans to victory in 1994 and became House speaker, his ill-advised standoff with President Bill Clinton led to a government shutdown and allowed Clinton to rebound to an easy reelection in 1996. Now, just two years after Republicans swept to power in the House, Gingrich is again providing a Democratic president with an unexpected path to victory.

To press his Gingrich-given advantage Obama made plans to highlight the “Buffett Rule” and invited to the speech Warren Buffett’s secretary, who supposedly pays a higher tax rate than Buffett does. “Let’s never forget,” Obama said in his prepared text, “millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs.”

But it was hardly necessary for Obama to make the case. Gingrich had already turned the Republican candidates into a club of coddled millionaires.

 

By: Dana Milbank, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, January 24, 2012

January 25, 2012 Posted by | Election 2012, GOP Presidential Candidates | , , , , , , | Leave a comment