Skip to main content

President Obama's State of the Union Address and the GOP's response

I won't spend a great deal of time writing about the president's speech last night and the GOP's response, but thought I'd touch on both briefly.

First off, I personally feel this was one of President Obama's best speeches in years. While he's always been a great orator, that fire and optimism which the country fell in love with in 2008 seemed to wane through the years, but appeared to be back on full display last night. Perhaps it's because he doesn't have to worry about another election and can talk like he has nothing to lose. Maybe with how the elections went this past November and knowing that a majority of Americans agree with him on a number of issues (even if they don't realize it), that helped to reignite the fire as well. Whatever it was, the President Obama from last night reminded millions of Americans why they voted for him in the first place back in the 2008 election. He was frank, hopeful, displayed a willingness to reach out to the other side and compromise, but also made it clear that if Congressional Republicans don't work with Democrats to move this country forward, he can and will utter a nasty four-letter word in their direction - veto. It was refreshing to see and hear the fire and fight back in the president. I only hope it carries over through these final two years of his term. Overall, I'd give the speech an "A" grade. While I was satisfied with the content of the speech, it was the fire in his words and tone that really grabbed a hold of me and wouldn't let go.

Iowa Senator Joni Ernst gave the "official" GOP response (there were four others). Honestly, I often times feel sorry for the chosen speakers of these rebuttals. It's almost always a lose-lose situation. When the videos are pre-recorded, it sounds as if the speakers didn't actually listen to the speech, as they tend to speak in cliches, talking points, and generalities. Next to the word "vague" in the dictionary is the picture of these very speakers. When the speeches aren't pre-recorded, we then have awkward Marco-Rubio-reaching-for-a-water-bottle-while-sweating-profusely kinds of moments. So, like I said, it tends to be a lose-lose situation. To her credit, Joni Ernst's speech was fairly short and wasn't the worst rebuttal I'd ever heard. Of course, it was nothing special either, and unfortunately for her, the only thing that people seem to remember about her speech was the bit about her wearing "bread bags" on her feet when she was a child. Yes, there are already several memes circulating the web about this. As is typical in such speeches, she was very vague, attempted to say that all opinions were welcome, including the president's, but unfortunately, all of his opinions are wrong and the American people have been suffering the past six years as a result. She really got placed in a bad situation here. Not only did she get placed in the undesirable position of responding to the president's speech like so many before her, she had to try and bash the president and his policies, even when the news in economic circles is better than its been for a number of years. When unemployment is down, the recession is over, gas prices are down, consumer confidence is up, more people have health insurance, the GDP increased a great deal in the third quarter, the market numbers are back and higher than ever, etc., it'd be quite difficult for any Congressional Republican to say, "We're worse off now than we were when the president stepped into office six years ago!" So, overall, I'd probably give Ernst a "C" grade. She was brief, predictably vague, and I have to at least feel partially bad for her to be placed in that precarious and unenviable position.

If you perhaps missed the president's speech and/or Senator Ernst's rebuttal, you can read the transcripts and/or view the speeches at the following links:

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/20/378680818/transcript-president-obamas-state-of-the-union-address

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8LqG_Ld0Dw

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/gop-response-transcript-joni-ernst-gop-response-114423.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"