Obama's speech last night

boyohboyohboy wrote: I admitt, I dont usually listen to these speechs, before Obama was elected or now..
but last night I did. I was surprised how stressed and well down, to earth he sounded..he was sarcastic and really put it out there..his comments were not what I am used to hearing a president say. He actually addressed the talk radio people who speak against his plans...
I know that Bush was not the best speaker..and usually the press sec. sounds so monotone and rehearsed, but this speech really sounded like he was speaking off the cuff.
I also thought he looked less "made up" he was looking really stressed and tired, and no suite last night??

I pretty much understand that he is tired of fighting about this bill, but I wouldnt think it would surprise him to meet such resistance...

CantWait replied: I read that he actually ignored the teleprompter.

boyohboyohboy replied:
It wasnt that it was bad, it was just not like any speech I have ever heard a pres. speak.

lovemy2 replied: Good for him I say - not that I say he is right or wrong on his stimulus package but I like the fact that he is "real" its about time the President himself speaks....and acts like himself.

jcc64 replied: I thought the speech was really good, as was the one I heard at the prayer breakfast yesterday morning. He spoke about charity and religion with a clarity and a forthrightness I have seldom if ever heard from a politician.
I'm captivated by his intelligence and his ability to articulate his thoughts diplomatically but passionately. It's not an easy thing to do--god knows I haven't figured it out yet. But as an English teacher, I'm eternally grateful to have a leader so in command of the language for a change.

boyohboyohboy replied: some of the news print I have seen on him lately, says that the man who we saw in the race for election was a man that was told what to say and how to say it, that he is not that way in real life..that he has a temper and is much more of a lose cannon..
I thought last night really showed that, more then the person he portrayed himself to be.

I think it just surprised me, not that it wasnt professional persay, but it wasn't what I expected from a leader..again, I am not talking about content at all, just delivery.

Our Lil' Family replied: I love listening to him speak...in front of a podium or sitting for an interview. I think he's more real than any other President that I can remember. Michelle is the same way, they are down to earth people and I love that I really feel like I can relate to them and vise versa. I did not vote for the man but so far I appreciate him.

msoulz replied: He is a dramatic change from W, who always looked to me like a puppet on a string when he spoke.

jcc64 replied:

Every politician is handled--given advice about what to say, how to say it, etc...Ronald Reagan spoke at my school, and EVERYTHING was scripted, the jokes, which way to turn his head at which moment, everything. It was mind-blowing.
I'd say if you want evidence of someone's ability to be real or to think on the fly, which imo is a genuine sign of intelligence, pay attention to how he comes off in unscripted situations. Me, I'm very comfortable with Obama's temperament, it's one of the reasons I voted for him. If you're predisposed to not liking him, you will be inclined to believe whatever article it is that claims he's a "loose canon," which for all the things I've heard about him, is a new one by me.

boyohboyohboy replied:
I am around lots of people right now who are not a fan of Obama, but I wouldnt say that I dont like him..I so far really dont know how I feel. i dont like a lot of the things in the stimulus package..I dont like a lot of the things he stands for..I was against some of his positions he campaigned for..but he isnt my clone so we wont be 100% on everything. I pray for his choices and his family daily. I cant imagine being in his shoes. and he has to be smart to be where he is..
I am still waiting to see what happens to us for now..then decide if he was someone I should trust. I thought it was just something unusual to point out as this isnt something I am used to seeing a president at all.
His speaking manner is definately different then what I have seen...
and I am only becoming more knowledgeable about politics.
I try to watch unbiased news..but really how do I decide if it is
fox news is where I mostly listen..

MommyToAshley replied: I've seen him speak to the press quite a bit lately about the stimulus package, but I missed the speech you are referring to. I agree that he is intelligent and articulate, but I am a little disappointed that he is not sticking with his promises he made when running for office.

I am also disappointed in our elected representatives. They are too busy running for re-election in 2010 and playing party politics to sit down and come up with a good stimulus package. Both sides say they want bi-partisanship, but both sides are sticking with party line votes.

jcc64 replied:

Fox News is notoriously known as a mouthpiece of the conservative movement. They are in no way, shape, or form unbiased, and I don't think they make much of an effort to disguise their ideology. People who like that ideology will obviously find their bias acceptable and maybe even undetectable, but if you know anything about Rupert Murdoch's (owner of Fox and the New York Post) political disposition, it will make perfect sense to you. He has an agenda, and that is to promote the interests of the Republican party in general, and the far right specifically. Obviously, then, it would follow that they would not be happy about Obama's election and would leave no stone unturned in an effort to discredit him.
In no way am I suggesting that this doesn't happen in the other direction. (watch MSNBC and you'll see what i mean) All media is controlled to a lesser or greater degree by the corporate interests that control them. It's important to keep that in mind as you accept or reject sources as "unbiased."

boyohboyohboy replied:
how can a news program say then "fair and balanced" and not report what is actually fair and balanced..I guess its niave of me to think that saying on such a public forum should have some kind of merit, I mean like someone or a group that makes sure they are telling what is true..
Isnt it slander or what ever legal term to just get on tv and lie?

Crystalina replied:
I think their "fair and balanced" thing started because they are always accused of not being fair and balanced. I'm not a fan of Fox by any means but I really find humor in that little slogan every time I hear it (which is a lot because dh watches it ALL the time).

jcc64 replied:

Did you ever hear that Shakespeare quote, "Thou dost protest too much"? Meaning, if you have to INSIST that something is true, over and over again, chances are, that's because it isn't.
Trusting marketing slogans to be true is asking to be taken advantage of. Buyer beware, reader beware. Always, always, always, examine underlying motivations. If Rupert Murdoch is a staunch conservative, which he makes no effort to conceal, don't you think that the network news organization that he OWNS, is going to reflect his values?

cameragirl21 replied:
I think the actual quote is, "methinks the lady doth protest too much." And it means she is lying, kind of like when you get caught doing something you shouldn't have and you keep saying, "I swear I wasn't doing anything, I swear it, etc"
That has happened to me before.

cameragirl21 replied: ah, I stand corrected, I looked it up and it's actually, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks"
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/l...o-much-methinks

boyohboyohboy replied: my dh is a talk radio addict to a lot of what I hear is from that..via him.
my main reason for not listening to that is it ALWAYS all doom and gloom..
I am not always the most positive person so that kind of talk isnt good for me. I dont like it..my dh is addicted and thinks that it is all golden..
now also most of those people on there like Beck, Hannity, Ingram, are fellow christians so it was something that I thought could be mostly true.
I wish there was something more along the lines then of an unbiased news that still had christian values..

jem0622 replied: His demeanor and down-to-earth delivery is what pulled me in from the start. I appreciate his honesty, and admitting his wrongs.

I think that there are families hurting from layoff of one or more wage earners in their household who could use the money...but it really is just a drop in the bucket. What the nation needs is righting of fundamental/insitutional wrongs to stop the bleeding. Americans (and businesses) need a steady stream of revenue...not just a one-time handout. And the fact that gas prices are going back up is just for the birds when Exxon is posting billions in revenues. What are they doing to help our economy....besides sitting fat and happy? How about they help repair bridges and roads that their trucks deliver the gasoline on? Or giving to food pantries? Or offering lots of entry level jobs to Americans?

It's tough all the way around. He is a President faced with far more challenge than many in recent history. I hope everyone keeps that in mind before they judge. And I hope that we can recover.

jcc64 replied:

What I find deeply disturbing is that his ideological opponents are doing everything in their power to impede his success, which in the end, means we all go down with him. Unemployment rose to 7 % today--another 600,000 jobs were lost. We're in big trouble, people.
The Senate Republicans are all having tantrums about the absence of tax cuts, which imo would be hilarious if the situation wasn't so dire. Over the course of the last 8 yrs, we had nothing but tax cuts. How'd that work out for everyone? Well, we know how it worked out for the richest 10%, but how about for the rest of us?
The sign of a real idiot is someone who tries to solve a problem the same way over and over again and expects different results. If it didn't work the last time, why would it work now?

luvmykids replied:
I think the key is not so much whether it's true or not, just the persons perspective, kwim? Of course someone more liberal is going to have different perspective than someone on the far right...I'm with you, I wish there were a source that was truly unbiased and in the middle.

MommyToAshley replied:
Actually, I think it is disturbing how both sides are acting. It's all politics as usual when our elected officials should be coming together to do what is right for our country. I have no doubt that there are republicans that are blocking the bill just because they don't want Obama to claim any sort of victory so fast. But, I also believe there are some that feel as 68% of the Americna population does -- that this bill is full of spending that will not do anything to stimuate the economy. I don't think you can spend your way out of a recession any more than you can tax cut your way out of it.

The democrats are no better. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, basically said that the democrats won the majority of the seats in the house and they will pass the bill as is and republican support is not needed. This is true, but how is that working together?

I am angry and furious that it is politics as usual at a time when we need our leaders to put their own political agendas aside and work together to come up with a stimulus plan that will help our country.

jcc64 replied: I hear what you're saying, Dee Dee, and I'm certainly not canonizing Congressional Democrats. However, what the Republicans are calling for is a continuation of what we've already been doing for the last 8 yrs. It's not working, we need to try something else at this point. Tax cuts didn't work before, except for the rich people who didn't need relief in the first place, and they're not going to work now. How is a tax cut going to help someone with no income?
It remains to be seen whether we can spend our way out of this mess, though I have to point out that's how we got out of the last comparable one--the Great Depression. I don't think Obama or anyone else expects this to be the perfect solution. It's simply intended to give relief to those who most need it, and compensate for the astronomical holes that have been dug by past policies. For example, Obama's proposal contained federal aid intended to compensate for state budget cuts. In my own children's fairly small school school, 12 teachers, along with social workers, received a pink slip b/c the district cannot close the budget gap created by rescinded state aid. Obama's plan would have saved those teacher's jobs, and maintained the quality of my kids' education. Now, thanks to the Republicans demands, it's off the table, my kids will lose services and programs, sit in classes of 35 kids in a building badly in need of repairs that now won't happen,and 15 more people will be on unemployment and not spending money. That's one tiny example.
It's just supposed to give relief to those who need it most. If saving jobs and providing safety nets for people who are suffering can be dismissed as useless "Democratic pet projects," I don't know where the dialogue begins. 57 out of 60 Republicans didn't back the bill. How is anything supposed to get done if they're going to have a 4 yr temper tantrum? They had the reigns for 8 long years, in all 3 branches, and I don't recall any reaching across the aisle in any way, shape, or form during that time. If the American people were so enamored of the Republican agenda, they would have returned them to office. They need to get over themselves. The people have spoken loud and clear, it's just that they're not listening.

MommyToAshley replied:
I don't think either party is coming out smelling too rosey if you ask me.
They did cut $20 billion from schools, but there is still $40 billion left in the bill that will go to education and schools. With that said, I don't agree with this cut and think they could have cut elsewhere and left the funding for schools in there. I also think they should have left the state funding.. big mistake if you ask me.

On the positive side, some needless spending was cut. And, some positive things were added. Some of the things republicans pushed to have cut include:
$65 million for watershed rehabilitation
$75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)
122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters
$122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use
$55 million for historic preservation
...just to name a few. While some of these may be worthwhile causes, I don't see how they will stimulate the economy and they can wait until we have balanced our budget.

And, more support to the housing industry was also added. I think job creation (through tax incentives) and the housing industry is where the stimulus package should be focusing anyways.

jcc64 replied:

Definitely not a necessity, especially since all the ice is melting!
You're right, ita, I'm sure there is plenty of fat to trim out of the bill, and I'm glad it's being scrutinized in this way. The Smithsonian will have to make due with whatever they've got in their collection right now. Museums, as fabulous as they are, are going to have to wait at the back of the line behind kids and healthcare and food stamps and infrastructure, imo.
I'm just concerned that the arguments I've been hearing about are fundamental differences in philosophy, and if you're inclined to think the ONLY way out is to cut taxes, as has been suggested by the media, there isn't a lot of room for negotiation. Maybe that's not the case, maybe the media is piling on the most resistant Republicans and making them all look like Dr. Evil.
In the end, ita that the typical tit-for-tat partisan bickering is infuriating at a critical time like this, and I can also see why Nancy Pelosi would alienate you. I find her incredibly grating, even though I usually agree with politics.

coasterqueen replied: Al I will say, since I know my opinion won't be favored is Dee Dee I agree with you 100%


And I have to at the thought that all other news stations accept FOX are fair and balanced.

MommyToAshley replied:
See -- We do have some common ground.

jcc64 replied:

Who said or even implied THAT, Karen? It's not part of my own ideology, so it certainly wasn't me.