Jim in Anchorage Posted January 28, 2010 Author Posted January 28, 2010 TOTUS tweets during the address Big Guy says repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will make Aghan Muslims nervous, but Kabul will evenutally look fabulous
keepthefaith Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 The speech had a more non-partisan tone which I thought was good. Surprised to hear him mention nuclear power plants and oil drilling. It was a bit "all things to all people" and would require huge spending to do it all. I thought the Republican response was very weak. Sometimes it's better to say nothing. What happens or not beginning tomorrow matters a lot more.
IDBillzFan Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 It was a bit "all things to all people"... What happens or not beginning tomorrow matters a lot more. In other words, it was another SOTU address. His rightward nods are normal in this setting, and while it was an interesting speech, I walked away thinking "Now here's a guy who is sticking to his original convictions." All the pre-speech rhetoric about him "pivoting" was very believable to me. I truly thought he'd have a Clinton moment. But he didn't turn right any more than he did when he said he'd address tort reform in his health care speech to congress. Sounds good...but months later? Never touched. So it will be with his spending freeze, drilling, etc. In the end, he's moving forward with his original plan, and I applaud him for sticking to his guns. I'm not sure how you plan to spend, spend, spend and then say "I want to freeze spending," but we'll see, I guess. One other thing that stuck out: many times I've called out Obama for walking the thin line between implied and inferred. He says one thing, you interpret what he said as something else, and last night you heard the beginning of the ass-covering from someone who has implied/inferred mastered. The three words you're likely to hear a lot, in one form or another, during the next year: "I never said..." It started last night and will probably be used a lot between now and November.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Anyone see the reaction of the military commanders when he announced his plan to let queers serve openly? Good ol' Al Franken was sitting directly behind them, looking all giddy. The generals/admirals looked like they wanted to tear the CiC a new one. Oh, and Alito seems to think Barack Obama's a liar too. I'll side with the SC justice.
erynthered Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 http://www.breitbart.tv/132-the-number-of-...-in-one-speech/ "Its not about me"
IDBillzFan Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Anyone see the reaction of the military commanders when he announced his plan to let queers serve openly? Good ol' Al Franken was sitting directly behind them, looking all giddy. The generals/admirals looked like they wanted to tear the CiC a new one. Oh, and Alito seems to think Barack Obama's a liar too. I'll side with the SC justice. It is my understanding that military commanders, like members of the Supreme Court, are not to applaud or react to statements of policy that involve them. At first I thought they were snubbing him, but I read later they were just following protocol. That doesn't mean they didn't look like they wanted to kick his ass; just that you can't read in their non-response. The Alito thing was funny, but interesting as well as I've been reading this morning that Obama really stepped out of line in addressing a Supreme Court ruling in front of the Supreme Court during a major address. Something about coming off as threatening them. I'm not a SOTU scholar, and it certainly didn't strike me as odd that he did that. But a second person gets caught calling you a liar while addressing congress? My friend would say "Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, and I don't believe in coincidences."
erynthered Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 It is my understanding that military commanders, like members of the Supreme Court, are not to applaud or react to statements of policy that involve them. At first I thought they were snubbing him, but I read later they were just following protocol. That doesn't mean they didn't look like they wanted to kick his ass; just that you can't read in their non-response. The Alito thing was funny, but interesting as well as I've been reading this morning that Obama really stepped out of line in addressing a Supreme Court ruling in front of the Supreme Court during a major address. Something about coming off as threatening them. I'm not a SOTU scholar, and it certainly didn't strike me as odd that he did that. But a second person gets caught calling you a liar while addressing congress? My friend would say "Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, and I don't believe in coincidences." It almost looks like he called him an assshole. Check out the video of it.
Peevo Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 This is not the first time the executive and the judicial branches have been at odds. Remember the "court-packing" scandal that got FDR a lot of negative press in the 1930's? Bush had a lot of negative things to say about the court when they ruled against his habeus corpus suspension of terrorists in Guantanamo. The court is weird. I'm in two constitutional law classes. It just has a ridiculous amount of power and control over policy, more so than most Americans truly understand. Just a quick policy point, I still don't understand how gays being open in the military equates to being a bad servicemen. Rachel Maddow had a HIGHLY decorated Air Force pilot on, his name escapes me, but he's served during the Gulf War, 2 tours in Iraq, and was shipping out to Afghanistan until his CO outed him and he was effectively fired from the military for being gay. By his resume you'd absolutely consider him a true patriot. Someone please show me some empirical, hard data on how being gay equates you to being a bad soldier and I'll shut up. But seriously. Scan the journals (American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, etc) and show me some hard evidence. And no, I don't mean some pundits take on it or a Republican congressman's take, I want quantifiable, hard, statistically significant data. Something that a political scientist studied and got published. I'm willing to bet this doesn't exist.
KD in CA Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Someone please show me some empirical, hard data on how being gay equates you to being a bad soldier and I'll shut up. When has anyone suggested that being gay makes one a bad solider? Isn't it a morale issue? That they don't want to make 50 other guys uncomfortable just so one guy can be "out"?
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 When has anyone suggested that being gay makes one a bad solider? Isn't it a morale issue? That they don't want to make 50 other guys uncomfortable just so one guy can be "out"? Well that argument (not that you're making it) is BS. What if 50 racist soldiers are uncomfortable with an Asian member of their ranks? So why are we concerned with 50 homophobic soldiers?
bartshan-83 Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Well that argument (not that you're making it) is BS. What if 50 racist soldiers are uncomfortable with an Asian member of their ranks? So why are we concerned with 50 homophobic soldiers? I was going to respond with something very similar...those are my thoughts. I've never been in the military so I won't pretend to speak from any sort of experience on what sorts of issues an openly gay soldier might cause, but I think its a childish and self-centered approach to allow it to be a problem. You don't like that a fellow soldier is gay? So what. Grow up and do your job. And KD...we gotta do something about your signature, bud. I read it for the first time today and for a minute I started wondering when I said something so stupid. You're killin me...
pBills Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 When has anyone suggested that being gay makes one a bad solider? Isn't it a morale issue? That they don't want to make 50 other guys uncomfortable just so one guy can be "out"? Dear god, if our soldiers would worry about that on the battlefield then we have bigger issues.
Magox Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 This is not the first time the executive and the judicial branches have been at odds. Remember the "court-packing" scandal that got FDR a lot of negative press in the 1930's? umm, no.
IDBillzFan Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 When has anyone suggested that being gay makes one a bad solider? Isn't it a morale issue? That they don't want to make 50 other guys uncomfortable just so one guy can be "out"? Obama campaigned on this, so he should make it happen. I don't think there's any way to predict the results until it's in place. Drop the policy and let them be who they are or want to be in public. Let's see what happens. Worst case scenario, the military eventually comprises homosexuals, we invade Yemen with a Gay Pride Parade like they have in San Francisco -- complete with them dressed in drag, flaunting their new sequinned boas -- and terrorists just quit right in their tracks. No one dies. Everyone is happy.
Magox Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Well that argument (not that you're making it) is BS. What if 50 racist soldiers are uncomfortable with an Asian member of their ranks? So why are we concerned with 50 homophobic soldiers? At the end of the day, the duty of our military commanders is to ensure the safest and most effective environment for our soldiers to succeed. Personally, on the surface I don't see a problem with repealing Don't Ask don't tell, but if our military leaders say that they are against it and make compelling arguments supporting their thesis , then I would go with their recommendation as opposed to some elected official who has never stepped foot on the battlefield.
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 At the end of the day, the duty of our military commanders is to ensure the safest and most effective environment for our soldiers to succeed. Personally, on the surface I don't see a problem with repealing the Don't Ask don't tell, but if our military leaders say that that they are against it and make compelling arguments supporting their thesis , then I would go with their recommendation as opposed to some elected official who has never stepped foot on the battlefield. The bigger issue is the one I had with "Don't ask, don't tell" to begin with: the military should not be used as a mechanism for driving social reform. If society isn't ready to accept gays, forcing the military to isn't going to change that. Having said that..."Don't ask, don't tell" was one of the most idiotic decisions to come out of the presidency in a while. In true Clinton fashion, it was a compromise designed to be as inoffensive as possible that offended everyone and resulted in absolutely nothing meaningful.
Booster4324 Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Obama campaigned on this, so he should make it happen. I don't think there's any way to predict the results until it's in place. Drop the policy and let them be who they are or want to be in public. Let's see what happens. Worst case scenario, the military eventually comprises homosexuals, we invade Yemen with a Gay Pride Parade like they have in San Francisco -- complete with them dressed in drag, flaunting their new sequinned boas -- and terrorists just quit right in their tracks. No one dies. Everyone is happy.
Recommended Posts