The Daniels Response

It was that rare event when the GOP response surpassed the actual State of the Union. It was what a sane Republican critique of this presidency would be. It began with a grace note on Obama's courageous assault on bin Laden and the quiet dignity of his family life – avoiding the personal demonization of a well-liked president. There were several shrewd and helpful criticisms of his own side. And there were only a couple of off-notes. I don't believe the administration has divided Americans or sought to. I don't think it's fair to describe a stimulus in a potential depression as wasteful or irresponsible.

But by reminding us of the debt, and the deep need to tackle it, he reminded us that conservatism at its best is about bringing us back to reality. And the president's maddening refusal to tackle the long-term debt and entitlement insolvency in the Bowles-Simpson opening – and his decision to keep  these themes buried under a wave of new tax breaks in his speech tonight – gave Daniels an opening, where he outclassed the man who just left the stage.

If I were merely presented de novo between Daniels' speech and Obama's, I would vote for Daniels.

One day, maybe I'll be able to vote for such a conservative again. They know they have no chance in the roiling circus that Rove and Ailes built. I just remain deeply depressed by the tedium of the president's speech, its mediocrity, its unreconstructed micro-paleo-liberalism, its lack of imagination, its political cowardice. When, for example, will this president actually make the case for his own healthcare reform – a moderate, sane, historic reform that is the centerpiece of his first term – and which he didn't mention tonight? When will he be honest about the structural problems facing this country's economic competitiveness – which cannot be solved by more people going to community colleges?

Look: I still love the guy and wish him well. But this speech shows how he has become captive to the calculators and strategists and world-weary Washingtonians. There was nothing new here, except the mortgage relief, nothing fresh, nothing inspiring, no reason given to re-elect him, except that things are improving and the alternatives are insane. It was also an artlessly written speech, that felt as if a committee – still hovered over by Bill Daley – had written it. And the one joke was awful.

It may well be enough come November. But I expected more. And the country deserves more.

The SOTU: Your Take

137673304

A reader writes:

He doesn't sound like this is his speech. He doesn't have his usual cadence and his usual enthusiasm. He sounds like he was handed this speech this afternoon and is now faxing it in.

Another writes:

I'm following your live blog, and I fear you're missing the big picture. Remember, President Obama is always playing the long game, as you so astutely argued in your Newsweek essay. So, ask yourself, what does he lose by proposing very popular (or "populist") tax reforms that energize his base, but have virtually NO chance of passing such a hostile congress? Nothing. He sets them up for further obstruction. Even if that obstruction is ultimately based on "real" fiscally conservative values, it won't matter. All the public will see is that the Republicans won't entertain any of his ideas, even those that make visceral sense to regular folks and that appeal to most Americans' sense of fairness and common sense. Yes, he's pushing some of your buttons. But think big picture here.

Another:

I am a firm supporter of Obama, and believe for the very necessary mission of restoring sanity to this country it is important that he be reelected.  However, I have to say that I am deeply disappointed with tonight's almost unserious SOTU.

This could have been a very simple speech based around very clear ideas (fairness, serious tax reform) about how to move this country forward – of course with the usual flights of fancy; this is what this theater demands.  However, this is almost  a gift to the GOP. If Romney is any type of presidential candidate, he will tear this speech to pieces. At this stage of the game, we should not be still asking questions like "how are you going to pay for this?"  It was not even that impressive rhetorically.  I guess, however, he hit all the points he wanted to reach.

I am deeply depressed … and somewhat worried.

Another:

You're absolutely right that the speech was terrible.  But in what world was it liberal?  We want infrastructure spending, we want strong unions, high taxes on the rich, universal healthcare and, yes, a bit of class warfare.  You think we get wet over fucking tax credits?  Or the idea that  our democratic process should emulate the military?  Please give us more credit than that.  This was a bad speech, period.  It won't resonate with liberals, none that I know anyway.

Another:

I've been a long time reader, and generally respect your opinion on things, but your SOTU commentary is the worst.  It's not even that I disagree with some of your opinions, just something bugs me about what you're expecting from, and dismissing about this speech. 

Reading your comments reads like your creating a caricature of the "Liberal disappointment in Obama" that you wrote about in your Newsweek article, but in a slightly different ideological bent.  Were you expecting a partisan stump speech for the Andrew Sullivans of the world?  Were you expecting a deep dive into the policy details of each of the ideas he threw out there?  Who do you think his target audience was? (Hint: not you)

I'll grant you that much of this speech was throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, but at least they're real semi-workable ideas, if only half-baked.  This is his last SOTU before the election, so he needed to sound like he had ideas, and was doing real things to help the economy, and set out to preempt attacks from whomever the Republican contender will be.  He accomplished that.  That's all this was, and that's all it needs to be for now.

Another:

Agreed that the line about keeping kids in school until they graduate or turn eighteen is complete bullshit. One of the most persistent problems teachers deal with are disruptive students who are simply returned to the classroom, again and again, by administrators reluctant to rile parents. Not sure how keeping these kids around for a couple more years helps improve learning for everyone.

Another:

Isn't it odd to have Steve Jobs widow sitting there as guest while the president rails companies who send jobs overseas? Apple has 500,000 jobs sitting in China and $52 billion in cash in offshore accounts. Just seems a little odd.

Another:

I love how the camera shots of individual Republicans' reactions reflect a three-second delay in which they have to decide "Am I for it or against it?" Clap? Don't clap? Stand? Don't? Sneer or scowl? A thoroughly confused bunch. That's the state of America. Leaders can't support good ideas because it might give credit to a sworn political enemy. Pitiful.

(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty.)

Live-Blogging The 2012 State Of The Union Address

137663656

10.20 pm. I was hoping for a vision. I was hoping for real, strategic reform. What we got was one big blizzard of tax deductions, wrapped in a populist cloak. It was treading water. I suspect this will buoy liberal spirits, but anger the right and befuddle the independents. It definitely gives the Republican case against Obama as a big government meddler more credibility. I may be wrong – but the sheer cramped, tedious, mediocre micro-policies he listed were uninspiring to say the least.

We voted for Obama; now we find we got another Clinton. The base will like this. I'm not sure independents will. As performance, he did as well as he could with the thin material he had in his hands. As a speech, I thought it was the worst of his SOTUs, when he really needed his best.

10.17 pm. This notion that a country, a democracy, should have the same attitude as troops fighting a war is preposterous and slightly creepy. Yes, we should put aside our differences to get important things done, put aside ideology to focus on solving problems. But we are not a military and the president is not our commander. He is our president. We have every right to argue with one another and to distrust one another at times. The whole idea of getting each others' backs in a boisterous democracy is deeply undemocratic. I do not want to be a citizen trained like a member of the Navy SEALs. Nor should anyone. This isn't Sparta. It's America. And to use the raid on bin Laden as the model of our future cooperation struck me as too easy and trite an analogy.

10.16 pm. More tax deductions for companies that hire vets. Almost every single proposal in this speech has been a tax break for something or other. What an awful way to run an economy.

10.14 pm. A strong defense of American exceptionalism – presumably as a retort to the neocon right. But the line about American power reminds me that this is the presidentseen clasping Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World".

10.12 pm. A familiar line on Iran and a new fact about the Israeli alliance under Obama:

Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.

10.07 pm. And after this tired litany of liberal gimmicks, he brings us back to his original promise:

None of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town.  We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas. 

Absolutely. But it feels alien to the rest of the speech. Maybe it's because he has been greeted with such derisive, contemptuous opposition from the GOP in the Congress. But it's sad to see him seem so, well, Washington. His strength is in the broad vision for the future, not these dozens of little initiatives. The strongest parts came in his own statements about his unilateral actions in the executive branch. The rest? Weak, poorly constructed, rhetorically sub-par.

10.06 pm. Why not mention the 60 vote filibuster if you're talking reform, rather than getting your own nominees approved more quickly? That would be the high road. He's now settled on the low one.

9.59 pm. We're beginning to get to the real stuff now. It's tax cuts for the very wealthy or investment in America. Here's the tax "reform":

Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right:  Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires.  In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions.  On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.   

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want.  But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes?  Most Americans would call that common sense. 

And you could achieve that with real tax reform, instead of this purely make-the-rich-pay-more gambit. He's given up on real reform, it seems to me, in favor of more tax breaks and deductions for his preferred companies and sectors, and tax hikes on the wealthy. This is the old liberalism, warmed over. To those of us who supported him because he was about serious reform – and not this kind of gimmicky meddling in the economy and increasing complexity in the tax code.

9.58 pm. Boehner and Cantor applaud an extension of the payroll tax cut.

9.56 pm. And now a war on shady banks and financial companies:

I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans. 

9.55 pm. So far: nada on debt; nada on tax reform; nada on healthcare reform. He really refuses to sell Obamacare, doesn't he? But maybe it will come later.

9.54 pm. That spilt milk line: a joke worthy of Jon Huntsman. We miss you, Jon Lovett.

9.52 pm. A big idea:

That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates.  No more red tape.  No more runaround from the banks.  A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

Basically, that's a handout to underwater homeowners using money from the banks. Pure populism. Pure redistributionism. But the speech has lacked any big sustaining argument about the inequality and unfairness that has marked the last few years. And so all of this sounds like a series of shameless panders that someone has to pay for.

9.48 pm. This speech is beginning to make Bill Clintons' look like clear and visionary. But people loved Clinton's long laundry list of micro-policies. I think this is the worst SOTU Obama has given. But maybe it will work. It sure seems like it has been put through a software program to pander to various industries.

9.45 pm. Finally, something specific: removing the subsidies for Big Oil – but adding new tax credits for green energy. More tax credits! With each minute of this speech, the tax code gets more impenetrable and the government's meddling in the economy more entrenched.

9.43 pm. Some facts to counter GOP lies: "Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years.  That’s right – eight years.  Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years."

9.41 pm. "Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs." Are you keeping count of how many more tax deductions he is now proposing? The tax code is getting more complicated with every sentence. Tax reform? Left in the dust – and to the GOP. Tax simplification? He's making it all much more complicated.

9.39 pm. What on earth is this supposed to mean:

So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Again: vapid beyond measure. If he wants to convince Americans he has no idea about how the economy works, this speech so far will help.

9.33 pm. Now a demand for more money for community colleges, so they can set up partnerships for training. Sounds fine in principle (did David Brooks get a heads up?) but I'm deply skepitcal of sentences like: "Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job." This is thin gruel. So far, a litany of old liberal policies, some xenophobia and general bullshit. This is what I mean by bullshit:

I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

What an easy thing to say. And he can do nothing about it. So why say it?

9.31 pm. So Obama is now pro-SOPA? How completely out of touch with his base. And all this nationalism and protectionism is deeply depressing.

9.27 pm. And now a Santorum-style focus on manufacturing – and the same old abuse of the tax code to influence the economy. This is industrial policy, based on populism. It isn't unleashing the free market through tax reform. It's a throwback to paleo-liberalism. Tax breaks and subsidies to keep jobs at home. It's spitting in the wind of the global economy – and it fails to grasp government's proper role. Workers here will never be cost-competitive with the Chinese. This is fantasy – and cheap populism.

9.25 pm. Now for the case for his rescuing of the auto industry, which Romney wanted to go bankrupt. It will be an interesting race in Michigan this fall, won't it?

9.22 pm. "Those are the facts." The beginning of the reclamation of reality from the deranged GOP. Good to see him insist on the truth that he inherited an economy in free-fall, and turned it around in a year. And what's interesting is his insistence that the problems go back decades. What he means, I think, is the era of supply-side economics.

9.17 pm. A segueway from the end of World War II to the end of the Iraq war – and the era when government was respected and believed in. This tour of history is now a recurring feature of Obama's speeches. Then the core argument:

Everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.  What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values.  We have to reclaim them.

9.14 pm. The right start: reminding Americans that the reason he was nominated – ending the Iraq war – has been accomplished. And that he won the war in Afghanistan against al Qaeda. Then a unifying salute to the troops.

9.08 pm. "Don't get lipstick on me!" And a big embrace from Justice Ginsburg. Then a lovely rollicking hug with Gabby Giffords. A warm personal start.

9.07 pm. It will begin and end with foreign policy. The center will be fairness. And a whole bunch of programs to help the unemployed. I hope no one forbids applause.

Will Obama Underwhelm?

Josh Barro has low expectations  for Obama's speech:

I hope to see Obama differentiate himself by calling for bold moves to raise inflation expectations and unshackle underwater homeowners, as either of these policies would do a lot to create jobs and get the economy moving again. But I don’t think that’s likely. The fact that he’s leading his preview with manufacturing initiatives suggests to me we won’t be hearing much that’s useful in tonight’s speech.

Chart Of The Day

Gallup_Economy

Jonathan Cohn keeps focused on the economic rebound:

Once again, today's biggest political news isn't about the Republican candidates or the President, even though the former are battling in Florida and the latter is about to give the State of the Union address. It's the latest Gallup survey, which shows economic confidence has risen sharply since August and is now at levels not seen since May. That report is consistent with the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, in which confidence in the economy reaches its highest rate in months.

Will The SOTU Destroy A Fantasy Candidate?

Possibly:

[Mitch] Daniels is soft-spoken and not terribly magnetic, and my hunch is that the Republicans devoutly wishing he’d gotten in [the GOP race] will not be wishing it this time tomorrow.

SOTU responses are a lose-lose situation, the only decent ones in recent years were (1) the one given by Sen. Jim Webb in 2007, which was packed with gravitas, toughness, and dignity, and (2) the one given by Gov. Bob McDonnell last year, which ramped up the cheesy atmospherics (cheering crowds, speaker walking down the aisle and shaking hands) to turn the whole thing into an ersatz State Of The Union, but which somehow worked because it turned the whole thing into a joke that McDonnell was entirely in on. It was actually kind of amazing to watch. Daniels, though, will likely shoot for the first and see his buzz evaporate faster than Bobby Jindal’s did.

ED Kain agrees.

Face Of The Day

GT_SKULL_120124

A picture taken on January 24, 2012 shows a skull unearthed as archeologists and villagers searched a cemetery in the southwestern Spanish town of Gerena, looking for a mass grave thought to contain the remains of 17 women who where shot by General Francisco Franco's forces in 1937. The search for the remains comes a day before Spain's crusading judge Baltasar Garzon goes on trial charged with abuse of power for having opened an investigation into the disappearance of 114,000 people during Spain's 1936-39 civil war and Franco's subsequent dictatorship. By Cristina Quicler/AFP/Getty Images.

Reading The SOTU Tea Leaves

Brad Plumer provides the guest list for the First Lady's viewing box, "a useful preview of some of the policy themes Obama’s likely to touch on":

There’s Warren Buffett’s secretary, the one who reportedly pays a higher tax rate than Buffett does. There’s Joan Milligan of Orlando, Florida, who staved off foreclosure by refinancing her mortgage through the HARP program, which Obama wants to expand. There’s also Mike Krieger, an immigrant from Brazil who went on to found the ever-popular Instagram — who knows, maybe there’ll be a mention of the virtues of the H1-B visa program for high-skilled workers.

Tina Korbe adds:

Bosanek isn’t the only interesting guest on the list, though. The First Lady has also extended invitations to: Steve Jobs’ widow, Laurene Powell Jobs; outgoing Rep. Gabby Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly; and Adam Rapp, a cancer survivor that the Obama administration says was helped by Obamacare. Obama will likely touch on something relevant to each of these guests: about efforts to stimulate technological innovation, for example; about what we learned from the Tucson shooting and the incredible story of Giffords’ recovery, perhaps; about the effectiveness of Obamacare, assuredly.

Towleroad spotlights the two lesbians who will be in attendance and why their presence matters. More prognostication here.