The Dish

A carbon tax might make sense for health reasons alone.

Douthat studies the political climate:

I give you the latest Congressional Budget Office economic outlook, which forecasts an unemployment rate that averages 10 percent throughout 2010, and 9.5 percent throughout 2011. As Peter Suderman notes, the CBO tends to be overly-cautious in their economic predictions, so there’s room to hope that the situation isn’t quite this dire. But what was already an unprecedentedly dreadful climate for the Democrats is looking darker by the day. If unemployment is still around 10 percent this November, it’s difficult to see how they hold the House; if unemployment stays at 9 percent into 2012, it’s very difficult to see how Barack Obama wins re-election. I stand by my contention that ideology as well as the woeful economy is dragging the Democrats down, but there does come a point where only the economy matters: Obama could spend the next three years channeling Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and Silent Cal, and he still isn’t going to get re-elected if 9 percent of the country is out of work.

Today on the Dish we live-blogged the SOTU address. Blogger reax here. Some reader reaction here. Preliminary insight from Jonathan Cohn, Mark Blumenthal, Ezra Klein, and Andrew.

In various news, ending DADT got a major endorsement, a study showed the prevalence of gays anyway, a prominent Palin booster turned on her, Newsday hit a wall, the iPad underwhelmed, and Avatar was crowned king of the world. Prop 8 update here.

Jon Chait, Greg Sargent, Jonathan Bernstein, and Nate Silver fed the P.T.D.B thread. Seth Masket warned against letting the GOP filibuster and Mike Lillis conveyed the miscalculation of the party. Zachary Karabell showed the underwhelming damage of the worldwide recession and Andrew railed against the super-rich. Joe Carter continued to defend the Gitmo deaths – even in the face of evidence like this and government deception like this. David Roberts declared C&T DOA and TNC was down on POTUS.

Dissents of the day here and here. The Dish started a masturbation thread here and here.

— C.B.

(Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to both houses of Congress during his first State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on January 27, 2010 in Washington, DC. Since taking office a little over a year ago, Obama's approval ratings have dropped significantly according to recent polls. By Alex Wong/Getty Images)

DiA:

I think it's a solid speech: pragmatic advocacy mixed with appeals to American ideals of an earthy sort; not city-on-a-hill stuff, but help-your-grandmother-across-the-street ideals. He can do this every day, and he can do it intelligently and, at times, even beautifully. To what avail, though, if he doesn't follow through and produce some real and measurable achievements?

Josh Green:

Tax incentives, small-business veneration, glorification of the entrepreneur, chest-thumping on competition, and even a bit of nationalism. Obama articulates Republican policies better than Republicans do. Doesn't look sour and mean, or like he wants to bite somebody.

Jon Cohn:

What Obama didn't do — ask to "pass the Senate bill." But not sure this was moment for that.

Joe Klein:

This was Obama at his best. He wasn't cuddly, but who cares? He was

smart and he was funny–and he was drop-dead serious about the country. The speech should do him some good, but it's not enough. Now he has to preside, in the true sense of the term.

Crowley:

I'm a little surprised by the gays in the military vow. You know Rahm still has nightmares about Clinton's experience. The generals were notably stone-faced.

Ambinder:

Most remarkable: Secretary of Defense Bob Gates applauded Obama's words [on DADT]. And Americans saw him applauding, thanks to the director's cut-aways. Which means that, for the most part, the military is on notice: the policy is ending, and ending very soon. Said Obama: "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. Because it's the right thing to do." One note: the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the chiefs didn't applauded. But that's the protocol. They don't applaud by tradition.

538:

Obama is making a lot of arguments tonight that the WH should have been making for months now.

Yuval Levin:

[The speech] won’t make much of a difference either way—and it wouldn’t have even if it had been a much better or a much worse speech. But it’s interesting as an indication of where the administration’s thinking is at the moment. It really didn’t suggest the sharp pivot everyone has thought was coming: he was very defensive of everything he has done all year. But it also didn’t suggest a renewed determination to pursue his agenda: the speech was very vague and not very energetic. The Massachusetts election has certainly left the Democrats disoriented, and it showed tonight.

McArdle:

[T]he most interesting part of the speech is where he threatens to veto any financial bill that doesn't really take on the banks. The proposals he unveiled last week to limit the size of bank liabilities, and dismantle their proprietary trading desks, were greeted with acclaim by many financial journalists, but it is widely believed that legislators like Senator Dodd will simply kill them in committee. If he's willing to risk ending up with nothing, that may be smart politics–and perhaps smart regulation. But that's a very daring move for a president who has so far proved extremely reluctant to take on his congress. 

DiA II:

This is a much looser SOTU than I got used to under George Bush–much more house of commons–applause is shorter, but more frequent, jeers are obvious, Mr Obama is anticipating it and working off Republican hostility like a stage comic with hecklers.

Yglesias:

This is a brilliant speech. Realistically won't do any good unless senate centrists grow consciences, unemployment falls.

Mark Levin:

I have watched many, many State of the Union speeches.  This is the most partisan, least presidential of them all.  His rhetoric, his glances at the GOP side, and his almost mocking tone at times — not to mention his over-the-top dissembling about the deficit, among other things — will not, I predict, improve his position with the public.  Nor should it.

Ezra Klein:

This health-care section is good. Obama is smart to admit that people are skeptical and to blame it on process and bad communication.

Josh Marshall:

Listening to this litany, I'm reminded how Republicans are on the wrong side — just politically, let alone on policy — of most signature issues in a populist economic moment. I think there were zero Republicans standing up on any part of Obama's financial reform agenda — something that polls exceedingly well in addition to being good public policy.

Drum:

That's it for healthcare. Seemed a little bloodless to me. Didn't really explain his plan very well, and never stood up for anything more specific than "Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people." I was hoping for more, but maybe I expect too much.

JPod:

David Brooks makes the point that much of the policy mentioned here—tax cuts, pay-as-you-go, nuclear power, offshore drilling—was far more moderate than his administration has been thus far. So was it a pivot? Almost certainly not. He was claiming that the mantle of moderation had characterized his administration thus far. And it’s hard to believe that he’s going to mention nuclear power or offshore drilling ever again, or pay-as-you-go. Tax cuts you’ll hear.

Greg Sargent:

Tonight’s speech — with its mix of his charm and good humor, his calls for transcending partisanship and bickering, his appeal to lawmakers’ better nature — seemed designed to restore that transcendent glow he enjoyed so long ago. To pull him out of the D.C. muck and get people to see him as being on their side again. We’ll see if it works.

A reader writes:

He’s found his inner George Bailey.

Another:

Tonight I was reminded why I stood in the cold on the Mall on Inauguration Day.

Another:

Have you noticed that he hasn’t seeded the audience with people who illustrate his political points? This was a Reagan device that was carried on by his successors, until now. Typically the person who illustrated a rhetorical point was seated next to the first lady. The triumph of anecdotes over the nation cheapened policy. I am not sad to see this trope die.

Another:

For all the talk about a disconnect from the concerns of the populus, this president comes across as FAR more aware of, connected to, and affected by the struggles of the average American than his predecessor ever did.

Another:

This speech is directed to the people in that room more then the people watching at home.  He needs to look into the camera more often, and he has made too many jokes that are geared towards the beltway crowd.  Political junkies might get all the references, but the average American is probably watching Jersey Shore on DVR by now.  That being said his closing has had a more universal message, but the first hour was way too “inside baseball”.

Another:

Calling out the SCOTUS right in front of him was awesome.

Another:

Dems, grow a pair. Republicans, stop being such dicks. Doesn’t it kind of sound like a lecture given to squabbling children by a tired parent? In other words, “Grow up, everyone!” Much more sharply put than I had dared to dream, but sadly necessary.

(Photo: Tim Sloan/Getty.)

10.22 pm. This was the president I supported and still support and will support because he alone is calling us away from the cynicism, the ideology, the rhetorical poison, and the red-blue divide that keep us from the reform we desperately need.

10.19 pm. This final passage is devastating in its rebuke of so many and yet its encouragement of better things ahead. This section remains with me:

Remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is. Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and grandchildren.

10.16 pm. Listen to the silence. It's the silence that greets the truth.

10.13 pm. Ending DADT: it's the right thing to do. But I note that he has committed only to working with Congress and the military to end the ban this year. If he achieves it, I will stand up and cheer. But I have experienced enough crushing disappointments to believe it will actually happen.

10.11 pm. Pretty standard foreign policy boilerplate. But the commitment to remove all forces from Iraq was striking. I don't think it's possible without a bloodbath. Will he allow that to happen?

9.59 pm. Now he's lambasting the cultural poison in Washington. "We still need to govern." And a great riposte to the pusillanimity of the Democrats. And a riposte to the Republicans wielding a filibuster to prevent anything from getting done. 

9.57 pm. He is in so many respects a One Nation Tory. A reader notes:

"I was sitting watching the SOTU tonight, and it finally hit me – the man is a compassionate conservative.  A real one.  He is what Bush told us he was. He is an utterly, deeply serious man who is willing to stand in front of the country and take his share of the blame.  I miss that in a leader."

9.54 pm. "I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans." I desperately want him to get a bipartisan commission that cuts entitlements and defense and raises necessary taxes. And then demand the GOP live up to their commitments to cut spending.

9.51 pm. Thank God he could explain why he had to spend in his first year – or risk an economic collapse. And I like the equation of ordinary people tightening their belts – so government should too. It's a trivial matter, but it's never too trivial to get rid of programs that don't work.

9.49 pm. "Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let's get it done." This was not a firm commitment to the Senate bill. It was an opening for more debate; and an invitation to let the GOP to contribute, which, of course, they won't. It just passes the test of resolution I laid out earlier today. But not much more.

9.46 pm.  "I will not walk away from these Americans and neither should the people in this chamber."

9.42 pm. I'm struck by how relaxed he seems. Smiling, confident, easy-going, and yet also deadly serious. He's certainly a lot calmer than most of his supporters, including me. I was a bit of a wreck before this after such a depressing couple of weeks. But he is managing to lift that gloom – not by dazzling rhetoric, but by a form of realism that is reassuring.

9.40 pm. His education record has been seriously under-rated so far. It's a strength and again, it's good to see him focus on it. What you're seeing and hearing is a shift in the political atmosphere, a reminder that the MSM who-wins-who-loses, horse-race coverage of the issues is simply unworthy of the times we live in.

9.36 pm. His energy program sounds a lot like McCain's in the campaign: all of the above. And drill, baby, drill! But I love this: clean energy is worth doing whatever you think of climate change. Plenty of conservatives should be able to support this if they could get past their partisanship and bile.

9.34 pm. "The lobbyists are trying to kill [financial reform]." I've noticed a lot of praise for the House tonight. The subtle message is that the Senate is the place where reform is being killed; and the lobbyists have more of a grip on the Senate.

9.31 pm. "How long should America put its future on hold?" Better, I think, to make a declarative statement. I'm waiting for that moment when he seizes authority and command of the room. Not there yet. But you can feel it building.

9.28 pm. Again with the boasting about the stimulus. What I like about the speech so far is its refusal to be coopted by the old left-right gamesmanship of Washington and the FNC/RNC. He is just ignoring their narrative and reminding people of the truth that belies it.

9.26 pm. I loves me a Democrat who gets the vital importance of small business.

9.23 pm. And again he reminds people of the good the stimulus did – against the calculated propaganda and lies of the FNC/RNC. It is such a relief to hear the truth of the past year against the nihilist lies of the unhinged and opportunistic right.

9.21 pm. Thank God he is fighting back against the lies of the FNC/RNC on taxes. And even a little good-natured humor. So far, the Obama magic is on fire again.

9.19 pm. Again, sanity: the need to rescue the banks – the remarkable achievement of getting most of the money back already – and the need to tax them to reclaim the rest.

9.18 pm. Have you noticed the silence in the room?

9.16 pm. So far, it strikes me as extremely effective, a kind of sober reminder to the inside Washington game-players that real people are out there, suffering, and working and resilient. He is the adult in the room. And he is still hopeful. "A government that matches Americans' decency and embodies their strength."

9.13 pm. "The worst of the storm has passed, but the devastation remains": a concise truth.

9.09 pm. A nice big hug for Geithner.

Jonathan Bernstein explains the logic of the House passing the Senate health care bill before trying to tweak it through reconciliation:

I want to reemphasize how important it is to realize how much it changes the game once the (Senate) bill is signed into law.  All of a sudden, the Senate Democrats are stuck with a law they supported, complete with Nelson's deal and all the rest of it.

And then — here comes the House with a new bill — not a bill to set up a new health care system, but a patch on a system that's already the law of the land.  A bill that does lots and lots of popular things (taxes on the rich, get rid of lifetime caps, repeal the Nelson deal), and few if any unpopular things.  Republicans can filibuster it all they want.  They'll be the ones protecting the Nelson deal, the excise tax, lifetime caps and the other things that the patch will change.  True, they may do that anyway; they certainly would complain about the procedure.  But that should be a fight that even moderate Senate Democrats would be glad to take on.  They wouldn't be defending the (old) bill they already passed; they would be fixing it!

Mark Blumenthal has a SOTU primer:

Gallup's report includes a table showing the level of presidential approval measured immediately before and after the last 27 State of the Union addresses. "Across all presidents," they report, "the average change in approval has been less than a one percentage-point decline.

It is also keeping in mind, as I wrote on the old Mystery Pollster blog four years ago, that the one big exception to the rule — the apparent 10 percentage point jump for Bill Clinton in 1998 — was a very unique presidential address:

The Monica Lewinsky story had broken just a few days before. The day before that speech, Bill Clinton faced the cameras and delivered his infamous "I never had sex with that woman" quote. MP cannot find the ratings for that speech, but interest in the speech was certainly high. Ironically, the reaction to Clinton's performance – seemingly unfazed by the scandal erupting around him – help[ed] boost his numbers in a way that persisted until the impeachment trial ended with an acquittal.

So the one exception to the rule may have been less about perceptions of the speech itself and more about how the speech fit into the context of a larger event.

Sasha Frere-Jones admits:

I started drinking the Kool-Aid so long ago that I can no longer taste it. I am sure I will continue my unbroken streak of mindless devotion to Apple and find a way to love the iPad, no matter how expensive and unnecessary it is.

Knowledge of self is no fun.

The Williams Institute released a study (pdf) on DADT yesterday. The key findings from the press release (pdf):

An estimated 66,000 lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are serving in the US military, accounting for approximately 2.2% of military personnel.

Approximately 13,000 LGB people are serving on active duty (comprising 0.9% of all active duty personnel) while nearly 53,000 are serving in the guard and reserve forces (3.4%).

While women comprise only about 14% of active duty personnel, they comprise more than 43% of LGB men and women serving on active duty.

Lifting DADT restrictions could attract an estimated 36,700 men and women to active duty service and 12,000 more individuals to the guard and reserve.

Since its inception in 1994, the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy has cost the military between $290 million and more than a half a billion dollars.

The military spends an estimated $22,000 to $43,000 per person to replace those discharged under DADT.