Comments on: Foreign Policy Fades From Focus in State of the Union

By: Lydia

Lydia — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:41:28 +0000

Fascist Hyena, as for President Obama not mentioning Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon, try to realize that it was the State of the Union address, which was to address how our country is doing, not other countries problems. Sheesh.
I loved this State of the Union address. I thought the President hit the right note of reality about what we have improved, the problems still facing us and the hope that Dems and Repubs nationally could work together for solutions. And then the President listed good idea after good idea to solve some of those problems. Let’s hope the spirit of non-partisanship can continue for the good of our economy and our country’s future.

By: talmag

talmag — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:46:47 +0000

No my friend…he gave in because he knew he wanted to get the other things accomplished in the lame duck session and he did. He achieved more than any other president in this lame duck session. DADT, Star Package and many other things and the republcans looked like the ones who lost. The people liked the fact that the president was willing to give in on something he hated to work togeher and that resosnated with the people and that is why his ratings are up. Think about it…who actually one? If you listend to his speeech last night…the tax breaks for the rich are not forever and I know he plans to limit them. Keep watching..he is no fool.

By: Sigmonde

Sigmonde — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:38:27 +0000

“You see how Obama gave in on the tax breaks for the upper 2%?”
Obama gave in because only because the voters forced him to compromise on Bush tax rates.

By: talmag

talmag — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:05:09 +0000

Unlike Bush who talked of terrorists constantly to cover the fact that he and his administration was letting the country slip into a recession. Many economists admit it started in 2007 and people often forget that it was Bush who asked for the first bailout and it was Obama and Mc Cain who did not want it. They gave in to Bush because unlike the republicans of today…they worked with this president. We would be in a much better position today if the republicans would stop trying to destroy Obama and get with what is necessary for the country. You can see after the lame duck session what can be accomplished in a small amount of time with cooperation. Why do they continue to only want to destroy what Obama has accomplished instead of fixing what is really wrong with this country. They say they are for the people but they were the ones who did not want to extend unemployment. You see how Obama gave in on the tax breaks for the upper 2%? That is what working together means..you give up one thing and I give up another. Things get done that way and that is why Obama had a very productive lame duck session. That is what the people want. Not divisiveness.That is why his ratings are up.

By: Nephron

Nephron — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:42:56 +0000

I suspect that the ratings for this speech will be low-frankly,what else can he do but appear to move to the center?I think the more interesting news is that Jim Webb is undecided about running for re-election-since he has raised no money undecided at this date really means that he is not going to run.( He would have had a tough time defending his votes-even he has had second thoughts).I suspect that he will be resigning anyway to take over for Gates at Defense.

By: responding to Sigmonde

responding to Sigmonde — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:39:13 +0000

Personal attacks? He looked miserable and I made a joke. Grow up.
As for not understanding cutting the unnecessary to invest in that which will make the country strong: Grow up.

By: Sigmonde

Sigmonde — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:11:01 +0000

“The President’s speech was uneventful,..”
Yes, uneventful other than he proposed cutting spending and increasing spending. But why the personal attacks on Boehner?

By: Cheri

Cheri — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:50:31 +0000

Speaking of big yawns, can anyone explain why the right likes Paul Ryan so much? He’s so dull, has some sort of speech impediment and isn’t very telegenic. On top of that, the response itself was a yawner with no substance. It is odd that the party of Lincoln and Reagan has no good speakers among its current “darlings.” He did a better job than Jindal but that isn’t saying much. Anybody recall that debacle? I guess the bar in the Republican party had been set very low.
The President’s speech was uneventful, but his vision is the correct one and despite the length of the speech he managed to remain more compelling than either Ryan or Bachmann.
Hey, and what about Boehner? He looked like he was going to burst into tears when the President mentioned him, which is fine, I guess, but if he were a woman or a liberal, people would be over all over him for that,wouldn’t they? I think so. The rest of the time he looked like he was dying for a cigarette and a glass of Merlot and if he didn’t get either soon he might faint from withdrawal. Get a grip, Mr. Speaker.

By: KJ

KJ — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:25:28 +0000

To save the Democratic Party which he is destroying, Obama should step aside in 2012 as LBJ did in 1968 to save the party and endorse Hillary Clinton for President in 2012.
The speech was a big yawn, no substance. Obama never was and remains unqualified to be President. Hillary is the one for 2012! The Dems were very foolish to betray the brilliant Hillary.
The Ohio State Buckeyes continue to rock the college basketball world, what a GREAT GAME tonight! Sullenger is AMAZING to watch!! Wow.

By: Fascist Hyena

Fascist Hyena — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 05:19:32 +0000

Is this man even aware of what is going on at this very moment in Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia? If he is, does he care?