Jennifer Foster

I do think it’s significant that the president didn’t talk about health care right off the top. It shows that, contrary to most Republican pundits tonight, he does understand that Americans are becoming, have become, alienated from the health care bill that has been working its way through Congress. And for reasons I covered in my column this past weekend, Americans are well justified in their alienation from that bill. I don’t believe that the president will back away from the effort completely, but his treatment of it tonight indicates that he does understand and has accepted that whatever he does on it from here on out, it has to be nothing like what has been done before.

I am on the record as a huge supporter of campaign finance spending limits. Not only do I believe that corporations should be banned completely from giving money to candidates, but I also believe there is a strong case to be made for spending limits on individuals. No, money is not speech. So I thought last week’s Supreme Court decision striking down spending limits on corporations—and, as the president said tonight, potentially opening the door to profound involvement by foreign-owned corporations in American elections—was nothing short of horrendous.

With that said, I don’t care whether or even how vehemently Justice Sam Alito shook his head and mumbled to himself as President Obama asked Congress to address the decision through legislation. I do not care. I don’t think anyone else—well, anyone outside the CNN set tonight—does, either.

The pundits on the CNN desk basically ended up yelling at each other about “decorum” (which is ironic when you think about it, haha) and whether Alito was out of line in his reaction. James Carville (my fave) said it was
ridiculous that anyone would say that a Supreme Court decision was above reproach, and President Obama was well within his bounds by addressing it. GOP pundit Alex Castellanos seemed to insinuate that Alito’s anger was well-placed and his reaction excusable because Obama’s statement was so broad.

Again, I do not care about all that ... I think President Obama would have been remiss not to have addressed this ruling in this speech, because it will have a profound, profound effect on our elections. It must be dealt with. The State of the Union is the president’s opportunity to highlight his priorities for the coming year. How could he have left this out?

I saw two broad themes emerge tonight, and it’s likely they’re being tested out for midterm resonance: The Republican response centered around the principle that President Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to do too much, too fast; President Obama countered that argument with a simple question: “How long should we wait” to take on big problems? Look for this year’s midterms to get back to the basics of the differences between the parties, with Republicans emphasizing the limited role of government and the protection and promotion of individual liberty and Democrats framing their actions—regulatory or otherwise—in terms of protecting the middle class.

My favorite section of the speech was President Obama’s willingness to chide Congress—including congressional Democrats—for not producing from their majority:

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent - a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.

So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it’s an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

Thank you!

Now, my only question would be ... if every day isn’t Election Day, Mr. President, then why is it necessary to have a political ally heavily folded into the activities of the West Wing?

SIDEBAR: If you’re not convinced that David Plouffe is on hand strictly for political purposes—well, if you don’t already know that, there’s probably no point in trying to reason with you about it, but I digress—if you’re not convinced that Plouffe serves a political purpose and a political purpose only, click here to read his strategy in his own words.

Yeah, looks like a real bipartisan policy wonk to me. END SIDEBAR

And that brings me to my next point:

President Obama has a gift for giving speeches. He is an extraordinarily gifted orator; it’s irrefutable. But if I had a list of accomplishments, or activities, or priorities or even emphases that the president has pursued over the past 12 months, I never would have matched them to the president who gave this speech tonight.

Put another way, President Obama has a growing credibility gap between what he says he’s going to do and what he actually does.

I understand that he doesn’t control the Congress, so he can’t guarantee anything that’s going to come out of the legislative process. But he has established a record of promising some things—transparency in health care reform negotiations comes to mind—and then not delivering it. Actually, not only did he not deliver that promised transparency, but he didn’t even act like it was a big deal. He just sort of ignored it.

There are other examples. Liberals will point to his unfulfilled promise to shutter the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which remains open with no clear closure date in sight; moderates can point to his opposition to an individual mandate for health insurance, which he now seems to support; conservatives can point to his rhetoric on abortion—his desire to find and build on “common ground”—that stands in stark comparison to his health-related appointments, who include some of the most ardent and outspoken supporters of abortion in the entire country. And lobbyists? The president who said he would close the door on high-powered special interest lobbyists has cut huge deals with them—yes, multiple deals with several groups—on the health care package, and he’s done it out of the public eye.

This is important because the president who gave that speech tonight is someone who was speaking to a lot of issues I’m concerned about. I liked a great deal of what he said.

I just wonder where that president has been for the past year. It was nice of him to drop in for the State of the Union. I just wonder how long he plans to hang around.

See also:

The transcript of President Obama’s State of the Union speech