Looking forward to the SOTU speech?

[Ted S]

Yes and no for me.

No, I'm not looking forward to Obama's speech because I don't think there will be anything new or refreshing.  Just the same old notion that we have to grow the government in all areas other than the military if we want to have a great nation.  It will be the typical liberal pap I expect.

I'm not looking forward to Sen Rubio either because it will likely just be the usual conservative talking points softened up a bit and delivered, at least to some extent, in Spanish.

I am looking forward to Sen Rand Paul's rebuttal because not only will he likely be saying the kinds of things that I like to hear, it will also be interesting to see how his talk is received by the right.  I expect that tonight will mark the beginning of a Rand Paul bashing extravaganza by establishment conservatives that will go on for the next four years.  It seems like Rubio is the chosen one right now and Rand Paul could be a real threat to the establishment.

[RWE]

It's times like this that I'm glad I don't watch TV. Actually, I'm always glad that I don't watch TV.

[wbcoleman]

I was otherwise occupied.  How bad was it?

[Ted S]

I was otherwise occupied.  How bad was it?

I didn't see Obama's speech but I did catch a couple of the wrap-ups.

He's urging congress to raise the minimum wage to $9.00/hr. In this age of nearly 8% unemployment I don't see how making it more expensive for employers to hire people will make them hire more people, but then sound thinking has never been one of Obama's strong points.

I hear he finished with an impassioned plea for gun control. The left, being a group driven by emotions rather than reason, really got into this part of the speech it seemed.

When I tuned into Morning Joe this morning they were talking about Rubio's Drink of Watergate.  Yeah, Rubio took a drink of water during his speech and that was the big headline.

I watched all of Rand Paul's speech on YouTube.  It was pretty vague but nice.  He didn't offer and personal stories or identify any people by name that have been harmed by this thing or that thing.  I like when politicians don't try to humanize or put names and faces on their talking points.  I prefer to weigh proposals on their merits rather than some emotion that the speaker is trying to ignite.

Based on the recaps of the SOTU I saw, the key to a better America is to expand the federal government in nearly every way, more taxes, more spending, more laws, more regulations, more programs, and less individuality. The Obama way to utopia is for the followers to become smaller and less significant and for the leader to become bigger and more powerful.

[wbcoleman]

I wasn't depressed after the 2008 election but the fact of O's reelection in 2012 blows me away.

[Ted S]

I caught part of Maddow's show tonight.  She did a segment on Rubio's rebuttal and during Maddow's segment she had a looping video clip of Rubio taking that all-important sip of water.  How pathetic. How completely pathetic, and how illustrative it is of the childishness of the MSNBC and the shallow devotees of that network.

[clistensprechen]

Totally agree with Ted on the looping insert. Not classy. On the other hand, SNL's spoof on the incident was brilliant. ^_^

You can't unsee that, and when it happened, just once, for the first time, it by and large overrode everything else Rubio was saying, it was so screamingly awkward.  And Maddow did make a good point, which was clearly overridden by the horrid looping insert: Rubio's speech was Romney warmed over, as if Romney didn't lose and those arguments were actually valid when they weren't.  And it IS clear he didn't rebut or even answer any of the points the President brought up. It was totally off topic.

That looping vid did no one any favors.

[Ted S]

And Maddow did make a good point, which was clearly overridden by the horrid looping insert: Rubio's speech was Romney warmed over, as if Romney didn't lose and those arguments were actually valid when they weren't.

You are assuming that the voters rejected the message and not the messenger. IMO that's mostly incorrect. They rejected a stiff white millionaire with zero personality in favor of a stylish minority with a flair for making nonsense seem reasonable.  It was a personality contest.

[clistensprechen]

Daydream Believer. 

[Ted S]

If voters made their decisions on a political philosophy or ideology we would see one party dominance throughout recent history but we don't. This means that the voters are either changing their core ideology from election to election, which I can't really believe, or they are casting their votes based on other factors such as personality, style, etc.

Take in a segment of Jay Walking on the Leno show and this should give you an indication of the kind of thinking behind the average disinterested voter.

[wbcoleman]

Daydream Believer. 

You can claim that Republican control of the House of Representatives is due to the vagaries of the apportionment process, but how do you explain the GOP's recent domination of governorships and state legislatures?