Ok, State of the Union.

[atolnon]

I didn't watch the whole address. It was 70 minutes long, and I had to get up to refill my drink from time to time; that's how it goes.
For the record, I thought it was a fine speech. I enjoyed it, and taken by itself, it's probably really inspirational. My reservations are severe though. Obama has a, if we're being charitable, lackluster record for GLBT rights. He can't seem to energize his side of the aisle in Congress despite having had a supermajority. It's depressing.

I expected the Republicans to dig their feet in. The Democrats swept the House and Senate, and everyone left are from states so Red that planes stop in mid-air over them waiting for favorably traffic signals. The only thing I can assume, and I understand that assumptions can cause problems, is that Democrats feel they have something to gain by not pushing bills through.

The reasons are varied but not unusual. Pathetic, but not weird. It's not entirely a matter of corruption, or anything like that, though we are kinda, sorta in the pocked of our mighty corporate and banking overlords; it's more an issue of a typically low turnover rate in Congress. Instead of being civil servants, Congress-critters are career politicians. In a year where there were record turnovers, Democrats don't want to lose their seats by shaking the boat. This seems counter-intuitive, since a desire for change sent record Democrats to their seats in the first place, but politicians are nothing if not reactionary.

I guess the other issue are the Blue Dogs and the Liebermans. This is an example of people who feel they have something to gain by waffling on their vote. They're playing politics because they know that the Democratic majority will do almost anything to ensure that they're on board. They get to look moderate and bipartisan while hitting the Dems up for everything they've got. They have a disproportionate degree of pull in national matters because of it, and it doesn't matter that we can't really get anything done. 

So, here's a small part of the problem as I see it. The Democrats had a super majority and wouldn't act on it. They lost a single seat to a Republican in Mass. and decided that it wasn't going to be possible to push legistlation through because they won't act in concert. One seat short of unprecendented, and they throw in the towel. There's got to be a reason for that, but it's a spineless and craven one.

Comments

[dimfuture.livejournal.com]

I appreciated that Obama told them to stop shuffling their feet and get things done -- to go on the attack.

I'm also gratified that in general, the Internet seems to find the Republican response as schmaltzy and lame as I did.

[atolnon.livejournal.com]

I've heard people kvetch somewhat that it's just another speech and we've heard all this before, but it's the State of the Union. I mean, of course it's a speech; he's obligated to give it.

In contrast to the Dems, the Republicans have good discipline, but it might be too good. You could see the snide little looks on their faces when Obama called on them to exhibit leadership or do anything other then say 'no'.

Their strategy shouldn't be so successful, but it has been. There's nothing that they'll accept as a compromise. They're going to dig in and pin the blame on the Democrats for not accepting compromise. It's stupid, but it'll probably work unless Obama can convince the Blue Team to go on the attack.

[brantai.livejournal.com]

PROTIP: He can't, because Democrats are primarily defining themselves at this point by not being Republicans. They don't have anything they can agree on amongst themselves.

[atolnon.livejournal.com]

That's more or less true. I think it's a little more accurate to say that as the Republicans become more extreme and more concerned with ideological purity, many of the people that would have been Republicans even 10 years ago are Democrats now. That's why you can have a phenomenon like the 'Blue Dogs' but you've also got Dennis Kucinich in the same party.