I will concede that I missed the first portion of Obama's speech last night, but of the portion that I did see (more than half) contained some ideas that I favor yet nothing that would make me feel motivated to go to the mat working for Obama's re-election. Instead, the strongest reason to back Obama remains fear of the Republican alternative and what kind of insane agenda that GOP control of the White House might bring forth. That's not the type of motivation that will rekindle the enthusiasm and efforts of 2008. And as a LGBT America, while Obama has done much for LGBT rights, the reality is that I am still a third or fourth class citizen in my home state where open discrimination against me is allowed: I can be fired at will, I can be discriminated against in housing, were I to want to adopt agencies paid by the state can discriminate against me, my relationship with my partner receives zero recognition. Indeed, the only federal law "protection" I receive is the possibility that, if I were beaten to death for being gay, my killer might receive a harsher punishment under the federal hate crimes act. It's not exactly an image of the "land of the free" and equality. And sadly, that largely seems to be fine with Obama. Again, the only motivation to support Obama derives from the fact that the GOP wants to make my life even worse. The Washington Post looks at Obama's speech and is likewise underwhelmed. Here are some highlights:
As I said, fear of the GOP remains the main reason to support Obama in 2012. Yes, fear can be a motivator, but nothing like true enthusiasm when in comes to guaranteeing people actually get out and vote.
A STATE OF THE UNION address from a president seeking reelection is always an odd event. Especially in the face of a divided Congress, the president’s proclaimed program stands little chance of enactment. . . . the president’s proposals are made in the context of the race about to be joined, stacked up against the pie-in-the-sky promises of his opponents. The subtext is, inevitably, less a blueprint of the year to come than an explanation of why the president deserves reelection and a sneak preview of a second-term agenda.
In that context, President Obama’s speech Tuesday night combined soaring rhetoric with crowd-pleasing, often small-bore proposals. Mr. Obama spoke movingly about the eroding economic security of much of the middle class. Building on themes he sounded a few months ago in Osawatomie, Kan., the president argued against, as he put it, “settl[ing] for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by.”
The president’s biggest new idea was attaching a number to his previously articulated “Buffett Rule” — billionaire Warren Buffett’s position that he should not pay a smaller share of his income in taxes than his secretary’s . . . . Mr. Obama is right to take on the unlevel and distorting playing field of a code that taxes ordinary earned income at a much higher rate than investment income. . . . . Mr. Obama has said he wants to make the tax code simpler, but his proposals would further complicate it . .
Once again Mr. Obama slighted the threat that the federal deficit poses to the growth he said he wants.
Mr. Obama’s discussion of foreign policy focused on the two achievements likely to be a major focus of his election campaign, the withdrawal of the last troops from Iraq and the killing of Osama bin Laden.
The president did not hint at any significant foreign policy initiatives for the coming year; even on Iraq, he failed to discuss future relations with that strategic oil producer, which has headed toward renewed internal conflict since the last U.S. soldiers pulled out.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, delivering the Republican rebuttal, had the fiscal question right when he said: “If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category.” But his eloquence is undercut by his party’s refusal, far more doctrinaire than Mr. Obama’s, to entertain responsible proposals to pay for the nation’s needs.
As I said, fear of the GOP remains the main reason to support Obama in 2012. Yes, fear can be a motivator, but nothing like true enthusiasm when in comes to guaranteeing people actually get out and vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment