sotu

538 called this a 3 run homer and had called the previous health care speech a solid triple. I think the second judgment is closer to accurate, but I'm not actually inclined to think that the former will turn out wrong either. It might be a solo home run depending on how the politics actually play out, but it was definitely a better speech.

Several things I enjoyed.
The reference to the fact that the budgetary tightening doesn't take place for another year was a good laugh line. Gallows humor or cynicism has its moments I guess. The jab over the lack of GOP applause for tax cuts in the stimulus bill (something they wanted at the time) was more amusing.

Finally made strong affirmative declarations in support of ending DADT and the Iraq war. We'll see how those pan out. I supported both decisions and it appears most Americans at this point do.

Did the Reagan trick of talking about actual people (though he did not use many names). Always good politics since most people trust stories more than statistics.
Also tied Reagan-JFK on the nuclear weapons stuff. Reducing arms still needs to be an important topic. I'm not sure why Republicans would still support having several thousand warheads.

Sort of vague explanation of his forthcoming education reforms that still doesn't sound any more fleshed out than it was during the campaign. But it doesn't quite sound very Democratic candidate-esque either. Sounds a bit more like a libertarian here with an emphasis on school choice and some mechanism for evaluation of educational quality (I personally prefer a market evaluation because I'm unimpressed with the means governments have used of late, such as NCLB).

The banking fee, if it is a too big to fail fee, is fine if we're going to keep the model of big banks and the FDIC guarantee of safety or risk assumed by the public. The down note is that Dodd can still kill and gut the banking bill in the Senate. Might have been better to make this a focus of last year or even wait until Dodd hits his retirement and do it next year.

Explained somewhat more clearly that the problems that are being wrestled with aren't going away just because 1) GOP obstructs policy "reforms" and 2) because he was elected and 3) didn't start because he was elected. I was not really sated in the need for the stimulus and bailouts (mostly because I would rather he had some tougher questions directed at Bernanke concerning making non-expansive monetary policy choices over the past year and leaving us only doing Keynesian stimulus spending and direct lending to particular banks. FDR did both Keynes program and expansive monetary policy during his first term and, when he picked that plan and stuck to it for more than a few weeks, it seemed to have helped), but I expect some people will be. Not a lot but some. The explanation that much of the fiscal problem over the last year and into this year comes from bad policies over the last 8 years is nevertheless essential because it requires that the GOP take ownership of their mistakes and work to reverse them in some ways. The question will be whether they are aware of the fact that voters are probably aware of this problem as well and won't simply reward them for being the party out of power. I don't think they have figured this out yet, though it's possible that Brown has (because he has some weird political realities in Massachusetts that most Republicans won't have).

Couple things I was less swayed by:
Not so sure what the hell the public thinks Congress (and the President) is supposed to do that creates (or saves) jobs. But damn if he wasn't talking about jobs all the time in there. Does he have a switch under his desk that I'm not aware of or something that just turns on the jobs spigot? Despite all the jobs bluster, did not mention the idea brought up in the Senate to have a payroll tax holiday for new hires. Admittedly it's an imperfect, perhaps even foolish idea on its own. I would have preferred a simple payroll tax cut rather than a one year exclusion only for new hires, which may have more unintended consequences than punching another hole in the deficit for short-term economic gains. But it's a helluva lot better than "green jobs" for "creating or saving" jobs in real economic terms. "Green jobs" in real economic terms means a lot of jobs, that is real people working and getting paid for it, are destroyed. In the long run yes, we would benefit from a less resource dependent and energy efficient society. But selling a bill of goods that it will somehow improve the unemployment situation is false. And his broader examples of jobs saved I noticed were mostly public services (cops, teachers, prison workers, etc). That's not to say we don't need good cops and teachers and so on right now more, but those are not jobs that the government ought to get credit for "saving". Because they are government jobs in the first place.

Energy/climate policy is going to depend a lot on coordination with the rest of the G20 and mostly with China in particular than it will on the Senate. The actual energy policy that he laid out sounded a lot more like McCain's. Which in terms of getting something done is probably very good. In terms of there being a meaningful energy reform, like a carbon tax (not "cap-trade" like the House passed which is a joke), it is probably very bad.

Health care reform is back up to 50% on intrade. I was pretty sure it was not dead after Brown won in Massachusetts and that Obama would probably rally for it with this speech, which he did I thought. After looking at the mechanisms that they can use to pass it anyway in spite of the filibuster in the Senate (reconciliation), it may end up being an uglier bill in a few ways (for example by carving out an exclusion for unions but not other middle class people on the "Cadillac" health plans, which I believe neither should get one) and will probably mean that the concessions that Lieberman and Nelson and Stupak wanted will be killed. On balance that doesn't mean I will approve of the final bill. I think it could use some tougher cost controls and some tougher love for most people to more equitably share some of the cost of their non-catastrophic medical costs (by allowing for HSAs rather than establishing "minimal coverage limits"). Nevertheless I will stand by my own prediction that health care in some version will still pass and I think the speech probably will tilt it in that direction. In so far as I approve of the fact they are attacking the issue and need to continue to attack it for our long-term economic stability, that's good. In so far as I think they are tending to attack in a modestly progressive agenda, with a program that looks something like Switzerland or Massachusetts (but not England or Canada) instead of leaning toward Singapore, that's not so good. In large measure because Swiss and Romneycare are more expensive than even the UK and Canadian systems and it doesn't seem to hurt our system when it does actually behave like a market (which is rare). But I realize that's also just my weird libertarian preference for markets over central planning talking. I also think that he could have made a stronger argument that fixing health care even slightly would be helpful for our overall market efficiency (if not health care itself), in particular for people in the middle class or who have small businesses. I don't think that happened. Maybe it will over the next week or two.

Civil rights stuff that has passed does tend to get overlooked (equal pay and hate crimes, one of which I'm on board with and the second I'm ambivalent about), but I did not like the skipping right over point "relitigating the past" (concerning things like Gitmo). The appeals to our higher ideals are important, and they are powerful weapons that should never be discarded in the broader campaign against terrorists. But it would be more helpful if we lived up to them once in a while. A clearer and possibly transparent way (at least within the three branches of government, if not the public at large) to make decisions concerning the detention status of captured suspects would be one enormous step rather than leaving such decisions and the powers which enable them only within the executive branch. As would some nudge and appearance of accountability for abuses of that authority, starting with the Seton Hall exposed cover-up of the deaths of three (scheduled to be released) inmates in Guantanamo. I want some answers. I will not be impressed with stories like Mark McGwire's "I'm not here to talk about the past". It's pretty clear that we're willing (and should) talk about the past to discover how our economy ended up in shambles. Why shouldn't we talk about our foreign policy and its related domestic security policies?

Calling out the SCOTUS decision that I happened to approve of, because I happen to think that First Amendment is really neat, even when it applies to evil mean corporations that I despise and silly religious organisations that I share few, if any, ideals and practices with. Not cool Mr President. The part that is strange about that: Most Democrats are actually okay with that decision, even though their politicians and liberal SCOTUS members weren't. I don't think he needs to pander to independents too much. We can occasionally recognize he's got a D after the name on the ballot. And if they're independents because they're sort of libertarian like me or constitutionalists like a Ron Paul type, I don't think they're all that pissed about that decision either. I think I'm just taken by surprise by the DC reaction to this one. Also in the firm camp of things I really wish he would never say is the part where he bashed corporations who send their jobs overseas and those damned Chinese and Germans and Indians. I like America, I happen to think we have usually a pretty good deal in terms of rights and freedoms and the possibilities of wealth-making for individuals. But that doesn't mean I think that the jobs that we are "shipping overseas" are things that Americans are entitled to, ought to do, do better than, and thus should return instead of staying over there. I say good riddance to a customer service job or to a data entry position. I've done those. Those jobs suck.

Final point.
I'm not totally sure where I come down on the hope-idealism about America stuff. The stories that tied into the help in Haiti (the chants of US after firefighters pulled people from destroyed buildings are remarkable in a way that reminds one strongly of the 9-11 culture of unity and compassion that America can be capable of, when it lets itself. Which is sadly usually in moments of tremendous grief and suffering). But I am also incredibly cynical about people in general and political processes in particular. I call this realism as opposed to optimism. So it's hard for me to feel "good" about what we could be when I see a tremendous gap between that and what we are. But it's also harder for me to sell it to other people as a necessity when I can't quite describe examples of it. I suppose I can outsource the sunny optimism to the President and poke a few of the balloons with my needling criticisms on the way out the door.

Full Text of the speech itself

So far as I can tell, I would imagine that Obama did little to sway people who already firmly dislike him for some reason, and a little bit to reassure some of the people who loved him and probably a good deal to sway the people whose confidence in Obama specifically (though not in Congress or either party) was shaken over the last few months and weeks (supposedly these are independent voters). I thought personally it was a pretty good speech. But I don't think you would say I was blown away by any of the ideas as they were presented in it and thus swayed off my own little wacky economic porch.

PS: I watched the thing on CSPAN, who apparently didn't feel necessary to pan away to the Alito gesturing and consternation at the rebuke Obama delivered over the SCOTUS's decision. I don't actually mind the President issuing such a rebuke, but I disagreed with it on the issue involved, thus I found it rather silly. Had I seen Alito's eye-rolling, I would have found that more questionable still however. They had ample opportunity to cite the precise "foreign influences" that Obama and Alito seemed most concerned about in the majority and dissenting opinions. If Obama wants to grandstand over that point, let him. It's not like he can or needs to do anything about the ruling. But don't become a dick when there's actually something of a reason for the SCOTUS justices to be apolitical and unemotional at these events. Joe Wilson can scream all he wants because people can vote him out of office if he becomes an ass. Samuel Alito cannot be replaced at the whims of the public and serves an apolitical function in government. That means there's a higher standard of protocol.