Obama's Kind of State of the Union Speech

Without a doubt, President Obama could convince a majority of the American people that Alex Rodriguez never used steroids, that Jupiter is the smallest planet in the solar system, and that Jerry Jones is the best GM in the NFL. Obama can deliver a speech. He can deliver so well that he can slip things by a listener. While discussing how he will cut the deficit in half, Obama mentioned that the recent $800 billion spending bill is just the beginning and that another one will certainly be needed. While forcefully saying he loathes big government, Obama fires off government program after government program. He can even persuade listeners to believe that the spending bill will save millions of jobs, while only being able to mention specifically 57 policemen in Minnesota. But the best example of the special rhetorical gift Obama has is his ability to say with a straight face that the recent spending bill contained no earmarks. (I think even Nancy Pelosi had to think about that one – more on her in a bit.)

It was apparent early on that Obama had listened to Bill Clinton’s advice to at least mention something hopeful. In a line that is sure to be repeated, Obama stated “We will rebuild, we will recover, we will emerge stronger than ever before.” That was the first positive statement Obama has made in a month. He heavily defended the largest spending bill in US history, and placed Joe Biden in charge of overseeing its implementation because “Nobody messes with Joe,” and because if it fails, he can blame Biden as well. (By the way, Obama was criticized by some for his casual remark about messing with Joe, but I don’t mind that at all. We could use a little more casual talk from usually scripted politicians.) But when one gets past the rhetorical skill of Obama and begins to look at what he actually said, there is very little there as far as real direction for the country.

One topic Obama discussed was health care reform. He mentioned how the cost of health care is weighing down our economy. I would definitely agree with him; our health care costs are unwieldy. I believe we do need to address health care, and if Obama follows through and actually allows bipartisan discussion and input, then maybe something positive can be accomplished. But more than likely, Obama becomes the 20th president to mention health care reform without actually accomplishing anything worthwhile. Not to mention that addressing health care reform will not help in slashing the deficit in half, which he has promised to do.

On education, Obama spoke of the need for reform. Good, but what does he mean? He doesn’t give specifics. His best line from this portion of the speech was that students who drop out of high school are not only failing themselves, but they are failing America as well. Amen. His solution to the high school dropout rate? Have parents parent their children and make college more affordable. OK, how does the government do that? How does one legislate good parenting skills? It’s a nice line, but doesn’t really help address the issue of education reform. And are people dropping out of high school because they can’t afford college, or because they hate school?

Next, surprisingly, Obama took on a more partisan tone. Perhaps it was the manic Pelosi behind him, but about 37 minutes into the speech, Obama decided to taunt Republicans. After the Republicans cheered his line about too high a debt, Obama decided to play a little political game and mention he “inherited” the deficit. Never mind that the deficit he inherits this year is because of the spending bills, including the $700 billion bailout in the fall, passed by this Democratic controlled Congress and voted for by him. Seemingly, Nancy Pelosi even forgot she oversaw the deficit spending last year as she leapt to her feet. I’m confused, did George W Bush write, pass, and sign all the spending bills the last two years while he was a lame duck President?

Obama is a masterful speaker. It was quite a contrast, not only concerning style but substance as well. Whereas Bush would speak 70 percent of the time about foreign policy and 30 on domestic issues, Obama spent 95 percent on domestic issues and mentioned briefly the wars we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing about Iran or Israel. Also, the Obama presidency appears to be presidency of the task force. Obama is able to delay specifics to his ideas by citing a task force on the subject. It will be interesting to see if these task forces deliver.

Other observations: It was great to see Justice Ginsburg, who had surgery due to cancer a few days ago. I disagree with her constitutional viewpoint, but she is a very nice lady and a very smart person. What was Nancy Pelosi on last night? And did anyone look more miserable than Hillary Clinton? She had been traveling all over Asia all week only to catch a plane back in time for the speech. She must have been exhausted – I think the Secretary of State sounds like a miserable job. But I can only imagine that she was fighting jet-lag muttering “I should be giving this speech!” the entire night.

On Gov. Bobby Jindal’s response: I thought he did a fine job. The response is one of the most awkward political moments. After an hour of cheers and pomp and circumstance, someone from the other party has to deliver a rebuttal to an empty room. But just ask Kathleen Sebelius or Tim Kaine, it’s not an easy task. Many are ridiculing the delivery and style of Jindal last night, and he did come off as hokey in parts of his speech. But the substance of the speech was solid, no one can question Jindal’s intellect, particularly on the economy and leadership, and he is only 37, so he has a few years to improve his delivery. He is excellent in interviews as well – very articulate. Also, we should be reminded that there is more to being president than delivering a good speech. And Jindal will make a great president one day. But on the response, I think the Republicans should do a panel response. Forget the prepared speech. Instead, have a round table of sharp conservative minds that can take the speech the President just delivered and truly respond to it. It would be risky because it would not be prepared, but I think it would be much more effective than trying to match Obama’s delivery.