CNN iReport

As I watched the President’s State of the Union speech, one thing occurred to me.

Those who have decided he is a failure will call him a failure.

Those who have decided he is a success will call him a success.

Those who wished to be moved were moved and those who wished to remain unmoving were unmoved.

As for me, I stand in the center, hearing promising comments of brilliant motivation, remaining hopeful and yet hesitant at the same time.  For the love and sake of my country I HOPE he can fulfill the promises he’s made. For that same love for my country I fear he may not be able to – or allowed to.

I also realized the GOP and supporters will instantly grab a hold of any acknowledgement of the Bush Administration’s involvement in creating the current economy as finger pointing and shifting the blame.  Those of this mindset will not be swayed by any logic or discussion.  Yes, the current economy is the responsibility of the Obama Administration but it was brought into existence by the previous administrations. I use plural because it is not wholly fair to blame 100% of the economy, the trillion dollar deficit, two failed wars, healthcare and employment solely upon the last eight years.  It goes farther than that, as many will attest.

When Bush took office so many years ago, he blamed the Clinton Administration on several facts. Specifically, that he inherited the recession and 9-11 from Clinton. Was it not Bush’s own assistant, Mary Matalin, who claimed Bush "inherited a recession from President Clinton, and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history."

Have the Republicans forgot their own finger-pointing or was this, unlike Obama’s comments on inheriting Bush’s deficit and recession, merely acknowledging the actions of the previous administration and admitting the responsibility for those actions under the current (Bush) administration?  Hypocritical? Indeed.

It seem the GOP wants its cake and to eat it, too.

Let’s dissect those two points for a moment, shall we?

Fact: 9-11 attacks occurred 8 months into Bush presidency, after Bush had received memo warning of Al Qaeda's intent to attack

Attacks came eight months after Bush inauguration and more than a month after he had received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." President George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, eight months before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York City; Arlington, Virginia; and Shanksville,

Pennsylvania.

The 9-11 Commission stated that on August 6, 2001, Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and that Bush "did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether [then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza] Rice had done so." The Commission also "found no indication" that Bush's aides further discussed with him "the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" prior to 9-11 -- this despite the fact that "[m]ost of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented."

Perino previously stated that "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term." Matalin's claim about the 9-11 attacks follows former Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino's false assertion on the November 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity that "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

Fact: According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, recession began in March 2001 during Bush presidency

NBER determined that recession started exactly 10 years after expansion that began in March 1991, "the longest in the NBER's chronology." In March 2001, the U.S. economy went into recession for the first time in 10 years, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). NBER -- the private, nonpartisan organization whose business cycle announcements have long been considered the definitive word on the topic -- announced its determination on November 26, 2001:

“The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.”

(taken from http://mediamatters.org/research/200912270001)

Now please keep in mind – I am not attempting, or even attempting to insinuate, that the current recession is entirely Bushs’ fault. Regardless of fault, it is Obama’s responsibility.  But by conveniently forgetting where the downturn originated and attempting to blame 100% of our current economic and employment woes upon a president that has been in office less than two full years is idiotic, naive, stupid… you get the idea. Only be looking back and identifying what went wrong can we hope to make changes that will right this listing country back to an even keel.

So what, exactly, caused the current recession? Some believe the fear of Y2K driving stock prices in technology firms skyward, leading to investors’ money going to pretty much any kind of tech company they could find, whether they showed profit or not. Dot.Com companies, whom many investors had sunk considerable capital, began a rapid decline as stock prices dropped, and many went bankrupt.

Others suggest high interest rates, fluctuating oil prices and, yes, greed and corruption.

(taken from http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/cause_recession.htm and http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4727 respectively)

Again, most of this took place in the early 2000’s, well before Obama even began running for a presidential bid.

Let’s say you purchase a Cadillac. It’s your pride and joy but, things being the way they are the economy, that Cadillac is used. Previously owned. A lease return. As you are driving, something in the engine goes wrong. You take it in, have them check, and they advise you the previous owner made some modifications to the timing, fuel injection, etc. and the repairs are going to be expensive, mostly because any warranty on the vehicle was voided due to these modifications and your insurance balks for the same reason.

You didn’t make them. The previous owner obviously fooled around with the car. It’s not your fault… none of this matters. The car is yours, in your possession, and with it are all the problems associated with this thing.  So, if you want to have the car repaired, you have no choice but to pay an exorbitant fee.  However, was it your fault? No. Would you tell anyone it was your fault? Of course not. You’d say “The previous owner was a jackass and did these modifications I had to pay for!”

Now what if your insurance carrier, car dealer or mechanic said to you “Stop pointing fingers and blaming the previous owner. Can’t you accept any responsibility?”

I wonder what your reaction would be at this point…

All in all, I found the President’s State of the Union address both hope – and fear – inspiring.  I found Bob McDonnel’s response lacking.  Wooden, stiff, well-rehearsed… this was a response that was completed well before the Address was even made.

The Republicans’ concept of tax cuts in a recession makes sense only on the surface. When you have a government that is starving for funding, tax cuts are not the correct approach if you want to lead the country out of a recession.  Yes, individual citizens would be happy to pay fewer taxes for a limited time but in doing so, several Federal and State programs designed to assist millions of Americans in need suffer.  The turnaround on this is that those dependant upon such programs now must draw from other Federal dollars, increasing government spending without additional Federal income. In other words, increasing the deficit.

It’s called cause and effect. 

However, raiding taxes during a recession seems counterintuitive. That is, as long as the government continues to spend freely. And therein you have the key that has been missing from every previous administration: how to stop government spending without limiting the necessary Federal programs required to keep the nation moving.

Obama touched on this. In fact, he slapped it directly in the face.

He has pledged to freeze spending on some domestic programs for three years, starting in 2011.

The spending freeze would apply to a relatively small portion of the federal budget, affecting a $477 billion pot of money available for domestic agencies whose budgets are approved by Congress each year. Some of those agencies could get increases, others would have to face cuts; such programs got an almost 10 percent increase this year. The federal budget total was $3.5 trillion.

Small savings at first

The savings would be small at first, perhaps $10 billion to $15 billion, one official said. But over the coming decade, savings would add up to $250 billion.

The White House is under considerable pressure to cut deficits — the red ink hit a record $1.4 trillion this year — or at least keep them from growing. Encouraged by last week's Massachusetts Senate victory, Republicans are hitting hard on the issue, and polls show voters increasingly concerned.

Obama's separate public comments previewed the State of the Union address he will deliver Wednesday night.

The proposals he described won't create jobs, but he said they could "re-establish some of the security that's slipped away." His remarks aimed to lift the nation's dour mood and show he is in touch with the daily struggles of millions of people as resentment runs high about lost jobs and the economy.

(from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35057966/ns/politics-white_house/)

Such a plan may work to recover the economy and lead us out of our current deficit – and, to play Devil’s advocate, may even work with the tax cuts the Republicans are suggesting.

The key difference being, however, whether we wish to be out of this multi-trillion dollar deficit in ten years or twenty. This debt will be inherited to our kids and grandkids if we don’t take the initiative and sacrifice some of our own comforts now.  Republicans continuously warn about this inherited debt yet seemingly act to perpetuate it by refusing to make their own sacrifices, demanding that the government somehow become self-sufficient and non-interfering at the tame time. Such a feat is impossible. They know this, but they remain unified in their stance of denial.

They have promoted themselves on the ‘fact’ they believe in tax cuts not tax raises. That they can provide funding without adding additional strain on the middle class.  This is wholly untrue and equally impossible.

When Republicans Raise Taxes They Don’t Call Them Taxes

Local Republicans have made their political living by claiming to oppose tax increases – any tax increase, for any reason, come hell or high water.

But more and more often, these same Republicans are raising the costs of public services.

Toll increases are one example.

Tuition increases for community colleges and state universities are another.

The rule – or rather the ruse – is that Republicans don’t call these increases in the cost of public services taxes.

They call them tolls, or fees, or tuition increases.

But they are taxes by another name.

And they are all regressive taxes – taxes that disproportionately hit working people and the middle class.

(from http://themovingtarget.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/1949/).

Moving on from this, Obama hit another nerve on the ‘Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell’ policy.

According to Obama, he is asking for a repeal of the DADT which currently prevents gays from serving openly in the military.

According to John McCain:

“In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy.

This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our armed forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

Now is not the right time… we’ve heard that before, on countless occasion. A standard GOP response to policy they do not wish to support. Healthcare, as an example.  Apparently it has never been the ‘right time’ to reform healthcare, according to many in the GOP.

I can think of no moment in our nation’s history when prejudice, segregation, racism or alienation was honorable, warranted or right.  Most Americans want an end to DADT and DOMA, yet this prejudice and segregation has been allowed to remain legal.

Does McCain not trust the troops and officers he respects so much? Does he think they would not be able to control themselves if they knew the man or woman saving their neck under fire was gay?

DADT is an internal issue; the military needs to train its soldiers that while they are our fighting for democracy and freedom, they are fighting for the democracy and freedom of every American.  Yet how can they when not every American can serve their country legally?

With that, I’ll end this and open it for discussion. I know it is long and I apologize, but there is a lot to cover and a few quick paragraphs won’t do the argument justice.

I think we’ve covered a wide base of issues here and I encourage discussion and debate. As I’ve said, if you’ve already deemed Obama a failure or a success then little will change your mind.  If you are like me, and more near the center, then I welcome your input and discussion.

Peace.