January 25th, 2012
12:38 PM ET

Did you buy what Obama was pitching in State of the Union address?

With his re-election at stake, President Obama in his State of the Union address late Tuesday said "no challenge is more urgent" than keeping the American dream alive.

He laid out his plan for reinvigorating the economy by again calling for the wealthy to pay more in taxes. He called for lowering corporate taxes and providing incentives for U.S. manufacturers to bring overseas jobs back to America, while ending tax breaks for businesses that continue to outsource. Obama also ordered his administration to open up 75% of potential offshore oil and gas resources. He also challenged Congress to act on comprehensive immigration reform, and he called for legislation like the DREAM Act that offers children of illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military a path to possible citizenship.

Read the president's speech  | Key points of his speech

Whether he can get a divided Congress to act on the issues he set forth Tuesday night will be a big question during his re-election campaign. As CNN contributor Julian Zelizer asks: Is the Obama presidency "built to last"? But perhaps the bigger issue is: Can Obama get the support of a frustrated nation behind him to give him another term?

 When it comes down to it, it's a question of whether America bought what Obama was pitching.

Zennie Abraham told CNN iReport that he was impressed by Obama's State of the Union address, which he saw as a wholehearted and necessary embrace of a pro-U.S. trade policy.

"The President now realizes that nationalism is the one approach that will save America, whereas when he first took office, our allies, like France and Germany, were trying to talk him into maintaining the 'free trade is good' policy that has harmed America," Abraham said. "In doing so, Obama also hones his case for good old-fashioned Liberalism."

Abraham, from Oakland, California, said he felt Obama delivered "an excellent speech," one that was right for our struggling country, and took the steps to begin showing just how he will turn it around.

"He outlined the role of government in our lives as it is needed in our lives now to improve America and restore our standard of living," he said.

But Vernon Hill, a conservative-leaning voter, was generally disappointed with the State of the Union speech, and doesn't think that Obama has achieved enough to deserve another term as president.

Hill felt there were many more issues that Obama needed to address that had been hampering his ability to get anything done.

"Obama has been his own worst enemy by surrounding himself with people who will not disagree with him and whom have no business backgrounds," he argued.

Hill, who is from Morehead City, North Carolina, said he felt the president is a "master storyteller," but needed to talk more actual substance about bypassing Congress, the Keystone XL pipeline project, the deficit, and the current cost of gas. So, for him, Obama's speech was just another example of "more promises and hope."  And Hill said Obama hasn't shown that he can go past rhetoric and deliver results.

"If he can't succeed in three years, four more years would be more failure on his part," he said. "Obama has been his own worst enemy."

Egberto Willies told CNN iReport that Obama needed to go harder and more forcefully moving forward.

"I hope Obama does take a more aggressive approach. People like his calm approach. They know his accomplishments but they are still in dire straits," he said. "He must point specifically to the root of our current demise, and forcefully state that being given a second term with a Congress willing to work for the American people, as opposed to an ideology, is essential."

Willies, from Kingwood, Texas, said he did however think Obama took the first steps toward that goal by delivering an appropriately articulated speech that presented how he will move his vision forward. Willies said he believes the speech will help get the president re-elected.

"It is likely the best State of the Union address that he has ever given," Willies said.

Willies said he thought Obama was able to tout his specific accomplishments, while refuting what he saw as fallacies being floated by the Republicans about his policies. And he told the American people that regardless of the gridlock, he would find a way to help them, Willies said.

"He also most importantly said where he has the power to act, he will, and if Congress comes along it would be better," he said.

Willies, who attended a watch party, interviewed several guests about what they thought about Obama's speech. Several of the people there said they thought it was an "excellent speech," one that touched on all of the issues he needs to be talking about. And many of those people said they were pleasantly surprised that Obama delivered even more than they had expected in his fight for a strong middle class.

But not everyone praised Obama's ideas or believes he can pull off the feat of bringing the government together to create change.

A commenter with the username xtallake said that Obama's ideas are just not the right ones for this country.

"He is too far liberal and the cause of the completely divided Congress. And he doesn't even know it," xtallake wrote. "He needs to unite and compromise...but he doesn't. He will not be re-elected again....unless he actually tries to work with the other side. We need a uniter."

Longtime iReporter and political junkie Omekongo Dibinga is optimistic about Obama's presidency after watching Tuesday night's address, but believes Obama has a way to go before his rhetoric and accomplishments come into alignment.

"Presidents are generally more aggressive with their agenda on their second time around," Dibinga said. "The main thing I want to see are long-lasting improvements in education."

For him, it is time for Obama's rhetoric to really bear some fruit. And while he feels that Obama delivered some strong ideas that set him apart from the Republican candidates' offerings, the proof of whether Obama is the right one to lead will be in the results, he said.

"'I am indeed optimistic but I just haven't seen some of the things he was talking about bear themselves out over the past three years," he said.

Mark Ivy agreed that Obama presented some solid ideas during his speech that delivered plenty of red meat to his base, but said that Obama needs to address the national debt and deficit spending in order to attract swing voters and win re-election.

"'We are all in this together. We must all be willing to give a little," he said. "The number one way to attack the debt and attract Independents and Republicans is a real plan of attack on the tax breaks, the tax deductions that cause the disparity in the effective tax rates. This must (be) done across the board."

Ivy, who is from Farmersburg, Indiana, said he believed closing the "loopholes" would have a real impact, and it is a move he believes both Republicans and independents can support.

The speech, Ivy said, was a "populist and mostly moderate course of action for the next 10 months." But Ivy said he wished the president had discussed even more specifics rather than general themes.

Overall, Ivy thought Obama gave an "excellent stump speech."

"But he offered nothing  that would inspire or win over Republicans or independents," Ivy said. "While I give the President kudos for his closing and  mentioning Seal Team 6 and the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden, there was very little new and nothing to breathe life into our sagging economy or to stymie the ruptured artery of debt siphoning the life from the nation."

But not all of those who generally oppose Obama thought he did all that badly in laying out his vision for the country.

"Forgive me. I am a Republican and a Conservative. But I just cannot deny that Obama is EXACTLY what the country needs right now," user SteedLaw commented. "What I just heard is what every American has been waiting to hear. Can he achieve it? Well, it sounds like Congress just needs to get those bills put together. Otherwise, I think it is safe to say it is curtains for the GOP this round.

"Obama may not be many things, but there is no doubt he is a true leader. Until I hear anything of that magnitude come from the mouth of a republican candidate (which I doubt), Obama can count on my vote."

That's a sentiment other readers echoed, wondering if what Obama did last night shines a spotlight on the GOP and what it is offering or not offering.

"Obama is not the perfect choice, but the best one for 2012," a user named imdudesdad commented. "The Republicans offer nobody who can do better. With them, it's more Bush policies and maybe worse attacking Iran for another expensive government spending program. Obama isn't perfect, but is by far the best."

Adriana Maxwell said she thinks that Obama's State of the Union address was great oration, but she's skeptical about how much of his agenda will actually be put into action unless he attempts to compromise with the GOP-controlled house.

After talking about several of the plans that Obama mentioned Tuesday night, Maxwell said she suspects that Republicans will argue his plans will only increase the size of the government and not actually save money for consumers.

"Occasionally Speaker Boehner and other Republican leadership will comment that they haven't spoken to the President about the legislation," she said. "It gives the appearance the that the White House is not cooperating on domestic issues."

And that could be a big issue, based on all of the plans Obama laid out Tuesday night. If he can't get support, he'll be forced to try to go at it alone, and that's something Maxwell said she thinks isn't exactly the best idea. She said there needs to be a real effort by the president to lead a collaborative effort to turn the nation around from what she calls a "state of disunion."

One commenter, Mike500, said the speech only solidified his opinion that Obama was the worst leader since President Jimmy Carter.

"More class warfare. More big government. More spending other people's money," he wrote. "Truly sad."

Independent voter Melissa Fazli was motivated by the State of the Union address to support Obama's re-election campaign. She says she strongly supports Obama's call to investigate and bring prosecution against the lending practices that led to the housing crisis.

As a former real estate agent, she said she saw mortgages that never should have being given. So when Obama announced his special task force, it hit Fazli hard.

"I was literally brought to tears," she said.

She added she hoped that Attorney General Eric Holder would take Obama's message to heart and work to bring real justice to those "that were bamboozled by these big banks."

"I would like to see it enforced by everyone using social media everyday to keep it on Obama's table until indictments are made," she said. "I would love to see some of these banks go directly to jail and not collect even $200 along the way."

Obama's statement didn't just make her get teary-eyed. It also convinced her to make a drastic change, proving that perhaps for some, Obama did do enough to restore their faith in him.

"I have something to confess," she said. "As a 22-year registered voter of the American Independent Party I am switching over to the Democratic Party. I believe in a democratic society, for the people and by the people and President Barack Obama has convinced me to switch from an Independent to a Democrat."

While she voted for Obama in 2008, she felt that Tuesday's speech cemented her belief in his views.

"I realize after listening to all the GOP candidates and listening to Obama's State of the Union address that I am really a Democrat, so much so, that I printed out my voter registration form and already switched to the Democratic Party."

soundoff (2,654 Responses)
  1. Colleen

    Picture this: If you have been elected the President of the United States. You walk in the oval office, sit down at your desk, and look at the mess that the president before you left for you to clean up. You are working your butt off, trying to clean it up, and you have Congress fighting against you every step of the way. Then you have the people thinking you are no good, a liar etc. So guys, the people who are against Obama, you run for office, and see if you can do a better job.

    January 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Roy

      The big problem is the Congress. Big mistake giving the House to Republicans.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • ems

      Hi Colleen,
      Yeah! Next time you go in to work temporary job, go ahead and whine about how you can't get your work done because the person who's job you were hired to take and doesn't work there anymore, did a bad job. That's called passing the buck. You probably wouldn't be asked back either!

      January 25, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Kate

    YES.
    The opening was brilliant, praising the military's internal cooperation and successes (something Both sides of the aisle should support), then urging all of us to follow their EXAMPLE. Brilliant opening on so many levels.

    I don't lay the current state of affairs at Obama's feet, but then I guess I have a longer memory and sense of history than some commenters.
    So much of what he HAS accomplished has gone unnoticed, but ask a college grad about their student loan for example, and they will enlighten you.

    January 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Donkey Party

      why yes, we should blame everything now and in the future on BUSH, are your hallucinations caused by a medical condition? or the narcs your on while chanting at an OW rally? Obama clearly has done nothing to improve the economy, military, energy or country...aside from setting the USA back. Yeah that's brilliant LOL

      January 25, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Roland

      Tell it sister! It's going to be a sad November for a lot of Republicans. "Loud & abnoxious" does not equal "majority".

      January 25, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
  3. brian

    What a joke!!!! He gave the same joke of a speech prior to him sadly getting elected. What a story teller. He would be an awesome used car salesman, He talks a good story but delivers a heap of junk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    January 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  4. SK

    The President's speech had all the right ingredients: It was an election year speech no doubt
    Jobs and retraining for jobs, Clean Energy, Teachers, and Firefighters, Tax code and Taxation rates for the rich
    How the deficit will be funded if the taxes for the rich increase, instead of burdening the poor. I mean who would not want all these dreams- everyone Democrat, Republican, Independent would agree with most of these points

    What he lacks is the fire to inspire. He sounds very "middle" path, and though this can be very good in a divided time, in the end he has to put passion into the leadership and inspire people to believe in what plans he has. In fact, he also needs to push the criticism that is being leveled against him that the division has been somehow caused by him!

    The biggest criticism has come from the fact that he did not do much after he took office- that he has not fulfilled his promise- that he knew what he was getting into and made promises based on that-
    He needs to communicate two things separately- what he got into and where he was taking us and what would have happened if the financial crisis had not happened when it did- he did not cause the financial crisis, the banks did, and then the Government has been responding to that urgent problem so he had to create policies to address that before many other things. It is like when you are trying to fix a wound, and suddenly another life threatening lump shows up, you are then after that first, it's something like that. Just when he was addressing the mess Bush left us in- in terms of the wars and debt, the financial markets crashed, and they had to then be addressed first.

    He needs to show how he addressed these critical issues and along with dealing with these critical issues, he also handled the original post Bush issues (including getting rid of Osama and pulling out troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, etc)

    HE also needs to sound less "middle" path- and convince that this is the ONLY way a divided house and a divided country 1% or 99% would be working. He needs to inspire more and push his ideas more assertively as being right (because who would disagree that we need good teachers, and police and equitable taxes). Given the way the Republicans are fighting, name calling, and bringing up issues of morality and money and disgrace, it is scary to think if any of them became a president. In fact, the Indiana Governor who gave the speech after President Obama would have made a better candidate for the Republicans than those in the running today!

    January 25, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • ems

      The only problem is that he says one thing and does another! Facts are tricky things. He is not believable. He had his chance and things have gotten way worse. Remember, he had 2 years with a Democrat controlled Congress. It's gotten worse. I just don't believe him anymore, no matter how good his speeches are. I don't feel sorry for the guy. We got what we deserved. The press gave him a big pass during the last election and that is bound to happen again. He is pitting Americans against each other. Because of his policies and rhetoric, we are more divided then ever. We'd have to be idiots to vote for the guy again.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • FHBOY

      To ems: I am so tired of this "he had a Democrat controlled House". That is just untrue. Each time that the House had something to do, the Republicans threatened FILIBUSTER so that whatever was to be discussed could not be. That 2/3 majority thing prevented more up and down votes, protecting Republicans from showing the country what they stood for in debate. Obama has never had the opportunity nor a friendly Congress to help him along. Obstructionism thy name is Republican filibuster.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • ems

      Hi FHBoy,
      But it's true! They did control the Senate and the House for his first 2 years in office. Fact. To say that is not true is just silly. The filibuster is commonly and equally used by both parties to stop things moving forward, so that is not really much of an issue is it? Some of the very rules that the dems set up, they are now trying to undo because it doesn't favor them. Aren't you paying more for health care, gas, taxes, etc., like the rest of us? I'm sure he is a nice guy but his policies have failed. Did you know that Americans are some of the most generous people on the planet as far as charitable giving? When some disaster happens in this country, we pull together. He's done many good things. But really, he's not the guy to pull us through this economy, he's making it worse. The facts speak for themselves. The smoke and mirrors just don't work anymore. We have to live the results of his decisions.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
  5. JC

    Excellent speech. Lets stop being Democrats and Republicans and start being Americans. Time to unite and heal this Nation.

    January 25, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  6. Jodi

    I honestly really want to like President Obama, and I really ideally want to believe what he states will work, will help the economy, but I have some fundamental disagreements about a few things. I'm a military spouse to a man, who has served his country for 15 years. We love the military. I also have a child on the autism spectrum. I fear two things: 1. This drawdown will force my husband out of his military career early, and that we will not be able to afford to help my son (due to the Taking Care of Military Kids With Autism Act), because of my son's condition, my husband has had to take odd jobs outside of his career field. I can appreciate that he is attempting to create jobs for veterans. But do you think it's fair (which was a word used a lot in the speeches) to throw my husband out of the service, then offer him a job with a significant pay cut, and cutting the services that my son receives for his autism. While my SIL, who has not worked a day in her life, will get increasing services for her son who has the same condition. I'm just trying to figure what part of that is truly fair. 2. I understand that it's not fair for millionaires to pay only 14% of their pay towards taxes. I agree with a flat 30%, but I disagree with extending tax increases down to the middle class, because eventually that's what's going to happen (even though every one says that it won't). I just feel that as a member of the middle class, I'm getting screwed no matter who is in office. I'll get screwed through unfair taxes with Obama, and I'll get screwed with unfair cuts to my child's services with Republicans. So no matter what I'm screwed.

    January 25, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Jodi

      I misspoke, I would like the Taking Care of Military Children Act to pass, because this act will prevent a loss of services for my son, if my husband is forced out at 20 years. Right now, we would like to stay in the military for 26 years (high year tenure) to continue the coverage we currently receive under Tricare.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • D

      Keeping a military, so your husband has a job is more important than NOT having a military and not killing others? Wow.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • The Truth

      Mam,

      I understand your concern but I think the President since being sworn into office has cut taxes for 95% so I doubt that middle class taxes will increase under this President. However, I do feel that we all need to pay a little more for the U.S. to pay for the two wars we executed over the past 10 years. But for the most part I don't see this president hurting the middle class.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • FHBOY

      Jodi, unless you earn more than $250K AGI, the 30% tax rate will not affect you – listen to the speech If Obama was allowed to bring in universal health care, and not blocked by the Republican party, you wouldn't be so scared that you child would be left with out the care s/he needs. Cut the military, yes possibly your spouse will be out earlier, but if you support this President, his vet benefits won't be cut and he can pick up on his life, not be scared he will leave you a widow in another war. Do the research, you'll find out that it can get better...and it will over time.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jodi

      Well, obviously, you don't know much about Tricare for Life. If my husband retires at 20 years, we will have Tricare for life, but my son's services are cut SIGNIFICANTLY. The Obama universal health care would not help in this situation, because Tricare does cover the minimum of autism services. What gets cut, ABA therapy which is about $80-120 an hour. Since I am confident my husband would have a job (even though it would have a significant pay cut), we would still not qualify MEDICAID due to income limitations, if we apply for a waiver depending on the state we live in it could be 1-4 YEARS before the waivers are approved. SO please don't condescend to me and tell me to do research. I have done research, I KNOW for which I speak.

      The jobs Obama is talking about creating would not pay what my husband makes currently in the military. We would look at between a 25-50% pay cut. So my son would lose services, we would lose income, and I'm supposed to think that this is FAIR. If it's so FAIR, then you do it– you take a 50% pay cut, cut 100% of the therapy your son needs, and vote Democrat.

      January 25, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jodi

      D– Whether you like it or not, the military is necessary. The military does so much more than just kill people. You would not be able to talk on your smart phone, use the internet, use the GPS in your car, listen to your radio, have radar on the weather channel, etc without the military. And this does NOT even account for the diseases that have been cured, vaccines that have been developed, with research done by and paid for by the United States Military.

      January 25, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Donkey Party

    yawn... change we can believe in, hope and change, change is coming...got no change...got no hope...NEXT IN LINE PLEASE

    January 25, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • The Truth

      You have no hope that is one you!

      January 25, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
  8. james

    NOPE !!!!!!–Same O, Same O–

    January 25, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  9. Dale

    No matter who is president both parties of Congress and both parties of the Senate will argue and fight and nothing will get done, need a third-party to solve this problem our government is broken.

    January 25, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  10. Dixie Independent voter

    I have great respect for the Canadians, but what would they say if the US wanted to put an oil sands pipeline through the bread basket of their country?

    January 25, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Donkey Party

      what bread-basket?? guess you haven't heard that we've been exporting commodities out of this country as opposed to actually utilizing surplus to help our own people...

      January 25, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dale

      This Fair Trade Deal: Wall Street lobbied Washington D.C. big time for this deal, Wall Street will be selling the American people down the river, to make huge amounts of money.
      Food prices are skyrocketing here in the United States INFLATION (( the main reason is Feed Corn , Soybeans, and Alfalfa )) these commodities are VITAL to everything that is groceries we Americans buy today.
      (( Wall Street )) they are selling these” vital feed commodities” to other countries, and driving United States food prices Sky-High.
      American produce farmers are slowly dying because the”” price of feed is way too high”” (( American produce farmers should get their animal feed first, )) to feed Cattle, Hogs, Chickens, and for Dairy products and for food cereals of all kinds.
      CORN SYRUP is used virtually in everything, if the price of corn syrup goes up, just about all food prices go up.
      Corn what is left over uses it for methanol and ethanol for gasoline additives. And then sell CORN to other countries.
      I guarantee you other countries in this (( fair trade deal )) will be taking care of their country first.
      Stop Wall Street fat cat hedge funds
      Please get this news out, Container ships come in full, and they are leaving full of “CORN and feed ALFALFA” !

      January 25, 2012 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Alvin

    All for fracking and dead against the Keystone. Hmmmm, for environmental reasons, hmmm. Perhaps he has never studied fracking. Hey fracking may be fine, but there certainly should be a study done on it. I have been told that in Venezuela, it has caused earthquakes and mountains to sink! Never mind the water table....
    Force all children to stay in school until grad or 18? How could that be enforced I ask you?
    Hey, why haven't eny of these brilliant plans been attempted in the first 3 years???

    January 25, 2012 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • bob

      Heeeeeey ALVIN you CHIPMUNK! What the Fu(# did bush do in 8 years!

      January 25, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cody

      Well, Obama was theoretically in support of fracking. He is currently trying to make it under EPA juradiction so that they can investigate it on a federal level, but the GOP is staunchly against it.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
  12. D

    Obama 2012!

    January 25, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • KC

      OBAMA for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      January 25, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Terry Gilley

    Obama will get my vote. He deserves another 4 year to try to clean up the mess left behind by the former Administration. Anyone who thought this would all be turned around in four years to begin with was sadly mistaken. It took eights years to screw it up this bad, I think it's fair to give him eight years to fix it. Besides, the double talking republican candidates have nothing better to offer anyway. How can the republicans talk about all the spending when the previous Administration is the one that spent so much to begin with? They were ok with it back then but now all of the suden they change their tune. They go with whatever fits the moment. The tea partiers need to back off. They seem like extremists to me.

    January 25, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Susan

      He had 2 years to clean up with huge majorites in the House and a Senate Majority and he squandered both by focusing on Liberal Projects like the Health Care (Tax and Spend) Bill and the Cornhusker kickbacks. Also, you fail to mention Pelosi/Reid led Democratic controlled Congress FROM 2006. Your liberal double standard is showing again: Bush gets all the blame as President, Pelosi/Reid NONE. Obama gets all the praise (as does Reid), but you blame 100% the GOP House (only in charge 1 of 3 years Obama has been president). Try a little intellectual honesty next time.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • KC

      YEAH OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      January 25, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • PMAC

      II agree that this will take more than 4 years to clear up. But this was not Bush only. If you trace this back it really began with Reagan and DeRegulation and everyone since then rode the bandwagon...until the wheels came off.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • PMAC

      To add to my comment Reagan was the 2nd President since FDR to raise the national debt. All REPs since Reagan have raised it all Dems have lowered it except Obama.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  14. DoNotWorry

    Obama has had a fight every step of the way. The 25 Republican jobs bills sent to my email from Boehner were all BS corporate giveaways that would never put a single job in place. The Republicans can eat their insane lineup for Presidency. Do you buy into Romney's jobs plan? He has spent 25 years killing jobs and building China's economy. Do you buy into Gingrich's jobs plan? He has spent even more years flopping his weenee around and seeing what part of the taxpayer's money he can sell to line his own pockets. These are the two best from the Republican lineup? Never mind the scare tactics being used to terrify us into voting for their crackheads.

    January 25, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Duane - St. Pete FLA

      Obama has done nothing......nothing. before he got the the white house...nothing, never ran anything...and it shows.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • KC

      LOVING OBAMA FOR PRESEDENT! LET OBAMA UNDO WHAT THE REPUBLICANS DID TO THE POOR. IT TAKES TIME TO UNTWIST THE MESS THEY HAVE PUT US IN. GIVE OBAMA A CHANCE TO TRY.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Wilson James

      President Obama had a good night. His speech was clear and factual. He has a good story to tell: Corrections of the Bush Economy are underway, jobs are returning, OBL is dead. We don't have our children dying in Iraq, and healthcare is available for all Americans. The stimulus worked and the money paid back. Why hell, even the NRA whackos still have Ol' Betsy. No one has lost a single "freedom". Any other interpretation would be purley partisan, wouldn't it?

      January 25, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Susan

      Obama had NOTHING in his way the first two years Pelosi/Reid ran congress and HE DID NOTHING ABOUT THE ECONOMY. Stop trying to blame the GOP congress, who has only been around 1 year, for OBAMA's FAILURES. He didn't even put forward a job's proposal until AFTER he lost the House. (The stimulus bill doesn't count, because it was a collossal failure and was only a bail out of the states....).

      January 25, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • nunya

      The best GOP candidate is Ron Paul, currently. He's not all over the media though, because he's too steady. He's not sensational enough to 'earn' their air-time. People want sensational news and he's simply too stable. Seems like his not appearing all over national media is a really good reason to vote for him. Seeing as how he doesn't fit the idiotic mold the rest of our politicians fit into (from either side, Dem or Rep)... makes sense when you think about it, doesn't it?

      January 25, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • R. Stein

      If the root of the present problem with the economy is the republican members of Congress, why didn't Obama put into action any of these brilliant ideas during the first two years of his presidency? Why didn't he propose any of this magic legislation when his own party was in control of both the House and the Senate? If these are such good ideas, why weren’t they enacted when the republicans were powerless to thwart Obama’s grand vision for change? If the success of his plan is so assured why wasn’t it adopted 3 years ago? Had Obama worked to actually fulfill his “vision” of a new America, those pesky republicans would not be able to take any credit for the new robust, green and fairer economy Obama promised during his campaign. If Obama was unwilling to push for change when his own party was in control of both the legislative and executive branched of government, what possible reason could there be to place any credence in his latest nebulous promises?
      Knowing it will earn him votes and allow him to claim that he is working for the common man, Obama has consistently pandered to those who want him to take money from anyone that (in their view) doesn’t really need it and give it to someone else, because (in their view) they deserve it. This approach assumes that Obama and his cronies are those best qualified to decide what is excess wealth and they will actually spend it for the greater good. One can only imagine how many more failing “green” companies owned by generous political donors, or controlled by powerful unions will be able to enjoy the largess of an Obama government with access to all the “excess” wealth in the entire county.

      January 25, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Michael

    Are you people kidding? He stands up and says stop being partisan and is exactly the most partisan person in the room. Are any (and I do mean any of these ideas) helpful. NO!!!! The problem is not the rich pay too little taxes and you lemmings who listen to him harp this nonsense deserve what you have gotten- broken economy. We needed the oil pipeline and drilling everywhere for two reasons. One we need to be energy independent. Do you know of any cars that drive or houses that are heated NOT using fossil fuels. Yes that is right there are no truly green jobs none zilch zip nada. We need oil and that is not partisan. Second, drilling for oil and building pipeline are a little better paying than Mc'Ds and good paying jobs increase your tax base and allow people to buy things. When people buy things, people are hired to make them and when they are hired to make things, more people are hired to make other things. Yeah, social welfare bad, work good. More plainly rich is good, poor is bad. Shut up get an education and get a job. There is no social compact and I would explicitly renouce it if it did exist.

    January 25, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • aaron

      actually, all these ideas were extremely helpful. did you watch it, or was it on mute in your house?

      January 25, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Whatev

      Calm your jets and take a hard look at the truth. America is a sinking ship, and it's been sinking for a long time. You can't blame one president and we can't even blame Bush entirely either. Those two wars we had under Bush are still being paid for and all the deregulation he brought about PUSHED the housing bubble to the brink. Let's face it, giving the rich more money to make so called jobs HAS FAILED. It doesn't work, they horde it up or it ends up buying politicians so that the greedy can find ways to get rid of laws that have allow for JOBS MY DAD USED TO have to go to Mexico or elsewhere. I know this for fact cause I lived it. All over the damn country I saw this growing up. Get real, you know nothing.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • DoNotWorry

      You live in the past. Oil, more oil is the Republican mantra. Never mind that cities like Dallas had great transit until the oil companies paid city government to dismantle it. ARCO Oil and Gas Company spent 60 years buying up alternate energy patents in order to suppress them. If alternate energy was so worthless, why were they buying the patents? Now they are owned by BP, who is a big name in solar panels... that are artificially kept high just to keep the oil game going. Polls say that 70% of Americans want alternate energy, and you typical Republicans want to protect the oil cartel. Romney spent his entire career dismantling our manufacturing base. Gingrich spent his entire career selling anything not nailed down to the highest bidder. Bring me a candidate that has some ideas moving in a new direction, and we'll talk. Ron Paulers need not apply, your boy won't run Independent, and he isn't a Republican.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Duane - St. Pete FLA

      you are correct....100%.....Obama is the bigest divider the USA has EVER had. Rich and aginst poor, black aginst white, right aginst left......and he fans those flames to keep the attention off of the crappy job he's done.....Obama SUCKS

      January 25, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rheinlander

      Ah, another holdover from the Reagan era. Still hoping that trickle down economics is gunna trickle down to us all?
      Change your mind, change the world. Let's try Trickle UP economics. Put the $$$ into the hands of the ones who are actually going to spend it to stimulate the economy. Not the overly well off who hoard their resources, put it in offshore banks etc. The top 1% has enought to start multiple businesses, create jobs, make themselves, as well as others some $$$. You think they need more? You're mind set is in a Fossil age

      January 25, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • T. Griff

      Michael, would you mind pointing out any helpful ideas presented by the Republican candidates? Please come up with something other than lowering taxes for the rich. And it's ok to express your opinion, but it's rude to tell people to "get an education and a job." I have both. So, don't go there.

      January 25, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • LaDrell O

      Please explain the Ideas of the GOP to put people back to work other that a pipeline that you cannot say is completely safe. The pipeline would cause more hurt than good. HInt the "BP oil spill"

      January 25, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • nunya

      Michael, you are correct in stating he was the most partisan person in the room (aside from a few other staunch Dem.s) You are also correct about "drilling everywhere" – sort of. Burning oil is kinda crude if you think about it. But before people jump me from both sides, realize it's locked up energy. That's it – nothing more. It is a highly potent source of densely packed energy – which is why we use it. People are so busy looking at Right Now that they don't think down the line... Take our transportation system for example. We use gas and diesel to move on it. We use those fuels to run the machines to build and maintain it, too... It seems that the most reasonable way to get ourselves OFF of a petroleum based energy system is to increase its production in the short term. Use that additional production to run the machines we already have and use those machines to build a better, electricity based transportation system. Use the gas to build the infrastructure needed for an all-electric transportation system. WHY hasn't this idea come up on the national scene as a way to placate both sides and move America forward? SoundOff... do you agree w/ this "compromise" to oil production/consumption? Seems to be the best of both worlds, doesn't it?

      oh yeah... and it'd require a huge workforce too... can we say JOBS..? Also, as for paying for this... we'd have to get Welfare reformed a bit... to incent people to WANT to work on these jobs... so in a sense, it's already 1/2 paid for – we're just not getting societal benefit from those $$$. Also, isn't that what Welfare was supposed to be? A safety net to provide for people until they can get back on their feet? (Also lands in the Unemployment Benefits department too, doesn't it?)

      just sayin'... who thinks these should be on the national spotlight? Why hasn't either side's candidates mentioned this as a win / win ? Seems people like polarized viewpoints, maybe?

      January 25, 2012 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.