What Will the GOP Response Be to the State of the Union Address?

On Sep 9, 2009 during a similar joint session of Congress President Obama's major health care speech was hijacked by the cry of Republican Rep. Joe Wilson yelling "You Lie!". There is an awful low expectation of the GOP. Since the GOP didn't repeat that vile activity at the State of the Union Address then they can claim that they have always been cooperative and civil to their Democratic opponents. They can claim but next to no one believes it. That's alright with the GOP. They are just going for the 10 or 15% of most apathetic of the US populace that can be swayed by any appeal to their baser instincts. Speaking of which Republican Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), pinned the blame for the state of the economy on Mr. Obama with his quote "He's made a bunch of promises over this last year, including one tonight that I liked about more tax relief," he said. "But we've all heard these promises before, and he simply hasn't delivered."

He hasn't delivered because the GOP has obstructed.

They are the party of no. Policies that they have always backed they won't if Obama proposes them because they desperately want him to fail. When they talk to their constituents what will the GOP say? They have not proposed anything so they can boast of nothing!

That is going to be the GOP's line and they are going to stick to it. They will ignore the reality that even the most disinterested red stater realizes that the economy was adequate before Dubya gave everything away to his top 1% cronies. The GOP's popularity in the polls before the Tea Party Movement was 20%. It is up to 30% as a result of the saturation coverage that FOX provided for their creation the Tea Party Movement. You can only show so many pictures of thugs with weapons at town hall meetings before it gets boring so Rove and Murdoch will have to think up something new if they want to keep their 30% popularity.

The article "Inhofe calls Obama a great liar, says 'most' of State of the Union speech 'wasn't true.'" At

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/inhofe-obama-lie/

certainly exhibits the GOP's honor of the spirit of bipartisanship as it states "Reacting to President Obama's first State of the Union, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) told KRMG radio in Tulsa that he was impressed... with Obama's ability to lie effectively. Cautioning that he "didn't want to be discourteous about this," Inhofe said, "If you look at the groups he's catering too, there's a little bit for everyone - most of it wasn't true.

I was thinking back to the first State of the Union Address with President Clinton, and I thought this guy can say things that are untrue with greater conviction than anyone I've ever seen. I honestly think that Obama is better. And I don't mean that unkindly.

When he says things that he knows are not right, we know these are his weakest points and he tries to make them into his strongest points. ... So many things that he's said, 'all of our troops out by August,' well that just isn't going to happen. ... So I was very disappointed, but at the same time, I have to say that he was so incredibly eloquent, that I see a lot of people that I look at next to me that you know don't agree with this stuff and they start nodding in approval."

One thing Obama hasn't done enough of is simply reminding people that it is amazing that the US has pulled out of the horrible economic crisis Dubya left for Obama. The article continues "Inhofe called Obama's comments about the Bush administration's contribution to the deficit "disingenuous" and "just not true." But a CAP analysis concludes that 41 percent of the source of increased spending in 2009 is attributable to the financial rescues begun by Bush. Moreover, with regards to the redeployment from Iraq, PolitiFact found Obama has kept his promise to begin winding down our involvement and is on pace to do so by his August deadline."

The article "Senate Republicans seem to have one answer for Democrats: No" at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803729_pf.html
exhibits that as of January 29, 2010 the GOP remains the party of no as it states "In his State of the Union address Wednesday night, President Obama asked lawmakers to "work through our differences, to overcome the numbing weight of our politics."

On Thursday, Republicans sent their answer. The Senate took a vote on extending the federal debt ceiling -- without which the United States would go into default. All 40 Republicans voted no. The Senate took a vote on requiring Congress not to pass legislation that it can't pay for. All 40 Republicans voted no. The Senate took a final vote on passing the overall plan. Thirty-nine Republicans voted no. The 40th, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), skipped the vote. The state of the union is . . . unchanged."

This is how it has been Obama's entire administration. The GOP also obstructed the confirmation of Ben Bernanke and raising the debt ceiling, but didn't care what devastation they wrought by, as the article states "Republicans knew that failure was not an option; voting down the debt increase or rejecting Bernanke would send markets into chaos. But they also recognized that these were free votes for the minority, because Democrats, in the majority, would "own" any failure."

The article "Dem, GOP Leaders Spar Over Obama's Community Banks Plan" at

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6149247.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

exhibits more examples of how the party of no will act. It states "Speaking with Katie Couric after President Obama's State of the Union address, a Democratic leader and Republican leader sparred over the president's proposal to help community banks -- even though both said the intention was right.

Mr. Obama proposed tonight taking $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and using it to help community banks extend credit to small businesses.

"Enough with the borrowing and spending," House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said about the proposal on CBSNews.com's Webcast. "We owe that money to the taxpayers."

The policy is something the GOP traditionally supports, but not now. Why? As the article states "Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said it was hypocritical for Republicans to oppose the program while pushing for more assistance for small businesses.

Democrats, he said, "rose and cheered" at the president's plan. By contrast, he said, "I looked to the Republican side of the aisle, and they were all sitting on their hands... If you believe in small business, for goodness sakes, give them the lifeblood they need."

Durbin also commended the president's proposal to cut tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. "Those are two fundamental things we should all agree on," he said.

Cantor responded that this proposal amounted to "protectionist policies."

What about the mood of the GOP as they viewed the State of the Union address? The article "GOP Response to Obama on Bipartisanship: "Really?"" at

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6149017.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

states "After a year filled with uncertainty over major policy changes and partisan acrimony, President Obama said in his State of the Union address tonight that Americans "do not allow fear or division to break our spirit."

The Republican Party's response: Really?"

That must be wrong. Some liberal lefty made that up. No, as the article states "The research department of the Republican National Committee provided live-blogged responses to Mr. Obama's speech, and from the start, criticized the president's ability to reach across the aisle...Some have suggested that, in the wake of the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate in Massachusetts, Mr. Obama and other Democrats could try to govern more from the center. Yet when asked by a reader of the live-blog whether Mr. Obama would "distance himself from the extreme left in his speech," Matt Moon, deputy research director at the RNC, countered that he may, in fact, move even farther left.

"While he's promised to always keep his door open, he's rebuffed Republican lawmakers time and time again," Moon wrote. "If he continues to ignore common-sense, Republican ideas to create jobs and grow the economy, there's only one direction he can go in ... and that's to his left."

Many progressive policy advocates would be pleased to see Mr. Obama do just that. However, the Democrats' liberal base has grown restless with the president, as he has failed to deliver yet on health care reform or other campaign promises like the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
"Plenty of Democrats are 'O-Bandoning Ship,'" Moon blogged."

The GOP always wants smaller government. They must agree with Obama's plan to have a spending freeze. The article "Political Realities" at

http://www.ldjackson.net/news-politics/president-obama-to-propose-spending-freeze/

states "The proposed freeze, which could help position Obama in the political center by sharpening his credentials on fiscal discipline, would exempt the budgets of the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, along with some international programs."

The GOP has two conflicting memories etched into their minds. In 1994 and 1996 the GOP won seats in Congress by constantly attacking President Clinton. They hope that this will happen again. Maybe history will repeat itself, but in the 1998 elections they lost five seats in the House. The GOP must be betting that they will repeat their success of 1994 and 1996. November isn't far away. Unless they want their defeat of 1998 to occur again they better start cooperating with the Democrats or the party of no label will be indelibly etched on them, but as the article states "I think this quote from an aide to John Boehner speaks volumes. "Given Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you're going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Will the budget still double the debt over five years and triple it over 10? That's the bottom line."
Depending on the actual details, the Republicans should possibly try to meet the President halfway on this proposal, if there is a chance of doing something positive towards bringing down the deficit and slowing the out-of-control spending we have seen in Washington for so many years."

Obama is getting criticized for this by economists at all ends of the political spectrum because what happens if next year-when the freeze takes effect, Obama wants to use the government to inject some money into the system. As the article states regarding liberals' response to this idea "They are crying foul, saying the proposal will do nothing but cause further harm to the economy, in that the government is the last big spender in town."

The article "Poll: 83% of Speech Watchers Approve of Obama's State of the Union Proposals" at

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6149049.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

states "Of the randomly selected 522 speech viewers questioned by CBS, 83 percent said they approved of the proposals the President made....On health care, President Obama reiterated the need for reform, and most speech watchers (67 percent)approved of the president's plan for dealing with the issue. Prior to his speech, 54 percent said they supported his plans."

These polls aren't lost on the Democrats. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager recently returned as a member of Obama's inner circle of advisors. Plouffe's first recommendation was for the Democrats to pass health care reform because otherwise they risk having almost an entire year of work wasted with no end product being produced and with the GOP threatening the Democrats of not accomplishing anything-their grand goal of obstructing everything. We know that 67 percent of the people polled on health care wanted reform. The Democrats must get it accomplished. We know what the GOP's response will be, but we have a mandate to make health care wanted reform a reality.