Home > General > Rep. Lamborn compares POTUS association to “touching a tar baby”

Rep. Lamborn compares POTUS association to “touching a tar baby”

January 24th, 2012

The Denver Post:

Lamborn said through a spokesperson that he didn’t mean disrepect.

“Congressman Lamborn regrets any misunderstanding. He simply meant to refer to a sticky situation or quagmire.”

Yes, Right!  What an accident.(NOT!)  The Washington Post reports that Rep. Doug Lamborn is once again going to skip the State of the Union Address because he ‘disagrees’ with the policies of President Obama.  In fact, he disagreed so much last August, before Obama’s  Joint Session of Congress address, that he said he didn’t want to associate with President Obama.  Specifically, he compared working with the president  to “touching a tar baby.” (emphasis ours)

Supposedly, John Boehner encouraged everyone to attend.  He needs to require it.  Isn’t he the boss?  Where is Eric Cantor?  Isn’t he supposed to be helping the Speaker get everyone in line?

Lamborn’s comparison is totally unacceptable and he should resign.  No one today is so stupid they do not realize that a comparison of that sort is racially offensive.  No one.  Americans should refuse to accept any such statement from Lamborn and he should be censured.

Meanwhile, other lawmakers will practice bipartisan seating.  Kudos to those legislators who are willing to reach across the aisle.  No Labels has prepared a list of  Who’s sitting with Whom.   We may disagree about policy without the rancor and the hate we are seeing out of some lawmakers.  Lamborn must be pandering to his base.  Obviously his base must be comprised of people *I* want nothing to do with .  That is just very obvious “code.”

The fringe right is mainstreaming racist language

 

  1. Elena
    January 24th, 2012 at 10:34 | #1

    no way to”whitewash” this faux paux!

  2. Elena
    January 24th, 2012 at 10:35 | #2

    sounds like he forgot he was in public and not in the privacy of his own home.

  3. Elena
    January 24th, 2012 at 10:49 | #3

    I guess since he made this “racist” comment back in summertime he has chosen to “reaffirm” his rudeness by not attending this state of the union address? And people wonder why our up can coming generation can be so rude, look at their role models.

  4. January 24th, 2012 at 14:52 | #4

    Oh no….someone might have been rude. Tar Baby? Really? THIS is a reason for him to resign? The Tar Baby story is PERFECTLY apt. Working with the President can be sticky. He lies.

    Actually, why don’t return to tradition and have the President just send a report to the Congress and it can be read. That would be much better than the media circus that happens.

    We all know what Obama is going to say.

    There will be platitudes about fairness as defined by Obama. More government will be needed. Trillions more will need to be printed and spent to buy votes, I mean, prop up his presidency, oops, build more jobs. Any day now…..those jobs will start. He will focus like a laser.

    • January 24th, 2012 at 14:59 | #5

      Referencing any non-white person to ‘tar baby’ is simply unacceptable by today’s standaards. He knew what he was doing and I know exactly what he meant. He tried a real thin coat of white wash rather than profusely apologizing for using an expression that really has no place in society today.

      Yes, he should be censured and if he was a decent human being, he should resign. I would rather deal with Anothony’s Weiner. Funny how folks go nuts over body parts or posing and then shrug off really offensive racial language.

      If the congressman had been in a classroom, a corporation, or a sports announcer, he would have immediately been censured if they were in a good mood but in all probability fired.

    • January 24th, 2012 at 15:03 | #6

      It doesn’t matter what the president is going to say, regardless of who is president. The job of congress is to be there. Why won’t he be there?

      Many in this congress make me sick. They are unAmerican.

  5. Elena
    January 24th, 2012 at 15:23 | #7

    @cargo

    Stupid is as stupid does. In todays world, anyone with half a brain would know the term “tar baby” can be construed as racially perjorative. This Congressman is either a dimwit or he knew exactly what term he was using. He probably just forgot his was in public when he said it!

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1221764,00.html

    The Oxford English Dictionary (but not the print version of its American counterpart) says that tar baby is a derogatory term used for “a black or a Maori.”

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1221764,00.html#ixzz1kPQc0YC2

    • January 24th, 2012 at 18:03 | #8

      It’s sort of the same reason one doesn’t say ‘Sambo’ or ‘boy.’

  6. January 24th, 2012 at 15:24 | #9

    It is not the job of Congress to be there. It is the job of the President to present a report of the status of the Union. State of the Union addresses have become a joke. The President is a GUEST in the Congress and they act like Congress is their audience mandated to be there. And the constant circus of partisan applause is ridiculous.

    • January 24th, 2012 at 18:06 | #10

      Traditionally Congress should be there. Its just good manners. I agree about the applause. It gets old. Congress needs to go and they need to be polite. Its a fairly simple thing to do.

      John Boehner expect them to be there.

      What if Pelosi had cut Bush’s SOTU address? What would you have said in all your fairness?

  7. Elena
    January 24th, 2012 at 16:59 | #11

    I wonder Cargo, how different your reaction would be had President Bush been so disrespected, quite differernt I imagine.

  8. Kelly3406
    January 24th, 2012 at 17:41 | #12

    When I grew up in the South, the term ‘tar baby’ did not have racial connotations (that I am aware of). There were other terms like ‘Indian Giver’ that were sort of derogatory but no one thought anything about it. On very rare occasions, I had to bite my tongue when I almost lapsed into using such a term publicly.

    I think we should reserve outrage for real acts of racism (like 90% of an ethnic group voting for a candidate because he is a member of their ethnic class) rather than a slip of the tongue.

    • January 24th, 2012 at 18:17 | #13

      Blacks voting for Obama is racist? Now I have heard everything. You are kidding, aren’t you?

      You grew up in the south and don’t understand why it was so important? I am speechless. Maybe it is just a different era or a generational thing.
      Elena and I have discussed this. The one conclusion I have come to is that it is not something I will EVER be able to understand because I am white. The night of the 2008 election, or maybe the night after, did you happen to see the gathering in the park in Chicago? Jessie Jackson and Oprah were both in attendance. Both had tears streaming down their face. It has something to do with the struggle within this country for blacks to achieve equality. It isn’t something I will ever feel in my guts. I can’t.

      My hair stylist, who is a black woman, told me about her critically ill uncle who was 85-90, something like that, who got up, got dressed, and went and registered to vote. He had never done so before, he never saw the need. He said he never thought he would see the day that he could cast a vote for a black man and he wasn’t going to miss it. He lived long enough to see President Obama inaugurated. Then he died.

      Tar baby is offensive. If you didn’t know it was offensive, someone sure let you down. Its right up there with Sambo and Pickaninny. Lamborn knew that.

  9. January 25th, 2012 at 01:17 | #14

    @Elena

    Notice that I didn’t say that OBAMA needed to do this. I said that the tradition should return and I include past Presidents. I said previously under Bush.

    As for respect for Bush…. He was shown so much disrespect that I stopped worrying about it. Especially after the assassination movie.

    As far tar baby…. I know that tale. And the tar baby has never made me think of black people, even as a kid. Yes…yes…tar is black. But that was not the point of the tale.
    And yes, voting for someone or against someone because of the color of their skin IS racist. Understandable in this case, but still racially motivated.

    • January 25th, 2012 at 03:27 | #15

      @Cargo

      re Bush respect Regardless, 2 wrongs don’t make a right. I can’t recall specifics about state of the union addresses. I don’t care how people feel abiut the president, (whoever he is) act polite in public. Go home and write your ugly letters. I have been consistent with standard. I haven’t forgiven Jim Webb for doing something publically rude. I don’t want him shot but I have always had a bad taste in my mouth over it. I also remem\ber how President Clinton was treated, even before he was sworn in. 2 wrongs don’t make a right but the Bush people should go back there if they want to see why some of the unpleasantry happened to GWB. To date, I have never seen anything as bad as what was done to not only Bill but also Hillary and Chelsea.

    • January 25th, 2012 at 03:28 | #16

      @Cargo

      Now…back to tar baby. Give me a break. Br’er Rabbit and the Tar Baby, Song of the South, Uncle Remus, Br’er Fox, Br’er Bear. So just what race were they? What does’ Brer’ mean? How about the ‘accent in the film? Was it Chinese? Spanish?

      Part of me is tempted to do a little visual lesson in the form of a thread. But I don’t think I will bite. I simply am not going to fall for such a crock of rabbit doo. There is no one on the face of the earth over the age of 40 and who grew up in the United States who doesn’t KNOW, existentially, that Br’er Rabbit, Uncle Remus are supposed to be black animal characters.

      Here you go:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcxYwwIL5zQ&feature=related
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX44YHK5Bik&feature=related

      I love Song of the South. It was very much a part of my childhood. Having said that, my children and grandchildren will have to go with the Lion King and Pocahontas because Song of the South is just not part of what is a acceptable today. It is racially insensitive at best. It is of a different generation. But make no mistake. The congressman is old enough to know just what he was saying and doing. Tar Baby only fits into one story and one meaning. He can make all the quagmire excuses he wants. If that was his meaning he could have chosen quicksand. People just amaze me.

      Just out of curiosity, what did Song of the South make you think of?

      One final question, you are aware that many women were pushing for Hillary Clinton because she was a woman in 2008. What do you call wanting a woman president if you are a woman? How about those who want a president from their state or region? Racially motivated ???? I am not sure that is accurate but it certainly isn’t racist. :roll:

      Apparently Justice Thomas recused himself from the SOTU Address. Justice Alito was on a speaking engagement in Hawaii and Justice Scalia wasn’t seen.

      Kudos to those legislators who reached across the aisle and sat with a SOTU buddy.

  10. January 25th, 2012 at 04:06 | #17

    Rep. Lamborn is 58 years old. He knew.

    I should probably thank him for being a boatload of jackasses, to quote Censored. I just went back and read about Song of the South and its actors. I had forgotten the main story line of the actual people in the story. When I saw it I was so young I think I just wanted to see the cartoon characters (Br’er Rabbit, Fox, Bear) and the hell with real people. I had totally forgotten the story line or perhaps never paid attention to it. Zippity doo Dah is still a song of happiness. (see link above)

    Song of the South
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South

    Some facts:

    James Baskett who played Uncle Remus died 2 years after the movie was released. He was in his mid 40s. He couldn’t go to the opening of Song of the South in Atlanta because of the city’s segregation rules.

    He also played the voice of Br’er Fox. Br’er Bear and Frog were played by Amos and Andy stars. Lightnin was Br’er Bear. He died at age 90 in 2000. He would be 102 if alive this March. UFB.

    While I love the stories and songs from that movie and will say they give me comfort, I also would not ever reference anyone to one of the characters, especially a person of color. I know better and so does Rep. Lamborn. Zippedy Doo Dah, Congressman.

  11. January 25th, 2012 at 04:07 | #18

    Warren Buffett’s secretary was at the SOTU address. So was Steve Job’s widow. Neat. Both Bush and Obama had a neat way of bringing in the visual.

  12. BS in VA
    January 25th, 2012 at 05:59 | #19

    Term limits for Congress! Term limits for Congress! Term limits for Congress! Term limits for Congress!!!

  13. Cato the Elder
  14. January 25th, 2012 at 13:42 | #22

    No, but others have said that. On the floor of Congress. And in the news. Its a common narrative.

    As for voting for Clinton for being a woman, that’s not racist. Its sexist. Gender and race have nothing to do with qualities needed for office.

    As for Tar Baby…yes…the movie and tales concerned blacks. The characters were based upon black slaves/rural people. Bre’r is short for brother. The dialect was southern. And the tar baby tale came from black people. Its a tale told by black people. So, because a movie and a book is produced and a movie is produced that show caricatures in many cases, Tar baby is racist? The tale comes FROM the black folktales. And the Tar Baby is not considered one of the characters. Its a tool. Its only black because tar is needed as the trap. Tar Baby works better than quicksand because tar baby is a trap to get stuck in, quicksand is an accident.

    In another way to look at it, if this Congressman needs to be dismissed for being rude about the President, can we get rid of other Congress people that are rude about the CITIZENS? THEIR bosses? If that’s the case, can we get rid of Maxine Waters for being a racist? Pelosi for calling Americans Nazis? Obama for saying that typical white people have fear of black men bred into them? That people that disagree with him are just “bitterly clinging to their guns and their bibles?”

  15. January 25th, 2012 at 14:21 | #23

    @Cargo, what is a common narrative? Lot’s of things are common narratives that I don’t think should be. However, I can’t be responsible for what others say.

    There are those who would disagree about regional/state, gender or racial representatives. You belong to the ruling majority class–white males. Easy for you to say. I know most of you all carry on like stuck pigs if you think someone is going to take that title way. I have watched the phenomena for over 40 years and blacks and women came into their own more and more. Somewhite men gracefully shared the throne, others not so much. Its hard to acquiesce power, I grant you.

    Song of the South? The dialect is decidedly black. It isn’t just southern. You are freaking amazing me. You will go to any lengths to make up excuses for that Ahole! You are going to try to go literary on me to justify crude behavior. Give it up! He was an Ahole He used code to let his constituents know what he was thinking. I grew up knowing all about code.

    Tar baby isn’t in and of itself racist, which you know without me telling you. However, some redneck congressman using it in referencing the president? hmmmmm….lets give 100 people a quiz, blind, and see what they come up with. :roll:

    The only thing he didn’t do his thumb his nose and say ‘what are you going to do about it?’ He was about as sorry over what he said as a pride of lions finishing off a zebra, licking their chops.

    I just reread your explanation about why tar should have been used instead of quicksand. Watch out for sand traps. How about why use Song of the South characters to make a point??? Arrrrggghhhhh.

    I believe I said Lamborn needs to be censured for his speech content. He was referencing the President of the United States.

    Maxine Waters is Maxine Waters. I don’t feel she belongs in this paragraph nor does Nancy Pelosi. That is what we call deflection. you are running out of ways to attempt to excuse unacceptable behavior so you are doing the ‘hey…what about so and so …”

  16. Censored bybvbl
    January 25th, 2012 at 14:46 | #24

    Any adult in this day and age should know using “tar baby” or “Sambo” is verboten regardless of how the tales originated or in what culture. We live in the here and now with the connotations those terms carry in the present.

    • January 25th, 2012 at 16:39 | #25

      @Censored

      I totally agree. Now, if Rep. Lamborn has no intention of abiding by standards modern polite society has set, then he just needs to man up and admit that he refuses to be politically correct or whatever it is he thinks he would be doing by not making tar baby references in the same discussion as the President.

      I know a couple people like that. I chose to stay away from them because they embarrass me. If everyone uses good manners, then society can function comfortably.

  17. January 25th, 2012 at 14:54 | #26

    Deflection? Really? I’m just applying your standards to everybody. Or is censure only acceptable if used against Republicans that allegedly insult President Obama. I keep hearing about this “code.” Apparently, as a white “ruling class male” I’ve never been let into this “code.”

    “It’s like touching a, a tar baby and you, you get it, you know you’re stuck and you’re part of the problem now and you can’t get away. I don’t want that to happen to us, but if it does, or not, he’ll still get properly sowed the blame, because his policies for four years will have failed the American people.”

    This quote is not racist and the term “tar baby” is perfectly appropriate in the context used. A tar baby is a sticky trap. If you see racism and codes in this or other statements, then the problem is with you.

    • January 25th, 2012 at 16:35 | #27

      Take a lesson from someone else you probably dislike, Bill Clinton. Stop digging. I would suggest that you probably have the code so embedded you don’t realize it. Most people do.

      Why would a reference to something from Song of the South come up now? :roll:

      What he said was racist given the context. He should apologize. If he didn’t mean it, then he would have been apologizing all over himself for his gaffe.

      Yes deflection. You are trying to divert attention to someone else you think has done wrong to get the attention off the guy you are trying to defend. He has not defense. He said something he shouldn’t have.

      pssst: I don’t care if he says that in the privacy of his own home. He should have kept it in his home. Then no one would know what a rube he is.

      double psssst I am no fan of Maxine Waters. I see no need to discuss her when we are talking about Lamborn and the tar baby though.

  18. January 25th, 2012 at 15:24 | #28

    By the way, do you realize that this occurred last August?

    • January 25th, 2012 at 16:28 | #29

      Yes, I do realize that. Do you realize he continued to diss the State of the Union Address for the same reasons?

      @Cargo

      Why are you defending him? Are you incapable of admitting someone did something wrong if they hate Obama?

      Three Supreme Court Justices also did not come. However, they didn’t equate the President to the tar baby. I happen to think all Supreme Court Justices should attend. They are supposed to be apolitical. Obviously 3 of them aren’t. Bring back Sandra Day O’Connor.

  19. Elena
    January 25th, 2012 at 16:57 | #30

    What i saw on the floor of the house today is what the REAL American should AND could look like. Gabby Giffords was AND still is a role model for many reasons. You bet SHE never treated President Bush with such disrespect even though I imagine she had many different policy points of view than him.

    Common decency is simply lacking and there is NO excuse for it, none.

    http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/25/10234215-giffords-officially-resigns-from-congress

    • January 25th, 2012 at 17:07 | #31

      Gabby Giffords is a real classy lady and she is a uniter, not a divider. She is well liked by most everyone who knows her. John Boehner cried when she came up and handed him her resignation. Now that’s ok by me. I was crying right along with him. What a gutsy, miraculous woman!

  20. January 25th, 2012 at 23:49 | #32

    @Moon-howler
    I’m defending him because he did nothing wrong and hypersensitive people are calling him a racist. Show me an actual racist thing from him and I’ll join you. His statement was not racist.

    As for missing the State of the Union….. I’d love it if the PRESIDENT missed the SOTU. It’s turned into a circus and the President acts like Congress and the Supremes have to be there. HE is there on Congress’s suffrage, reporting as is his Constitutional requirement to the Congress. He is actually subordinate in this case, in a way. The SOTU was a campaign speech, not a SOTU. He barely discussed the current status of the Union, and when he did, he lied.

    • January 26th, 2012 at 02:56 | #33

      @Cargo, I did not say he was a racist. I said he made a racist remark. There is a huge difference. There is no need for me to show you anything. You would make up an excuse for him or try to justify his behavior. There is none. His language was very inappropriate, in particularl in that context. He should have apologized, even if he meant nothing by it and always talks about tar babies every day of his life. People who deal with the public just have to do that sometimes.

      As for your opinion of the SOTU address, I didn’t really expect any different. You obviously didn’t listen closely mainly because you were choking on your own partisan hatred of the President. It’s one thing to differ on policy, its another thing to be surrounded by a cloud of poison that blocks out anything said by any Democrat as something that could be considered.

      I don’t think you have any idea the effect your attitude has on people, especially people like Elena and me who do vote bi-partisan. Steve and I have very different political beliefs but he looks for common ground. He and I often find agreement on the core value of issues, even though we might not agree on who should do the job.

      You just spit on the opinions of others. Was there nothing that President said that you could agree with? One little tiny thing? I mean, were you glad Bin Laden was dead?

      I’m sorry to be so blunt but you have me at the end of my rope. That happened about the time you were trying to convince me that the characters in song of the south were just southerners. I guess Uncle Remus just has a good tan.

  21. Scout
    January 26th, 2012 at 04:58 | #34

    None of the SC justices should attend these rituals. Maybe the Chief could show up just to show some comity across branches. I don’t think those who stayed away were making any sort of statement other than that there is no reason why they should attend. And when they attend, they should not wear robes.

    I always thought “Tar Baby” was an allusion to a situation something like “quicksand” or “Fly paper.” Something you whale into impulsively but then can’t get out of. I don’t think it originally had any racial content other than that most people’s first introduction to it was through Joel Chandler Harris’s dialect stories (which I read as a child and found no more offensive then or now than other literature of the time that uses dialectical speech – e.g., Huckleberry Finn). I guess, in current conditions, it’s fairly tone deaf to use that term, particularly when there are alternatives (“Roach Motel” would be something people could relate to).

  22. January 26th, 2012 at 09:08 | #35

    @Scout

    I am sure Cargo will be glad to read your words.

    I don’t have a problem if all the justices stay home. The ones who have stayed out recently usually have leaked their opinions. I find the political end of that not good.

    Back to tar baby–I think given the context it was used in by Rep. Lamborn, it was inappropriate. As for Song of the South, I don’t find it offensive now either but I also grew up in a different age. Let’s put it this way, if I were a 2nd grade teacher and treating the class to a film, I would not choose this video. There would be someone bound to get offended. I don’t even think it has ever been released for dvd purchase.

  23. Elena
    January 26th, 2012 at 11:02 | #36

    I’m sorry, to have an adult say they are unwilling to be in the presense of the President is so immature I can’t even really fathom that anyone would argue in defense of the congressman.

    On so many levels his comment can be viewd in the narrative of prejudice America. Wasn’t there a time when blacks were seen as “dirty” and to touch the “white” water fountain would have “contanimated” the fountain. Isn’t that the idea of being “tainted”. I can tell you first hand, albeit it was probably 15 years ago, a group of white guys talking talking about this attractive girl but she was “tainted” because she had dated a black guy.

    Not for one second do I believe that attitude has changed much. There is a view so deeply rooted in “white” america that I firmly believe that congressman lambert just let it rise a little too close the surface without even realizing it.

  24. Elena
    January 26th, 2012 at 11:09 | #37

    May I suggest that some commenters on this blog rent the movie “The Help” to truly understand what I saying.

    There was scene where a woman was pushed to putting in a new bathroom to that the black maid would not have to share the white family’s bathroom.

  25. January 26th, 2012 at 14:58 | #38

    “Not for one second do I believe that attitude has changed much.”

    This is where we differ. I do believe that it has changed. I believe that racist views are greatly diminished. I believe that one cannot make a racist statement without being a racist. Therefore, he did not make a racist remark, unless there is actual evidence of racism in his past.. I do believe that people will see racism in the remark. And being able to state, “In my opinion, I believe that to be a racist remark because….” is valid. But stating that he “made a racist remark” is tantamount to calling him a racist on little or no evidence, especially since that statement used the phrase appropriately.

    As for boycotting the SOTU…. that’s that person’s business. However, using the SOTU to insult Supreme Court Justices is also wrong. I can understand why they have decided to miss the event.

    And, as for the SOTU….. on matters of seriousness, other than congratulating the SEAL Team…. what did he say different. How have I spit on opinions of others? I expressed MY opinion. You happen to disagree with it. I read the transcript.

    He lied about cutting the deficit. He mislead the American people on his energy policy and the results: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/01/20/fact-checking-president-obamas-claims-about-domestic-energy-production/

    The entire speech was hypocritical. While extolling virtues in the speech, he acts divisively in political agenda.

    Example: “In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.
    It was wrong. It was irresponsible.”

    He neglects to tell you that the banks were following the directions promulgated and forced upon them by HIS party and by HIS community activists.

    He tries to state that the US did not create jobs since the late 1990′s, ignoring the 5% unemployment rate during Bush.

    Then he says this: Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.

    One) We’ve cut nothing. Two) He wants to force the banks to refinance at gov’t approved rates, doing it all over again.

    He wants to penalize companies that want to build the widgets more cheaply. Instead of making the business climate here better, he wants to hurt them for trying to make a profit. So…your Apple stock is going to get hit. Hard. They build everything in China. Other things are made there too….like those green lightbulbs that suck. Mercury is ok there, but we can’t build them here.

    I do think that we should take him at his word though: “Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.” There is much to reform. Lower the corporate tax rates and reduce loopholes.

    Don’t make it possible for companies like GE to make a profit on the tax code. Fair share? It starts right there.

    A simple way to “level the playing field” against Chinese imports, like the Apple products, let him propose a tariff. That would raise money for the gov’t.

    “And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It’s time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.”

    So…..competition is bad? Is he saying that there should only be one training program, or a site to list all of the competing programs? This is confusing. And since my belief is that Obama doesn’t trust the private sector, I believe this is a call for a government controlled program.

    His platitudes on teaching are nice. So, is he saying that NCLB should be scrapped? Send it back to the states so that its not one size fits all? What does he mean exactly?

    And he obviously thinks that the law of supply and demand can be superseded: “If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.” More on that:
    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/26/obama-plan-tie-tuition-prices-aid-eligibility-draws-criticism

    • January 26th, 2012 at 15:37 | #39

      Your poison is really not worthy of my time. Continue to hate and continue to divide.
      I will hand you this, you aren’t alone. That just seems to be business as usual.

      I think my apple stock will be just fine. When you are out on the top, you become a moving target.

      You seem to have it all figured out. :roll: Pretty soon its going to get hard to get through doors, isn’t it?

  26. January 26th, 2012 at 16:03 | #40

    @Cargo,

    It appears that you look for things to get mad over. It seems like you throw cold water on anything Obama says. (or Clinton or Gore or anyone else who is a democrat) You aren’t particularly kind to anyone who doesn’t meet your conservative standards which are so far left that I won’t attempt to label them. I just see it as show. No one wants to move back in to another century.

    I don’t agree with Obama on most of what he says about education. That’s ok. He isn’t denying anyone their rights. He is the Prez and I have clocked more time in the field. We disagree. As for what was said during the state of the union, it appears food for thought has become a full course meal. I don’t care for your sources because most come from biased sources.

    Some of the issues at colleges and universities need some oversight. You are aware that undergrad schools exist to support grad schools and ergo, someone’s ego and pet project. Let colleges police their own. There is no place politics is more vicious than at a university.

    Meanwhile, rather than having an instant opinion and that opinion is that Obama is always wrong, see what you can find out on your own, doing your own thinking.

  27. January 26th, 2012 at 16:04 | #41

    Its all well and good to praise small business, but it was his idea to raise taxed on income over $250K. It’s his health care act that prevents businesses from hiring due to upcoming taxes and costs.

    And apparently, its only the “federally financed” labs that are worthwhile.

    This is a great line. “Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

    A) All increases in production are happening in spite of Obama’s agenda, on private land.
    B) Imports are down because of the recession and high prices caused by his policies.
    C) When Obama took office nearly 100 percent of the offshore areas were available for exploration and development. Since then, he has made it far more difficult to produce energy on offshore areas. For example, even though there is bipartisan support from the Virginia delegation, including the state’s Democratic Senators, the Obama administration refuses to allow energy exploration off Virginia’s coast.
    D) He touts natural gas, but the EPA is ready to attack fracking.
    E) He doesn’t want to “cede the battery industry to China” implying that we’re able to develop batteries here. THEY do it because they have the critical nat’l resources that we don’t.

    He spoke of an America that needs to be rebuilt. I thought that the FIRST stimulus was supposed to do that. Where did THAT money go, if not to “shovel ready” projects. Furthermore, its not the job of the Federal gov’t to build broadband networks, etc. I thought he was touting “cutting spending.”

    He’s going to sign an executive order “clearing away red tape that slows down the construction projects.” Really? So why didn’t he do that during the first three years? Why is it ok to override the EPA, etc, now? And are pipelines included in those projects?

    And here he is lying again: “And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules.” Wall Street plays by the rules set out by government. If they don’t they go to jail. So, when is he going to go after Fannie and Freddie?
    “So if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits.”

    But betting on Solyndra with our tax money because the owner is a donor is A-OK?

    “because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again.”

    Except that the Dodd-Frank bill does just that, if you are “too big to fail.” And I notice that the Fed’l Reserve is “bailing out” all sorts of banks and financial institutions.
    And when is GM paying us back again?

    “Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.”
    Talk about rude, rubbing his illegal appointment in Congress’s collective face.

    This part should warm the cockles of your heart, Moon: (I’ll put my comments in Parentheses.)
    Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. (A) Tax rates are not spending. We are not spending $1 trillion more because of a tax rate. And if you object to Warren paying a lesser rate on dividends than his secretary does on $200,000 salary, then LOWER her rate.)

    Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both. (Except we all know that you and Congress are NOT serious about paying down the debt. Otherwise, you would not have added $1 trillion in new spending and asked for an increase in the debt ceiling after blowing through almost a trillion dollars since August.)

    The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors. (News to us. Talk is cheap. Put it in writing. You scoffed at Ryan’s plan. And the Senate refuses to put anything down.)

    But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. (Fair share defined by whom? You?)
    Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. (So, which is it? $1 million? Or will those making $250K and up see their taxes go up. If Buffett wants to pay more in taxes, let him settle the Berkshire Hathaway tax bill that owes over a billion dollars.)

    Tax breaks don’t add to the deficit. Spending does. Cut spending.

    THIS I AGREE WITH.
    “Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.”

    “The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.”
    If this means putting more executive power in the hands of a President, Presidents that have been using “signing statements” and executive orders, then NO, HELL NO. If it means getting rid of redundancy…YES.

    Anyway…here’s my take. I have to go. I was just informed by my daughter’s school counselor that my daughter has been neglecting her work and has been apparently lying to me.

    My objections to Obama’s speech is NOT hatred for him. I hate dishonesty in politicians.

    • January 26th, 2012 at 17:49 | #42

      @Cargo, then you have a lot on your own side of the river to start hating. There is an old expression about cleaning up your own yard before you start on the neighbors.

      If you don’t hate Obama, you sure do a pretty good imitation of it. That is just a diatribe. If you want to chose a idea to discuss, fine, but I am not going to go in to diatribe argument.

      I just find all that tiresome and depressing–depressing that anyone would spend so much time blasting something someone else said when they can’t do a darn thing about it. You and the President have different world views. You will never get anyone elected who has yours because yours is too exreme. You will never convince the murky middle to jump on your bandwagon.

      Btw, kids lie to their parents about their work. its a natural phenomena of being a kid. Set aside a time for her to do it or put her on a signed assignment book for a while. That should embarrass her into doing what is right.

      Get a hobby that lets you drop some of this or you are going to have a stroke.
      [ed. note: sorry for all the typos. End of my rope typing apparently.]

  28. Scout
    January 26th, 2012 at 22:29 | #43

    FWIW, I thought it was one of the better State of the Union messages I’ve seen in the last four decades. I’m a lifelong Republican, but from the standpoint of rhetorical merit, the three I’ve liked best are this one of Obama’s, Clinton’s second (I think – I haven’t gone back and pinned that down) and Reagan’s third. Having said that, I think I would give a lot of credit to a President who said, “The State of the Union was supposed to be a message from me to Congress. I sent it up yesterday, you no doubt can get a copy over on the Hill. Thanks for asking, I’ve got work to do. Bye.” I guess it’s unrealistic to think that these cats would ever give up the free TV time. If a Pres feels he really has to go over and deliver the thing orally, my next most favored approach would be for him to say right at the beginning: “I’m probably going to say some things tonight that some of you like and some of you don’t. But I didn’t come here for applause. If you think applause is appropriate, save it for the end. It distracts me to see people jumping up and down during this speech, so please keep your seats.”

  29. January 26th, 2012 at 23:35 | #44

    @Scout

    You set up an interesting scenario.

    I have only been to one State of the Union addresses. Clinton’s ?. Second term. Pre Monica I think. I was the guest of R’s. I got tired of the clapping and the up and down. It was worse than being in church. What struck me the most was the right hand side of the room (D) vs. left (R) from the speakers vantage point. The R;s were nearly all male in very expensive suits and the D’s were colorful in all aspects.

    It was one of those things I had to see for myself I guess.

  30. January 27th, 2012 at 07:09 | #45

    @Moon-howler
    Diatribe? You ain’t seen nothin”!

    You asked if I had even heard the speech or did I just hate the Pres?

    Well, the above covered the points where I found him to be dishonest. And what’s this my side, your side? Isn’t dishonesty in politicians wrong in all cases? Aren’t you concerned that he’s misleading you? Why not? Is it because you support him? Why is it ok for him to be dishonest with you?

    As for stroking out….. I’m fine. The analysis was dispassionate. Instead of generalizing, I thought it would be better to actually point out where I was disagreeing.

    @Scout
    That’s a great scenario.

Comments are closed.