Posted by Rojas @ 9:55 pm on January 25th 2011

SOTU/Republican Response Liveblog

Well, we know a 5-year discretionary spending freeze will be proposed (yay!) and that the President will simultaneously propose a bunch of new programs which, by definition, will render that freeze meaningless (boo!). Also, Social Security will be officially Taken Off The Table, which is a direct challenge to Paul Ryan, who will be delivering the Republican response. And, of course, Republicans and Democrats will be sitting together, which means no more crowd shots of one side of the aisle applauding while the other side sits on their hands, and also that when somebody shouts “you lie!”, everybody’s going to be pointing at the guy/gal next to him.

Truth be told, Ryan’s response (and de facto national debut) interests me more than the SOTU this time. We know that the President is going to offer more voter candy than serious policy substance. Will Ryan take the bait and go hard in the other direction, sinking himself in the process?

Running commentary in the comments section.


  1. I agree entirely, and I want to go on record as saying that at the end of the night, the Bachman speech will much more closely reflect the GOP and movement conservatism of the last couple of years, whereas the Ryan response fits most closer to the general concerns of the Tea Party.

    Comment by Jack — 1/25/2011 @ 11:50 pm

  2. Oh, I guess I didn’t realize she was indeed speaking at an official Tea Party function – of at least the function of one Tea Party org. That mitigates my outrage a bit.

    Comment by Brad — 1/25/2011 @ 11:50 pm


    Comment by Rojas — 1/25/2011 @ 11:50 pm

  4. OH god shes gone Perot.

    Comment by Jack — 1/25/2011 @ 11:50 pm

  5. Jack 201: that’s actually not a bad way to put it at all.

    Comment by Brad — 1/25/2011 @ 11:50 pm

  6. Lagging indicators mean nothing to her.

    Comment by Jack — 1/25/2011 @ 11:51 pm


    Comment by Rojas — 1/25/2011 @ 11:51 pm

  8. NO TUSCON PIN!!!!

    Why are you pro-people-being-gunned-down, congresswoman?

    Comment by Brad — 1/25/2011 @ 11:51 pm

  9. Rojas#203: its like she has two lazy eyes

    Comment by Jack — 1/25/2011 @ 11:52 pm

  10. This is publicity whoring, nothing else but, and there is no excuse–none whatsoever–for it to be given a national platform.

    Comment by Rojas — 1/25/2011 @ 11:52 pm

  11. Pro: This is at least not wild-eyed, yet.

    Con: See Rojas 207

    Comment by Brad — 1/25/2011 @ 11:52 pm

  12. It looks like I have my reading cut out for me while I watch the speeches after the fact. Looks like fun was had by all.

    Comment by Cameron — 1/25/2011 @ 11:53 pm

  13. Heh. “The President should get serious about health care by repealing Obamacare and instead support medical malpractice reform. Also, we should simplify our tax code.”


    Comment by Brad — 1/25/2011 @ 11:54 pm

  14. OK, her delivery is so much weaker than Ryans, but its not really that radical, especially by Bachman standards.

    Comment by Jack — 1/25/2011 @ 11:54 pm

  15. This is drivel. Utter imbecilic drivel.

    Comment by Rojas — 1/25/2011 @ 11:55 pm

  16. Ugh, she added “we believe in America’s exceptionalism.”


    And now she replaces the debt graphs with Iowa Jima?


    Comment by Brad — 1/25/2011 @ 11:55 pm

  17. If this woman is on the ticket in 2012, I am voting for Barack Obama.

    Comment by Rojas — 1/25/2011 @ 11:55 pm

  18. Oh fuck she just jumped the shark, taking military felatio well beyond Obama. We can do so! we the people! Exeptionalism!

    Comment by Jack — 1/25/2011 @ 11:55 pm

  19. That was terrible. If I were the GOP, I would flog her publicly for almost instantly washing away much of the goodwill Paul Ryan just generated.

    Comment by Brad — 1/25/2011 @ 11:56 pm

  20. The Borg: it is present again 216-218

    Comment by Jack — 1/25/2011 @ 11:56 pm

  21. Seriously, that did no good for not a single actor in American politics today, except Michelle Bachmann, and even that’s arguable. That did not help the GOP, or the Tea Party.

    Comment by Brad — 1/25/2011 @ 11:57 pm

  22. And Erick Erickson, on the CNN panel, who was meh about Ryan’s speech, praises Bachmann’s for giving the specifics Ryan didn’t.


    Comment by Brad — 1/25/2011 @ 11:58 pm

  23. You know, I think Brad is right, she took away from Ryan. I have this argument with senior enlisted guys pretty often. When the Commanding Officer is done speaking, when he has “cresendoed” and left the room, you don’t then hold the crew hostage while you berate them with your bullshit tiny issues, you say fucking dismissed.

    Comment by Jack — 1/25/2011 @ 11:58 pm

  24. Well, hell, if you buy into the idea that the American public want to be fed a nonstop stream of optimistic gibberish, she just did a lot more for the brand than Ryan did.

    And if that is true, I have no desire to be identified as a Republican or as an American.

    By the way, I’m going to make a point of finding out whether Bachman was indeed given that platform by the two Tea Party organizations. And if it was, I’m officially off the boat. They can have the “Tea Party” title and all the baggage that goes with it.

    Comment by Rojas — 1/25/2011 @ 11:59 pm

  25. So:

    Barack Obama: D+
    Paul Ryan: A
    Michelle Bachmann: D

    Comment by Brad — 1/25/2011 @ 11:59 pm

  26. Few things are more disgusting than seeing authoritarian dick sucker E-squared on a national forum.

    Comment by Jack — 1/25/2011 @ 11:59 pm

  27. Rojas, I am quite curious as to what you find.

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:00 am

  28. A D is generous. The eye contact issue alone puts a D- ceiling on that piece of garbage.

    Comment by Rojas — 1/26/2011 @ 12:01 am

  29. Rojas 224: She was given a platform by one of the two orgs (but not both). Her speech was broadcast and publicized by the Tea Party Express.

    Comment by Brad — 1/26/2011 @ 12:02 am

  30. Democrats, and this will shock you, loved it.

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:02 am

  31. 3D graph stage craft needs work on CNN

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:03 am

  32. Or, if you want it even more in your face:

    To be fair, the express is the more self-aggrandizing and opportunistic of the two or three main orgs, primarily concerned with publicity.

    Comment by Brad — 1/26/2011 @ 12:04 am

  33. Nice push back by Anderson Cooper, “reading old speeches by Clinton”

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:06 am

  34. I’m not letting this kill my Paul Ryan buzz.

    Look: there was something for everyone tonight. Barack Obama laid out the case for an expansive government role in the economy, and will appeal to all advocates thereof. Paul Ryan laid out the case for limited government masterfully, and will win the love of ideologues and Ron Paul supporters. And Michelle Bachmann laid out the case for mindlessly reactionary pollyanna-ism, and will win over those people. AND SHE CAN HAVE THEM.

    Paul Ryan reminds me who I am. Michelle Bachmann reminds me who I’m NOT. Win-win.

    Comment by Rojas — 1/26/2011 @ 12:06 am

  35. Begala: will say nothing, nothing, nothing negative.

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:08 am

  36. That Archer guy has some fucking style. Not my style mind you, but someone’s.

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:10 am

  37. Just as it’s worth noting that Obama didn’t even allude to civil liberties, also worth noting that in neither Republican response was there a single iota of talk about social conservatism. No gays, no immigrants, no abortion, not even coded talk of family values. Bachmann came close to saying that America was divinely inspired, but that’s it.

    Comment by Brad — 1/26/2011 @ 12:13 am

  38. EE contradicts Ryan directly with the safety net. But is not as unserious and rediculous as he is so often.

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:13 am

  39. Brad@237 that is.. astounding. I figured they would pass on the gays, but not one comment on immigrants or abortion, however dog whistled? Wow.

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:14 am

  40. Also missing: With the considerable exception of the throwaway American exceptionalism line, nothing on foreign imperialism. No threat from Islam stuff, no security in peril, no democratizing the world, no danger from within, none of that kind of stuff.

    Largely because Obama has coopted all that stuff, but still, worth noting.

    Comment by Brad — 1/26/2011 @ 12:16 am

  41. USAA commercial. I dont recall seeing a one of these until the last year, so a bit of a shout out: this is the single best company I have ever dealt with. For banking, insurance, mortgages, auto loans, I use them for all. If you can qualify via some relative’s connection to the military or federal service, you should go with them. /endorsement.

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:17 am

  42. Jack 239: and it would have been easy to give throwaway talk of immigration – Obama threw that gauntlet down – or include a line about abortion funding in Obamacare, or talk about judicial overreach in terms of gay marriage, or add a jab about DADT when talking about the American soldier, or anything of that sort.

    Instead, nothing. Not even an oblique dog whistle. Crickets. They went out of their way to pass on it.

    Let’s sit on that for a day, shall we?

    Comment by Brad — 1/26/2011 @ 12:18 am

  43. Begala says it for me re Bachman: I was hoping for crazy and didn’t get it.

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:20 am

  44. That guy is so right, Bachman’s speech so poorly considered given that Ryans was so good. Of course EE sites fuckjob readers’ emails as counter evidence.

    Comment by Jack — 1/26/2011 @ 12:22 am

  45. I was out, and you guys probably don’t care, but

    Obama: C
    Ryan: C
    Bachman: F

    Comment by Liz — 1/26/2011 @ 1:58 am

  46. I certainly care in that I don’t trust my own judgment about Ryan’s speech. It’s good to know that it wasn’t perceived as terribly effective by people who don’t agree with every word of it.

    Comment by Rojas — 1/26/2011 @ 11:50 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.