E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJames Fallows calls Obama’s speech “the most sustainedly ‘progressive’ statement Barack Obama has made in his decade on the national stage.”
David Remnick: “Barack Obama without apology—a liberal emboldened by political victory and a desire to enter the history books with a progressive agenda. His rhetoric was not high-flown, but it was muscular, clear. Gone is the primacy of compromise, which marked Obama’s days as president of the Harvard Law Review and even his first years in office. He no longer seems determined to transcend ideology or partisanship; experience has led him toward an engagement with politics in a tougher, clearer way.”
More: “The speech was no match for the two greatest moments of oratory ever heard in Washington—Lincoln’s second Inaugural and Martin Luther King, Jr.,’s address, nearly a century later, at the Lincoln Memorial—but, if it is followed by action, it will be counted among the most important American political addresses of the modern era.”
Andrew Sullivan: "If you have long believed, as I have, that this man could easily become the liberal Reagan by the end of his second term,… then this speech will not have surprised you.” More: “It was, in some ways, then a final rejoinder to Ronald Reagan's critical qualifier to his declaration of government as the problem in January 1981. … It was to say that Reagan's solutions may have been right then but they are not right now.” Sullivan also calls it the first “self-confident center-left speech … in my adult lifetime.”
But he adds, “The first big disappointment is his not being honest with us about the entitlement state.”
Politico’s Harris and Martin call it “the most ideologically ambitious speech since Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address a generation and a half ago.”
Politico’s Thrush calls it “the most liberal speech he has delivered as president — a blunt summons to wage war on poverty, defend entitlements for the middle class, end ‘perpetual war’ overseas and move past the calibrated progressive agenda of his first term. Gone were the pleas for bipartisanship of his first inaugural, vaporized by years of partisan battle and Obama’s own sense of a new mandate — achieving bipartisan results through force, not conciliation.”
The Boston Globe: “President Obama on Monday used his second inaugural address to call for a new spirit of unity to solve the nation’s challenges, from economic disparity to gay rights to climate change, urging a recommitment to the country’s founding principles of equality.”
Jill Lawrence: “At least 10 times during his second inaugural address, President Obama made unmistakable allusions to Republican ideas that he rejects and wants the country to reject – even as he wrapped the critiques in a call for togetherness. … Every one of these issues fractures Republicans. The speech, devoid as it was of olive branches, played into the emerging Republican consensus that Obama is trying to divide and destroy the GOP. They are right about the division part, though likely mistaken when they impute a motive to destroy.”
Despite all that, Ron Fournier was unimpressed: “If there was a sentence or sentiment that will be carved in marble and remembered by history, it was not evident Monday. President Obama's second inaugural address was hampered by the fact that he governs in one of American history’s most divided moments, grounded by the memory of promises he made four years ago to reform Washington.” More: “Whether this was a moment for the ages will depend on Obama's ability to persuade both his rivals and allies to accept the difference between absolutism and principle.”
AP: “Obama stands his ground on fiscal debates.”
Politico: “President Barack Obama insisted four years ago that the nation must make ‘hard decisions’ to preserve entitlement programs. But on Monday, the ‘hard choices’ he spoke of on health care and the deficit came with a major caveat: He’s not willing to give up much.”
“As crowds descended and the inauguration unfolded, a few museum curators in Washington kept watch for symbols and messages that would make history,” AP writes. “The Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture will open during President Barack Obama’s second term, and one section will feature a large display about the first black president. Curators have been working since 2008 to gather objects, documents and images that capture his place in history.”
“Environmental groups hailed President Barack Obama’s warning Monday about climate change, but said the president’s words will soon be tested as he decides whether to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast,” AP writes.
Peter Alexander reported that Romney was home and likely not watching the inaugural. Dan Amira of New York magazine “notes it's the first time since 1997 that a presidential runner-up didn't attend his opponent's inauguration ceremony.” (H/T: Political Wire.)
Leave a Comment:
While there are a lot of things to criticize Romney for, the absence from the inaugural is not one of them. The previous three elections (2000, 2004, and 2008), the losing candidate still had some official capacity -- Gore as outgoing VP and Kerry and McCain were still Senators. Romney is the first losing candidate since Bob Dole in 1997 who held no federal office on the morning of the inauguration, so his absence is not surprising.
Good point, Tmess.
I thought the booing of Ryan was classy...
How tolerant of the left!!
Hail to the Divider in Chief!!
Who gives a rodent's rear end where Romney was? Obama won, Romney lost.
“The first big disappointment is his not being honest with us about the entitlement state.”
Look, this is really simple.
If we want to have all of these 'free' services from the government, then PAY FOR IT.
We are currently spending about $3.8 Trillion per year, and we are taking in about $2.7 Trillion per year, which leaves a Deficit of about $1.1 Trillion per year. If we want to keep spending at that level - THEN PAY FOR IT, and then the real cost of government will not be hidden with borrowed money - sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. It's GROSSLY UNFAIR to hide the real cost of current spending with 'Borrowed Money'. It doesn't work with our personal finances, and it doesn't work with the government (just ask Greece).
It will cost the average family of 4 about $14,000 per year in new taxes ($1,165 per month) to finance the current extra spending, but hey - if that's what you want, THEN PAY FOR IT.
Gee Roy, you could have written this when Reagan doubled the debt or when W. doubled it again. That being said it is congress that spends the money not the president. However W. lost his veto pen for the first 6 years, and the republican congress never met a program that it couldn't borrow for. Right now we are simply paying the bills racked up by the preivious administration and congress.
Johntho
Gee Johntho, you must be getting your 'talking points' from Obama.
REAL FACTS;
The National Debt under Reagan increased by $1.692 Trillion over 8 years.
The National Debt under Clinton increased by a nearly identical $1.627 Trillion over 8 years.
The average Deficit under W Bush (2001-2008) was $251 Billion per year.
The average Deficit under Obama (2009-2012) has been $1.274 Trillion per year - 5 TIMES AS MUCH.
Real fact: Ronald Reagan increased the debt more than ALL of his predecessors COMBINED.
Real fact: W inherited a surplus. He left a 1T a year debt (you have to count the two wars the republicans took off the books).
Real fact: In 2008, after 8 years of trickle down economics with a republican in the WH, the USA was losing 700,000 jobs a month.
Real fact: In the last 6 presidential elections, the republican candidate has only won a plurality once.
Real fact: Though the House is still help by republicans in 2013, they received a million fewer total votes than the Democrats in the last election. Only gerrymandering of congressional districts saved the republican control.
Real Fact: 40 percent of the top corporations paid no income tax last year.
Real Fact: The effective corporate tax rate is at a 70 year low. If the corporations want services, THEY SHOULD PAY FOR THEM.
Unless you were forced (ie military personnel, secret service) to go why would anyone with a sane mind want to go to this. I would not have gone if you paid me one million dollars to go and with this person in the White house I need the money.
Know body really cares what you think rukidding. Every body knows you're not a patriot, you're just a tea people claiming to be a patriot.
rukidding47: You, my friend, are not to be believed.
About one milliion people found it important to be there and many millions more around the world were tuned in to their TV sets to watch the festivities. Your sour grapes are YOURS and I hope you enjoy eating them. I will be drinking the sweet wine of the grapes from the Obama vinyard.
I can understand why LOSER Mitt Romney didn't attend. He really had no official capacity. He was cordially invited and would have been part of the VIPs on the revewing stand but it was his choice not to be there. No hard feelings from me. I would have thought it a nice gesture but I'm OK with his decision. It was Obama's big day not his.
The main reason that the right wing people and the Republican party will NEVER regain the white house is people see right through their lies. If you follow any of these blogs you will see that there is nothing that President Obama can do that will please these people. Educated people understand that all this is hated for the President. Everything he does is wrong?? Give me a break. The moderate American people need to stand up and take back the Republican party. The right wing extremist have destroy the party and unless they are kicked out to form their own party, the republican party is doomed. I did not like voting for the democrats but the far right gave me no choice.
Now I know I will get slammed for saying this and that is part of the problem. Unless you are in lock step with the far right you are wrong. Since when does a person not have the right to disagree without being vilified? As long as this continues the republican party will not get the independent and moderate vote.
When the independents and moderates come on these blogs and see the hated thrown out to anyone that disagree with the far right they are left with no choice but to vote for the left. And I am not exactly happy with the left but at least you can disagree and not get raked over the coals for that.
The far right stance on abortion, gun rights, health care, immigration, the U.S debt, voter rights is that there is no compromise to be found. It is their way or no way. How about working to find some middle ground? But not with the far right it is all or nothing.
Call me whatever you want to call me, but the facts remains the republican party will never recover until they learn that the American people will not blindly follow the far right. Many of my friends did not want to vote for the democrats but they were the best of two evils.
And lastly the independents and the moderates know the value of their votes. They will vote no matter what. Being called names will not stop us. I fought 22 years for my right to vote and I will do that. I will wade through all the B/S from both sides and still vote. So until the far right understands that there is nothing they can say or do that will stop the independents and moderates from voting they will continue to lose the major elections.
Now let the hate responses begin.
Semper Fi
U S Marine, Thank you
Ret_MSgt:
Well said, and thank you for your sevices, sir.
I agree, our government works best when we have two functioning parties. We need the Republican Party back again. We have a lot of work to do, and we need two parties to get anything done.
To the three of you above; thank you for serving. I miss the old GOP; they had some great ideas and great people. Now, they are straw men, looking for anything to criticize and obstruct.
I want to echo the others in saying that we need the once grand old party back. The extremist controlled Republican party of today does not reflect America nor the majority of the people I know who were and are registered Republicans. If they expect to be relevant and not go the way of the Federalists or the Whigs they need to move toward the center. No one expects them to be as progressive as Teddy Roosevelt but they could, at least, return to the days of Ike.
As a fellow veteran I want to offer my thanks too for your service. I served in the Vietnam era but we need guys and gals to continue to serve so thanks. I served only a few years and for those who made it a career a special thanks.
More of the same old empty emotional rhetoric we've come to expect...Barely a mention of the issues that are jeopardizing the future of this country (foreign policy, unemployment, economic crises...)...The next four years are most likely going to be the same if not worse than than the past 4, but I'm glad his little speech gave you a warm fuzzy.
These issue that you refer to have been around thru the 20th century and have entered the 21st century in the same shape the were in before. These issue evolve for better or worst cause that is the action issues will always take. Grow up RA. Realize that there is now fix it for all times sake.
WHEN ARE THESE TALKING HEADS EVER GOING TO GET IT STRAIGHT THAT NO ONE IS LISTENING ANY MORE ?? The people they like to imagine that are still listening to them, have either turned a deaf ear, or were never listening to them in the first place.
These commentators are almost exclusively white men (see above) as is their active print and video audience (see below.) Historically white men have believed that they are the only ones entitled to have a say in deciding matters of critical public policy; the US Constitution was not ratified giving the vote to women by the last of the 48 states until 1922; and African Americans did not gain an undisputed right to vote in the American South until the end of the 1960's.
So I guess white men have certainly found historical justification for feeling this way. But except for Fox News no one is actively listening to them (or the newly minted female counterparts either.) And Fox News has a limited aging audience. I do not see a left wing televised alternative to FOX news springing up any time soon so I guess all you opinionated correspondents, pundits, and policy wonks can pack up and go home because no one really needs you to process what has just been said and tell them what they should think about it any more. Maybe people are capable of discussing it on the Internet among themselves (and getting a diversity of opinion) and deciding what they think for themselves on important issues?
So now wouldn't it be nice if all of you people WOULD JUST SHUT UP and go home and figure out how to earn an honest living.
While I agree there are fewer listening or at least heeding the talking heads we still see ditto heads parroting what they say. One needs only look at some of the posters on this blog to see nearly word for word the lies, inuendo, and pure horse pucky spewed by those talking heads. Fortunately more and more people are talking sanity as those talking heads are proven wrong time and time again and their surrogates look foolish for repeating their nonsense.
Ooooo-rah, Devil Dog.
I don't think we're quite there yet as a center-Left country, but we are definitely trending there. ONWARD!