Statement: Hochul responds to Obama's State of the Union speech

Let me start by saying that I watched the entire address, too many times I'll talk to people after one of these and when we disagree on its content, I'll ask if they watched it and they say no, I just watched the cable news report afterwards. The best way to watch it is on a raw feed without any commentary.
Anyway, I truly appreciate Kathy Hochuls honest assessment. Unlike most Party comments after a speech like this, she doesn't spend the time blowing smoke about the content. She is correct in the speeches lack of addressing deficit spending and debt reduction. In fact the President proposed 4 new federal entities and/or regulatory and oversight agencies. 4 brand new money sucking bureaucracies that overlap existing ones. How is that making government more efficient?
I think she also gets the concept that America is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. In the former, citizens reap the rewards of their labors while in the latter the rewards of your labor are redistributed to those who did not earn it.
The speech is going to be subject to some serious fact checking since so many claims just don't fit logic. The President spoke as if he were not actually in charge for the last three and a half years. So much of what he was pragmatic about leaves one scratching their head as to why he hasn't been doing it since 2009.
He spent an hour in backhanded divisive partisan jabs, then lectured the rest of on the "heat: in political rhetoric. He went on about how America needs to step up efforts to get off dependence on foreign energy and create American jobs in the process after he stonewalled Keystone just on e week earlier
We heard way too much of the same rhetoric, same old ideas that obviously haven't worked in the past. Overall nothing to cheer about, nothing inspiring.
At least we can see conclusively that there was the same old rhetoric
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDRiGIUYQo
I gotta go to work so I can earn the money to pay the taxes to fund the 4 new government expansions dropped on us last night.

The best way to watch it is on a raw feed without any commentary.

I watched it on cable and there wasn't any 'commentary' during the speech.

I listened to every word of both speeches. The President's address and the Republican responce was so mainstream you would think it would be hard to have strong sentiment about either. They could have switched the speeches before they started and still the other side would have complained.

Our system is broke because each side is so focused on the negatives looking to cut the other guy down. Maybe each side should instead be looking for clues to where there might be drift so, a compromise can be obtained.

Charlie, you are so spot on!
I couldn't help but think if it were a Republican president standing there giving the SAME speech, those sitting on the right would be cheering.
Do I believe that a Republican House of Representatives will work with the President?
Sadly, no.
Tax reform starts in the Republican House. Will the they initiate that reform and risk losing the support of the deep corporate pockets? Not in this election year.

He was right about one thing...nothing will get done this year. How could it? If they agree with him, then why replace him? But even though I know for fact that some of the things he said last night are echoes of the Rupublican debates, they all stayed seated. They want a lot of the same change, they just want their guy to do it.

And please don't try and sell me on the fact that Rupublicans wouldn't, or haven't, created additional layers of government or cost. Hell every candidate (excpet Ron Paul, and they say he's dangerous) can't wait to go back into another war in the Middle East, and their talking about deficet reduction?!?!?!

I don't know, I came away from the SOU speech thinking two things...None of this will happen (Even the good stuff like getting rid of NCLB, or taking away tax credits to send jobs overseas) and man that guy can oratate like a MOFO.

I listened to both and came away with several thoughts. The first is President Obama has a severe case of I-itis. Everything is I, I, I. Never did I hear him say WE. The second thought is we are back to the question during the early days of this republic. Do we need/want - strong/large central government or small central government? We know where President Obama stands on this issue.

Charlie, it hasn't been about compromise or progress in a very long time. Both sides are only interested in one thing, making sure their side wins. Unfortuantely that mindset is evident at the state, county, and even the local level. That mindset is why I most likely won't be voting for a D or an R again this time.

Ted, putting aside the politics of whether things are being done right or not, doesn't Obama have to say "I"? There is no such thing as bipartisan compromise in Washington.

Charlie - NO he doesn't have to say "I"!

Ted, double checked the dictionary, I think the word "I" is the only one he could correctly use.

WE/wē/

1.Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together: "shall we have a drink?".
2.Used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category: "we teachers".

Charlie - The problem to me is semantics and not understanding the American people. My point is that this president comes across as the only one who knows everything and everything has to be his way. Maybe I am wrong and hard of hearing but everything out of his mouth was what he wants. NOT WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE. Like all politicians (and this is just my feeling) he sees things as he imagines - not the way things really are. As you can tell I will not vote for him this fall.

Ted,
Your choice, on the other side, may not be what you want either. But, that is why this country is so great, you have that choice.
Are you really going to be happy to see Mitt as your president? How about Newt?
Granted, they both are white men who appear to have the ability to spend a great deal of money destroying each other during this primary season. Both claim the other is not 'electable'. What does that tell you?
Speaking of using the word, "I", don't you think that both of them are using the word often? Do you believe when and if either is president, that they won't continue to use the word, "I"?
So you won't vote for Obama. I have a feeling that you wouldn't have anyway, regardless of how he presented the State of the Union speech. After all, he doesn't look like you; he doesn't speak the way you do; and his vision for our country is different than your's. But why just focus on the fact that he, correctly, used the word 'I" as the defining reason for not voting for him?

Ted wrote:
I listened to both and came away with several thoughts. The first is President Obama has a severe case of I-itis. Everything is I, I, I. Never did I hear him say WE

hmmm, this is just the first two pages of his State of the Union address.
Can you count the number of times "we" was used?

Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought, and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.

America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs; a future where we’re in control of our own energy; and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before.

......or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.

What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.

Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores.

We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them.

In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect. Those are the facts.

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 this never happens again.

The state of our union is getting stronger, and we’ve come too far to turn back now.

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits.

In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number-one automaker.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

We can’t bring every job back that’s left our shore. But right now, it’s getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive.

Etc. I can continue, but this gives you an example of how many times he used the word "we" and how often you chose to ignore it.

Bea - what can I say. I don't like this man as president and I don't feel he is good for the country. I felt Senator McCain was better choice.

Ted,
Well, for starters, you can explain why you didn't hear the word "we" when it is apparent it was used quite often in the speech that you claim you paid close attention.
Then, you can tell us why you focused on his use of "I".
He offered quite a bit in his State of the Union message. No different than past presidents. They, no matter who sits in the Oval Office, have a positive vision for our country. They share their vision of what direction the country should head.
Does it always end up being what they hoped? Of course not.
The are too many. variables Only the most literal among us would expect that.

You said you won't vote for the President. McCain isn't running. So your choice will be whomever gets the nod from the GOP. Most likely it will be Romney.
How comfortable will you be with him running the country?

Beau and Howard - I do have another choice, NONE OF THE ABOVE.