Two sharp responses to Obama’s SOTU
Va. Gov. Bob McDonnell is giving a terrific counter-response to Obama’s spend-all, do-all State of the Union address. He is drawing on the Founding Fathers and talking about the need to restrain government. “The federal government is simply trying to do too much.”
Speech excerpts here:
JOBS
“Good government policy should spur economic growth, and strengthen the private sector’s ability to create new jobs. We must enact policies that promote entrepreneurship and innovation, so America can better compete with the world. What government should not do is pile on more taxation, regulation, and litigation that kill jobs and hurt the middle class.”SPENDING
“The amount of this debt is on pace to double in five years, and triple in ten. The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household. This is simply unsustainable. The President’s partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one. The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level.”
McDonnell tipped his hat to Scott Brown, quoting his line that feds need to be spending money to protect Americans from terrorists, not funding their legal defense. McDonnell praised private charity, quoting Luke –”To whom much is given is much required.” He talked about protecting life, liberty, and property, again hearkening back to the Founding Fathers.
Terrific rejoinder to Obama — an appealing statement of conservative principles that offers a clear contrast to the Democratic majority’s insatiable appetite for power.
Huge points for excoriating the law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism. Obama was completely silent on terror trials and Gitmo.
Another scorching response to SOTU from Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito:
POLITICO’s Kasie Hunt, who’s in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words “not true” when Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision…The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone faced, was priceless. Chuck Schumer stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
More CPAC speeches in 20 words
February 11, 2012 06:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
31 CommentsUS State Department Expands Travel Warning for Mexico
February 11, 2012 03:29 PM by Doug Powers
29 Comments
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
151 CommentsL.A. Board of Supervisors Impose $1,000 Fine for Having Fun on the Beach
February 9, 2012 04:42 PM by Doug Powers
77 Comments
CPAC vs. the Occupiers: Keep calm and carry silly string
February 9, 2012 10:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
109 Comments
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 CommentsSteny Hoyer: The Fact is You Don’t Need a Budget
February 8, 2012 03:27 PM by Doug Powers
74 Comments
Sheila Jackson Lee: Privatizing TSA Screeners Would Be Asking for Another 9/11
February 7, 2012 11:07 PM by Doug Powers
72 Comments
Categories: Politicians,Politics,Supreme Court
Riehl World View
» Whitney Houston: If I should stay I would only be in your wayPatterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksGateway Pundit
» Barack The BenevolentRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the Nonconformists
This was one of the biggest SC court cases in the last couple years. You don’t think that has to do with the state of the union?
Get real.
I’ve glanced through the decision. Why don’t you do the same and see how the decision deals with “foreign corporations” and “foreign nationals.” I’ll give you a bit of time since it is 183 pages.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
I am guessing from your statement you haven’t read it…
T-Bone,
Since you brought it up, lets compare your commnets about Joe Wilson’s actual incivility to this right wing concocted example by Obama:
You reallllly seem to care about the civility issue, here.
Oh…a bad boy.
Wow. Quite an admonishment. Wilson must still be stinging form the “bad boy” rebuke. Way to take a consistent, principled stand.
Later you say:
So, according to your logic, if we are to be consistent, you too have “a real lack of class and civility”? I mean those were the words you used to describe Obama’s comment, right? And if he did “just as Joe Wilson did” then surely Joe showed the same “real lack of class and civility.” And thus when you claimed you too were Joe Wilson, I assume those characteristics carry over as well?
Or did you mean you are just a “bad boy”?
You may have glanced, but you clearly do not understand.
The Supreme Court struck down the entirety of 441(b), which covered both foreign and domestic corporations. The court did not rule on whether or not the state has a compelling interest in limiting the speech of foreign or foreign controlled corporations. it just said the current law was overbroad because it included both foreign and domestic. Assuming, though the State does have such a compelling interest with respect to foreign corporations does, guess what has to happen now?
I will give you a minute or two….
CONGRESS HAS TO PASS A LAW LIMITED STRICTLY TO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS!!!
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA ASKED THEM TO DO!!!
It has nothing to do with overruling the Supreme Court decision because the Supreme Court specifically didn’t rule on the issue of foreign corporations. It simply struck down the law that covered them because it also covered domestic corps!
Did Obama apologize today for his comments? I must have missed that.
I also didn’t see where the Supreme Court lied.
Obama asked Congress to right a wrong. He didn’t simply ask them to pass a law. He was a bully using the bully pulpit.
Yes. It is wrong that, right now, McCain Feingold does not prevent foreign corporations from donating to our campaigns.
There is a difference between Corporation, Foreign Corporations, and foreign nationals. As there has been a difference between people and corporations, and to what each is and has been allowed to do.
This decision gives the same opportunities to corporations that individuals have had with regard to elections.
From the minority opinion, footnote #12
The majority never uses a multinational business corporation in its hypotheticals.
Somehow I knew you would not answer the very simple question from post #105, and that you would take a tangent trying to obfuscate the reality of what the unintended consequences of this decision can be.
More -
See, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §441e(a)(1) (foreign nationals may not directly or indirectly make contributions or independent expenditures in connection with a US election
Yep, speaks to foreign nationals but not to foreign corporations. We have laws to prevent individuals but not foreign corporations from contributing to elections. This decision has opened the door to foreign corporations to participating in our elections, either directly or through their US incorporated companies.
Heck, it does not even have to be a foreign corporation.
Could an American importer of alcoholic beverages support a ‘wet’ candidate over a ‘dry’ candidate, in what is now a dry county, because their suppliers want them to? Think about the amount of money all the American owned alcohol importers could throw into a race to defeat a ‘dry’ candidate.
Alito is wrong. With this decision foreign money and influence can work its way into our electoral process.
BTW, the answer to the question from post #105 is ‘no’. The decision does not make a difference between foreign and domestic corporations.
My speech on this blog is not restricted by rules of civility. Obama and Joe Wilson’s are in those venues. What a ridiculous anology.
I can and do say that Obama is a liar and I do not have to apologize for it. I do support his attempt to hold Obama accountable. I do not support shouting out in that venue. Joe did apologize. Obama did not and probably will not.
Those comments were also about the deflection of Obamas lie to Joe’s incivility. No one was discussing the lie about illegals later. They were discussing Joes outburst which became more important than the lies. Nice attempt to take me out of context and deflect the point. Not biting. I support calling Obama on his lies and his arrogance. Get real yourself.
I didn’t say it was. I just said you compared yourself to a person who you said was like a person that had no respect or civility.
Your words, not my conclusion.
Because Obama did nothing wrong. He didn’t call them liars. Nor did Obama shout out of turn. He said their decision was wrong. To attempt to equate the two is baffling.
That doesn’t make the SCOTUS decision wrong.
To semi quote Obama: Thats what court decisions do.
And let me ask, does George Soros make all his money from US corporations or does he make a lot from foreign corporations? If both, how do we separate the money he contributes to electing Democrats?
How much is from foreign corporations and how much from US corporations? How about US corps with foreign subs? Sometimes when you make a law, it has unintended consequences. How are we controlling all that again? By McCain Feingold??
No. But it also doesn’t mean Obama is wrong to insist that Congress take action to deal with the consequences.
Huh? No, thats your erroneous conclusion. You can’t compare my statements here to Obama or Wilsons statements in Congress.
Circling back to my original point which was that I believe Obama was wrong to make that statement about the SCOTUS during the SOTU.
Partly because I do not necesarily believe the SCOTUS decision was wrong but mostly because it was disrespectful in that forum and the manner in which it was done. You may not think so but there are plenty of people who do and I am one of them. It looks like Alito and some other Justices thought that also. The rules of civility prohibit them from forcefully responding. Those same rules should prevent Obama from making statements that show them up knowing they can’t respond.
I didn’t say it would be wrong for him to have Congress take action. In fact, that is entirely appropriate and SCOTUS would probably agree. Obama was wrong because he called them out during the SOTU. If he wanted to send underlings out to do that on the Sunday morning talk shows fine, but it’s not very Presidential for the President to do it and certainly not during the SOTU. If you want cooperation and bi partisanship, you don’t do it by insulting the people you are trying to work with. Or maybe thats the Chicago thug way. If so, then Joe Wilson should have the right to do what he did as well. The biggest thug wins.
Shockingly, everyone who does seems to already have a political axe to grind.
Anyway, it is nice to see you can make up rules of civility on the fly to suit your political purposes. I have zero doubt if the next hypothetical conservative President were to call out the next hypothetical liberal decision by the Supreme Court in the same situation, there would be nary a peep from 98% of the people here, except maybe to cheer on his “bravery” and “tellin’ it like it is.” And the other 2% certainly wouldn’t be engaging in the hyperbole and histrionics that are being displayed here.
Hello?!
DISAGREEING WITH A DECISION IS NOT INSULTING SOMEONE!
God, why do you think these justices are some delicate, untouchable flower?
And what the hell do people think the point of the State of the Union is?
It is to lay out what Obama wants the legislative agenda to be for the next year.
If amending our laws to make up for the Supreme Court’s decision is among those objectives, the President most certainly should mention it. I am sorry if the Justice’s little feewings are hurt. I hope the small comfort of their cushy, virtually untouchable appointment for life can do something to ease the massive blow to their ego.
This was not Alito’s birthday party. This was not a ribbon cutting ceremony for the William Rehnquist Reading Room. This was a political speech. The SCOTUS decisions have obvious political implication. The Justices themselves are, despite the popular myth, political creatures. Get over it.
You mean like the Democrats that cheered into the justices faces when Obama dissed them. Nobody is making up rules of civility but you.
And of course the typical coulda woulda should response about if a Republican…
If you don’t think those justices were insulted, I can’t help you.
So you do admit their feelings were hurt and it looks like there is some pent up resentment about them and their “cushy” job going on here too. That would explain why you seem to be having a hard time understanding what Obama did.
I wonder if that jealousy applies to Sotomayor also or just conservative justices.
See what Ragspierre posted at: http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/27/sotu-open-thread-blame-the-lobbyists/comment-page-6/#comment-881521
I got very busy this afternoon and just couldn’t spend the time looking into this.
Lefties only complain about decorum when it is directed against one of them. That is why Joe Wilson was vilified and Obama applauded…
Can you imagine what the MSM would report if Clarence Thomas, John Roberts or Sam Alito started making comments about specific actions and policies taken by Obama?
Decorum is for “commoners.”
Why the grandstanding over the latest McCain-Feingold ruling by the SCOTUS? It is nothing but political posturing and pure bull$h*t. Anyone with a lick of sense knows it.
Why are the Dems so upset over this ruling? The Democrats have used foreign money for years (Chinese for Clinton’s & Gore; and God knows where all of Obama’s money came from). In my opinion we are no worse than we have been in the recent past. I reckon the Dems are afraid the GOP might ‘legally’ outpace their ‘illegal’ campaign funds.
I do hope the final outcome is a solid piece of legislations with provisions that stop all foreign campaign contributions. Corporate or private. Even to the Democrats. America should not be for sale any longer.