Obama and the iPad

It is interesting that President Barack Obama's first official State of the Union address and the unveiling of the Apple iPad happened on the same day.

Both captured part of our imagination and give us a glimpse into the future.

They are also great examples of how American icons continue to redefine themselves. While Steve Jobs was showing how Apple is opening the next stage of its technical development, Barack Obama was closing the door on his first year in office and defining the tone for his second year.

Perhaps they should have collaborated on a presentation.

It certainly would have increased the audience for both. There are also some benefits that each would have received from the other. Here is a wonderfully spliced rendition of the 2 speeches from the folks at tv.gawker.com:

Click Here to View
And while we are on the topic of the iPad, we have to make sure everyone knows that term isn't new. In fact, the folks at Mad TV had a take on an iPad many years ago:

Republicans Caught in "State of Confusion" Address

First, let me say that I think President Barack Obama must have taken my advice from Tuesday's blog post and watched the press conference speech near the end of "The American President".

He had a bit of swagger in his voice, calling out Republicans, Democrats and even the Supreme Court! Now that was pretty unprecedented and while a bold move that he could have made pretty legitimately, it appears he stretched the truth a bit by claiming the Supreme Court decision on campaign finance would also enable foreign corporations to contribute without limits to political campaigns. He didn't say that the bill was dead and that he would come back with a more liberal one, but he did make it pretty clear that he has no intention to abandon the project.

There are many great analyses on the internet about the State of the Union address, but I wanted to address something that visually caught my eye.

Let me start by reminding everyone that "The duty of an Opposition is to Oppose" (Lord Randolph Churchill). In few cases is the physical representation of opposition more distinctive and seen by more people than the annual State of the Union address. So it is not surprising that when a president sprinkles in accomplishments of his administration in the address, that the opposition party remains seated and seemingly bored while the President's party stands, applauds, hoots and howls.

While President Obama's speech was filled with verbal pats on the back as well as barbs at the Republicans, there were also several things mentioned that Republicans do support. Some were olive branch offerings. These tend to be telegraphed and the opposition party knows to stand up and applaud.

However, there were also several items that given the way they were worded, it is difficult to be opposed to them. In many cases, the Republicans continued to remain seated. Near the end, they seemed to realize that President Obama was giving his party several video opps for the Republicans showing that they are not supporting things that most Americans would want.

I can envision a junior Republican senator, seated in the back of the Republican Senate section, trying to take his or her ques from what the rest of their group was doing:

"...To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks..."

OK, we don't want to look like we are in favor of anything the President has done on the bailout, so I should remain seated. Wait, shouldn't I want to get money back from the banks? None of the other Republican senators is standing an applauding, so I guess I will stay seated.

"...We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families..."

Nope we don't believe that even if it winds up being true.

"...We cut taxes for small businesses..."

Oops, aren't we supposed to be in favor of small business? Nobody's standing.

"...We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college..."

OK, yeah, oops, nobody is standing, better sit down again. We aren't in favor of helping Americans pay for college?

"...thought I'd get some applause on that one..."

Yeah, I think we missed standing on that one.

"...So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat..."

Ah, that sounds good to me, but we aren't standing.

"...I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit -– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages..."

Hey, aren't we supposed to be in favor of small business? Not sure why none of us are standing, but I'm not going to be the only one. I'll just sit and wait.

(on health care) "...Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber..."

We don't applaud anything having to do with Obama's Health Care plan. Wait, he actually said we won't walk away from Americans in need. Umm, I think we actually agree with him. Wait, there, a few Republicans are starting to haltingly stand up. I think I should too, maybe, yeah, the row behind them stood up, OK, I guess we are standing up and applauding on this one.

Boy is it confusing to be a member of the opposing party during a State of the Union address.

Preview of what the President's State of the Union Address Should Look Like

The election of Republican Scott Brown to fill Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat has given the Republicans 41 members in the Senate and the likely ability to filibuster any bill, most notably A Health Care bill coming out of committee reconciliation.

The Democrats are stunned, demoralized, confused and even though they still claim large majorities in both the House and the Senate, acting more like the minority.

In his first year in office, President Barack Obama has attempted to be bipartisan, collaborative, considerate, compassionate and introspective. All good qualities in most cases, but apparently not good as the driving forces behind a presidency. He is at the same time being labeled as too conservative and too liberal, too aggressive and too accommodating, too cerebral and too clueless, taking on too much and not doing enough.

What Barack Obama needs is...to watch this speech given by Michael Douglas in his portrayal as President Andrew Shepard in "The American President".

Just replace the word "Republicans" every time he refers to Senator Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss) and think of the Crime Bill as the Health Care bill.



Now, doesn't that make you feel better?

Note on other actors in "The American President" and future TV government roles - Martin Sheen would go on to play the well-loved character President Jed Bartlett in "The West Wing", and Michael J. Fox would go on to play Deputy Mayor Mike Flaherty in "Spin City"

Will Massachusetts Special Election for Senator Derail Health Care Reform?

Today there will be an unusual event in more ways than one.

Massachusetts is conducting a special election to fill the remainder of the term held by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Massachusetts is perhaps the Bluest of all states and conventional wisdom would indicate that any Democrat with a pulse could win a statewide election. Well, Martha Coakley is showing that her beating heart is not enough as a "Perfect Storm" of events now has Republican candidate Scott Brown leading in most polls.

Special elections typically have low turnouts, especially if the state has a partisan electorate. The Republican election machine is back in full force and resources from around the nation have been focused on Massachusetts. Martha Coakley has run a spectacularly awful campaign, seemingly trying to outdo Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine.

But, the key point that has gotten everyone hyped about this special election for the Senate is that a Republican win would give them 41 votes in the Senate and would enable them to filibuster any legislation, most especially the Health Care Reform bill that still needs to come back from House-Senate reconciliation.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com does a wonderful job again analyzing the polling available and gives Coakley only a 25% chance of winning today. I am inclined to agree with his analysis, but Nate does hedge a bit and I have a sense that may be a well placed hedge. It would not surprise me if Democratic voters who are totally unhappy with Coakley as a candidate are willing to go out and vote against the very real chance of a Republican senator in Massachusetts who winds up stopping the Health Care Reform bill that was the lifelong ambition of their dearly departed Senator Kennedy. So whereas these Democrats were unlikely to respond to any polls or put up any lawn signs for Coakley, they are fine with going into a booth and pulling a lever in the same column as usual.

There are also many thoughts on how the Democrats would pass Health Care Reform even without 60 votes in the Senate. The State of the Union address was just announced as being an earlier than expected January 27th. Don't think this timing is without great significance. If Brown wins, he would not be seated until a challenge is settled and the results of the election are signed by the Governor and State Secretary (both are Democrats). The full time-line of how this would proceed can be found in a good article at Talking Points Memo. It looks like if Brown wins, he would not be seated in the Senate until at least January 29th. Until Brown is seated, current interim Senator, Paul Kirk (D-MA) would still be representing Massachusetts and be able to vote in favor of Health Care Reform.

If Brown wins, expect the Democrats to push through a vote in the House and Senate to give approval to a reconciled Health Care Reform bill before he is seated.

As Betty Davis said in All About Eve, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"