I stopped any serious "SOTU watching" years ago - about the time Bill Clinton started giving it. Nowadays, it's pretty much a policy reiteration and an outline of "goals" and bragging about "achievements." I think it was telling that the latest Medal of Honor awardee - Clint Romesha - declined a White House invitation to sit next to Mrs. Obama during the speech:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

- while on the same day it was announced that the soldiers and law enforcement personnel who were shot during the Fort Hood massacre several years ago were sueing the government because they believe the government has "betrayed" them:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime...

(Note in particular that one of the law enforcement personnel who was shot several times by the perpetrator stated "that the White House used her as a political prop when she sat next to Michelle Obama during the 2010 State of the Union address." I wonder if this went into the thinking of Clint Romesha?)

As to the actual "state of the Union," I really don't quibble with Mr. Obama's characterization - especially when it comes to the area of foreign policy. I totally support his continuation of various aspects of "The Bush Doctrine" (which he vigorously opposed before his election as President), and the apparent trust and confidence he has placed in the advice of the career professionals charged with our Homeland Security and foreign/domestic law enforcement.

As to the economy, he does seem to have gotten the message that "it IS the economy." And I really can't quibble with the stance he has taken vis-a-vis the Republicans in furthering his own/his parties' "goals" and "objectives." After all - he WON the election. The GOP is currently in apparent disarray and on many political fronts are "on the run." It is good, smart politics to keep them on the run and to press whatever advantages you have. The Dems howled about it when the Bushs and Reagan did it, now it's the Republicans turn to examine the view from behind the lead dog. But make no mistake, the worm will turn and the roles will be reversed once again. It's only a matter of time.

...and as to the actual significance of the SOTU speech nowadays, check out what USATODAY thinks was most important about it. (You'll have to check fast because they'll change it sometime today). On the main page - top and center - they chose to run a huge photo of GOP-responder Marco Rubio sipping some "Poland water" with the headline: "Rubio pokes fun at his water break" INSTEAD OF running a photo of the President or headlining anything HE said last night in the SOTU address.

See: http://www.usatoday.com/

Sebe, if I get you right, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Got it, but what does that accomplish? He has to reach accross and try to start finding some middle ground. Granted the Republicans need to do the same but his speech did not speak of partisanship. It rang of the same song and dance from the last four years. I am tired of the song...

HMJC: That's what I've seen for a long time. The same song and dance no matter who is in office. Only it's the controlling party's song and dance. The other side gets to eat it.

That's our sausage-making system. What's supposed to happen is that Obama and his extremists want something; the GOP and their extremists want something different. They MEET, discuss, haggle, debate, and then the solution/decision/legislation pops out somewhere in the middle. Nobody gets EXACTLY what they want; nobody is completely satisfied; but the result will probably best serve that "majority" in the middle.

This is what the founding fathers envisioned when they set up our form of government. Sometimes the party in control has a greater grip and more numbers than the opposition, which enables them to get more of what they want. But the other side isn't supposed to just cave and let them have everything they want. I don't see the Republicans "caving," but they do realize who won the election and who has the votes - especially in the Senate. The disarray in the House only helps the liberal left in accomplishing THEIR agenda. Not great for the country, but that's the way it goes. When the GOP regains control - which they INEVITABLY will due to the fickle nature of the constituency - the "wrongs" will be "righted" (as they see them).

And then the cycle repeats and we get to argue about the same old stuff all over again. But by then another generation will be dead and the "new majority" will think the system is out of whack. By the time they figure out it's the way it's supposed to work, they'll be dying off and the newbies will "discover democracy."

And so it goes - like sands in the hourglass - as the stomach turns....

Great speach, the same ole same ole delivered by the GREATEST SPEAKER of our current times; however when you examine the substance of it, is as much an empty suit as we have heard before. I give President Obama an A+ for Delivery and a C- for substance. I'm calling it as it is :D

Yo Funky...Part of me wants to agree with you, but my better half of me:says: "reach for the golden ring Mr. President as the Merry go Round goes round and round.

Cause one day....one of us is agonna chatch that ring

...and then you get the email from your senator thanking you for the votes & support over the years, BUT the truth be told the system is broken, Washington is in stalemate and he is bidding it all adieu.

Reality check: $2.5 trillion in deficit cuts
By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoneyFebruary 12, 2013: 11:04 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
How much have President Obama and Congress cut federal deficits so far?
"Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion," Obama said in his State of the Union address Tuesday.
What did he mean? That $2.5 trillion is the amount of deficit reduction over a decade compared to where things stood in August 2010, according to calculations from the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Why August 2010? That was the launching point used by the president's fiscal commission chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.
Where does the $2.5 trillion come from? Several sources: savings from the 2011 Budget Control Act, lower spending levels enacted in temporary government funding resolutions since 2010, and the fiscal cliff deal passed at the start of this year.
In fact, the latest savings estimate is actually closer to $2.7 trillion, according to Marc Goldwein, CRFB's senior policy director.
Of that amount, $1.57 trillion comes from spending cuts, $690 billion from increased tax revenue and $430 billion from interest savings.
But how much deficit reduction has been achieved can be measured differently. For example, the savings look much smaller if you choose an earlier starting date.
That's in part because August 2010 marked a high point for federal spending on "discretionary" programs. If, say, August 2007 is the comparison point, the savings amount to only about $450 billion, according to CRFB's estimates.
The summer of 2007, of course, predated the steep drop in revenue and the more than $1 trillion in stimulus injected into the economy as a result of the financial crisis and the recession.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/12/news/...

There has only been 600B in real deficit reduction, Brett Baier explains it here. Why doesn’t the media tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, said Windell! Baier is a true journalist

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2094204187...

And here’s the Texas Tenors performing Lee Greenwoods classic “God Bless the USA” on this 2013 Presidents Day.

Oooppss, here’s the Tenors :

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2172954808...

There has only been 600B in real deficit reduction, Thank you there has been deficit reduction, can be more, but takes all working together, and until that happens, nothing will happen. No one person is right on this mess, but not working together is not the solution either.