The left is suspicious of Trump’s appeals for bipartisanship.
“The State of the Union address presented two versions of Donald Trump. I have often wished that the nation could be governed by the teleprompter Trump instead of the impulsive Trump. The former showed up last night, appearing at times restrained, aspirational, and tempered… The other President Trump appeared as well. He was uncompromising and took a hard line, painting a dark picture of an America about to be invaded by MS-13 gangs and turned into a socialist state.”
It was a “speech that exalted bipartisanship without displaying a strategy, or even an appetite, for achieving it…The president is right that members of both parties share some of the same goals. But they have real and deep disagreements about the best ways to achieve them, and even about what success looks like. The problem is not a lack of courage, and if Trump realizes that and has a plan to overcome it, he offered no hint in his speech.” The Atlantic
“Like last year, Trump’s speech was far more focused on the folks in the gallery – some heroes, some victims – than on policies. If you blinked, you missed infrastructure, which once again seems to be an idea he talks about, not something he plans to enact. He engaged in some soaring rhetoric about child cancer, putting the spotlight on a wonderful little girl in the gallery to illustrate the point… and then asked Congress for all of $500 million over the next 10 years to find a cure for the disease. And then there were the recycled ideas, including school choice and parental leave, that he mentioned last year, filed away for safekeeping, and pulled out again this time.”
“President Trump began and ended his long State of the Union address Tuesday night with tributes to heroes of America’s past—those who stormed Normandy and liberated Dachau, who ‘saved freedom and transformed science,’ who built the railroads and passed the Civil Rights Act. ‘Our most thrilling achievements are still ahead,’ he exclaimed, before asking, ‘What will we do with this moment? How will we be remembered?’ Yet the only big thing that Trump asked this Congress to do was to build a wall.”
Some confess, “I’ll be honest: There were parts of President Donald Trump’s 2019 State of the Union that I liked. But then I remembered the reality of his presidency…
"Trump’s presidency has burned time, trust, and political energy that could have gone toward addressing America’s real problems. These are years that could have been spent fighting climate change, expanding health care coverage, investing in R&D, designing a saner and safer immigration system, making the tax code reward work rather than wealth. These are years that could have been spent making the presidency Trump imagined [on Tuesday night] a reality.”
“President Trump's closing encomium to the past glory of America could not hide the emptiness of his vision for our politics today. ‘We do the incredible. We defy the impossible,’ the president said with a flourish toward the end. But he didn't point to any incredible or impossibility-defying proposals for today's America.”
“For Warren or anyone else to prevent the uniquely depressing experience of a Biden ‘national unity’ campaign, specifically targeted at a tiny cadre of wobbly Trump voters and Jeff Flake-style dissident Republicans, something has to change before next winter. Democratic voters and the media and basically everyone else must get over their skittish, fearful response to the Trump presidency, and their based-on-nothing certainty that nominating a progressive or a woman or a socialist or anybody who isn’t an avuncular white man with a vaguely reassuring demeanor and no discernible ideology will once again lead to disaster.”
Andrew O’Hehir, Salon
The right praised both the substance and content of the speech.
The right praised both the substance and content of the speech.
“Last night’s State of the Union address was terrific. A home run… When Trump sticks to the teleprompter, lays out his agenda, stops talking about himself and starts talking about what his policies would do for the American people, you get a glimpse of the president he could be with a little more discipline and focus and a little less self-absorption and sensitivity to criticism.”
Trump “laid out a unifying governing agenda — from empowering women at home and abroad to confronting China’s predatory trade practices, making new investments in crumbling infrastructure, lowering the cost of health care and prescription drugs, and defeating AIDS and childhood cancer. ‘We must reject the politics of revenge, resistance and retribution,’ the president declared, ‘and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise and the common good.’ This is exactly what a majority of Americans want… The Trump we saw Tuesday night is the president we should be seeing every day, not just once a year.”
“This was a State of the Union that almost didn’t happen — or that almost happened at a rally, or in the Oval Office, or a gas station on the southern border. In the end, it was good that he waited for the invitation and the chance to come to Nancy Pelosi’s House with an offer of peace. Will she take the offer? Maybe, maybe not, but there is a lot of room in between. If this is the Donald Trump we see for the next two years, two important things might happen. First, he might get some things done. Second, he just might get re-elected.”
Many note that “Mr. Trump is posing traditional, widely held American values against the Democrats’ confusing, postmodern amalgam of identity politics and national guilt-tripping. That includes his explicit challenge to Democrats on condoning abortion at full term. Democrats are always rubbing your face in some national moral deficiency or failure… Candidate Trump plans to give voters a remake of Ronald Reagan’s morning in America, while the Democrats are offering a nightmare on Elm Street.”
Wall Street Journal
“How can one argue with all Americans benefiting from 157 million of us working right now, the most ever in our history? Or the fact that we have the lowest unemployment in 50 years? Or the fact that 58 percent of the new job openings last year were filled by women?... And isn’t it just common sense to have trade deals that benefit the American people? Why should we continue operating under trade deals that have bordered on theft of American wealth and jobs? Or foreign policies that benefit them and not this idea of perpetual, endless wars?”
Regarding the media’s response, many posit that “'fact-checking' too often is just a mask for political attacks.” Two “fact checks” singled out for criticism were a Politico piece, which rated Trump’s claim that one in three migrant women are sexually assaulted as “partly true” because the actual number is 31 percent, and a NPR piece critiquing his statement that there are now a record number of women in Congress (which is true) on the basis that many of those women are Democrats.
A libertarian's take
“The relevant question is not the nationality of a source offering ‘oppo research’ but the accuracy and relevance of the information. Another consideration is whether the information was obtained illegally—by hacking emails, for example. While the Supreme Court has said people have a First Amendment right to share illegally obtained information if they were not involved in the lawbreaking (something that news organizations frequently do), you might reasonably argue that they should also report such crimes when they become aware of them, which may be what Trump had in mind when he said he might contact the FBI ‘if I thought there was something wrong.’”
Jacob Sullum, Reason
Fred the emu adopts farming family and helps out with the mustering.
National Rural News