MSNBC’s continuing coverage and analysis of President Obama’s State of the Union Address and the Republican response from Senator Marco Rubio will begin at 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday, February 12.
Rachel will lead the coverage with Chris Matthews, joined by Reverend Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell, and guests including Chris Hayes, Melissa Harris-Perry, Ezra Klein, Michael Steele, Eugene Robinson, Robert Gibbs, Victoria DeFrancesco Soto and Howard Fineman.
Chris Matthews carries out an additional live hour at midnight with David Corn, Joy-Ann Reid, Bob Shrum and Ron Reagan.
Furthermore, if you'd like to finish the sentence "The State of the Union is..." the way Rachel has above, MSNBC awaits your submission to the growing collection.
Leave a Comment:
Wow, not even one conservative? Won't all these people need neck braces after nodding approval to each other for hours? Does anyone here understand cocooning and epistemic closure? Diversity of thought need not apply? Looks like philosophical incest here.
You're talking about the Bush era..
No, we understand cocooning and epistemic closure here. Also diversity of thought. And even philosophical incest.
We also understand reading and arithmetic.
That's the same Michael Steele who is VERY conservative (unless this needs a drastic rewrite). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Michael_Steele.
Michael Steele whos bulk of post-RNC earnings have been from MSNBC for playing the role of good-natured, stand-in Republican whipping-BOY. He's about as clueless now as he was in the RNC.
YES , Ms. Rachel - Thank You For the time-line as to when the SOTU will begin ! I Will be there ! I Hope that President Obama Gets A Chance to Address "the Nooge" Directly and Rips him down and Apart ! Can't Wait ..................All of these repTards R such a bunch of Goofballs !
My apologies, there is ONE conservative. Heh.
"He's about as clueless now as he was in the RNC."
well unlike the new one at lease people won under Steel.
LOL
Michael Steele is a liberal? I wonder how many lefties Faux will have on their coverage. Snork! Naw, I don't really give a crap.
Will the SoU still be on after Westminster's Best in Show?
"Projection" -- a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people.
Example: Shooter 242 and most other RWNJs.
How dare this congressman, Steve Stockman invite Ted Nugent to tomorrow's speech. How unseemly is this, even for a T-Party house Republican.
"The State of the Union is..."
...on tonight instead of the shows I usually watch. Thank God for cable and DVDs.
...a Frank Capra film from 1948, starring Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn.
...peachy, if you're one of the 1% top income earners in this country. The rest of us, not so much. And don't get me started on the wealthiest 1% - as measured by net worth - where that gap between them and everyone else is even larger.
What about the Tea Party Response from Rand Paul?
And the Cartoon Response from.. wait, that's still Rand Paul.
I mean the Inhuman Response.. grr, this is harder than I thought.
What I'm trying to say, is will you also cover the Response from Spongebob Squarepants?
well be for baby doc Paul speaks, they have their number one Rubio doing his stand up routine.
the teapublicans great brown/white hopes on show.
He's self-accredited you know; a real voodoo-zinger bullshetologist!
Rand Paul is Teatardic God!
The State of the Union is.....
for tonight, waiting to see if Tednutz Nugent has already filled his pants with his other stench or if Stockman and Teddynutz cry in stereo.
Heard the President will call him out as a "Responsible Gun Owner"...
Buerre says:
"Must we even mention the Tea Party? In terms of potency, they have a severe case of erectile dysfunction. Once the Republicans got their money up front, they abandoned ship faster than greased lightning, effectively "TeaBagging" the Tea Party. I prefer a nice mulled cider over an agressive "teabag" anyday, and I long to snuggle in the depths of a homespun fantasy, a world where posse comitatus and the line-item veto mesh in a symphony of conservatism. I know what's right with America, and it certainly isn't a bunch of foul-mouthed hooligans like they employ at MSNBC. Would that we could work a capital-gains "nightcap" into play, a saucy apertiff that hearkens back to yesteryear, of basement bomb-shelters and support hose."
Remember: If you want to capture the Latino vote, you must first capture the Latino.
Your posts are little genius presents, thank you!
(; - )
Buerre Blanc productions would like to apologize for the insensitive remarks made by an independent contractor in reference to Latinos. The quote should have read:
"If you want to capture the Latino vote, you must first capture the hearts and minds of the Latino voter."
As with any media service, typographical errors can and do occur. We apologize for the confusion, and regret any unsavory inferences that may have been made.
(BUT, they were your inferences...)
These unsavory inferences have been brought to you by Swanson Hungry-Man Dinners.
"When it comes to my insensitive and factually incorrect media personality and/or journalist, I feed them a Swanson Hungry-Person T.V. Dinner. I have to catch a bus, or I would write another disclaimer to disclaim my claims. Or clams."
Oh, man... I'm feeling sick. I just watched Touré on the Spin Cycle. His comments today make him an apologist for Obama's use of drones in implementation of current US foreign policy. Firstly, Touré proclaimes that "if you join al Qaeda, you have given up your citizenship". Of course, that's a convenient (and false) presumption on an issue that has not been determined in any duly constituted and authorized body of our government. Worst of all, Touré proclaimed that we may be in a permanent war against al Qaeda. Yes indeed folks. I guarantee it will be permanent until the moment citizens STAND UP to stop it.
This is just like the utterly corrupt "war against drugs". Did the war against drugs eliminate drugs? No. It was never intended to do that. In fact, that's just how the policy was "sold" to us to make it politically acceptable and palatable. What it REALLY does is it allows the US military to keep forces in South America to project hegemeny of the Western Neocon Establishment into Columbia, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Latin America. So isn't the new permanent war against al Qaeda just like the old permanent war against drugs? You bet your ass it is. Sadly, Touré has shown himself to be a cheerleader for the SAME FOREIGN POLICY THAT PRESIDENT GW BUSH IMPLEMENTED. The SAME FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA AND TACTICS THAT DICK CHENEY CHAMPIONED.
Where is the change? Is this what we voted for when we voted to end the war in Iraq? Didn't we vote to end US involvement in foreign conflicts? That didn't happen, did it? Instead we got secret wars perpetrated by the CIA with drones and fake revolutions called the "Arab Spring" which are entirely astroturf and mercenaries. We were fooled by a liar and a poser. Obama betrayed the most fundamental demand of our last election.
After watching the Senate hearings on Brennan's nomination, I got the distinct impression that the GOP is fully behind Obama's drone program and they pointedly want Brennan to withhold all information related to it. They reminded me of Archie Bunker shouting ixnay! at his talkative wife Edith, trying to stop her before she said too much.
But if republicans are behind Obama's secret drone program, then Obama is completing their unfinished agenda started under the Bush Administration. Obama is their man pursuing their agenda.
In regards to Rachel's question from the other day ~"How much evidence does Obama need before he decides to target an American Citizen for death?" The answer is exactly the same amount of evidence GW Bush needed to invade Iraq. Nothing. At least no real evidence. This much is already established by the aftermath of the war in Iraq, -a war which killed 5000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. As a substitute for real evidence, a couple of emphatically stated lies like Bush's claims of WMD, mushroom clouds, and Saddam's drones overflying America can be repeated as necessary.
In regards to Bush's allegation that Saddam could use drones against America, it turns out that WE are the country doing that. The neocon establishment behind Bush (and now Obama) knew Americans would not tolerate these drones. However, they fully expect us to remain silent while the same kind of drones -only in this case US drones that are REAL, -NOT IMAGINARY, -fly over the homes of people in other parts of the world. Are we such sheep that we can be herded and manipulated like this?
Lastly, by now it should be dawning even on the most stalwart Obama supporters here that he is not the man we thought we elected. Even Touré can't stop this awakening. When measured by his acts, -and not by his words and promises, the picture of this man changes.
ACTS: Obama twice acted at the UN to block lawful resolutions designed to advance the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. First, Obama used his veto (being the only vote against) to block a UNSC resolution designed to force Israel to stop all Settlement construction in occupied territory, which is something Israel agreed to do when it signed the Road Map. It is also something that MUST happen BEFORE negotiations begin for core issues and final status. This is a specification of the Road Map. It is what Israel agreed to do. Obama blocked that effort to move the peace process forward by enforcing Israel's Road Map obligations. Second, Obama used diplomatic pressure to lobby against a General Assembly resolution to recognize Palestine as a non-member state. This second resolution was attempted only after Obama blocked the first one. The GA resolution passed overwhelmingly. Still, Obama's vote was against it, on the wrong side of history.
In addition, Obama has used the US leadership position in the Quartet to cripple it and prevent advancement of the agenda for peace it was created to pursue. This is one reason why George Mitchell resigned. He saw Obama for what he really is: -a neocon puppet of Israel posing as a democrat.
Look around you: All the political and social horrors we have had to deal with here at home were entirely self-inflicted. Examples include the debt ceiling, the economic collapse, the home foreclosure crises, the fight over health care reform, etc. These things function as a distraction to keep us worried about our homes and our asses while Obama completes the unfinished neocon agenda of the prior administration to topple every Arab state in the mid east.
For me, the most disconcerting part of that thought is the possibility that Obama and Israel are conspiring to create "Arab democracies" in the region, -not for advancement of human rights, but specifically so that Palestinians will have places to relocate when Israel drives them out of Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the occupied West Bank. If this happens, it will be a war crime on a scope equivalent to Hitler's Final Solution. And our president will have sullied the public image of the USA permanently by involving us in it.
Let's go further. IF the public decides to vote against more wars, -as they did in 2007, -and continued overt war seems unlikely to gain public approval, the political forces behind the push for war and continued extension of western hegemeny can just tell the president to shift the war to the CIA, where there is no real oversight, no right for the public to be advised, and apparently no way to stop it, short of impeachment of the president and replacement of his cabinet and department heads.
In this manner these political forces can do an end-run around us that circumvents the democratic will of the citizens of the United States to get what they want. In this case, that would be the toppling of every Arab state in the mid east, -whether the public backs it or not. That effectively makes our military and CIA the private army of these groups. But WHO do these groups serve? I bet you already know that answer.
Oil is the energy that runs the world economy, we are as much addicted to oil as to any drug, and with that dependency comes the simplest explanation to the policies of that last 100 years. The trouble in those parts of the world having oil, will last only and until the last marketable barrel has been extracted. Yet we foresee Oil as coming from more pristine parts of the world and can easily predict that these areas will inhabitable, that is the future, and it will remain the future, and if so then we need not worry about surviving; we won't want to.
Rich- Obama won the election with a mandate after he convinced the country that more drilling was occuring on his watch than under any other administration. He won- you lost- get over it. We'll drill.
Fellas that's exactly the point: Obama convinced the country that more drilling was occuring on his watch than under any other administration. Obama also convinced the country that he has presided over more deportations of undocumented latinos than any previous president. Obama has also increased use of CIA drone attacks by more than 700 percent. In many ways Obama is "more Bush than GW Bush". And what does that mean? In practice, Obama is more conservative than GW Bush. In real terms, Obama is more republican than GW Bush. Obama was never a real democrat, he was an agent of the right sent in 2007 to pose as a democrat, stop Hillary Clinton, and take advantage of public anti-war sentiment over Iraq. Of course, that latter position was a carefully crafted lie. Obama intended to fool democrats by promising to end the wars. Only he didn't do that, did he?
Obama betrayed the most fundamental demand of our last election. That should be grounds for impeachment, and impeachment by his own party should move forward if that is what it takes to stop all involvement of the USA in foreign conflicts. At least then we would get to see republicans who claim to hate him vote to keep him in office. That might explain why so many conservatives talk about seceeding from the union, but none of them talk about impeachment of the president.
I may disagree with your overall view- but I can't really disagree with anything you said here. Bush was a fairly liberal President.
I understand. You agree that Bush was "liberal" by today's GOP standards, but you can't quite get your head around the idea that Obama is a really conservative democrat. -So conservative in fact that his policies and his actions fit better with the republican party than they do with the party that was fooled into electing him. Right?
Now how could that be?
Kiev- appreciate the discussion- it's unusual for this board. I don't really think of Obama as being a conservative at all. I think he is far left, at least in the American perspective. That said- he tends to try to be all things to all people, depending upon the swing of the day. His heart is in wind and solar energy- and against coal and petroleum. However, through zero initiatives of his own, fracking and other technologies have allowed for more domoestic energy than ever before- therefore- being an opportunistic, he takes credit for this boon.
Insourcing of jobs- he has enacted zero policies making this attractive to businesses. However- in the new global demand and supply stream, to sell in a country like China- you'd better build something there. Ditto Europe- because of this dynamic and the cost of an extended value stream- there is a real movement to build it where you sell it. Obama last night took credit for several insourced projects- opportunistic on his part in that no tax policy, legislative, etc has been placed encouraging such. In fact- the level of regulation and enforcement (OSHA, EPA, S-Ox, Dodd, etc) has made it a miracle that these movements have proceeded.
Rusty:
I think I 've got you pegged as a conservative. At least that's my impression from your comments. So why are you here, dude?
Look, you're not about to convince me Obama is a liberal. I have too much documentary evidence to the contrary. At any rate, I'm going to save my breath. See you round the 'ville.
Kiev- I would position myself right of center, but not too far. I'm on here because I do appreciate differences of opinions. Nothing more boring to me than to get on a blog where everyone thinks the same way, and everyone just agrees with each other.
Yea, I've heard that sort of description before from both sides. Everyone is just a little bit to one side or the other of the center. That's because everyone seems to have a different idea of where the "center" is.
In the last 10 years neocons have driven the center far to the right. Like a couple of miles to the right. A great example of this is polling surveys that indicate public support for using drones to target and kill suspected (emphasis on suspected) terrorists or their associates. Americans accept this policy, even when it results in thousands of innocent deaths from collateral damage and mistaken hits.
And here's the kicker: GW Bush used the spectre of Saddam using drones against Americans to justify his invasion of Iraq. Bush knew Americans would NEVER accept this possibility (even the possibility posed by his lie about imaginary drones), -and yet they have been manipulated into hypocritically supporting the same thing being done to people in other parts of the world.
Sadly, Obama has done nothing to take control of the "political center" and return it to what really is political middle ground. That's because he's in on it. Obama is the man behind the killing drones and the innocent deaths from collateral damage they cause.
Well, I am amazed at the same thing you discuss. I would have predicted the Left being outraged by the use of drones, but moreso about the Obma doctrine- that of plugging the enemy before giving them a chance to surrender. With their position on waterboarding and Gitmo- it would have been logical to think they wouldhave actually wanted to move towards more civil rights to the enemy, terrorists, enemny combatants, whatever they are called. Instead, Team Obama has moved to less rights for said people that Bush gave them (witness Saddam's capture and conviction vs Bin Laden- shoot before he can get arms in the air.) I think the Left has became enamored with Obama as a cult hero- regardless of his position. By the way- I will say I back his drones- but would not consider that to be agin my political views.
The State of the Union speech makes me nervous because nobody knows what the looney tunes and wingnuts on the GOP side will do. Also, the distortions and outright lies from Fox will outrage me. I probably won't sleep.
"The State of the Union is..."
my favorite night of the year!
But after that is ...
"The State of the Union is the annual reminder to Congress that governance needs more than one day a year."
As to terrorist sitting in upon the invitation of Congressional members, we are reminded that their selection is intended to improve their own image.
There is nothing political in pointing out that Congress in moving lower and lower in the public opinion is likely to cost more and more and produce less and less.
There is nothing at the bottom, because if Congress succeeds, fails or remains its whole mudwrestling career, if does good, bad or ugly, Congress is still there. The Constitution does not address the problem, of party poison dysfunction, where the Congress fails.
Outside the Constitution, history has the answer. We don't know for how long or for what purpose Congress can choose to fail, but how refreshing it would be for Congress to vote itself out of business, before we have to wander the that wilderness that is history.
The State of the Union is going to have a pedophile sitting in the Gallery. Ted Nugent will be there, who knows how he will act.
Does anyone remember Cindy Sheehan being escorted out of the Gallery before Bush started his 2006 State of the Union speech? A mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, she is a true Patriot.
Ted Nugent , a Draft Dodger, will be allowed to be there.
Democratic Senators and Representatives have invited, First Responders, teachers and victims who experienced The Sandy Hook tragedy. Hopefully the TV cameras pan back and forth from Nugent with his silly grin and the sorrowful faces of the Newton residents.It will be a positive force in the passage of Gun safety and gun control legislation
Why is Ted Nugent allowed at this honorable event. He should be in jail. He is a child molester. He married a 15 year old girl in the 70s. How many has he molested before and after that marriage. He has commented on his desire for children. Follow up on this please. Just a thought from a BlueCollar Guy.
I sure hope no Military person has to sit by him.
sniff sniff,, thats the smell of pure breed chicken-hawk coward, think i will listen form some other place.
Not to worry about Mr. Nugent. SS will be ready to escort him out quietly and once to the door, they'll be more than happy to shove their knees into his chest and thank him for coming.