Here's the video of the full STOU speech : link (I started it at the 26 minute mark just to chop off all the footage of politicians shaking each others hands and such).
I thought it was a decent enough speech. It's a State of the Union speech during an election year, so it was always going to be more of a warm up for the campaign trail than anything else. There was stuff I agreed with and stuff I wasn't as sure about. There were definitely things I outright disagreed with. I'll discuss what I liked and didn't like in a bullet point style. This isn't really done in any chronological order, as presented in the speech. Length of discussion will vary by bullet point.
1) I really liked the plan to get a port into Gaza to get humanitarian aid in. The sooner the better, especially with Ramadan right around the corner. Having partaken in Ramadan (back when I practiced Islam in my 20's), I know how it can be rough on the body. I also didn't fast during a war in my backyard. These people are fasting in the middle of a war in their front, back, and side yards. So the need for humanitarian aid, which was already large, is going to be astronomical as the month progresses. While I've been a little disappointed in Biden's more hardline Pro-Israel rhetoric, I appreciate this gesture of humanitarianism, and his (at least implied) promise to not send U.S. foot soldiers into Palestine/Israel.
2) I'm not really sold on the black & white presentation of Federal programmes like Social Security. I'm a long time advocate of an expansive rehaul of a lot of Federal programmes like Social Security. In a perfect world, those programmes wouldn't be necessary. We do not live in a perfect world. But as constructed, those programmes are dated and need revising, if not a complete demolition followed by building a more modern structure. The economy (domestic and global) has changed so much since even the 1980's and 1990's. And even more so since the 1930's and 1940's.
I would have been happier if Biden had even mentioned looking into new approaches to Federal programmes aiding citizens, as opposed to just saying "we're keeping the programmes". Even if just to say "We're going to fund research into exploring new alternatives to a system that's necessary, but in need of some serious overhaul". To me, at least, it just sounded like "We're sticking with something that's not really working any more".
3) I'm more of an "open-borders" type of person, but I recognize that our immigration/migration/asylum situation is pretty...shall we say intense?... right now. I dislike the rhetoric that undocumented immigrants crossing the Southern border are the ones bringing fentanyl to America. Most immigrants from Latin-American countries are trying to get away from cartels, not work with them. There has to be a distinction between traffickers and immigrants/migrants/asylum-seekers. Otherwise, I think his discussion on immigration issues were decent, if viewed as a temporary solution. I still believe that the best long-term approach to stymie the flood of immigration is to co-operate with countries to make them more safe and livable and economically viable so people don't have to move in the first place. As I mentioned in a previous post, that has to be (and, realistically, can only be) done in co-operation with the countries where immigrants/migrants/asylum-seekers come from.
4)I'm not sure how realistic it is to overturn the Dobb's decision and reinstate a national protection on abortion access in 4 years, but I'm glad he's keeping up the fight for that, and the fight to protect against the threat of those who would try to make a Federal ban on abortion access.
5) Not something he said, but something he didn't say: I would've liked to hear something more about protecting minority and under-represented populations with respect to access to higher education. There's definitely been a state-by-state push to dismantle programmes and laws that facilitate access for those groups. The disenfranchisement of minorities and under-represented groups in higher-education is a real and present danger to our colleges/universities (not to mention the job-market). Some acknowledgement of the situation, at the very least, would've been nice.
6) Unsure how I feel about the comments about raising the Federal minimum wage. He should've given at least a ballpark figure. If he said $9/hr, I'd be on board. If he went with the ridiculous $15/hr figure, I'd be shaking my head. If raising the minimum wage is a real goal, he should be more specific.
7) I thought the appeals throughout the speech to bi-partisan co-operation was smart. We're still shaking off the bad effects of COVID (and all the problems that came with that) and, in general, everything that went on during the tenure of He Who Owes Half-A-Billion Dollars In Restitution. We're doing a better job of getting back to normal than I expected, but there's still a lot of work that needs to be done. That work can only be done with some compromises by both sides.
That said, I wish the tone of the speech in general had been less chiding. One of my big (and oft-expressed) problems with political discourse is that it turns into "trolling" and "owning the (opposite party)" and general childish snarkiness that really only serves to create more hostility and divisiveness. Like one of my least favourite things in the world: evening talk shows (and political "satire" shows like the Daily Show). I really dislike, for example, when the Daily Show has Jordan Klapper (or whatever) go to Trump rallies, where he picks out the looniest/most stereotypical over-the-top MAGA types and paints the entire Republican party as dim-witted and ultra-extremist. Is it funny when some one says that they wonder what role Obama played in the 11 Sept. attacks? Kind of. Is it disingenuous to paint all Republicans as that stupid? Absolutely. It's equally bad when Conservatives pick out the looniest Libs (like that Sailor Socialism girl) and make them a sort of Liberal archetype. I would have preferred Biden's tone to have been more dignified than derisive. I know that's hard when the fringe Republicans are shooting down bills they helped draw up, but it's about the image that's portrayed to the Republicans and Right-Leaning Independents who are on the fence. Democrats are going to vote Democrat. MAGA is going to vote MAGA. But the right tone can (or at least could have) swayed Right-Wingers on the fence. The Jordan Klapper stuff, the Stephen Colbert stuff, the (insert other smug Liberal comedian) stuff....that just makes those on the fence think "What's the difference?", not "Whoa they totally owned the Conservatives! I'm gonna get me one of those Dark Brandon coffee mugs for $30" or whatever the fuck. If you want to be the party of civility, but act like dickheads, it's sort of counter-productive.
8) I agree with the idea of continuing aid to Ukraine. Putin's war has killed way too many people, and it has to be stopped. I'm far from sold on sending troops and escalating the war, but aiding the Ukrainian effort is necessary.
9) I do think Biden's administration has done a good job with the economy for the most part, especially given the context of what's happened over the last 8 years. He was right to tout his administrations accomplishments in that arena.
10) MTG is a total asshat and I would not object if a court ordered her to be deported to Neptune..
I don't have much else to add to that beyond "Just vote for Biden in 2024". He's done a fine (if imperfect) job. He's infinitely better than the alternative. I hate that we have to have this match-up again, but none of the 3rd party candidates I've seen look like they would have, or be able to attain, anywhere near enough support to win. So the only way to avoid He Who Sells The Cheap Looking Ass Shoes is to vote for Biden.
Also: I don't know who the 7th grade drama student was who gave the Republican rebuttal, but that was really tough to sit through. Here's the video (link). If you can make it past 10 minutes.... congrats? I turned it off at the 9:15 mark. Completely vacuous, dangerously alarmist, poorly presented, and I got big horror movie villain vibes from her. I'm not sure if the Republican's have some sort of intra-party political suicide pact going, but that was really, really abysmally bad. That was like "the acting in a Sharknado movie"-level bad. I hear she may be the VP nominee. Good luck with that?
Also, I'm sort of curious about the story of the young girl who was trafficked by cartels. I'm just curious as to what happened to the girl, tbh. Did Sen. Witts (or whatever her name is) talk to her after a report was made to the proper law enforcement agencies? Did Sen. Witt talk to the girl before law enforcement agencies were contacted, and if so what did Sen. Witt do to expedite the investigation? Is the girl safe now? Did Sen. Witt do anything to help the girl find a home and trust-worthy care-takers? Did the cartel face any justice? Or was the girl just a prop for a scary story she exploited to fuel anti-immigrant sentiment?
[Update: The AP did a follow up on the story of the girl who was trafficked, which can be found here (link). It's worth reading the article. It definitely puts some context and facts in place that Sen. Gitt glossed over.)
Further Update: The victim did get to speak for herself. Her statement is here: (link), and is about a minute long. There's some background given before her statement, a follow up statement from Sen. Gitt where she acts like she's a victim somehow, and then it transitions (distastefully and disrespectfully, imo) to something about some SNL skit at the 4-ish minute mark.
Anyway, I'm glad the victim got to have her voice heard in all of this. Now both sides can stop using her as a political pawn and let her be and let her do her good work helping other victims of sexual violence. Remember, at the end of the day, she's the one who has to go home with the trauma of what she went through. Every fucking day. You can turn the channel, you can move on to the next outrage, you can find the next tragic story to use against your political opponents.....but every fucking day of her life, she has to live with those memories and that trauma. And every time some irresponsible politician or journalist drags her into the international spotlight without her permission, I promise you that that just amplifies all that hurt she has to deal with. Sen. Gitt needs to give the victim an apology, and if Sen. Gitt has even the most miniscule amount of fucking decency (doubtful), she'll make (at the very minimum) a substantial donation to the advocacy group the victim works for..
Update 8 March:
I made some edits above. I wrote it kind of quick, and it showed. Hopefully sentences feel more complete, spelling is improved, and complete coherence has been attained.
I also wanted to add that the port/pier for humanitarian aid to Gaza (see first point) appears to be a joint effort between the EU, UAE, and the USA (amongst others). From what I heard in an announcement by EU Pres. Ursula von der Leyen, the project is supposed to begin either today or tomorrow. That's good news, IMO..
Also: Just as a reminder to everyone, this kind of thing (link) is still happening. I'm not saying there has to be big nation-wide protests. In fact, as I've stated before, I'm against the big nation-wide protests just because they're so easily turned into big catch-all protests that get co-opted for tangentially related issues (I personally disliked how most of the protests against police violence against Blackmen and Blackwomen became Anti-Trump protests, even though there was some overlap). But this is still happening. It is not a resolved issue.
Update 14 March:
Sort of unrelated to any of the above, but I did find George Stephanopoulos' badgering of Rep. Mace to be distasteful and disrespectful (link to video). She was obviously uncomfortable with the question, and he should've just dropped it. I personally agree that it's weird that she's supporting He Who Has the Fake Tans (especially considering how she was very anti-Orange up until like a year ago), but whatever. Don't put a rape survivour on the spot with regards to their trauma on national television and badger her/him (men get raped, too) about their pain. It was gross on Stephanopoulos' part, and he should've just apologized and let it go. I lost a ton of respect for Stephanopoulos here.
Updating this a bit later in the day:
I'd like to say that this is an example of one of the things that really drives me to distance myself from people. People like Mr. Stephanopoulos who lack basic empathy in situations where it's needed most. Just to even broach the subject in such a manner...as a weapon to deride her political position. That Stephanopoulos couldn't even fathom that (a) she was uncomfortable, and (b) he WAS shaming her and couldn't see (or, at least, admit) that he was shaming her.... it's a total lack of empathy; an inability of Stephanopoulos to read Rep. Mace's emotions and an inability to place himself in her shoes and understand how weaponizing her trauma for a rhetorical political argument (i.e.; to use her trauma as a way to shame her for her political position). There were so many other ways to approach the question of "Why do you support the former president in 2024?". He chose probably the most tactless and vile way to approach the subject (and from what I understand, Rep. Mace had no idea that's what his approach was going to be, making it doubly gross).
I'm gonna be honest: I was rooting for Rep. Mace before she flip-flopped on her position against #45. I didn't agree with a lot of her stances (notably on abortion), but up until about a year ago she was the type of Republican that I would consider sensible and someone who would be willing to cross the aisle when it mattered, a bit like John McCain. I can't speak for her private life and how she acts on the day to day, but she's so far been fairly outspoken as anti-racist, she's not a looney-toon MTG/Boebert-type, she seems to do a decent job of separating her religious beliefs from her political duty, she's willing to listen to differing opinions, and other things that I'd consider desirable traits for members of either party. I hope she renounces #45, and I hope she can be the sensible politician she was shaping up to be. But, honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Stephanopoulos' repellent behaviour (and the ensuing repellent Left-wing maligning of Rep. Mace's response) pushes her further into the MAGA-verse.