SNL: Scott Brown

What timing for Saturday Night Live!

Jon Hamm just happened to be hosting this weekend, the perfect person to play Senator-elect Scott Brown.

Barbara Boxer (Nasim Pedrad), Nancy Pelosi (Kristen Wiig), Barney Frank (Fred Armisen), and even Robert Byrd (Bill Hader) are all very impressed with the new senator from Massachusetts.

SNL: Snooki, January 30

"Snooki" (Bobby Moynihan) from MTV's Jersey Shore, visited Seth Meyers on "Weekend Update." This was Snooki's second appearance. She first stopped by on December 19, 2009.

Video.

SNOOKI: Seth, we're friends now. OK? You can call me 'Spalding.'

SETH MEYERS: 'Spalding'? Why?

SNOOKI: Because I'm orange, leathery, and I get passed around by sweaty dudes.

SNL: Justice Sotomayor

On Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update," Justice Sotomayor, played by Nasim Pedrad, describes her colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court as a "diverse collection of people."

SOTOMAYOR: White guy, white guy, old white guy, white guy (Ruth Bader-Ginsburg), white guy, Nerd Alert (Samuel Alito), white guy, and might as well be a white guy (Clarence Thomas).

Video.

SNL: Obama State of the Union

Saturday Night Live opened with its take on Obama's State of the Union address.

As usual, Fred Armisen played Obama. Behind him were Jason Sudeikis as Joe Biden and Kristen Wiig as Nancy Pelosi.



Transcript

OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans,

Five months ago our nation lost one of its most honorable and courageous public servants -- Sen. Edward Kennedy.

And last week in Massachusetts, we saw a special election to fill his Senate seat. Now, that election did not go my party's way. So naturally all the pundits have their different theories on what it all means. The fact is no one knows.

But there's one thing we do know: Our nominee, Martha Coakley, was the single most incompetent candidate ever to seek public office in this nation's history. Shame on you, Martha Coakley. How do you not know that Curt Schilling pitched for the Red Sox? Martha Coakley, you are a disgrace. You couldn't beat Dick Cheney for mayor of Berkeley. You deserved to lose, Martha. You deserved to lose. You stunk up the joint.

Thank you, thank you.

Now, before we assess the state of our union today, let's pause to recall where we stood when I assumed office just one year ago. Our nation -- mired in two wars, a collapsing stock market, an economy rocked by severe recession, and a government deeply in debt. But that's not all.

Last January 20th, when Michelle and I first entered the White House, we were absolutely horrified at what we found: Dishes piled high in the sink; sheets that hadn't been washed in months, perhaps years; floors littered with candy wrappers and dust bunnies; and a fridge filled with food long past its expiration date. The cable bill had not been paid since the Clinton administration and service had been turned off years ago. Late fees alone ran into the hundreds of dollars. Also, and I want to put this as delicately as I can, according to staff familiar with the furnishings, things were missing.

But of all the legacies left by my predecessor, none was as damaging as a jobless rate of nearly 15 percent. Putting Americans back to work has therefore been my administration's top priority, and it will be until every American who wants a job has one.

Thank you.

Here are three jobs that as of noon today were still available:

Tezak Bros. Roofing in Hinsdale, Illinois, has an opening for a part-time bookkeeper. Contact Bob or Andy Teezak at 1-800-555-0199.

Mike's Burger World on Route 7 in Bellevue, Washington is looking for kitchen staff. Applicants must be available nights and weekends and willing to wear a hairnet.

And, Local 507 of the carpenters union has a position available for construction on the new Hudson County Courthouse in Jersey City, New Jersey. Starting wage is $45 an hour. And like most jobs on this project, it's a no-show job. You can stay home all day.

So, that's three jobs right there.

And that's not all. In the months ahead, I plan to ask Congress for legislation ending the ban on gays in the military. This in itself will create 30,000 jobs in our Armed Forces, as well as two new series on BRAVO.

Also, there's health care reform. To be honest at this point, I could go either way on that. If you want it, pass it. Whatever, I'll sign it. It's your call. I really don't care anymore.

Thank you. God bless you. And Live from New York, it's Saturday Night.

Poor Martha Coakley.

Video.

Robot David Shuster

This aired on Red Eye Friday night (technically, early Saturday morning).

Very funny.



The Gregalogue was also a good one, "OSAMA'S GREEN PLAN!"

Leahy Drunk on the Senate Floor?

It sounds like Sen. Patrick Leahy was enjoying Happy Hour before speaking on the Senate Floor.

His speech definitely is slurred.

Why?

Audio.

Mark Levin and Russ Feingold

Mark Levin slammed Russ Feingold on his radio program yesterday when he discussed Obama's absurd remarks about the Supreme Court's decision on McCain-Feingold during his State of the Union address.

MARK LEVIN: To say that the Supreme Court changed 100 years of precedent is a bald-faced lie. They changed McCain-Feingold because it was unconstitutional, which is not 100 years old.

It is very, very important that you understand why Samuel Alito, sitting there, and knowing all of this when he heard Obama say what he said, mouthed 'That is not true,' or 'That's not true,' because it wasn't true.

And yet we have one of the anti-free speech morons, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, according to Politico, sharply criticizing Sam Alito's reaction to Obama's State of the Union, calling the justice's behavior 'inappropriate.'

"That's not very judicial of him," Feingold told POLITICO. "Apparently, he thinks he gets to make the law. He should maintain his judicial demeanor, and that was inappropriate."

No, Feingold, what's inappropriate is you trying to destroy the First Amendment, and your hero, Obama, lying about what the Supreme Court did.

Flash back to March 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday accused President Bush of failing to respect the Constitution amid the uproar over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

..."I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser.

Obama respects the Constitution?

I don't think so.

Feingold certainly doesn't.

Rasmussen: Walker - Double Digit Lead over Barrett

This is good news for Scott Walker, and Wisconsin.

From Rasmussen:

The first Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 telephone survey of the Wisconsin governor's race finds the two most prominent Republican contenders both ahead of their likeliest Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker leads Barrett 48% to 38% among likely voters in the state. Given that match-up, just two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, while 12% are undecided.

Former GOP Congressman Mark Neumann finds himself with a much narrower lead over Barrett, 42% to 38%. Seven percent (7%) like some other candidate, and 13% are undecided.

...While male voters in Wisconsin heavily favor the Republican candidates, women give the edge to Barrett in both match-ups.

Both Republicans lead by wide margins among voters not affiliated with either party.

Barrett is viewed very favorably by 19% of Wisconsin voters and very unfavorably by 17%.

Ten percent (10%) have a very favorable opinion of Neumann, while 11% regard him very unfavorably.

For Walker, very favorables total 29% and very unfavorables 15%.

I hope these encouraging numbers for Scott Walker help to convince a Republican candidate to take on Russ Feingold.

Mark Neumann's energy would be better spent challenging Feingold than Walker.

Obama: 'Overwhelmingly' Majority of Health Care Process on C-SPAN

Obama is officially nuts.

When taking questions from Republicans today, Obama was asked about health care coverage on C-SPAN.

Transcript

OBAMA: Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process, just over the course of the year, overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN because it was taking place in Congressional hearings in which you guys were participating. I mean, that, the, how many committees were there that helped to shape this bill? Countless hearings took place. Now, I kicked it off, by the way, with a meeting with many of you, including your key leadership.

What is true, there's no doubt about it, is that once it got through the committee process and there were now a series of meetings taking place all over the Capitol trying to figure out how to get the thing together, that was a messy process. And I take responsibility for not having structured it in an a way that it was not all taking place in one place that could be filmed. Um, how to do that logistically would not have been as easy as, as it sounds, because you're shuttling back and forth between the House, the Senate, different offices, etc., different legislators. Uh, but I think it's a legitimate criticism. So, on that one, I take responsibility.

What a load of CYA crap!

Logistics, shmogistics!

FACT: C-SPAN was shut out of major meetings, closed door meetings.

Obama sounds like a kid, fumbling around making up more lies to avoid being caught in his first lie.

Pathetic.

Video, from Breitbart.

Contessa Brewer and Judd Gregg

Senator Judd Gregg, Republican from New Hampshire, takes MSNBC's Contessa Brewer to school.

From Media Research Center:

On the soon-to-be canceled ‘It’s the Economy’ program on MSNBC on Thursday, co-host Contessa Brewer grilled Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg on his calls to reduce out-of-control government spending: “Which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?” Gregg shot back: “What an absurd statement to make. And what a dishonest statement to make.”

MRC provides the full transcript of the segment here.

Add another clip to the Contessa Brewer highlight reel:

J.D. Salinger's Safe

I remember the first time I read J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye.

"I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff—I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I'd do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all."

I'm glad that Salinger never sold the movie rights to the book.

J.D. Salinger was approached all his life by producers, screenwriters, and actors (including Elia Kazan, Billy Wilder, Jack Nicholson, Leonardo di Caprio, and Jerry Lewis, who identified deeply with the book despite being decades too old to play the part). But Salinger obstinately refused to relinquish the rights to the novel. He explains his reasons in this 1957 letter to one Mr. Herbert: "The Catcher in the Rye is a very novelistic novel. … The weight of the book is in the narrator's voice, the non-stop peculiarities of it. … He can't legitimately be separated from his own first-person technique."

Certainly, it's true that the first obstacle facing a director would be capturing Holden's rambling, idiosyncratic, unmistakable voice, but wouldn't that be the case for any adaptation of a first-person novel? If you read on, Salinger's resistance to filming Catcher seems to reside somewhere deeper: "Holden Caulfield himself, in my undoubtedly super-biassed [sic] opinion, is essentially unactable. A Sensitive, Intelligent, Talented Young Actor in a Reversible Coat wouldn't nearly be enough. It would take someone with X to bring it off, and no very young man even if he has X quite knows what to do with it." Joyce Maynard, a writer who lived with Salinger for a year at the age of 18 and later published a memoir about their time together, has said that the only person who could satisfactorily play Holden would be Salinger himself. Indeed, in a letter written shortly after the book's publication, Salinger imagined a stage adaptation that would star the author himself as Holden and the child actress Margaret O'Brien as his little sister Phoebe Caulfield.

Holden isn't "unactable," but Salinger elevated the character to that status.

He protected the characters of his novel by never allowing anyone else to shape them. There's a lot of Holden in that move.

I can understand Salinger's decision, but it's not like The Catcher in the Rye couldn't have been made into a movie. Salinger just didn't want an actor to portray Holden. He was untouchable. That was Salinger's choice, albeit a rather unusual one. Fair enough.

Question: What's in Salinger's safe?

The death this week of J.D. Salinger ends one of literature's most mysterious lives and intensifies one of its greatest mysteries: Was the author of "The Catcher in the Rye" keeping a stack of finished, unpublished manuscripts in a safe in his house in Cornish, N.H? Are they masterpieces, curiosities or random scribbles?

And if there are publishable works, will the author's estate release them?

The Salinger camp isn't talking.

No comment, says his literary representative, Phyllis Westberg, of Harold Ober Associates Inc.

No plans for any new Salinger books, reports his publisher, Little, Brown & Co.

Marcia B. Paul, an attorney for Salinger when the author sued last year to stop publication of a "Catcher" sequel, would not get on the phone Thursday.

His son, Matt Salinger, referred questions about the safe to Westberg.

Stories about a possible Salinger trove have been around for a long time. In 1999, New Hampshire neighbor Jerry Burt said the author had told him years earlier that he had written at least 15 unpublished books kept locked in a safe at his home. A year earlier, author and former Salinger girlfriend Joyce Maynard had written that Salinger used to write daily and had at least two novels stored away.

...Author-editor Gordon Lish, who in the 1970s wrote an anonymous story that convinced some readers it was a Salinger original, said he was "certain" that good work was locked up in Cornish. Novelist Curtis Sittenfeld, frequently compared to Salinger because of her novel "Prep," was simply enjoying the adventure.

"I can't wait to find out!" she said. "In our age of shameless self-promotion, it's extraordinary, and kind of great, to think of someone really and truly writing for writing's sake."

...Margaret Salinger, the author's daughter, wrote in a memoir published in 2000 that J.D. Salinger had a precise filing system for his papers: A red mark meant the book could be released "as is," should the author die. A blue mark meant that the manuscript had to be edited.

"There is a marvelous peace in not publishing," J.D. Salinger told The New York Times in 1974. "Publishing is a terrible invasion of my privacy. I like to write. I love to write. But I write just for myself and my own pleasure."

"Publishing is a terrible invasion of my privacy."

That raises an interesting question: Does Salinger's quest for privacy end at death?

If Salinger found peace in not publishing and writing just for himself and his own pleasure, it would be odd for his legacy to include a pile of manuscripts to be published.

If he was being honest about his love of writing for himself alone and the peace he experienced, why would he permit anyone to have access to his work after his death?

Then he never really was writing for himself in the first place.

Jon Stewart: Chris Matthews

Jon Stewart really ripped Chris Matthews for his "I forgot he was black" comment about Obama and his State of the Union address.

JON STEWART: If you watched the speech and afterwards just wanted to have your mind blown, you've gotta stick with Chris Matthews.

(Clip)

CHRIS MATTHEWS: [H]e is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.

(End clip)

STEWART: Oh, you know what else you might have forgotten? Uh, you're miked. I swear to God, this guy's one scotch away from being Ron Burgundy.

For more on the media's response to the president's speech, we are joined by senior political analyst Wyatt Cenac. Wyatt, you've obviously been, you've been pouring over all three major news networks. What kind of valuable insight did you pick up watching the coverage last night?

WYATT CENAC: Well, Jon, sad to say, in many respects the State of the Union address is rendered meaningless by rote analysis from our mediasphere's pompous punditry. Wholly expected responses delivered with a combination of both breathlessness and boredom. As though trapped in a Sartre play that they themselves have written, even this disquisition seems perfunctory. A deconstruction for the sake of a cheap laugh, only by breaking the bounds of this restrictive routine can we hope to ascend to that more perfect ideal of democracy which our forebearers so boldly envisioned.

STEWART: Uh, thank you very much. That was...

CENAC: Wow! Whoa, whoa! I'm sorry. I just caught myself in the monitor. I forgot I was black. Wow! Look at me! I'm black! (Looks at his hands, kisses them, begins singing) 'Pants on the ground, pants on the ground, with your pants on the ground, pants on the ground....'

STEWART: Wyatt, Wyatt, I'm sorry. If you could just be post-racial just again for a little moment here. You brought up an interesting point. What concrete steps could the media take to play this more responsible role in this higher union that you foresee?

CENAC: You know, Jon, that's a very good question, although the entire time you were asking it, I was acutely aware that you're a Jew.

STEWART: Right, I understand, Wyatt, but it's just that...

CENAC: I'm sorry, Jon. When you're talking, all I can think is: What Torah portion did this guy read at his Bris Mitzvah?

STEWART: It's not a Bris Mitzvah.

CENAC: Fine... hootzpah, whatever. Hook, I know you are trying, but old schnozie schnozowitz (Points at Stewart's nose) is holding you back there. Oh, yeah. Whoa, watch out!

STEWART: I know. I'm sorry. I really do try and keep it out of danger.

CENAC: I appreciate it.

STEWART: Wyatt, the speech was 70 minutes long. He used the word 'jobs' 29 times, referred to war 7 times.

CENAC: Hold on. That's a lot of numbers. I should close my eyes and pretend you're Asian. Oh, but not sexy Asian, math Asian.

STEWART: Wow. Chris Matthews really got under your skin, didn't he, with that thing?

CENAC: What? No, didn't bother me at all. I watch his show every night, and I never think of the fact that he reminds me of this big, Irish, lesbian gym teacher I had in high school. He's that good.

STEWART: Thank you very much. Wyatt Cenac, everybody.

Hilarious.

Chris Matthews deserves it.

Video, from Mediaite.

Scott Brown and Jay Leno (Video, Transcript)

Senator-elect Scott Brown was Jay Leno's guest for his 10 @ 10 segment.

Transcript:

JAY LENO: My guest and I have two things in common: We are both from Massachusetts and both known for our good looks. It's amazing, Kevin. This is when we ask ten questions. We call it '10 @ 10.'

Tonight, our special guest won a stunning victory to be the first Republican senator from Massachusetts in 30 years. Say hello to Senator-elect Scott Brown.

Scott, how are you doing?

SCOTT BROWN: Great, Jay. It's good to be on.

LENO: I just talked to him back stage for about two seconds. You told me something amazing. Your dad was a frequent guest in our home. My dad hired your dad, and he was the new young insurance agent. Your dad would come to my house when I was a kid.

BROWN: That's right. And apparently your folks named your dog 'Bruce' after my dad.

LENO: That's right. I did have a collie named 'Bruce' after his dad. Well, say 'hi' to your father for me. Give him my best.

BROWN: I sure will. I will, Jay. Thank you.

LENO: Now are you ready for these 10 hard-hitting questions?

BROWN: I think so.

LENO: All right. Here we go. Number one: First thing you do in the morning?

BROWN: Well, after I obviously clean up, I work out. I probably swim throughout the week probably two miles, I bike about 95, and I run probably 15 to 20 miles a week. So you divide that by five or six, and that's how it works out.

LENO: God, that's another thing we have in common. This is unbelievable. I can't believe it.

Question number two: Have you ever stolen anything?

BROWN: Yes, I did. When I was 12, I hate to tell you, but I stole some records up at Lechmere, up in Middleton-Danvers area, and I put 'em in my farmer jeans. I got caught and went to the judge's chambers.

He said, 'Hey, I see you like music. What else do you do?' I said, 'Well, I like basketball.' He said, 'Are you good?' I said, 'Yeah, I’m really good.' He said, 'Do you have any brothers or sisters?' I said, 'Yeah I do.' He said, 'Do they look up to you?' 'Yes.' 'Do they love you?' 'Yes.' 'Well, how do you think they'd like to see you play basketball in jail?' And he had me write a 1,500-word essay. I wrote it, and I haven't done anything like that since. And it's a good reminder.

LENO: There you go. Very good. Very good.

Now, question number three: It's been widely publicized that while you were attending law school you posed for Cosmopolitan Magazine.

BROWN: Yeah.

LENO: Now if you would ever run for president... (Shot of the centerfold) God, that's another thing we have in common. If you were to ever run for president, would you consider doing it again to get female voters?

BROWN: Well, that's an interesting question, Jay. And the only reason I did it back in 1982 is because you weren't available, number one.

Leno: Yeah, that's right.

BROWN: And then, obviously, it's almost 30 years later. I'd probably have to do it for Mature Senior or AARP Magazine. So it's a little different now.

LENO: See, I didn't do it because they didn't want to spring for the extra flap for the magazine. All right.

Number four: A friend of mine from Massachusetts told me that car dealerships are having Scott Brown specials. What does that mean to the car dealership?

BROWN: Well, there's two of them actually, Jay. One is that you can buy a used GMC Canyon and you get a special deal. The other one, Jay, is this right here. (Holds up official Scott Brown toy truck) You've got the official Scott Brown truck and you're going to get the first one. These are available, too. So...

LENO: Really?

BROWN: So, there's two things going on. I'm gonna get you the first one.

LENO: How many miles do you got on your truck?

BROWN: 202,000.

LENO: Wow! Very good. Very good.

Number five: What movie have you watched the most, and can you recite a line from it?

BROWN: Well, I like a lot, all movies, but I've watched probably Rocky, 1 through 30, Rambo, 1 through 25. So, obviously you know, 'Adrian, Adrian. We did it. I did it.' So...

LENO: There you go. All right. So, you like the art house films.

BROWN: Yeah, yeah, they're really deep.

LENO: Number six: Your opponent Martha Coakley made a huge mistake not knowing that Curt Schilling played for the Red Sox. I think she said the Yankees. What was your biggest campaign blunder?

BROWN: Oh, gosh. Well, aside from forgetting to take the dogs out and coming home to a very messy house, a couple of times I just made some verbal gaffes, but nothing to worry about. But certainly nothing like the Red Sox gaffe. Curt Schilling is definitely a Red Sox fan.

LENO: OK. Number seven: Did you have a nickname growing up?

BROWN: Yeah, they called me 'Downtown Scotty Brown' when I played basketball because I enjoyed shooting first of all, all the time, but secondly, from behind the three-point line. But the difference is when I played, I hate to say it, they didn't even have the three-point line.

LENO: All right. Here you go: When was last time you talked to the President? And could you beat him one-on-one in basketball? You're about the same age and he's pretty fit, too.

BROWN: Well, he looks like he's in great shape. It would certainly be a tough game. But the only time I spoke to him was election night. And I did challenge him to pick his best, and I'll take my daughter, Ayla, who plays for Boston College. And we challenged him to a little two-on-two. I think we'd have the upper hand.

LENO: Really? Really? All right. You heard it. So that is a, that is a challenge going out tonight.

BROWN: Yes, absolutely.

LENO: All right. You heard it. All right.

BROWN: It'll be fun.

LENO: All right.

Number nine: Unlike your former opponent, Martha Coakley, you are a big Red Sox fan. In 15 seconds, can you name the starting five pitchers for the Red Sox in 2010? Starting five pitchers--

BROWN: Well, it's obviously up in the air a little bit. But you have Lester, Lackey, Buchholz, Beckett and Wakefield or... Let me see here, yeah, probably Wakefield or Daisuke.

LENO: All right. Very good, very good. OK.

Last question: A B or C-- When your daughters heard you say on election night that they are available, they were A) embarrassed, B) they laughed it off, C) got over 500 phone calls from John Edwards?

BROWN: I'd have to go with B. They laughed it off, and then they yelled at me. So...

LENO: There you go. Senator Brown, congratulations. Thank you for coming on.

BROWN: Thank you.

Video.

Jay Leno: Union Grove High School Dance Rules Joke

JAY LENO: A Wisconsin high school is trying to curb risque moves at school dances. The kids are getting too lascivious out on the dance floor. They've issued dance rules that ban sexual bending, the touching of breasts, buttocks, or genitals. And leg straddling is also banned. And here's the weird part: It's an all-boys school.

Leno: Favre - Bin Laden Joke

JAY LENO: In his latest audiotape, Osama bin Laden said al Qaeda was going to bring down one of our older monuments. Do you know what that meant? It was Brett Favre.

Feingold: Alito's Behavior 'Inappropriate'

Russ Feingold is scolding Justice Samuel Alito for "inappropriate" behavior during Obama's State of the Union address last evening.

How screwy is that?

From Politico:

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) sharply criticized Samuel Alito's reaction to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address, calling the conservative Supreme Court justice’s behavior “inappropriate.”

During last night's address, Obama took aim at the Supreme Court's decision to gut campaign finance restrictions for corporations and labor unions. While Supreme Court justices typically maintain stoic dispositions during State of the Union addresses, Alito, who joined the 5-4 opinion, appeared to mouth the words “not true” as Obama spoke.

"That's not very judicial of him," Feingold told POLITICO. "Apparently, he thinks he gets to make the law. He should maintain his judicial demeanor, and that was inappropriate."

That is so Feingold!

Hey, Russ! Are you listening?

It wasn't very presidential of Obama to slam the U.S. Supreme Court justices while they were seated in front of him, politely listening to his address, and encouraging the Democrats in the chamber to taunt them. Chuck Schumer's behavior was absolutely disgraceful.

Apparently, Obama thinks he gets to dismiss the decisions of the judicial branch of the U.S. government.

Obama should maintain his presidential demeanor, and what he said was terribly inappropriate.
_________________

From Bradley A. Smith, writing at NRO:

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

Tommy Thompson for Senate

UPDATE, March 1, 2010: Tommy Thompson is sending signals.
___________________

This poll from Rasmussen is getting a good deal of national attention today.

Interesting that national media picked it up but the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel didn't.

(Note: The Journal Sentinel posted a story on the poll at 3:04 PM.

Feingold spokesman Trevor Miller dismisses the poll as invalid. I suppose the JS didn't want to run the story until Team Feingold could offer its spin.)

From Rasmussen:

One more Democratic senator who has long been regarded as a safe prospect for reelection may be facing a challenging year in 2010.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Wisconsin finds Republican Tommy Thompson edging incumbent Russ Feingold 47% to 43% in a hypothetical U.S. Senate match-up. Five percent (5%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Any incumbent who attracts less than 50% support at this point in a campaign is considered potentially vulnerable.

...Thompson leads by 10 points among male voters and breaks nearly even with Feingold among women.

Voters not affiliated with either major party break for Thompson 53% to 36%.

I am begging you, Tommy.

RUN! PLEASE!

I think having both Tommy Thompson and Scott Walker on the ballot in November would help each of them secure victories in their races.

Ride the wave, Tommy, right into the U.S. Senate.
__________________

Still don't believe that Russ Feingold is vulnerable and Democrats in Wisconsin are running uphill?

Here are more results from Rasmussen:

Only three percent (3%) of voters in Wisconsin rate the economy as good or excellent. Fifty-three percent (53%) say it’s poor. Twenty-eight percent (28%) think the economy is getting better, but 41% say it’s worsening.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) say cutting taxes is a better way to create new jobs than increasing government spending. Just 15% say increased spending is the better course to follow. That’s very similar to the national average.

Only 31% believe it’s even somewhat likely that Congress will be able to agree on a smaller, bipartisan health care plan this year. Sixty-two percent (62%) say that’s not likely to happen.

After the Christmas Day terrorist attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner, 68% of Wisconsin voters think it’s at least somewhat likely that there will be another terrorist attack in the United States this year. Forty-four percent (44%) say America is safer today than it was before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but 37% disagree.

Thirty-two percent (32%) say the government’s response to the airliner incident was good or excellent, while 37% rate it as poor.

Wisconsinites are not at all happy with Obama and the Dems' performance, nor are they happy with their policies.

FACT CHECK: Obama's State of the Union

The Associated Press provides a fact check on Obama's State of the Union address.

Even AP has to admit that Obama played fast and loose with the facts when addressing the American people.

In short, he lied a lot.

Obama: Stay the Course

Americans have sent Obama and the Democrats a message.

Clearly, they aren't listening.

Given the current mess in the country, is staying the course really a wise thing to do?

From the Wall Street Journal:

So much for all of that Washington talk about a midcourse change of political direction. If President Obama took any lesson from his party's recent drubbing in Massachusetts, and its decline in the polls, it seems to be that he should keep doing what he's been doing, only with a little more humility, and a touch more bipartisanship.

That's our reading of last night's lengthy State of the Union address, which mostly repackaged the President's first-year agenda in more modest political wrapping.

He also showed more willingness to engage with Republicans than he or his party have shown during the last year of bending to the left on Capitol Hill. But whether this outreach is anything more than rhetoric will depend on a change of policy. And on that score, we heard mostly what Democrats used to say about George W. Bush and Iraq: Stay the course.

...On health care, Mr. Obama offered a Willy Loman-esque soliloquy on his year-long effort, as if his bill's underlying virtues and his own hard work haven't been truly appreciated by the American public. He showed no particular willingness to compromise, save for a claim that he was open to other ideas.

And he re-pitched the health bill now in Congress with the same contradiction—covers more people but saves money too—that all but the most devoted partisans long ago dismissed as unbelievable. The President sounded to us like a man who is still hoping Democrats will find a way to sneak this monstrosity into law despite its unpopularity.

Mr. Obama's economic pitch also differed little from last year, when the jobless rate was 7.2%. He offered a spirited defense of the stimulus, though the jobless rate is now 10%, and he promised more of the same this year, especially on "green jobs." He also offered some minor if welcome tax cuts for small business, and $30 billion in handouts for "community banks" to be able to lend more.

Yet at the same time, he couldn't resist more banker baiting, and he promised that he's determined to see tax rates rise for millions of Americans next year when the Bush rates are set to expire. He also pushed more exports while saying he'll raise taxes on some of our biggest exporters, otherwise known as multinationals that "ship our jobs overseas." Mr. Obama believes he can conjure jobs and a durable expansion from the private sector while waging political war on its animal spirits. It can't be done.

This reflects a larger problem, which is his belief that economic growth springs mainly from the genius of government. Thus Mr. Obama presented a vision of an economy soaring to new heights on "high-speed railroad" and "clean energy facilities" and 1,000 people making solar panels in California. He seems not to appreciate that what really drives growth are the millions of risks taken each day by millions of individuals, far from the politicking and earmarks of Congress or the Department of Energy.

So what's in store?

No change. The Dems are staying the course.

Obama's course of action will be to keep pushing policies the American people have already rejected.

That's bad.

McCain Reacts to Obama's Speech

John McCain noted that Obama is sticking to his 'Blame it on Bush' routine.

Obama's reliance on that tactic really is getting pathetic. "Before I walked in the door...." Obama has to man up and take responsibility.

McCain also slammed Obama for inviting the Republicans to get involved with health care reform when they've been shut out of the process by the Dems.

I think McCain is correct to point out how silly it is for Obama to say the problem of earmarks is taken care of thanks to a web page.

And of course, Obama contradicts himself by promising a freeze on spending and then proposing a massive jobs bill (AKA second stimulus bill).

Video, from Breitbart.


Transcript

JOHN McCAIN: What we're hearing tonight is the 'BIOB.' Let's call it that from now on: 'Blame it on Bush.' Whatever has gone wrong, let's blame it on Bush. And I think the people of Massachusetts last Tuesday pretty well rejected that line of conversation.

And you just mentioned, a couple of things real quick, he asked the Republicans to be involved in health care. We would love to be involved in health care. We never have been, and we have lots of proposals. I've talked about them with you on this show: malpractice reform, going across state lines, etc., etc.

But the earmarking one was also interesting in that we've now solved the problem of earmarking by going to a web page.

And finally again, if you freeze for next year, that can cut about $15 billion. In the same breath practically, he called for another, quote, jobs bill, which would be somewhere between $82- and $115 billion additional to the deficit.

Alito 'Not True' Video

In his address (transcript as released by the White House before the speech), Obama said:

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

Here's the White House transcript:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

As you can see, last minute changes were fed into the teleprompter, but the gist of his remarks remained the same.

Obama is messed up. In effect, he said, "Screw checks and balances." The version he delivered was a little less in-your-face. It's interesting to see the rewrite, quite telling.

We see what Team Obama wanted to say and we see what they decided would play the best with the people.

Obama's so arrogant. I don't believe anything he says. I only look at what he does. His actions are what matter.

Last week, it was the Supreme Court's decision that did right a wrong. The Court restored our rights.

Limits on free speech were rightfully struck down.

Did you see Chuck Schumer jump and applaud Obama's sliming of the justices?

Obama was the one who went back on his promise to accept public financing for his presidential campaign, instead opting to raise and spend an unlimited amount of money.

He was the first candidate to do that since the campaign financing system was created in 1976.

Obama is such a hypocrite.

Thank God we have Justice Alito on the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and defend our rights.

Obama: 'We Don't Quit' E-mail

Obama thinks class warfare is the solution to his popularity problems.

Not exactly a uniter, is he?

Obama tries to tap into anger to get people to back his agenda.

Even after the Massachusetts special election, Obama still doesn't get it.

From: "President Barack Obama"
To: Mary
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:57 PM
Subject: We don't quit

Friend --

I just finished delivering my first State of the Union, and I wanted to send you a quick note.

We face big and difficult challenges. Change on the scale we seek does not come easily. But I will never accept second place for the United States of America.

That is why I called for a robust jobs bill without delay. It's why I proposed a small businesses tax credit, new investments in infrastructure, and pushed for climate legislation to create a clean energy economy.

It's why we're taking on big banks, reforming Wall Street, revitalizing our education system, increasing transparency -- and finishing the job on health insurance reform.

It's why I need your help -- because I am determined to fight to defend the middle class, and special interest lobbyists will go all out to fight us.

Help me show that the American people are ready to join this fight for the middle class -- add your name to a letter to Congress today:

http://my.barackobama.com/SOTU

We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But we don't quit. I don't quit.

Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.

President Barack Obama

Here's the letter Obama wants Americans to sign:

Chris Matthews Forgot Obama was Black (Video)

Transcript, from Mediabistro

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It's interesting: he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he's gone a long way to become a leader of this country, and past so much history, in just a year or two. I mean, it's something we don't even think about. I was watching, I said, wait a minute, he's an African American guy in front of a bunch of other white people. And here he is president of the United States and we've completely forgotten that tonight -- completely forgotten it. I think it was in the scope of his discussion. It was so broad-ranging, so in tune with so many problems, of aspects, and aspects of American life that you don't think terms of the old tribalism, the old ethnicity. It was astounding in that regard. A very subtle fact. It's so hard to talk about. Maybe I shouldn't talk about it, but I am. I thought it was profound that way.

Chris, you're right. You shouldn't talk about it. You're making a fool of yourself.

I have never thought about Obama's race. It's completely irrelevant. What matters to me is that he's a radical.

I care about the damage his fringe Leftist policies are doing to the country.

I care about how he's destroying our future by choking our economy.

I care about his assault on my freedom.

Matthews has serious issues when it comes to race. Apparently, he usually can't stop thinking about it. That's what made the hour tonight oh so special. Feel the thrill?

Alito: 'Not True'

From Politico:

POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who's in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision.

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

...Chuck Schumer stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

Excellent reaction from Justice Alito.

SOTU: Observations

Some observations made in real time during the speech:

---Nancy Pelosi in her lavender suit and Joe Biden wearing a violet tie look like they coordinated their outfits. Is this prom?
---The beginning of Obama's address was so lame. It was a really slow start, an unnecessary history lesson.

---Biden keeps nodding and Pelosi is blinking and chewing on something. So annoying.

---Obama's call for a new jobs bill is an attempt to disguise a second stimulus bill, and pour more money down the drain. Remember, Brad Sherman spilled the beans that they were instructed not to refer to it as a second stimulus. But that's what it is.

---Obama is yelling. Not necessary. Does he think the louder he speaks will make his words ring true? Volume doesn't disguise lies.

---I think Pelosi has been drinking.

---Clearly, the Democrats were told to smile and appear happy. It's like a pep rally.

---Obama never looks straight ahead. I know he's reading the teleprompter, but he never looks straight into the camera. That makes him seem aloof. He doesn't connect with the audience at home.

---"Well I do not accept second-place for the United States of America."

I think Obama's going for last place.

---Obama's demonizing the banks.

---Geez, I wish he'd quit yelling.

---Obama is jumping from topic to topic, much like he did throughout his first year in office.

---Obama wants nuclear power. I agree with that.

---Drill baby, drill! Has Obama been talking to Sarah Palin?

---The smiles on the faces of Biden and Pelosi look so goofy. The excessive smiling is unusual and inappropriate. They're giddy. This isn't a party. Talk about putting on a happy face!

---Hey, great idea! Obama says we need to export more of our goods. Gee, no one has ever thought of that before.

---Rahm Emanuel is sitting next to Janet Napolitano. It looks really scary.

---Was Biden saying "Amen"? I think a revival is about to break out.

---It sounds to me like Obama is proposing some massive spending when it comes to college loans and forgiving the loans.

---What a joke for Obama to talk about protecting the nest eggs of the "middle class"! Inflation that he's introducing will wipe them out.

---Obama is lying about health care. Business as usual.

---Michelle Obama looks pissed off.

---I think Biden and Pelosi are doing a Polident commercial. Enough with the toothy smiles already!

---"There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo."

Sure, just ask the ones Obama invited to the White House and gave lab coats to wear.

---"So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

"Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.

"I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do."

There he goes blaming President Bush. How about taking responsibility for going on the most reckless spending spree in our history?

---Obama's spending freeze plan is crap, just political posturing. He should be embarrassed.

---Getting really bored now.

---Blah, blah, blah, when I walked in the door, blah, blah, blah, blah....

---The freeze won't take effect until next year. Yeah, Obama, we believe you. You have such credibility, always keeping your promises.

---I don't know how he has the nerve to be bitching about debt and common sense when he walked in the door and pissed a trillion dollars away for nothing.

---"Do our work openly" ???

He must be kidding. Does C-SPAN sound familiar?

---He posts the visitor records online. He didn't do so voluntarily. It took court action to get that done. How deceptive!

---EARMARKS? He's complaining about earmarks? This guy is full of crap.

---You lie, Obama. I'm sick of your website, Internet BS. Your promises are meaningless. We have a year's worth of your broken promises. No credibility.

---"But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent – a belief that if you lose, I win."

Oh, my God. What a load! Every day is election day for Obama. He's a perpetual campaigner.

---"Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can."

The Democrats are the master obstructionists.

---Ruth Bader-Ginsburg looks very, very frail.

---"So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics."

Give me a break!

---I just saw Al Franken. HAHAHAHA!

---"We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August."

Really?

---The war in Iraq is ending, Obama. You're right, but no thanks to you. It's ending because of the surge that YOU opposed.

---Please stop talking, Obama. I can't take much more.

---"These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."

I'm sure it's a promise Obama will break.

---"For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity."

That doesn't include the dignity of the unborn.

---Russ Feingold looks angry, or maybe hungry.

---Obama kept dropping his hands on the podium, making a weird thumping sound. He has to stop that. Thud, thud, thud, thud, thud....

It's driving me nuts!

---"I campaigned on the promise of change – change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change – or at least, that I can deliver it."

That's because you're a liar.

---Oh God, he's yelling again.

---"And what keeps me going – what keeps me fighting – is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism – that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people – lives on."

Too bad Obama doesn't talk about the goodness of the American people when he's abroad. Too busy talking down the country and apologizing for America.

---"We don't quit. I don't quit."

You don't have to quit, but we'll boot you out of office.

Obama: State of the Union, Transcript

UPDATE: From the White House, here's the text of Obama's State of the Union address as delivered.

You'll notice some significant changes from the text released by the White House to the media earlier in the evening.
________________

From the New York Times:

Following is the prepared text of President Obama's State of the Union address, delivered Jan. 27, 2010, as released by the White House:

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For two hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable – that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in ten Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades – the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana and Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children – asking why they have to move from their home, or when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope – what they deserve – is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories and different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared. A job that pays the bills. A chance to get ahead. Most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids; starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching little league and helping their neighbors. As one woman wrote me, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."

It is because of this spirit – this great decency and great strength – that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.

And tonight, I'd like to talk about how together, we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular – I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.

To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

As we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right – the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it.

Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act.

Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created.

Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do – in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides its time she became her own boss.

Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and are ready to grow. But when you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they are mostly lending to bigger companies. But financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country.

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. I am 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. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the interstate highway system, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help our nation move goods, services, and information. We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities, and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it's time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America.

The House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same. People are out of work. They are hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

But the truth is, these steps still won't make up for the seven million jobs we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.

We cannot afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from last decade – what some call the "lost decade" – where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious – that such efforts would be too contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for awhile.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question:

How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China's not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany's not waiting. India's not waiting. These nations aren't standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.

Well I do not accept second-place for the United States of America. As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

One place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks, I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

The House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back.

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history – an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investment in clean energy – in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.

Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that's why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people.

This year, we have broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform – reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to inner-cities. In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education. In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs – because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle-class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on Middle-Class Families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving every worker access to a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment – their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments. This year, we will step up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.

Now let's be clear – I did not choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics.

I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with pre-existing conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; and families – even those with insurance – who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying, we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care. And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make our kids healthier.

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office – the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress – our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what's in it for them.

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. 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.

As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Here's what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing.

So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

Now if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis, and our efforts to prevent a second Depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt.

I am absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.

We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it.

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we will still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan, Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The Commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.

I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger. But understand – if we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery – all of which could have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped lead us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why – for the first time in history – my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there's a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another.

Now, I am not naïve. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, have been taking place for over two hundred years. They are the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We cannot wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about their opponent – a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators. Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, is just part of the game. But it is precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it is sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.

So no, I will not give up on changing the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it is clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern. To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together. This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. And I would like to begin monthly meetings with both the Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait.

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I am not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future – for America and the world.

That is the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We have made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security, and swifter action on our intelligence. We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of Al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed – far more than in 2008.

In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans – men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world – must know that they have our respect, our gratitude, and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. That is why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades. That is why we are building a 21st century VA. And that is why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.

Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people – the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring forty-four nations together behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

These diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.

That is the leadership that we are providing – engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We are working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bio-terrorism or an infectious disease – a plan that will counter threats at home, and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.

In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America – values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values they're living by; business values or labor values. They are American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions – our corporations, our media, and yes, our government – still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there's so much cynicism out there.

No wonder there's so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change – change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change – or at least, that I can deliver it.

But remember this – I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I can do it alone. Democracy in a nation of three hundred million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going – what keeps me fighting – is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism – that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people – lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti. And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go some place they've never been and pull people they've never known from rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.

We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment – to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more.

Thank you. God Bless You. And God Bless the United States of America.