Rating "The State of the Union"

If I were giving points on delivery it certainly deserves a nine-and-a-half. The oratory was great and even had spots of humor.

On substance i would give it no more than a 7.

It sort of reminded me of the fantastic speeches Mario Cuomo used to give for a progressive agenda, but when push came to shove his agenda was watered down. He spoke Democrat , but pushed a moderate Republican agenda. That is if there is such a thing as a moderate Republican.

Obama's speech also reminded me of Mayor Bloomberg's speeches. Mayor Bloomberg talks middle class values then pushes an agenda that favors his Wall Street friends, his real rstate pals, and his insurance buddies, to name a few.

Based on performance up until now, I don't want to hear good speeches, I want to see good results. You should not go to the middle of the road at the expense of the progressives. The middle of the road is where the independents should go. You can win Independents' votes by having a sensible well thought out plan, and follow up. It may be possible to win the so called moderate Republican, if there are some.

I will still support Obama if there is no progressive who can win puts his hat in the ring. A "Conservative" like our previous president almost brought us to bankruptcy .

"States rights" or wrongs

For many years now the National Rifle Association has pleaded the case of "States Rights." They have argued that the way they read the Constitution the state has the right to have a militia. They've further argued that this allows an everyday citizen to arm himself or herself.

As Seth Meyers joked on "Saturday Night Live," however, when the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution, the arms in question were not Uzis or Glocks, but muskets. It's not that easy to kill a man with a musket and even if you do it, you can't kill too many at once. You couldn't conceal a musket, couldn't sneak up on anyone with your musket.

There's no evidence that the founding fathers, who couldn't possibly envision the firepower of today, would have wanted everyone to carry any type of weapon they could get their hands on - and also be able to hide them in their pockets.

It's ridiculous, therefore when the NRA argues that sane people should have the right to have a gun that can shoot thirty shots or thirty rounds. Such a gun is not a means of protection it's an offensive weapon. It's not to defend, it's to kill. I find it inconceivable that if Representative Giffords, the Federal Judge and all the people shot that day in Arizona would have been protected if they had more weapons in their hands. Who would have fired first? How many more people would have been shot in the crossfire.