In a country of such extreme polarization, I would expect that. There will be no compromise legacy for President Obama, there will always be those who dislike him. The burden of proof that the haters are not "racially" bias is up to them.
That is not to say I believe he has been the most effective President we have ever had. When one has to fight a congress of the less intelligent and totally inarticulate how much can a President accomplish? The country will never know what he could have done if congress had worked with him instead of against everything he did.
One of the things I have grown to literally hate in nationally televised political broadcasts is the "instant poll". That graph they run at the bottom of the page giving the instant reaction of selected party Representatives is ridiculous. To watch the "red line" go down and the "blue line" go up in absolute partisan predictability is not informative nor helpful. Can't we hold our opinions and our dislike until we have heard the entire speech? You don't judge a book but the cover nor do you decide if it is a best seller after the third sentence. What is very telling about the graph is although the up and down of all the colored lines were instantaneous, the lines neither crossed nor touched at any time during the speech. What that means is: at no time did the "parties" agree on anything the President said, NOT ONCE, and not for even seconds. The parties did not agree on any part of a speech that at times became a Valentine to America. The "Parties" did not agree even in principle when the President reminded us that America is a country of a diverse immigrant people.
Once again Supreme Court judges Scalia, Thomas, and Alito decided to show their contempt for the office of the President by refusing to attend. The idea that the "independent judicial branch" of government would so obviously show their partisanship is appalling. How can we have any faith in their ability to make fair, non-partisan legal decisions when they flaunt their political leanings so obviously?
But to make up for the absence of the Supreme Court Stooges a Republican congressman from Ohio invited Kim Davis. Yes, Kim Davis the Kentucky County Clerk who went to jail briefly for refusing to issue marriage licenses. She was very much out of place sitting in the back of the gallery looking more and more like Dick Cheney in a long wig. In some strange way I felt sorry for her. It is obvious she is being used by the Right as some sort of statement, but is too naive or stupid to understand what is happening.
A person no one missed at the State of the Union Address was Sen. Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz remains the most hated man in congress by congress. In a telling statement Mitch McConnell said the Senate would not make any statement about the Cruz birther controversy nor his legal right to become President. When the question of John McCain's citizenship was challenged (John was born in Panama) the senate passed a motion that said, "John McCain is qualified to be president because he was born on an American Military Base."
The Cruz supporters responded with a statement that he is running for President and could not attend the congressional speech. Bernie Sanders was there; he is campaigning. Marco Rubio is also running and is of the same Party as Cruz but Rubio was in attendance. I am not a fan of Rubio, but the fact that he and Sanders were both there shows they have some respect for the office they wish to hold, is a plus in my thinking. I have yet to understand anything Ted Cruz respects.
Your turn. That's all I got.
As you were,