Where was Obama the centrist in his State of the Union?By Jennifer Rubin

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/where_did_the_centrist_go.html#more

If you were expecting a moderate Obama or a bold Obama, you were disappointed, most likely, by Tuesday’s State of the Union Address. In a nutshell: Obama proposed a ton of new domestic spending, promised to freeze discretionary spending (attained by savaging defense), abstained from offering specifics on entitlement reform and largely ignored major foreign policy changes. Moreover, the delivery was so listless that this State of the Union address likely garnered less applause than any address in recent memory.

But the mystery is solved: There is no new Obama, just a less snarly one. But it was also a flat and boring speech, too long by a third. Can you recall a single line? After the Giffords memorial service, this effort seemed like Obama had phoned it in. Perhaps that is because the name of the game is to pass the buck to Congress to do the hard work of digging out of the fiscal mess we are in.

As we expected the laundry list of spending is called “investment.” But it is spending, pure and simple. And there is a ton of it.

There was undisguised hunger for government to pick winners and losers: “We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.” And what special expertise does Obama or the Congress have in sprinkling our money to energy projects? More importantly, how much does GE stand to gain?

There is more money for schools and infrastructure, which used to be called “stimulus” but is now “investment.” On schools, he declared: “Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don’t meet this test. That’s why instead of just pouring money into a system that’s not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top. To all fifty states, we said, ‘If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we’ll show you the money.'” But what if the results have been inconclusive at best? And, no, not a syllable on school choice or the D.C. voucher program that he and the Democratic Congress exterminated.

On infrastructure, he tells us, “We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what’s best for the economy, not politicians.” Wasn’t that what the stimulus was for — or did we fritter away that money?

He made a gesture toward a Dream Act-like plan when he said it was a shame to let illegal immigrants go to college and then return home, but he offered no specifics. There was another promise to tackle comprehensive immigration reform, a promise that he failed to keep when Democrats controlled the House. It was a check-the-box moment for Hispanic voters.

After all this comes a ban on earmarks that Harry Reid already rejected and a five-year freeze on discretionary spending that amounts to cutting defense to dump money into liberal spending plans: “This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we have frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I’ve proposed cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without.” Umm, I think Gates was badgered into coughing up the cuts (notice how Obama shifts responsibility to Gates). Moreover, what about any immediate, substantial non-defense cuts? Any? There are none, it seems.

And after all that, his brand of fiscal sobriety offers to cut the “deficit by more than $400 billion.” That will leave us trillions in the hole.

On entitlement reform, he punted the ball, with the vaguest possible statement: “To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.” It was, even with the prior warning, a shockingly empty statement.

He’s not into refighting ObamaCare (once again, the voters be damned). He’ll look at some tweaks, but that’s about it. However, he made one positive offer: pursue tax reform.

We then, finally, got to national security. He said on the war he ran against: “Look to Iraq, where nearly 100,000 of our brave men and women have left with their heads held high; where American combat patrols have ended; violence has come down; and a new government has been formed. This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people, while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq. America’s commitment has been kept; the Iraq War is coming to an end.” The campaign promise was to end the war; America’s promise was to win it. The difference still eludes him.

On Afghanistan, the July deadline was back: “Thanks to our heroic troops and civilians, fewer Afghans are under the control of the insurgency. There will be tough fighting ahead, and the Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them. This year, we will work with nearly 50 countries to begin a transition to an Afghan lead. And this July, we will begin to bring our troops home.”

That was troubling enough, but then came the horridly insufficient, single sentence on Iran. “Because of a diplomatic effort to insist that Iran meet its obligations, the Iranian government now faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before.” Pathetic.

He did offer some useful remarks (yet to be translated into any concrete policy steps) on Tunisia; “We saw that same desire to be free in Tunisia, where the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator. And tonight, let us be clear: the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.” No mention was made of the Lebanese, who are in the process of being gobbled up by Iran’s agent, Hezbollah. And what about the people of Iran, China, North Korea, and the rest of the tyrannized world? They are, one supposes, on their own.

There was more — too much, in fact. The speech was both undisciplined and boring. But it did remind us that, at heart, Obama is a liberal who wishes to expand, seemingly without limitation, the reach of the federal government. His lack of energy and failure to connect with his audience belied the notion that the old, charismatic orator is back. If the officials in the White House thought this was a helpful speech, they are more isolated from reality than I feared.