2006 State of the Union: Analysis, Reaction, and Discussion

Oy vey.

Do I even dare enter this discussion?

Point for Bush: At least he'll have Alito to claim as a victory; senate votes today, and I'll bet he gets in.

Peace,

V-03

 

Tim Kaine will be giving the rebuttal for the Democrats, which I'm extremely happy about.

 

Aside from Alito the best thing George Bush has going for him is simply that the economy is not in tatters.

Sure, unemployment is higher than when he took office and the stock market remains just about where it was a year ago, and the housing boom keeps threatening to be over, and the trade deficit is a nightmare and high energy prices loom and the negative savings rate looks like a ticking time bomb and on and on and on.

But even so, it's very possible to make a plausible argument that the economy is relatively strong. Consumers don't seem to be sensing an impending crisis.

 

I may NOT like Bush, but the call for new car technology is a GOOD issue he will discuss tonight!!!

Gonna watch! Let's head to the future!

Yeah I agree the other issues he has to mention is aftermath of Katrina, and Iraq. I am MORE interested with the new technology for car issue though.

 

But at least we're still going strong.

I think he has three big issues facing him that he needs to stand firmly on and take care of, putting away partisan politics; Iraq, Katrina, & the economy. All, whether you'd like to face reality or not, are going horrible. The American people deserve strong plans that will work for these, and his plans to get these three back under control. I'm not sure which one he should address first - in order of importance. Depends on how I look at it.

Did I mention I'm excited for Kaine? I'm hoping he'll be a rising power in the Democratic Party.

 

After Bush finished whitewashing his failure in Iraq, I felt the last third or so of his speech had some very good moments:

Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security. [because it reeked] Yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse. So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties and offer bipartisan answers. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved.


This is of course what Bush should have said in the first place instead of wasting a year with a non-starter proposal. But in any case it struck the tone of bipartisanship with which he began his address. Nice move.

 

The best part of the speech was the announcement that the Republic will be reorganized into the first Global Empire for a safe and secure society...

 

The part about stem cell research was weak. The way he proposed his bill saying "We need to value all life" didn't come off right. It sounded out of place.

Other than that, Bush did an *shudders* okay job.

 

He handled himself very well, I was more than impressed. I can see his approval rating going up a few points, I don't know what the maxiumum of this extent will be, however.

Tim Kaine also handled himself very well, I found it quite interesting. He still needed to bring ideas to the table, however, but it was a started. Both parties handled themselves very well tonight.

 

I'm all for new car and energy technology too....but Bush has brought this up in past SotU speeches and I have yet to see hydrogen cars on the road. Hate to say it, but a lot of this speech was a rehash of past SotUs - vague assurances and promises of improving the economy, health care, education, etc - after 5 years shouldn't these problems have been fixed already?

And was anyone else disturbed by his use of abortion alongside crime and drugs?: "violent crime has decreased, drug use has decreased, and abortions have decreased!" <---- a little extreme doncha think?

 

Whatever happened to

[image=http://tes.asu.edu/images/SOL_SYST/MARS/GLOBAL/mars_cerberus.gif]

 

I thought Tim Kaine came across phony. Every time he said "there's a better way," I bit my lip. Every time, the democrats come up with some phony line like that that nobody will buy into.

 

The speech was okay, with some decent initiatives.

I thought Tim Kaine did an excellent job, and he may indeed be the next President if the Dems aren't stupid by actually nominating Hillary.

Kaine is what the Democratic Party needs more of.

 

One thing I was very aggrivated with was the fact that Bush only gave very small blurb to this disaster area in his 'State of the Union' speech, and he elaborated much more on foreign aid than what's going on right here in this country.

Every local politician in Congress, Democrat or Republican, House or Senate, is throughly pissed. It's been all over the local news.

 

We had three elections over the course of last year and the continuing stabilization of the country. If that's failure, I'm very curious what would constitute victory for this country -- y'know, short of a Democrat in the White House.

 

I often go into SOTU speeches with a healty sense of cynicism. This was no exeption. I also have some hope. And when the scale tips toward hope than Bush did well. And I AM NO BIG SUPPORTER OF BUSH. But he aquitted himself well I think.

A strong start in tribute to Coretta Scott King.

I was impressed by the fact that he did not gloat, or otherwise say much, about Chief Justice Roberts, and newly appointed Justice Alito's confirmation earlier in the day. Although I could see that fact put a spring in his step.

His mention of the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. That was great. Though I had hoped she would have shown up. I know she is tending to her ill husband. But wow, what an ovation she got.

One great attempt at humor. About his Father's two favorite people turning 60. Him and Bill Clinton.

Great recovery from the Hamas crisis. "Lets spread democracy to the world. Just so long as you do it our way." That was my impression for a time. But his clarion call to renounce terror, and actions against Israel. That was BRILLIANT!!

Bush's call to reduce the need for Foreign Oil. Great theory. But
I would be very suprised to see a significant drop in our dependance on Oil. Not to say that I am in favor of reliance on Oil. I most certainly am not. I just don't feel very optimistic on that point.

I also am a big supporter of Stem Cell research. Providing that embryos are not harvested. I ONLY support umbilical cord blood research. Which is there when a baby is born anyhow. So that part is, to my mind, ethical.

Best moment of the evening, that did not happen. Was when ABC-News mentioned that Cindy Sheehan was arrested and detained for the duration of the speech. If I were the Democratic Response. I would have made sure to have her there on TV for the rebuttal. Since she was not in the House Chamber. As I think she should have been. And Bush would have had to look at her. I did not watch the Democratic Response. As I was tired and wanted to watch some of The Aristocrats.

 

FYI, National Review Online has a symposium of comments and thoughts on last night's speech. It's clear that a lot of people saw a lot of different things, so (as in my comment above) I'm not criticizing those who think the speech was bad, per se.

On the Sheehan brouhaha, though, I can't help but think her stunt will hurt her side of the aisle. It's not as if the country doesn't already know who she is and what she stands for, so the apparent plan to disrupt the speech makes her look like a fanatic, in my opinion. The Dems probably didn't have a choice about parading her around last night, but they'd be wise not to do so now.

Images like this do not endear her to others...

[image=http://worldnetdaily.com/images2/sheehanvf.jpg]

...and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks of sickening stunts like this every time she's mentioned.

 

Well, since the bipartisan analyses question the stability of the nation, as many of the troops volunteering for training shift their allegiances over regional mullahs after completing it, and as their appears to be increased factionalism, there is a good possibility that we have pushed the country closer to civil war. So, you know, great job there.

Further, now that we've had three elections, what do we do if they go the Palestine route, and elect a virulently anti-US, anti-Israel leadership, which is a distinct possibility in light of the implicit conflict between the ethnic groups, as well as the continued evasiveness of the insurgency. That will have been a great success - we remove an annoyance and replaced him with an enemy. Again, great job.

So pardon me for not endorsing the official glowing review of the contemporary state of Iraq.

 

I think there is quite a bit of reasonable middle ground between the Administration's position that Iraq is a success and Jabba's apparent position that it is a failure.

I honestly don't know what we will do (or should do or even can do) if the Iraqi's elect "a virulently anti-US, anti-Israel leadership."

I don't know what we would have done if Kerry had won, either.

Admittedly cheap shot aside -- and, no, I don't really question Kerry's patriotism, though I think his judgment remains waaay off -- I think the Hamas victory this past week might not be an entirely bad thing. When the relationship between a terrorist organization and a government becomes as clear as Hamas and the PA, it becomes similar to the relationship between al Queda and the Taliban: our approach to terrorist attacks becomes much clearer.

Besides, if the new Iraqi gov't was virulently anti-American and anti-Israel, there is the hope that its power being derived from the people might encourage the government to behave a bit more rationally. It's very hard to argue that even a worst-case likely scenario from this point will become worse than the irrational dictatorship under Saddam -- a regime that was being funded by a massive oil-for-food scandal, that we know had the will (if not yet the capability) to produce WMD's, and that was quite oppressive to its people.

 

We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory.[as also outlined in Bush's Nov 11 speech.]

First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.

Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom.

And third, we're striking terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy. Iraqis are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom.

Understand, that Bush's three-part plan for success is entirely reasonable on paper. Democracy-building efforts cannot succeed if reconstruction efforts or security efforts fail.

Consequently, Bush has only one tangible success to point to, which he duly emphasized: In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation to sovereignty to a constitution to national elections.

Obviously, it's debatable how well these democracy-building processes succeeded, or how much they mean considering the extent to which they were rammed through and propped up by the U.S. and backed by our armed occupation. However, these represent Bush's sole justifiable claim for progress to date.

I submit that Bush is not tauting tangible, measurable successes on the reconstruction, insurgency fighting and security apparatus building front because there really aren't any to showcase. Reconstruction in Iraq is failing because of the insurgency and lack of security apparatus. The security apparatus building is failing because of the insurgency and lack of reconstruction progress, and the democracy cannot succeed without unequivocal success on all three fronts.

And it may not succeed even then, because the Iraqis may not want democracy.

And then there's this. Bush speaks directly to the people of a government hell-bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction in a methodical, well-financed and dedicated effort entirely unlike that of the non program of the former Iraqi regime:

Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran. America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.

Imagine the bloodshed and sucker punch to our international credibility, fiscal responsibility and moral authority we could have avoided had Bush, in his 2002 state of the union address dropped the axis of evil bit and said this:

Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iraq. America respects you. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iraq.

 

Mr. 44, I think you are seeing me through your own partisan colored lenses. What exactly in my statement was so overblown or ridiculous about my statement?

I said, Bush is benifitting from the fact that there aren't more resources being diverted to his illegal wiretapping scheme. So, I stated my belief in there that it was illegal, but you had to inflate the stament in your rebuttal by adding more hyperbolic language than i actually said.

And again, Bush is using a "jack bauer" argument. If you read the statutes, and what Bush did, it becomes fairly clear that Bush did not follow the letter of the law. The Presidents inner circle has been bracing for possible impeachment. John Dean (not that I care much for him) astonishly stated how he never heard a president openly admit to committing an impeachable offense.

Even where Bush claims other presidents have used this authority, (Carter, Clinton), it turns out that this is a misleading statement, as they did not use it in the same way BUsh did.

Furthermore, the main reason I'm saying Bush is benefitting because of a lack of investigation is because all we have is Bush's word that he wasn't spying on Americans with no Al Queda ties, etc.

What's funny to me is that in a forum where I am banned for misspelling the name of the head mod, for "baiting," a mod who used to exemplify moderation and restraint is openly allowed to bait me with attacks on my posting, going so for as calling me "baghdad Bob."

I think its uncalled for, like if I said "Whenever Mr. 44 gets in his "Eichmann" mode, you know that he is going to vigrously support whatever immoral program Bush has in mind."

See how easily this can turn into a flame fest? Mr. 44, you should be ashamed. Instead of resorting to name calling and grand generalizations, how about you do what you used to do best, and try as hard as you can to give FACTS and EVIDENCE to dispute people, rather than just ad hominem attacks?

 

You know, if you don't let that incident go (especially since I wasn't the one who banned you, nor am I a mod anymore), all you will do is make yourself appear more and more petty.

Let go of your hatred.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I missed the first broadcast. So I thought to myself, if I wanted to see it again without edit, where could I turn? Ah yes, the spawn of Rupert Murdoch. Predictably not engaging in journalism, and giving me what I want. A simple rebroadcast. Thank you God for Fox News. What would I have done without all that applause?

I don't care what party is in the Whitehouse. The SOTU is the biggest pile of propaganda fodder in the modern world. What does that say about rebroadcasting it, uncut?

 

So a news channel broadcasting the SOTU uncut is propaganda?

Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.

 

For God's sake live up to your name.

Any broadcast of the SOTU is propaganda (negative connotations aside). The speech itself was propaganda. Rebroadcasting uncut, while other news outlets are at least making an attempt at analysis, is clear bias. Why say anything at all about it, when clearly the speech says everything it needs to on its own?

What I said:
The SOTU is the biggest pile of propaganda fodder in the modern world.

What you read:
So a news channel broadcasting the SOTU uncut is propaganda?

Where to fix the problem:
Sanctuary!