Proud of my President; less proud of my Governor

President Bush reached out to Democrats with his State of the Union speech. I especially liked his commitment to math and science education and his plans for greater energy independence.

Tim Kaine, the governor of my own state of Virginia, gave the Democratic rebuttal. He is a good and reasonable man, but I wish he had not been so negative. I won’t criticize the governor of my home state - because he is an honorable man. Suffice to say, I felt a little sorry for him. The President cut the ground out from under him by giving such a reasonable speech.

Read the President’s speech for yourself and we can talk.

Posted by Jack at January 31, 2006 10:26 PM
Comments
Comment #118777

Ah yes… Bush the Uniter, Not the Divider. Funny how that comes out when an election is coming. Too bad NONE of what he says will ever come to pass under his watch.

Posted by: Aldous at January 31, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #118778

Jack:

Interesting. I lived in Virginia for quite a number of years before moving to North Carolina. I was very impressed with Governor Kaine’s speech. I felt it was very reasonable and emphasized the need for both parties to work together. I feel that is what has been missing. Neither party seems to feel that need. I don’t feel either party is reaching out. I particularly blame the republicans because they are pushing so hard for their agenda, and because they have total control right now. There is much arrogance on the part of republicans right now.

This is not a personal reflection on republicans in general, just what I have seen of those in congress. I am so disappointed in both parties.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 31, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #118781

President Bush’s “State Of The Union” speech tonight was very uplifting and positive; not just for the American people, but for everyone around the world. Unfortunately, the Democrats continued to show their true colors of partisanship. I could not believe my eyes when I saw them sitting instead of standing and cheering their President on numerous matters. They continue to make everything proceed along party lines. It’s such a SHAME! When will they and the liberal media realize that we are not Democrats and Republicans? We’re AMERICANS!

Posted by: Gary at January 31, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #118783

Aldous

Can you just give the link to Mr. Cole’s webpage and use your own thoughts? I don’t see any reason to cut and paste him. It is getting harder and harder to read with such long posts of someone else’s blog.

So (with your permission)

Top Ten things Bush won’t Tell you About the State of the Nation
By Juan Cole
January 31, 2006

http://www.juancole.com

Posted by: Jack at January 31, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #118784

Jack,

I respectively disagree with your assessment of Kaine’s response. He was in disagreement with much of what the president said but at the same time not confrontational. I agreed with much of what the president said but also much of what Gov. Kaine said.

I do find it funny that after 5 years there is now a sudden urge to reach across the isle. Partisianship cuts both ways. If the dems ever get united and on message this could be a turning year for them.

I certainly welcomed the talk of new technology solving some of our energy concerns. This is finally getting more time in a speach than drilling for more oil (although I think we should do both). He almost sounded Kerry-like talking about energy….only when fuel prices sky-rocket….too bad we don’t plan but react.

Posted by: Tom L at January 31, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #118785

Tom

Maybe it was just my perception. Kaine is a good guy and I believe he will be a good governor. It is not natural for him to be negative. He is no Howard Dean.

Posted by: Jack at January 31, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #118786

Jack,

Read the transcript. Didn’t seem like Bush made any big news. Had to laugh about appointing a commision to yet again study entitlement reform. What an innovative idea! :>

I thought Tim Kaine’s comments were pretty mild. There weren’t any personal attacks. Actually, he hardly referred to Bush at all.


Gary,

Considering that the last Demcratic president was impeached by the GOP, I think you should be able forgive the Dems for missing some applause lines.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 31, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #118787

BTW

Does anyone have a link to Kaine’s remarks? If so, please post the link. I didn’t find them on the DNC site.

Posted by: Jack at January 31, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #118788

Gary,

That is what always goes on in Washington. When Clinton and Carter were presidents the same thing happened to them. The opposing party tends to sit more than give standing ovations.

I think both the Dems and Repubs want what is good for America. They just have different ideas of what that is. The far left and the far right tend to have the loudest voices and usually end up only pissing off those of us in the middle.

Because the Republicans have had power for as long as they have and because I am strongly a fiscal conservative I have become entirely turned off by this party. I helped get many of them into office hoping for lower taxes, reduced spending, balanced budgets, and debt reduction….I suppose one out of four is better than nothing. Unfortunately the lower taxes will be financed by our children. The dems lost their power for uncontrolled spending and abuse of power (and rightly so). I wouldn’t be surprised if something similar happens over the next decade to the Republican party as well…..again, rightly so.

Regards,

Posted by: Tom L at January 31, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #118790

Jack —
Your governor was, unfortunately, just being a good Democrat and doing what the party leadership demanded of him: bash Bush, ridicule administration policies, bemoan the condition of the country, and — as Kerry did — say, “I have a plan.” But, as was the case with Kerry, his (their) plan is nothing but a hollow promise.
Better luck on your next gubernatorial election.

Posted by: Ray at January 31, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #118792

Ray,

That was pretty partisan. I agree that the dems can’t seem to come up with a common plan. However, if one researches any topic one can see there is no shortage of democratic plans on any topic. Their problem is they aren’t unified. The repubs seem to have a better over-all game plan and are unified. I’m not sure what the president’s plan is in Iraq other than “stay the course”….what the hell does that mean?

Plans involve goals and milestones. WOuld it be impossible to set some goals. Say reliable power to 75% of the country, so many schools in every city, hospitals, boarder control, etc. Have you heard anything like that? NOt me man. All I’ve heard is “stay the course”. We’ve spent over 250 billion dollars so far. What’s more we’ve lost over 2200 soldiers. There’s no telling how many women and children have died as combat casualties….hell, let’s just stay the course.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to go down that track. As you can tell that’s one area I disagree with GW.

Regards,

Posted by: Tom L at January 31, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #118793

Tom L —

Bush didn’t wait five years to reach across the isle. He started out that way. Remember the education reform push early in his first term when he partnered with Ted(hic!) Kennedy? Kennedy was embracing the President with one hand while sticking a knife in his rebs with another?

Wouldn’t you be just a little hesitant to expose your other ribs, too?

Posted by: Ray at January 31, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #118794

Someone on an online discussion at WP pointed this out — no mention of the Medicare prescription drug plan. Pretty striking considering that it just went into effect this month. They must have decided Bush wasn’t going to get any love for bringing it up.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 31, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #118795

Tom,

I, too, am a fiscal conservative and I hope for (and try to vote for) a smaller government. But I have no one to vote for anymore. I keep thinking McCain’s a good candidate, but I guess I keep thinking wrong.

I would get so excited if I could hear a Republican candidate state publicly that he or she is for a balanced budget, for getting the government out of people’s bedrooms and search engines, for individualism and objectivity, and for promoting personal savings.

Am I alone in this?

Posted by: JW at January 31, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #118796

Tom L,

That’s where I guess we differ, how can the middle class now afford these new technological advancements such as Hybridcars etcetera?

Kaine I didn’t hear, when Bush mentioned that he was not going to protect our borders and hand out more amnesty my eyes nearly popped out of my head.

Then the line item veto talk, what’s wrong with that you say? Well it says something that will never get passed (congress obviously doesn’t want it) and is passing the buck for overspending right onto congress as the culprit deflecting it from himself—Nice George, but very, very, noticable.

He talked up the war—meaning: no troop draw-down in the works, as expected.

He used the “14 orphans and a crying indian”, as it were, to showcase up in the balcony grandstand (I hate manipulation be it Clinton or this fellah).

This will not be a numbers saving speech but he could see a temporary bump perhaps.

Permanent tax relief, which people I guess are so stupid to think that you can make a tax-deferral permanent? These are not tax cuts.

The American dollar will continue to dwindle and if more tax deferrals go through we could see a temporary boon to markets each bump getting shorter in effects than the last. He’s at the end of his rope really with supply-side economics but he hopes that he can fake it as it were atleast until he’s out of office.

Our nations businesses/manufacturers are in debt up to their eyeballs and outsourcing is still the hot wave. Corporate welfare is STILL out of control. Congressional spending is going to be business as usual and deficits will grow astronomically. China still holds our debt and may get rid of our notes. We are waging a war and military contracts are now twice as expensive due to our dwindling dollar (taking more to purchase goods—meaning it costs us twice as much to have this war).

So anyway did Kaine say anything like that? Probably not.

Posted by: Sanford at January 31, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #118797

Wow, I guess I must have watched another speech…

The one I watched was a cut and paste job from the drivel GW’s been spewing for the last month. My wife and I had a bet going to see how early in the speech he’d wave 9/11 in front of us, but he actually did it sooner than either of us predicted.

Gary, they didn’t stand up because they didn’t agree with his statements. That’s called difference of opinion. And King George won’t stand for it. Personally, I would have booed.

Once again, GW says it’s OK to debate, but I get to be the one who sets the ground rules, and if you don’t say what I want, I’ll change ‘em again. And no anti-GW T-shirts allowed in the capitol!

And let’s spend more on research for hybrid and electric cars that the Japanese already have, so we can maybe be oil independent in 20-30 years. Boy was that inspiring! Just like JFK!!!

And let’s make better standardized tests for science!!!! And hire all our out-sourced physicists and chemists as teachers at a 75% pay cut.

Posted by: Loren at January 31, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #118799

Jack,

Bush sounded like a Democrat to me. To bad the Democrats lost my vote (and hopefully alot of others) about 12 hours ago.

Posted by: same old same old at January 31, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #118800

“My wife and I had a bet going to see how early in the speech he’d wave 9/11 in front of us, but he actually did it sooner than either of us predicted.”

That’s sad.

Posted by: andy at January 31, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #118805

My favorite part of the Democratic “response” was how it was published on the newspapers’ websites three hourse before Bush’s speech.

Posted by: sanger at February 1, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #118806

Loren,
This wasn’t a debate tonight. It was the “State Of The Union” speech by OUR President. Seriously, not your President or my President - but OUR President!!! And it’s not called a difference of opinion, it’s called rudeness. But what else can I say to someone who would have stood up and booed, let alone wear a t-shirt to a semi-formal function?
Woody,
You can’t be serious to compare Bush’s antics to Clinton’s blowjobs, can you?
Tom L,
You’re correct in your assessment of what both parties really want for America. The difference being the Democrats want us to be dependant on them and big, big Government.

Posted by: Gary at February 1, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #118807

Gary

The t-shirt reference was to Cindy Sheehan who was arrested today. Missed that one, huh?

I have the greatest respect for the office of the president, but it has waned considerably of late.

As for the debate argument, I only wish GW had to go before the duly elected representatives of the people and respond in the same manner Tony Blair does on a regular basis.

And since when has GW EVER had to answer to the people? And don’t say during the election, because half of us obviously have no voice when it comes to King George, unless he thinks we are talking to the middle east by phone.

Posted by: Loren at February 1, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #118808

“In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122.”

Lonely? Now that’s pretty funny. Gee, after WWII the poor democracies were so lonely, ruling the world outright just didn’t satisfy; they decided to let all those colonies go their own ways, just so the lonely democracies would have some buddies.

Who writes this crap?

“With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor. A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country…”

Zarqawi and OBL in charge? Does anyone seriously believe this? Anyone in the US? How about the whole world? Ok, this universe? Umm, alternate universes? No? I thought not. Just checking.

And where did all that stuff about isolationism come from? Talk about a straw man. Did Bush denounce the Whigs, while he was at it? Utter drivel.

Bush mentioned a deceased soldier in the speech. He neglected to mention Bob Woodruff, co-anchor for ABC. While putting together an article on Iraq’s ‘return to normalcy,’ an IED went off near him & his camera man. The force of the blast cause Mr Woodruff an extremely serious injury. Swelling of his brain was relieved when surgeons removed his skull cap. Reportedly he can open his eyes, and move his hands. But we wouldn’t want to roll him in on a guerney, would we? The American people aren’t quite ready to face the visible, bloody results of Iraq in prime time.

“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.”

Oh, and when we overthrew your democratic government in the early 1950’s, and replaced it with the Shah of Iran, and SAVAK tortured the living **** out of you- hey, that was just respect, too.

Those “two dozen lonely democracies” were lonely after WWII, but they weren’t that lonely!

And when we backed Saddam Hussein in his war against you, and hundreds of thousands of Iranians died, while the US provided intelligence and more to the Iraqis, that was… you got it… more respect.

We’re nearly to present times, but let’s move on.

“Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -“

$10 billion. What an interesting number. Because that’s what Exxon just earned this quarter in profit. Most profitable quarter for a company ever. Ever. $10.3 billion dollars in one quarter. $36 billion this past year.

Exxon. Mmmm. Wasn’t that the company that recommended the man who was appointed to represent the US at the most recent meetings on Global Warming? Isn’t that the company that funds all those ‘think tanks’ to oppose any actions on Global Warming?

Did Global Warming even make it into this speech? 2005 was the warmest year on record. C02 levels in the atmosphere are the highest in 650,000 years, and climbing.

No mention.

Too bad the post on Greespan disappeared. Because it’s about time to revisit the phenomonen of an inverted yield curve, and what it means for all of us.

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #118809

Gary:

You obviously never been to the gallery in Congress, have you? Judging by the gallery when Congress is in session, slobs show up in open sandals, jean shorts, and ripped t-shirts all the time.

Apparently now, Big Brother can arrest you if they “THINK” you are going to boo.

Posted by: Aldous at February 1, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #118810

“You can’t be serious to compare Bush’s antics to Clinton’s blowjobs, can you?”

why not? they are ‘brothers’ after all. besides, the allegations against bush are certainly no less dire.

Posted by: Diogenes at February 1, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #118824

Only Republicans would equate voluntary fellatio with abuse of power.

Posted by: Aldous at February 1, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #118826

Diogenes:

Never equate voluntary fellatio with Abuse of Power.

Posted by: Aldous at February 1, 2006 1:02 AM
Comment #118830

“I think both the Dems and Repubs want what is good for America”.

Suffering from “television induced toxic stupidity”, are you?

Try thinking, it use to be an American thing!

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at February 1, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #118831

phx8,
The President neglected to mention Bob Woodruff tonight, that is correct. He’s about the only person on TV, in the past 48 hours, not to mention him. If I didn’t know any better, I would’ve thought that Woodruff enlisted in the military and single-handedly invaded Iraq with just one cameraman. Boy! Aren’t we lucky?
Loren,
No, I didn’t miss Cindy Sheehan. I would like to but she keeps popping up where she’s not wanted. By the way, I lived for 5 years in London. You don’t have to tell me anything about the British Parliament. And the President could handle his own over there. You don’t honestly think they take those afternoon banters seriously do you?
Aldous,
I can’t take you anywhere! This is not an average day in the gallery. In fact, you have to be invited. If Msssss. Sheehan was in the right, then why did she stay covered up until she was seated? What did she have to hide???
Diogenes,
Personally, I do not believe that’s your real name. Anyway, I think you’re confusing blowjobs with blownjobs. There is a difference. Yes I’ll admit the President has made some mistakes, but so have you and so have I. In fact we have made mistakes in the war in Iraq, imagine that? But we also made mistakes in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. I think your disagreement with the President is not because of his actions, but because he’s a Republican and you’re a Democrat. You don’t like to lose. But guess what? Six years ago, YOU DID LOSE! So please, please, please SHUT UP!

Posted by: Gary at February 1, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #118839

Gary,
“I would’ve thought that Woodruff enlisted in the military and single-handedly invaded Iraq with just one cameraman. Boy! Aren’t we lucky?”

Luckier than Woodruff, I suppose. But then, Iraq has been an even deadlier conflict for journalists than Vietnam.

But upon reflection, the failure of the SOTU speech to address Global Warming is the most memorable aspect of the speech.

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #118842

“Never equate voluntary fellatio with Abuse of Power.”

i wasn’t - i was equating the allegations that clinton lied, with the allegations against bush. i placed no judgement on either side of that statement. in honesty, i was merely noting that bush has measured himself against clinton, and thus, there is absolutely no reason that it should not be done by others.

“Personally, I do not believe that’s your real name.”

believe what you wish, i have made no claim nor shall i, for neither the substance of my arguments nor my intellect hinge on my name…gary.

“Yes I’ll admit the President has made some mistakes”

we don’t need a concession to see what only a blind man could miss.

“but so have you and so have I. In fact we have made mistakes in the war in Iraq, imagine that?”

do not include me in on your ‘mistakes’, i do not value the company, nor do i share any of the blame.

“I think your disagreement with the President is not because of his actions, but because he’s a Republican and you’re a Democrat.”

how wrong you are. so, some people actually are better off letting bush do the thinking.

“You don’t like to lose.”

but really, who does? i’m guessing this is an issue which has plagued you most your life.

“But guess what? Six years ago, YOU DID LOSE! So please, please, please SHUT UP!”

…that wasn’t me losing, that was the entire country…

and that’s the problem with partisans, rather than taking an opportunity to express an intelligent, intelligible, logical viewpoint, they instead spew mindless, brainwashed, ignorant, partisan propaganda in the hopes that no one will notice that their party has yet to program them with an otherwise acceptable response.

i am an independent. so howsabout you try shutting up?

Posted by: Diogenes at February 1, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #118845

Jack,

Bush’s wanting to “reaching out” to Democrats and work together is a bald lie to make it seem so to middle America. This guy has done nothing to work with Democrats. In fact, the whole speech was full of bull that he’s never going to deliver on.

He’s the education president who screwed the education system out of all their funding and instituted a “head start” program that hasn’t proven to be effective.

He’s the “energy independent” president who’s going to make us independent by sinking all the money into research. The president who has been drilling in Alaska who now wants to cut off our dependence on oil.

He wants to make health care more affordable, but his policies have done the opposite the last five years.

He’s the president that’s spent billions making us disaster-ready and secure, but then fell short with Katrina.

He says he’s going to give New Orleans billions to rebuild. He said that to New York too after 9/11, but then didn’t deliver.

He’s the president who has made the economy the envy of the world. I guess he does this by being optimistic, that is ignoring, the trillions of dollars worth of debt we have accumulated.

You could call him a flip-flopper, but don’t you think liar is more appropriate? Especially after all the Iraq WMD nonsense, the uniter not a divider stuff, the doesn’t believe in nation building comments while at the same time he’s formulating a strategy to invade Iraq before 9/11?

There was nothing specific in this speech, just big empty sky high promises with no ties to reality, planning, next steps, and so on. Excuse me, but wasn’t it Bush that said “there’s an old saying in Texas, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…. duh… I’m not gonna let that happen.”

Posted by: Max at February 1, 2006 1:39 AM
Comment #118850

Woody Mana:

“Had to laugh about appointing a commision to yet again study entitlement reform. What an innovative idea”

Bush tried to do something about entitlement reform last year with his Social Security reform plan, but no one wanted to hear it. All the dems did was deny that the scope of the pending problem. That’s an odd reaction from the political party that likes to play Chicken Little at the drop of a hat. The sky is always falling to dems when the issue is something that can be used to spear the republicans, such as domestic terrorist surveillence.

In fairness, republicans didn’t rally around the issue either. They didn’t want to take the political heat of messing with Social Security.

I think Bush is trying to accumulate a body of evidence that will spur our legislators to do something about the impending Social Security shortfall.

Posted by: goodking ned at February 1, 2006 2:03 AM
Comment #118857

MAX…PLEASE,

Don’t tell them that he won’t deliver on his promises, they think Bush is the best president ever, aren’t they adorable? It’s like a belief in Santa Claus or something. No really those aren’t deckchairs on the titanic that Bush is busily straightening up there, this boat’s off to a great voyage towards democracyland in Iraq yee-haw. No were not taking on water, quick look over there at Mrs. Bush she’s waving! Yay! Ooh look he created minimum wage service level jobs isn’t Mr. Bush great?!

God Republicans are stupid, what? Oh no no I said “isn’t Republicanism super” yeah super! Yaaay!

Posted by: Sanford at February 1, 2006 2:33 AM
Comment #118879

Gary:

The media is forbidden to cover dead GIs. They can’t video funerals, go to hospitals or even interview relatives.

You can blame your President for that.

Posted by: Aldous at February 1, 2006 4:04 AM
Comment #118903
And the President could handle his own over there. You don’t honestly think they take those afternoon banters seriously do you?

He looks like a deer in oncoming headlights whenever he doesn’t have a pre-screened audience. I think the grillng would make for some hilarious television.

Posted by: Loren at February 1, 2006 5:53 AM
Comment #118938

Did someone actually count how many times Bush said “lead” or “leadership”?
Seems that this SOTU speech was more about leadership and less about terrorism, iraq, 9/11 as in previous ones…
Guess leadership is his new official hobby…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 1, 2006 7:15 AM
Comment #118944

I thought both speeches were better than the ones we’ve seen in recent years.

President Bush did his best to sound bipartisan and quite a few of his proposals could be supported by both sides with a little compromise.

My favorite part was when the Democrats applauded themselves for doing nothing on Social Security. The look on Bush’s face as they played right into his hands was priceless!

I do think throwing Sheehan out was a mistake. Her antics would have shown off the pure childishness of some in the opposition.

Governor Kaine’s speech was better than the other “rebuttals” the Democrats have given in that he, like Bush, stressed bipartisanship. Of course it, like the others, was simply a policy speech and not an actual rebuttal. Just once I’d like them to watch the president’s speech and respond to actual points.
I do think Kaine talked about his state a little much for a national address.

What I didn’t like was the fact that neither Bush nor Kaine were willing to make fiscal responsibility an issue, although it was mentioned. I don’t want the deficit eliminated in 2009, I want it eliminated now!

It was interesting that Senator McCain was one of the few people who clapped when the President talked about earmark reform. He gave quite a few good interviews after the speech supporting the president while at the same time reaching out to both sides. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear him reporting on the state of the union in a few years.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 1, 2006 7:43 AM
Comment #118946

goodking,

I agree that Social Security is a serious issue and that needs to be addressed, and to be fair, he also mentioned Medicare and Medicaid which really are in crisis. (They are, dare I say, an imminent threat). What was funny was that he wanted to appoint a comission. Has anyone actually ever solved a problem by appointing a comission?

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 1, 2006 7:49 AM
Comment #118947

“The media is forbidden to cover dead GIs. They can’t video funerals, go to hospitals or even interview relatives.”

Really Aldous??

Ever heard of respect? I’m sure you have.
Seems to me I just saw a story a few days ago about protesters at a military funeral.
Protesting at the funeral of someone who was just doing their job and died doing it.

Protesting the Iraq War at a soldier’s funeral is out of line.
Sounds like something Cindy thought of …
just because people ‘rally around’ her doesn’t make her (or them) the smarter ones.

I suppose it would tick you off if the news story of the ‘dead GI’ was simply about them and not about how horrible Bush was for sending them to die.


Posted by: bugcrazy at February 1, 2006 7:53 AM
Comment #118959
I don’t want the deficit eliminated in 2009, I want it eliminated now!

Traveler, President Bush never promised to eliminate the deficit. He said he’d cut the deficit in half by 2009. The number crunchers over at the CBO say Republicans have gone on such a wild spending spree that even that can’t be done.

And all those government programs Bush said he was going to cut… They’re the same ones he tried to cut last year, but the GOP Congress and their special interest groups wouldn’t let him. To be really unfair, Bush didn’t fight very hard for the cuts, but it sounds good in a speech.

For the record, I liked the speech. Platitudes and generalizations are always a safe bet. Hooray for America!

Posted by: American Pundit at February 1, 2006 8:24 AM
Comment #118963

Traveler, President Bush never promised to eliminate the deficit. He said he’d cut the deficit in half by 2009.

Yes, I was wrong about that. Even worse!

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 1, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #118990

Our energy policy is no more focused than it was yesterday. The speech was a lost opportunity.

But it was optomistic and thats all that matters to many.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 1, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #118996

Bugcrazy
Cindy Sheehan lost her son to an ideal she did not agree with. I thought America was based on having your own ideals and being able to voice them. Whether it be on signs, pumper stickers or even on t-shirts. Please remenber she is a mother in pain and will never see her son again.
I beleive she had as much right to be there as the Clay family. But the Clays were there because they agreed with GW.I wonder how you would feel if you lost a child to something you did not beleive in?

Posted by: concerned mom at February 1, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #118999

“I wonder how you would feel if you lost a child to something you did not beleive in?”

I would be extremely upset.

Do you know what her son believed in? The man that actually died for his belief?

She has no respect for her own son - she is only concerned with her own feelings and beliefs, and is using her son’s death to promote her agenda. That is what I don’t like about her.

I wonder how he would have felt seeing his mother hugging Chavez.

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 1, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #119002

mom:

Cindy Sheehan had every right to be there, just as the Clay’s had every right to be there. That’s not even at issue. There are those who have lost children in war who agree with Sheehan, and those who disagree with her—both have the validity that comes from having experienced the death of a child in a war.

Where Sheehan went further was in wearing a shirt that protests the war. Now, I don’t know the rules of the Chamber or the rules of the State of the Union address, but I’ll say that IFF Cindy Sheehan broke the rules, then she should have been asked to comply. Once she decided not to comply, then authorities would have no option other than to remove her. That well may have been her aim.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 1, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #119018
Cindy Sheehan lost her son to an ideal she did not agree with. I thought America was based on having your own ideals and being able to voice them.

Kinda like the voice her son had when (as an adult) he chose to fight for his country?

I wonder how you would feel if you lost a child to something you did not beleive in?

For me it would depend on what that fully grown “child” believed in. He volunteered for his service. Whether she liked it or not he made that decision himself and knew the possible risks. And he is a hero for it in my book.

Lets stop pretending that Ms. Sheehan’s escapades have much at all to do with her son at this point. They are about her backers (Codepink, etc…) political agendas and her never ending 15 min. She is a protestor by trade now. Fine, she has every right to do so. But very little of it has to do with her son now.

BTW… Personally, given the information that I have read I don’t believe that she should have been arrested just for wearing the shirt. There does not seem to be anything illegal about that to me. If she had caused a disturbance or something then maybe, but as far as I’ve heard all there was was the shirt…

That said, if I can be told that I can’t golf at a public golf course unless I have a collered shirt, or go into a club with jeans on, then they shoud be able to kick her out of the building for wearing a t-shirt if they would like (Arresting her may have been a bit over the top IMO).

Bottom line is that there are times and places for things and the state of the union address is not the time or place for a protest. No matter who the president is… George Bush, Bill Clinton, whoever… it is just disrespectful to the office of the presidency.

If you don’t respect the man, fine… but at least respect the office.

Posted by: BradM at February 1, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #119030

Brad-

I thought she tried to unroll a sign of some sort and that’s why she was asked to leave.

As for Kane, I wonder why the Democrats chose a southern governor who has been in office all of a month; shouldn’t that speech come from Dean or someone else in a leadership position?

Posted by: George in SC at February 1, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #119036

I’ve only heard this in one place - an interview with Kay Bailey Hutchinson - where it was stated that she through a banner of some sort over the balcony … We just don’t throw things onto crowds below … do we?

Well… maybe a beachball.

Posted by: dawn at February 1, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #119038

Well, I was interested to hear what Bush might say

Best wishes,
Cindy

Posted by: Cindy Sheehan at February 1, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #119043

I’ve only heard this in one place - an interview with Kay Bailey Hutchinson - where it was stated that she through a banner of some sort over the balcony … We just don’t throw things onto crowds below … do we?

Well… maybe a beachball.

Posted by: dawn at February 1, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #119050

Now, that’s my President; telling it like it is and offering solutions and offering bi-partisan support to complex problems. He even baited the Dems with the SS line and they took the bait; what idiots those dems are. Good job, Mr. President.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 1, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #119051

Now, that’s my President; telling it like it is and offering solutions and offering bi-partisan support to complex problems. He even baited the Dems with the SS line and they took the bait; what idiots those dems are. Good job, Mr. President.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 1, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #119073

I was shocked by some of the stuff Bush said last night, I just sat there and thought to myself, “And he’s a republican????” Some of the things he said just flew in the face of what I’ve seen the GOP fight for in the last few years.

Also I only won half the pool. My bets were 3 9/11 references and 2 WMD refences. I was right on the WMD one, but missed the 9/11 by one.

Also about Tim Kaine. I think he did a pretty poor job, but say what you will about him, his left eyebrow will one day rule the world. I seriously couldn’t stop staring at it.

Posted by: chantico at February 1, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #119075

Here’s what is funny,

Republicans are so gullible to think that any of the things on roster of things to do will ever be done. He has no track record of doing anything remotely useful in his domastic policies.

Today he said his jawb was as “a duhsission maker” that’s what he does. Dick comes to him with some ideas and he either nods or he doesn’t—that’s sad that that is all this human keyfob is good for. Bush is a useless flap of skin occupying the white house, that’s it. The only difference now is he can read a teleprompter.

AND the republicans are totally gullible to his nonsense—doesn’t say much for conservatives (?) I mean we knew when Clinton was being full of sh#t but Republicans can’t tell when Bush is.

He will NEVER get that budget balanced, you do know that right? He will never achieve the peace in Iraq, you do know that? He will soak this country in further debt, you do know that? His SS Reform is not only not a top priority and not only already provided for within SS to pull your money out for investment purposes (call ss office in DC—you can already do pull your money out), BUT it is entirely DOA on the congress floor.

This isn’t just nasty liberalism, these are the facts. SO WHAT IS THERE TO SUPPORT GUYS?

Posted by: Sanford at February 1, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #119082

What childishness was on display last night. The Democrats sitting on their hands at every opportunity to show solidarity with the leaders of our country, and cheering wildly when the president reflected on the efforts that had failed in the past year. The Democratic party is the party of all tactics and no strategy. They look foolish and silly.

Posted by: pat wilson at February 1, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #119086

pat -

You obviously did not watch any of the past SOTUs from any of the past Presidents. One sides has the President and that side turns into an automatic applause track. The other side sits on their hands.

It’s just the petty way things are done in DC.

Posted by: tony at February 1, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #119092

Pat,

You are correct, the Democrats should have never shown up—that would have been a better plan. If all his proposals top to bottom are unaccomplishable BS why give him any fanfare. He’s a dolt, his party is trite and whatever the republicans had before him is gone now. Especially fiscal responsibility.

Posted by: Sanford at February 1, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #119093

Maybe a Bush supporter can explain the SOTU last night.

Bush came out against isolationists. Does anyone know who he was talking about? Can anyone name even one isolationist?

He argued against protectionism, yet stated a goal of freeing the US from importing foreign oil. Isn’t that economic isolationism?

Global Warming is an enormous long term threat, certainly a larger long term threat than terrorism. How can the President talk about the State of the Union without mentioning Global Warming?

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #119099

2,245 Dead — How Many More?
That’s what Cindy Sheehan’s T-shirt said, and what she was arrested for. It was the same shirt she’d been wearing all day at the “World Can’t Wait” rally that had been held at the reflecting pond near the Capitol. There was never any banner or anything thrown by Cindy Sheehan, so those who are saying so are completely full of sh*t. Capitol police would not have allowed her into the room with a banner because they check everyone who enters for security purposes. FYI, both the Associated Press and CNN have now confirmed that she had no banner, but was only arrested for wearing a shirt that displayed her criticism of the Neocon war and occupation of Iraq.

The reason she, or anyone else who wears something they don’t approve of can now be arrested is due to the Patriot Act. One of the unconstitutional provisions of that legislation gave police and security forces the right to arrest anyone for exercising their first amendment rights in public places during certain events and they are currently trying to expand that legislation to make it a felony (rather than trespassing as it is now), and increase the maximum penalty from six months (what it is currently) to one year.
Quote from that link:

“You are talking about giving the executive branch broader authority to create these exclusion zones which could cover broad areas and last for days [during an event ],” David Kopel, a constitutional expert with the Cato Institute, told FOXNews.com.

Btw, back in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to arrest a man who wore a “F*ck the Draft” t-shirt into a courthouse. The case was called Cohen vs. California.
I’m sure the new line-up at the Supreme Court would now rule much differently.

So anyway, what they did to Cindy Sheehan yesterday was just part and parcel of the new post-9/11 Neocon fascist control. I’m sure some of us will get used to it, while people like me, won’t. Ever.

Quote from Bush’s speech:

Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause.

Liar. He doesn’t believe in freedom or freedom’s cause. None of the Neocon’s do. Capitol police proved what they actually believe in just prior to his empty and meaningless speech.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 1, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #119117

PHX8,

Actually to be fair part of his isolationism stuff was aimed at Iran, the protectionism talk though was aimed at the Lou Dobbs crowd or something and pro-globalism. He wants us to all train for management positions or something? George W. Richboy, we can’t take time off from work to do that, especially not when American families are spending 12 to 20 percent more for the cost of living.

But the truth is Nafta hurt us and now with this cad comes Cafta, Safta, Canamex and other things that is a true to life toilet gurgle for American industries. Our dollar is worth 70% of what it was worth in 2000 and dropping.

What did you guys think about his pro-illegal immigrant stuff? Did anybody catch that? He’s still pro-amnesty. He told Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico republicans to “stick it” in other words. Where are the reverberrations on that? I think we will see that eventually.

As far as the bald platitudes, they are just that, bald, and our heads are still stuck in the Iraqi hornets nest for the long haul with no way out. I hear republicans still optimistic that we’ll put in mini-malls and Dairy Queen’s, wake up republicans and come back to being pragmatic republicans again—this invasion was fool hardy and somewhere they know it too. They just want to believe that it was all a good idea—they will come around.

Saddam is taking over that courtroom, real republicans can’t be happy about that—we’ll hear it once republicans wake-up.

Posted by: Sanford at February 1, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #119120
Bush came out against isolationists. Does anyone know who he was talking about? Can anyone name even one isolationist?

Pat Buchanon

How can the President talk about the State of the Union without mentioning Global Warming?

There is still a couple scientists who disagree with the concept. They may be republican funded but until everyone agrees, it’s in dispute.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 1, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #119123

(#1) For those who are upset George Bush “waved 9-11 in front of us again” are the epitome of a classic liberal. God forbid we remember when someone’s wronged us. As for someone who lost a friend in 9-11, I’m glad he keeps bringing it up in a country which is infamous for too short of a memory.

(#2) For the “2245 dead, how many more?”. You are also a classic liberal. We lost 6000 men the first day at the foothills of Mt. Suribachi in Iwo Jima. This is an area smaller than Baghdad. I guess we shouldn’t have done that either.

(#3) For those against W’s SS reform … nice work! Yup, liberals love the definite doom of the status quo!

(#4) For those who still support Cindy Hugo Chavez Sheehan, keep it up! It’s people like you who will only increase the Republican majority in congress in 2006 and help elect a conservative to the White House in 2008.

(#5) Libs calling it a “Domestic Surveillance Program” show yet again how stupid they are. Overseas calls are monitored, not calls from Kansas to Nebraska. So, please tell me Libs, when you fly from New York to Europe or the Mid-east … do you call that a “domestic flight”?

(#6) The down-trodden nature of the Dems was vividly evident with the selection of Kane as the responder. Not Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, nor Dean … but a brand spanking new democratic governor with a serious religious background who’s from a red state. (Well, they’re all red states except for CA, NY, & New England, right?) For the dems this would be like playing the Superbowl and watching your star QB, receiver, running back, linebacker, and cornerback getting brutally wounded all on the first play of the game.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 1, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #119134

On an added note,

Maybe if Cindy didn’t abandon her son and leave him for his father to raise for political ambitions … and maybe if she didn’t use her son’s death to further her political ambitions … maybe she wouldn’t be feeling so much anxiety now.

Oh, but I’m sure her dead son looks down on her visit to the Communist Chavez with great pride … NOT!!!!!!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 1, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #119138

KEN,

SS reforms that Bush is attempting to put through you can do right now—it already exists!!! You can pull your money out of Social Security and invest it if you want(or buy a Camaro for all it matters). I know people who have done it. Call the Social security office in Washington DC and ask them for the forms. In 2 weeks they will arrive, you fill them out, send them back and in a week they will send you a check, done okay.

And as for the wiretapping, the problem IS NOT that they wiretapped—that’s legal. BUT THERE HAVE TO BE CHECKS AND BALANCES, The FISA courts have a 99% approval rating for wiretaps, can be filed after the fact so intelligence agancies can look them over. Any and all information becomes “actionable” even if rejected by FISA courts. AND IT DOES NOT GO PUBLIC as Bush has told you it does—he is a liar that’s what we are TRYING TO TELL YOU.

Posted by: Sanford at February 1, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #119145

Ken,

Although I am no liberal I would like to address item 5. The domestic spying program is “domestic”. Sure the call may have originated in another country or ended in another country, but there is someone in the U.S. getting spied upon. Since that person is in the U.S. and is likely a U.S. citizen….that would make it domestic spying.

I’m not against that sort of thing at all! I don’t think the dems are either. The problem I have, and I happen to agree with many dems and some repubs, is that the spying isn’t followed up by going through the courts. It doesn’t have to be done before hand it can be done up to three days later. It seems odd to me that one wouldn’t follow such an easy rule unless one didn’t want a paper trail.

Regards,

Posted by: Tom L at February 1, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #119151

Ken,
What would you call it? It’s domestic, and without a warrant I’d call it spying. What more fitting name would you give? The “Freedom Fries Listening Network?”

Again I’m all for catching terrorists. However, get a warrant. If the law makes getting a warrant preclusive then change the law. I can’t believe that I have to stand up and defend asking the president to keep the law.

Posted by: chantico at February 1, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #119153

Ken,

”(#2) For the “2245 dead, how many more?”. You are also a classic liberal. We lost 6000 men the first day at the foothills of Mt. Suribachi in Iwo Jima. This is an area smaller than Baghdad. I guess we shouldn’t have done that either.”

Point taken, but I think that then we were able to fight a world war, on two fronts, and hostilities were over within three years.

Oh, and by the way, how many countries did we rebuild for a fraction of what it’s costing in Iraq?

Anybody want to bet on when the first WalMart will open in Baghdad?

Posted by: Rocky at February 1, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #119154

Schwamp,
Pat Buchanon? I thought of that too. But it seems odd for the President to attack isolationism, when the adherents represent such a small number on the far right.

Maybe this will be the new Republican mantra: you’re either for attacking Iran and occupying Iraq, or you’re an isolationist.

Unanimity on Global Warming is not necessary. There will always be people who refuse to accept it because they make money by denying it. However, the data is already there. For anyone curious, spend some time researching funding of those who dispute Global Warming. It won’t take long to find large amounts of Exxon money behind the group.

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #119155

“However, get a warrant. If the law makes getting a warrant preclusive then change the law. I can’t believe that I have to stand up and defend asking the president to keep the law.”
Posted by: chantico at February 1, 2006 03:50 PM

If a law can be changed as easily as that .. why do we have laws to begin with?
Some that are screaming about Bush breaking the law are in a group that said - ‘If the President needs a new law we would have given it to him. All he had to do was come to us and ask.’ OR something like that.

Posted by: dawn at February 1, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #119157

Sanford,
I never heard of that cashing out of SS. I doubt it’s true.

Ken,
#2; Non Sequitor
Regarding your all knowing knowledge of the Sheehan family - those comments are cruel. Glad the red team can claim you as their own.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 1, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #119158

In all reality after 9/11 when this domestic spying program (AKA the Freedom Fries Listening Network) started Bush could’ve asked for the right arm of every firstborn to fight the terrorists and would’ve gotten it.

If the republican president can’t pass a law through a republican controlled congress and senate, perhaps the law shouldn’t be passed.

I still have faith in the checks and balances ergo why I say if the law doesn’t allow for quickness then make a valid argument and come up with a good plan to do what you need and keep it legal. Bush has done neither. If he came up and said, “I want to spy on citizens and here’s why and when. Think about it and see if you agree.” we’d be in a much different situation.

Posted by: chantico at February 1, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #119160

“Seems to me I just saw a story a few days ago about protesters at a military funeral.”

Yep. It’s Fred Phelps doing this. He’s the proprietor of godhatesfags.com.

He’s an arch-conservative. And he’s protesting soldiers’ funerals, because he says 9/11 was caused by support for gay rights.

So, bugcrazy, direct your outrage where it belongs - on the farthest fringe of “Christian” zealotry.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 1, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #119173

Arr-squared:

Phelps and his cohorts actually protested at the funeral of the West Virginia mine workers who died recently. He and his followers have perverted the word of God. While they use the Bible to “make their case”, they do so by taking things out of context, and by subverting the message.

For instance, they feel that they “love” others by telling the truth—-but it is their truth. And their methods are plainly vile.

I’m not easily surprised by man’s inhumanity, but Phelps’ group did just that. They stand for nothing that resembles true Christianity.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 1, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #119175

“hindsight alone is not vision and second guessing is not a stategy.”

I also found the choice to give the rebuttal a little funny. It just shows that the democrats know they can’t be honest about their true views for our future, they are scared to put their own leaders (Dean, Pelosi, Reid etc…) on during one of the bigger stages in an election year. People are always saying the democrats have no plan, but the reality is they know if they were completly honest and forthcoming to the american people with their plans they would never win another election.

Posted by: andy at February 1, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #119178

Schwamp,

The provision was originally for people leaving the country and it is true that you can do that. The only problem being, and the reason I haven’t done it, is that you don’t recieve any Social security upon retirement. Now you can start paying into it again BUT if the job you have at that time pays less than the one you had when you pulled out that determines the rate of Social security you recieve in retirement. It has it’s risks, but such is life. Also the money you get back gets taxed, but again, such is life. Who knows what you’ll need at that time and a Social Security suppliment probably couldn’t hurt.

Posted by: Sanford at February 1, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #119189

Ken Cooper:
“For the “2245 dead, how many more?”. You are also a classic liberal.”

Very True, and proudly so.

“We lost 6000 men the first day at the foothills of Mt. Suribachi in Iwo Jima.This is an area smaller than Baghdad.”

Yeah. One of my uncles was stationed aboard a Battleship — the USS Tennesee — that fired on Iwo Jima. After that battle they went on to Okinawa and it was there that they were hit by a kamakazi plane carrying a bomb that exploded. It killed a bunch of men, but he was lucky enough to be among the large number of those who were only wounded — he took a lot of shrapnel in his arms and legs.
When we were kids, my uncle used to have fun making my sisters and I scared and creeped out by showing us how he could make a few of the little pieces of shrapnel (they didn’t bother to remove every single piece of it) move around in his arms by clenching and unclenching his muscles.
Sweet and wonderful guy, my Uncle. Btw, he was proudly liberal, too.

“I guess we shouldn’t have done that either.”

We had a reason to fight in the Pacific in WWII - Pearl Harbor.
We had no reason to go to Iraq. American soldiers have been losing their lives fighting a war that was started by mistake.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 1, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #119191

Adrienne,

You realize that if we really lived in a fascist nation, you would have killed for what you wrote, the web host would be killed for allowing it to be on the site (if the site even existed) and I could be killed for reading it or viewing a site that supports beliefs outside of fascism. Please do not compare the suspension of certain privacies to fascism. They are not comparable.

Ship

“the only ones angry about suspending certain privacies are the ones that are doing something illegal or have something to hide.”

Posted by: Ship at February 1, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #119196

Jack, I too was pleased with his co-opting of the social spending liberal agenda, conservation, education, etc. Problem is, when it comes down to drafting policy, the costs will be enormous since he never misses an opportunity to pass tax dollars to the wealthy one way or another like his Medicare Rx Drug plan.

Clever he was in omitting that the spying issue is about judicial review, instead of as he distorted it, spying on terrorists. A very small minority of Americans believe we shouldn’t be listening in on al-Queda. The vast majority of Americans believe the President MUST go through the FISA court to do so. The President utterly and completely, and cleverly, and deceptively misrepresented this issue.

I could find no pride for this President. None. There is a vast difference between serving the people and the nation, and serving one’s ego and party. This president is all about the latter these days, IMO. There is also a huge difference between saying one is responsible and having the ability to respond appropriately. This is a very irresponsible president, as we are deeper in debt and hardly more secure from terrorist attack today than we were on 9/11.

The largest commercial demand for math and science education comes from corporations, so, please, explain why this so called free markets president is not forging a plan to bring corporations into the business of underwriting math and science education in America. Well beyond this president’s level of competence, and debt to corporations, obviously.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #119200

i don’t understand what all the hype is about.
this sotu was like every other, bush delivered exactly as i expected and all the republicans jumped up like a bunch of highschool cheerleaders, and all the democrats sat pouting in their seats like kids in time-out.

typical. not really much to say about it cuz it doesn’t really mean a thing - what were you expecting, a resignation?

“There is still a couple scientists who disagree with the concept. They may be republican funded but until everyone agrees, it’s in dispute.:

i would not call them scientists so much as opportunists with degrees (maybe). were it profitable, i feel quite sure that there would be some still contending that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around us. this is not an issue that needs debating. any scientist worth their salt will tell you global warming is a very real phenomenon.

it’s ridiculous to even consider that science can be politicized, and i doubt that many of these dissenting - i’ll call them scientists, for lack of a better word - will have jobs after bush leaves office.

“I keep thinking McCain’s a good candidate, but I guess I keep thinking wrong.”

why ever would you think that? he’s one of the few who deserves his job, and i think he’d make a fine president.

“It was interesting that Senator McCain was one of the few people who clapped when the President talked about earmark reform.”

interesting, but not surprising.

“He gave quite a few good interviews after the speech supporting the president while at the same time reaching out to both sides. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear him reporting on the state of the union in a few years.”

somehow i doubt it, but one can dream.

Posted by: Diogenes at February 1, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #119209

“Please do not compare the suspension of certain privacies to fascism. They are not comparable.”

certainly they are. everything is relative (and comparable) firstly - and secondly, do you think that everyone just wakes up one day and *bam*, they’re living in a fascist state? no, it’s a gradual process, first we give up these rights, then some more, then we’re wearing stars on our clothing, then we’re in ‘labor camps’.

a good start would be to associate any dissenting opinions with treason, and then authorize the use of spying on citizens to ascertain whom might be holding these treasonous beliefs, all the while consolidating power for oneself. think about it.

while i find it highly dubious that this is bush’s intention, the basic infrastructure for fascism is there. now all we need is a despot to take over where bush leaves off. on the optimistic side, if the despot happens to be a democrat, maybe we could all look forward to a communist state instead. yay.

Posted by: Diogenes at February 1, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #119227

Ship:
“You realize that if we really lived in a fascist nation, you would have killed for what you wrote, the web host would be killed for allowing it to be on the site (if the site even existed) and I could be killed for reading it or viewing a site that supports beliefs outside of fascism. Please do not compare the suspension of certain privacies to fascism. They are not comparable.”

They are comparable. They are chipping away at our Constitution and taking our rights and freedoms away a bit at a time. These things always start small and happen by degrees — just like they did in Nazi Germany.

“the only ones angry about suspending certain privacies are the ones that are doing something illegal or have something to hide.”

Oooh, nice Neocon-Straussian contradiction there.
Sure it’s those Peaceful, non-violent Quakers, and Vegans, and countless other harmless Americans they’ve been illegally spying on without warrants and classifying as “enemies and terrorists” who are criminals with something to hide. When in actuality, they’re the ones doing something illegal, and they’ve been the ones trying to hide it. Then, when that got out, they’ve been attempting to justify their illegal actions with the lame excuse that it is somehow an important part of the “War on Terror”.
Which is nothing but a steaming pile of horsesh*t.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 1, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #119233

‘Patriotic Bikers Show Support For Troops’

GO BIKERS!

I suppose it isn’t okay for fellow Americans to stop protesters either??

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 1, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #119239

Jack:


Tim Kaine, the governor of my own state of Virginia, gave the Democratic rebuttal. He is a good and reasonable man, but I wish he had not been so negative. I won’t criticize the governor of my home state - because he is an honorable man. Suffice to say, I felt a little sorry for him. The President cut the ground out from under him by giving such a reasonable speech.

I think the out party should do something besides have someone read into a camera. It is soooooo boring. Maybe a town hall meeting with real citizens or something. Anything but boring.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 1, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #119244

Craig, Most Excellent Comment! Precisely why we have an unbalanced, unchecked, one party government. No real opposition.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #119251

McCain has integrity. Unfortunately, that integrity extends to his belief that the US should play world cop deposing oil rich despots who won’t play by our changing rules. With our military stretched thinner than celophane, the last thing we need is another military hawk in the White House.

I would however love to see him as Speaker of the House, or Senate Majority leader. Neither of which is in the realm of possibility given our current state of GOP politics. Men of integrity just don’t seem to rise to the leadership roles in the GOP. Of course, after the last president, the same could be said of the Democratic Party. Lying to the people is the flagrant expose’ of one’s absence of integrity in public office. McCain has learned that lesson, I think.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #119255

These liberals just don’t get it. Ragging on GW will do no good. We won’t stop loving him until he starts scraping pregnant womens uteruses out with rusty coathangers, and even then, you’ll have to prove he bought that coathanger from a terrorist before he’ll go down a single notch in our books. And you all know that will never happen! So good luck lefties!

Long live GW!!!

Posted by: BushLover at February 1, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #119276

“the only ones angry about suspending certain privacies are the ones that are doing something illegal or have something to hide.”

anyone who endorses this comment should be taken out back and profusely flogged on principle alone. honestly, do you hear yourself?

i think anyone who has the impudence to make such a mindless claim should be *forced* (yes forced) to *prove* their innocence on *all* fronts. i mean an internationally televised search of their person and property, along with a criminal investigation into every facet of their personal, private, and professional life…
and if they have broken even *one* law, they should be shipped off to china, and flogged again. (if not, then we should write a book about them entitled ‘the second coming’).

Posted by: diogenes at February 1, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #119280

JBOD,

I didn’t know that Phelps protested the miners’ funeral; I’m appalled, but not very surprised.

I only mentioned Phelps because bugcrazy’s post implied that protesting soldiers’ funerals was something done by people on the left. I just wanted to make it clear that the funeral protester was a self-identified Christian conservative.

I’m glad that you deplore his actions and don’t consider him to be a Christian. You’re a reasonable man. But if folks are going to be (rightfully) outraged by protesting at soldiers’ funerals, it’s best to be clear on where to direct the outrage:

Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church, from the great red state of Kansas.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 1, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #119294

‘I only mentioned Phelps because bugcrazy’s post implied that protesting soldiers’ funerals was something done by people on the left. I just wanted to make it clear that the funeral protester was a self-identified Christian conservative.’

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 1, 2006 08:29 PM


The implication towards the left was in response to a comment from Aldous …
“The media is forbidden to cover dead GIs. They canⴠvideo funerals, go to hospitals or even interview relatives.”

Which was an outright lie.

I guess I could have been ‘fair and balanced’ but I just wasn’t in the mood.
So, go right ahead and assume what you want.

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 1, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #119310

Okay

So you guys keep up bringing up this Phelps guy. The only place I have heard of him is from liberals. I think all of us here are prepared to reject him. I don’t accept him in my club. He holds no official position in our party.

Of course, I will accept that you can do the same. Any time you want to reject Cindy Sheehan, I will accept that. You can’t reject Howard Dean or Teddy Kennedy until you vote them out of your party.

Adrienne

The Straussian thing is also interesting. I have never read anything by him. I suppose I could be influenced by him through others, but not much. There was an interesting article by Robert Kagan explaining how people “accuse” him of being a Straussian but he is not. When he describes the Strauss principles, I find that I also don’t agree. I know a lot of neo-conservative and most them also don’t hold with these ideas.

I am sure you will agree that most of us neo-cons aren’t really smart enough to follow any particular philosophy all the time. Leftists tend to be followers of theorists and I think the left tries to project its own organizing principles onto us. It is like Marxists talk about Capitalists when in fact there is no parallel philosophy. A good free market guy believes in the market, but agreement among them (us) disappears after that.


Posted by: Jack at February 1, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #119313

Can you honestly point to anything Bush said that was really innovative and forward-thinking? I mean, did he lay out any great new ideas that the democrats wouldn’t have thought of?

Mostly he just used a lot of rhetoric and said things anyone would agree with, such as the need to reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil. Well, of course, it’s only like 5 years too late, it’s the liberals, not the neocons, who have been saying that for at least a decade.

Posted by: John at February 1, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #119325

Bush said:
“In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122.”

Oh yeah. The Bee-Gees sang about that. “Twenty-two is the Loneliest Number.”

Or maybe he meant there are now 122 “lonely” democracies.

“Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streets/ And watched the smoke that rises from the pipes/ Of 22 lonely democracies in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows?…”
From ‘The Love Song of George Bush’


Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #119333

A lot of people would have thought of a lot of things. Or at least that is what they think. Ronald Reagan said that there are simple solutions but there are rarely easy solutions. Vince Lombardy said that football was nothing more than blocking and tackling.

So you found nothing new or innovative in the President’s speech. Bill Clinton gave that speech eight times. I did like it when Clinton said that the era of big government was over, but what other big ideas do you recall?

Posted by: Jack at February 1, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #119344

Jack,

In case you’re interested here are all of the http://www.asksam.com/cgi-bin/as_web6.exe?Command=Bookmark&File=StateoftheUnion&Name=George%20Washington%2c%20State%20of%20the%20Union%20Address%20#George%20Washington,%20State%20of%20the%20Union%20Address” target=”blank”>State of the Union speeches.

Posted by: Rocky at February 1, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #119358

“Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122.”

Ah, the dumbing down of America. Think about it. Supposedly, there are teams of people who write this speech, each responsible for a section. They go over it in detail, check and double-check. It’s not like Bush is winging it, or pulled an all-nighter to whip this up-

And in front of millions of people, this is what is presented. The “advance of freedom” is not just a “hopeless dream”; it’s a “great story.” So, we’ve progressed from a ‘dream’ to a ‘story.’

And 22 lonely democracies…

Omigosh.

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #119364

Jack:
“The Straussian thing is also interesting. I have never read anything by him. I suppose I could be influenced by him through others, but not much.”

Osmosis, Jack.
Very few people have actually read Strauss (very difficult, confused and sometimes unintelligable, trust me, I’ve read some.), but those who have often became complete disciples — all conservatives. Those disciples then mutated and adapted a variety of his ideas and made them their own. William Kristol (since the 1950’s), Grover Norquist, and Paul Wolfowitz are all disciples of Strauss. That collection of ideas has been instumental in shaping the Neocon agenda.
The American Enterprise Institute and The Project for the New American Century — completely Straussian.

“There was an interesting article by Robert Kagan explaining how people “accuse” him of being a Straussian but he is not.”

What’s really funny about this that those who are very Straussian often will deny they are — but then if you’d read him you’d know why that paradox actually makes perfect sense. He preached speaking in contradictions and using purposefully convoluted and obsfuscatory language whenever and wherever possible.
(I believe that in the case of W and Rumsfeld, this just comes naturally.)

“When he describes the Strauss principles, I find that I also don’t agree. I know a lot of neo-conservative and most them also don’t hold with these ideas.”

Judging by many of your posts, I’m fairly certain you’ve absorbed at least some of their ideas, Jack.

“I am sure you will agree that most of us neo-cons aren’t really smart enough to follow any particular philosophy all the time.”

Well, Strauss’ disciples are smart and clever people, and regardless of the intelligence of those who follow, they’re the ones who have been guiding the Neocons direction and who have been carefully framing all their language to meet their goals.

“Leftists tend to be followers of theorists and I think the left tries to project its own organizing principles onto us.”

:^) Wrong. Both of the two major parties, and people both left and right have followed different theories and organizing principles — and both have been projecting plenty onto to the other for a very long time.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 1, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #119366

And so, to President Bush and his speechwriters:

“… What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

From ‘Billy Madison’

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #119414

Ken-
This is the sickening, frustrating part of this debate, these last few years. We liberals didn’t forget. We didn’t allow ourselves to. Our offense, really, wasn’t amnesia.

How many times have Syria and Iran collaborated in terrorist attacks against us? How many terrorists did they train? The history of Iraqi terrorism against the west is weak. Their claim to fame was a failed attempt to assassinate Bush, one whose failure was caused by an auto accident on the way to the site.

But Iran? From its hostage taking to the bombing of the Khobar Towers, it’s been a constant thorn in our side, from the perspective of terrorism. What better country to put through the wringer over their terrorist support? What better pretext could be given for an international counterterrorism effort?

But Bush had to get creative, and get us into Iraq on Homeland Security grounds, spinning an unlikely story on seemingly dire evidence so the Neocons could go on their crusade against evil. It’s not that I mind taking down Saddam, or using our nation’s power to do substantive good in the world, instead of just feeding self-serving interests. I feel great sympathy for those having to recovering from the crushing rule of that dictator. But our timing in doing this and our justification for our actions were important, as was Bush’s willingness to get the commitment for this from the public on an honest, good faith basis. By taking us the other route, he weakened us, and compromised the mission from the start. If we win we win in spite, not because, of how Bush started this war.

As for casualties? First, you must consider that this is the worst military casualties have been since Vietnam. No war between them has more. Additionally, we don’t expect so many to die, given our technological advantages. Most importantly, though, when this all started, we thought we had the war won with a minimum of casualties for our side.

It’s Bush’s own fault for not being prepared to nation-build or keep peace in Iraq by extended troop presence. This administration though things would just slide into place. Needless to say, that was too optimistic, and it left Iraq open to descend into chaos and become a haven for terrorists. That’s the war we’ve been fighting since then, and it was the war we never should have fought. Every casualty after then has been a victim of that foolish policy, which did not start dealing with the problem until it became a political liability.

As for Social Security? First, do no harm. Bush admitted that his reforms would not add to the solvency of the program. The costs of an extra 200 billion a year for ten years likely would not help. I define reform in terms of improvement, and your president can demonstrat improvement. So why not look elsewhere?

As for Cindy Sheehan? Damage Control. That all your responses are. You keep on warning us that we’ll keep on losing if we take our points of view seriously, but that seems largely like “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” I think the Republicans are facing a potential collapse of political power. They’ve papered over too many problems by trying to make them purely political. But they don’t go away, and reality dictates thought with more force than spin.

As for the NSA wiretaps, I think you need to consider the following: If there is an American on the line, they must go through FISA channels and get a warrant. Doesn’t matter whether the phone call goes overseas, or not, you are dealing with somebody born to the rights of an American, Which can only be waived after due process has been observed.

I think you folks have bought your own propaganda for far too long, and as a result, you’ve lost touch with the reality of your situation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 2, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #119438

Diogenes said:

anyone who endorses this comment should be taken out back and profusely flogged on principle alone. honestly, do you hear yourself?


Since one of WB’s visitors DID endorse this comment by stating it, your comments clearly violate our policy by critiquing the messenger instead of the message. This kind of flagrant violation of our policy is not welcome here. Please take the flame baiting elsewhere.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at February 2, 2006 3:54 AM
Comment #119483

AP,
Interesting article about the deficits.
It is trying to raise awareness of the deficits, but fails to point out one very important point, which is how long it will take to pay off the National Debt. 139 years perhaps, provided we have sustained growth and nothing bad along the way, and that would require that we stop borrowing $1 billion per day, and start paying back over $1 billion per day (i.e. it must exceed the daily interest of $1 billion per day, or the debt continues to grow).

Some always try to trivialize the issue by saying the National Debt isn’t that big compared to GDP, but that is a very bad argument, because it does not acknowledge how long it will take to pay off the debt, and it perpetuates the dangerous belief that National Debt should be a large percentage of GDP.

Notice how the percentage of National Debt to GDP is now about 66%.
Except for 1995, the percentage has not been that high since World War II.
And, it is scheduled to climb to 100% by 2008 !

It’s a good thing we are not in a World War now, because we are already bankrupt.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 2, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #119489

If the media gave near the press to injured or dead soldiers as they have given to Woodruff and cameraman well, nevermind, they’re just soldiers.
Imagine, what went through Judge Alito’s mind as Ted Kennedy sat questioning him about his moral fiber. How do you suppose he kept from cracking up, rolling on the floor?
I think they should build a stone wall right down the isle, so that only the president can see both sides of the isle. Democrats and Republicans should not reach across the isle. What the people want is represented by the majority party. When the people change their minds, the power will shift. After 40 years of Democrats pulling the wool over the eyes of the public, the hood has been lifted. May be a while unti they wear the cloak of power again.
God help us if they do.

Posted by: gman at February 2, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #119503

quote”Mostly he just used a lot of rhetoric and said things anyone would agree with, such as the need to reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil. Well, of course, it’s only like 5 years too late, it’s the liberals, not the neocons, who have been saying that for at least a decade.”quote

And what did the liberals purpose? And what did the liberals do? What have the liberals done about anything? Besides change the moral fiber of America so that the act of destroying life for nothing more than it being an inconvenience become acceptible? To be selected as a judge you may not express your opposition to laws that allow people to kill BABIES. You are not allowed to have an opinion according to liberals.
And the republicans should be standing tall when they stand for the rights of a man to have his opinions and challenging these socialist who dare call themselves American.
I will give democrats credit for the having courage to look others in the eye as they twist everything they say. And damn the republicans for putting their political future’s ahead of their morality.

Posted by: gman at February 2, 2006 8:50 AM
Comment #119674

Diogenes,

I would like to preface this by stating that while I am republican, President Bush was not my first choice. So for those of you that think I am blindly following everything the man says your wrong.

I heard myself and I endorse it all the way. Why should I care if someone is listening to my phone conversations if it is in the best intrest of the nation. The best interst of the nation, what a wonderful and noble concept to put something greater than yourself ahead of your personal agenda. So what if the government is listening to my phone converstaions. If they are, they are probably board out of their minds. “Hi this is _____ calling on behalf of the childrens hospital and I would like to thank you for your support in 2005” or better yet “no babe, I love you more”. Yeah, I have broken the law. I have recieved a speeding citation in my life, but my speeding isnt helping a terrorist organization compile information that could lead to another 9/11. To make the comparison of someone breaking a law, no matter how small to supporting terrorist cells in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afgahnastan, North Korea, etc is assinine. Why not let them listen if it is in the best interest of the country, meaning the safety of millions? Listen to the quakers, muslims, baptist preachers, catholic priests, teachers, politicians, et al. If it leads to innocent American lives being saved than I am for it period.

If it keeps the war out of my backyard, I support it. What many of you fail to realize is that the muslim world HATES us and the fight will not end if we pull our troops out, they will just move the fight. You call conservatives the radical religious group when the real radical religious group is over seas and would kill you or I just because we are not them.

Why would someone be so angry about someone listening in on your conversations? Its not like the government is running a gossip column publishing everything they hear about everyone now is it? Criminals should be the only ones with something to fear.

But above all, I pray for peace.

Ironnic that Diogenes (the philosopher, not the blogger) the cynic was most noted for exposing the vanity of selfishness of man, while you and your selfish cohorts put the privacy of your meaningless conversations above the good of a nation and the protection of millions innocent citizens.

As far as the Fred Phelps charater goes I dont think that he should be associated with either political party or religious denomination. Just because he says that he is a christian or conservative does not neccesarily mean that he is. I could call myself an eskimo, but that would make me anymore an eskimo than Ted Kennedy. Phelps runs a cult in Kansas and exploits children, if I ever see him in person I would be tempted to punch him in the face, but then again that would be breaking the law and should lead to my expulsion to China and a severe flogging.

Posted by: ship at February 2, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #119694

Crap, that was the version that didn’t go through spell check. Just for the record I know how to spell interest, conversations, received, asinine, Afghanistan, necessarily, character, ironic and I realize that terms such as Quakers, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, Eskimo, etc. should be capitalized.

So please don’t add “illiterate” or “uneducated” to Neocon-Straussian. Maybe just “types to fast for his own good” Neocon-Straussian.

And by the way, how “freshman year of college” does that sound? “My communications teacher is such a fascist.” “That is so Neocon-Straussian.” You use fascism as a slur and I thank you for that because it allows me the opportunity to laugh in my office.

So, grow up or as the case may be wait until you’re a sophomore, philosophy wont be nearly exciting.

Posted by: ship at February 2, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #119732

Adrienne

For you this Strauss thing is kind of like original sin. We don’t have to do anything to deserve it and it fact can do nothing to avoid it. Even when we reject its main parts, it still infects us, according to the theory.

I got my political baggage from the classics, probably mostly from Thucydides, Aristotle, Polybius and from a general study of Roman political practice. None of my professors and none of the books I read (which were usually by dead Brits and Germans because they wrote the most about ancient history) were influence by Strauss for the simple chronological reason that they had been educated (and sometimes had died) before he became prominent. The only theorist of history that I even partially used as a model was Arnold Toynbee, who I don’t believe was a Strassian.

Sure I have since read and probably agree with some people who read and probably agree with Strauss. But my examination of Strauss philosophy leads me to believe I would read and agree with many of his opponents as well. There just is no arrow of causality.

Casualty might go the opposite direction. When I studied our own Constitution, I found that I arrived at many of the same sorts of conclusions because I had studied the same classics as the founding fathers. I know that people like Robert Kagan and Victor Davis Hansen come to their ideas through the classics. To the extent that Strauss read and was influenced by the same things, you might see similar responses, although it look from my cursory reading of Strauss that he rejected most ancient ideals.

I think you may be too enamored with theories. My observation is that for the left theories are prescriptive, while for the right (in the Americans context) they are merely descriptive. Like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (who also lived and died before he could have read Strauss) said about the beauty of the common law, we first determine the result and then figure out the law that goes with it (I paraphrase).

The test of any theory is its predictive value. If you find that classifying conservatives as Straussians helps you predict their behavior, by all means use it. But until recently, the only Strauss I knew wrote “Tales from the Vienna Woods”.

Posted by: Jack at February 2, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #119794

What can I say Jack? I have to call it as I see it. I’m sorry if it disturbs your classically conservative sensibilities, but Kristol, Norquist and Wolfowitz were very strongly and directly influenced by Strauss. And they in turn, are politically powerful ideologues whose tactics have been extremely influential within your party for at least the past twenty-five years.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 2, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #119812

Sadly, President Bush is not the President of the democratic party. They make it clear every time they open their collective mouths how much they detest the President of the United States. The partisanship in this nation has made it so that half of the nation thinks it is okay to bash, insult, mock, flame and trash the President of the United States of America.

I’m embarrassed for us all, and it’s not because of President Bush or his policies.

Posted by: Bruce P at February 2, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #119833

Bruce,
There are some things you might not know about Bush. Look into the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000. Bush kicked off the campaign with a visit to a university which did not allow interracial dating. Bush stood on the stage with a man who smeared McCain up one side and down the other, and Bush said nothing. The Bush campaign spread rumors that, because of his experience as a POW in Vietnam, McCain was a Manchurian Candidate. They smeared McCain by suggesting his adopted child was a bastard, the result of an affair with a black woman.

Should I continue? Bush has a verifiable history of smearing opponents. It’s a loooooong list.

The FACT is, Bush does not deserve respect. Respect is earned. The Office of the Presidency is respected. This man occupying it is profoundly unworthy of respect.


Posted by: phx8 at February 2, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #119986

I thought it especially rich when President Bush implored Congress to act in a bipartisan manner to accomplish his goals. He implied that the Democrats needed to get on board and work with the Republicans. What a CROCK!!!!

From DAY ONE, Bush and the PARTY IN POWER have treated the Democrats as LOSERS, unworthy of any input. In the House, leaders like Hastert, Sennsenbrenner (sp?), and other chairmen have denied Democrats the right to subpeona witnesses on important investigations, the right to hold hearings on relevant and important subjects. The majority Republican Congress, Bush, and Cheney have treated the Democrats as persona non grata. Even prior to Bush’s take over of the Executive Branch, when Clinton was President, the Republican Senate railroaded or stalled out HUNDREDS of Clinton’s nominees for judicial appointments. They were waiting for their turn.

To call for unity at this point in the Republican dictatorship is a JOKE.

Bush Co. has NO credibility with me and many other reasonable Democrats. I won’t even get into my perceptions of Cheney other than to say that he is the closest thing this country has ever had to… well, if I use the analogies that I was thinking of, I would be considered off the wall. Let’s just say the world has seen its share of leaders who KNOW what is right for their country and who brook no opposition and who are willing to disregard the rights of the opposition. Cheney, in another place and time, would be a very, very … well, let’s just say he’s scary as he&&.

The Republicans will cry like little girls (just like the guard in the Shawshank Redemption) when the Democrats take back Congress. And I suppose one of us will have to act like grown ups and I hope it is the Democratic Party.

But I swear by all that’s holy, I hope the Republicans hold on to Congress and the White House. I think the only way to rid ourselves of this Ayn Rand/Elmer Gantry ideology is to let America take a HUGE dose of what the Republicans are serving up. People like my family are so pro-Republican, yet they are so ill-informed and can hold no reasonable discussion of ISSUES. They vote soley on Mom and Apple Pie rhetoric. They need the castor oil of many years of Republican policies to cure them of this fantasy in which they live.

Posted by: LibRick at February 3, 2006 7:17 AM
Comment #120033

Unfortunately, the level of bipartisan politics has risen to the point where we are on a virtual political playground. Although I must admit that children of today may very well have better ideas than those on both sides of the political spitball fight that is going on in our country.

When has a President ever REALLY delivered on what he said in the state of the union address, or wowed us with what he said in that speech?

An with all the effort being put into saying how badly we’re doing things now,why isn’t effort being put into generating GOOD ideas that actually address our nation’s issues and problems.

We question others without coming up with our own answers. Very productive from the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

Here’s something to compare it to:
You own a couch and you need it moved. The movers(politicians) turn out to be a democrat on one side and republican on the other. Each takes a turn to try and lift up and move the couch, but when the republican tries to lift it, the democrat jumps on the couch to weigh it down, and the same happens when the democrat tries to lift it up.

End Result: The couch doesn’t move, The two opposing party members get mad at each other and those watching this event (the owners of the couch)get truly frustrated because the movers(politicians) have a job that we elected and pay them to do and they choose to spend their time fighting with each other instead of working together.

Point of the Story: If your movers couldn’t get your couch moved, you would mind new movers or just plain do it yourself.


Posted by: Tim at February 3, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #120111

I cannot understand how anyone, after 5-6 years of this disaster of a presidency can regard it, on any level, as being a success. Those who look at where this country is heading and complain about those who don’t “support our president”, clearly must have lost their minds. If you are not in the top %5 percent of income/wealth in this nation YOU ARE GETTING ROYALLY SCREWED!!! You are getting virtually no benefit from the “tax breaks”, your children are dying/being maimed in this war (do you think Bush’s daughter’s would ever get near something so low and unseemly as military service?). I regard the Republican Party and its leader as being more of a criminal organization than a legitimate part of the political landscape. Bush, in particular is a deadly combination, incompetence mixed with evil intent.

Posted by: Charles Ross at February 3, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #121216

Charlie

A little perspective, please.

All taxpayers benefited from the tax cuts. Even low income payers got an increased child tax credit (not deduction). Deductions for educations have also increased. I know these things because I am just doing my taxes on Turbo Tax and comparing to my taxes a couple years ago. If you pay taxes and you are doing your taxes right, you have to notice the same things. Since these sorts of benefits are phase out, the lower income people benefit more as a percentage. Of course, you are left with the tautology that if you pay more, you get a larger cut. That is a discussion of redistribution, not fairness.

As for the children dying in the war, the causalities so far are very low and those fighting the war have volunteered to do so AND many volunteer to go back AND support for the war is higher among them than among non-military Americans. Many more young people have died on our nation’s roads in the same period. I believe that their sacrifice is helping keep our country safe.

We disagree (I am sure) about whether the war is worth it. I believe it is enhancing our security. Historians will judge this. We can only bicker. The fact is that neither of us and nobody else really knows at this point. We have only our opinions.

Posted by: Jack at February 5, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #121288

Charlie & Jack:

The Bush tax cuts are the only tax reductions that have applied to me. Since I didn’t have kids, my own home or business, tuition expenses or investments, I was ineligible for any relief on my taxes. I paid my required rate every year after hearing politicians talk endlessly about the easing of the tax burden on the American people. My only shot at a tax cut prior to Bush’s efforts was to be struck blind.

Under Bush ALL income categories had their tax rate reduced. Maybe the one time refund was no great shakes to other people, but I appreciated it, just like I appreciated having my base tax rate cut.

On the other side of the scale, I have a friend who is immensely wealthy with a taxation rate of 50%. She pays over a million dollars a year in taxes. Sure she gets deductions, but she also creates jobs and donates large sums to charities. I have noticed that she donates not only to pet causes. She gives to worthy causes because she believes that it’s the right thing to do.

If there were no wealthy people, America would have no museums or fine arts programs. Those sort of ventures can’t be supported by working people donating 80 cents a day. Without people willing to pony up six figure donations, the only charities that would survive are on the the line of Coats for Kids campaigns.

The wealthly are essential for capitalism to suceed. Capitalism requires capital. This is a reality which many on the left don’t want to accept. If it’s reprehensible to condemn the poor because of their situation, it’s also wrong hold prejudice against the wealthy. Individuals should be judged on their actions, not their bank accounts.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 6, 2006 1:59 AM
Post a comment