The State of the Union

[The Dog]

Same shit, different day. 

I think I saw Cheney blink once...just one time! I think hes a robot hahah.

I thought he went on too long about the country and not enough about Iraq.  That is the hot button right now.  I love how he talks about terrorists in Iraq and Shia death squads....THEY WEREN'T THERE until AFTER we attacked!!!

I think he mentioned Iran 3x before he said "iraq".

Anyways, thoughts on the speech??

p.s.  Jim Webb for VP   awesome rebuttal.  his stories about his family were MUCH more moving and powerful then Bush's basketball player, creator of annoying baby videos and the subway superman (who seemed very biased toward the repubs hehehe).

[GeraldFord]

Same bullshit, nothing new....

Two years to go....

[The Dog]

Here is the speech in case anyone missed it   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqE_baKKkRI&eurl=

worth watching, pretty funny.

[Bill 213]

I thought it was a waste of 1 hour and basically an hour for the president to get his wang sucked with ovations from people that are against him the moment he walks out the door.  Basically nothing interesting was brought up that we didn't know about, and the crap we did know about was just torture to sit through.  I had to love Hillary's scorn when she got her first camera pan.  She looked like the fucking Terminator up there.

[Gordon Gekko]

Jim Webb, that is, a real war hero, with a kid fighting in Iraq, gives Chicken-hawk-In-Chief his response:

Good evening.

I?m Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown ? an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President?s message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy ? how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy ? how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it?s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it?s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy ? that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We?ve established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We?re working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues ? those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death ? we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm?s way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us ? sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable ? and predicted ? disarray that has followed.

The war?s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq?s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves ?as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.? And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. ?When comes the end?? asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

Same shit, different day. 

[The Dog]

Man, I LOVED Webb's speech....after he said this part:

When one looks at the health of our economy, it?s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it?s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.


....I was hooked.  Fantastic speech.  That was one of the most straight forward, no BS, cut to the chase speeches i've heard in a LONG time.

[Bill 213]

Wow, I really had to take a doubletake now that I remember hearing him spouting off about a Reserve for Civilians to go to Iraq and help in Mission specific jobs.  Now I may not be Einstein, but isn't that what the actual Army Reserve is??? I mean I was a regular Army soldier and totally understand the Army Reservist concept.....but is this really needed?  I mean, the Army Reservists ARE civilians who only fight when their specific mission training is needed. 
So basically to get more people to join this fight, he's going to take away standards such as weight and height and physical requirements, etc just so he can recruit anyone and everyone to come to Iraq and fight?  Totally crazy shit.  Is he on drugs?

[SLCPUNK]

I didn't even bother to watch it.

[Bill 213]

Wait, I just thought of a great idea...........
This Civilian Reserve thing might just work.......just think about it.......all those brokeback Republicans who bitched and moaned about wanting to serve their country, but weren't able to because they had injuries or something..now they can!

They can help fight the good fight, that's right. 

[SLCPUNK]

This Civilian Reserve thing might just work.......just think about it.......all those brokeback Republicans who bitched and moaned about wanting to serve their country, but weren't able to because they had injuries or something..now they can!

They can help fight the good fight, that's right. 

I've been trying that for years to no avail...

Go figure.

[pilferk]

I thought it was amusing to watch the "ovations".....from less than 1/2 the room.

When he talked about balancing the budget, in the first 3 min of his speech, I almost choked.  And I knew it was going to be a night of comedy.

And it was.

He stayed away (mostly) from the issues that he knew would get him lambasted, and made idiotic generalities about other issues he thought MIGHT cater to the dems.  And he failed miserably to make any sort of point, or give any clear indication what his actual plans are to make changes, or work with the new congress to make progress.

Essentially, he gave me the impression that we now have an official "lame duck" for the next 2 years....

[Mal Brossard]

I wasn't expecting a whole lot, but got slightly more than what I expected.  I'd give it a C+/B-.

Webb's response was damn good.

Did you notice Cheney and Bush taking a drink at exactly the same time at one point?  "Bush never speaks while Cheney is drinking water, check that shit out." -- Robin Williams

[GeorgeSteele]

Not much I didn't expect; all I got out of it was a good laugh when he would do that that self-pleased grin after every ovation. 

[The Dog]

Wait, I just thought of a great idea...........
This Civilian Reserve thing might just work.......just think about it.......all those brokeback Republicans who bitched and moaned about wanting to serve their country, but weren't able to because they had injuries or something..now they can!

They can help fight the good fight, that's right. 

I was under the impression that idea was for non-combat reserves (linguists, communications etc...) to "help" when called upon.  still, it was incredibly retarded and i too did a double "HUH!!".  When you have polls saying 70% or so are against your war, who in the world is going to volunteer for something like that!?!??!

Pilferk - great assesment on the speech, i think you summed it up perfectly.  It was a lot of words but he wasn't really saying anything.

[2007what!]

i have a valid question.

for those of you who are really in the know as far as american politics go (i'm not american myself), i have two questions actually. is it likely at all that bush can be impeached (i doubt his friends in the supreme court would convict him of anything), and also, is it at all possible that bush has to leave the oval office? if his approval ratings dropped even further as a result of what will probably be another failed iraq plan, is it possible that his resignation is demanded? what it boils down to is this; is it more than likely that bush will stay in office for the whole remaining period? the huge stir it would cause to remove a president from office (which has only happened once before), is it worth it for america or are people more likely to say "let him stay in office the remainder of the period and rather focus on how to fix for the future the damages he has caused"? how hard will it be to get bush impeached or removed from office? when nixon was impeached and removed it involved crimes, and even though you can call bush a war criminal, the decision to go into iraq, however wrong it was, was legally voted for and passed in congress.

[pilferk]

Webb's response was damn good.

With that I agree, wholeheartedly.  It ALMOST made watching the GW power hour worth watching....

[pilferk]

i have a valid question.

for those of you who are really in the know as far as american politics go (i'm not american myself), i have two questions actually. is it likely at all that bush can be impeached (i doubt his friends in the supreme court would convict him of anything), and also, is it at all possible that bush has to leave the oval office? if his approval ratings dropped even further as a result of what will probably be another failed iraq plan, is it possible that his resignation is demanded? what it boils down to is this; is it more than likely that bush will stay in office for the whole remaining period? the huge stir it would cause to remove a president from office (which has only happened once before), is it worth it for america or are people more likely to say "let him stay in office the remainder of the period and rather focus on how to fix for the future the damages he has caused"? how hard will it be to get bush impeached or removed from office? when nixon was impeached and removed it involved crimes, and even though you can call bush a war criminal, the decision to go into iraq, however wrong it was, was legally voted for and passed in congress.

He'll certainly serve out his remaining term.

The incoming dems have made a LOT of noise over the fact they do not want to do to Bush what the Repubs did to Clinton...spend millions of taxpayer dollars and use a huge chunk of federal resources in order to investigate him, and his administration, with an eye toward impeachment, etc.   I think they'll be true to their word.  So unless someone inadvertently uncovers something we don't know about yet...we'll be dealing with GW for the next couple of years.

And no matter how bad his approval ratings get, no one is going to call for him to resign (or, not anyone serious, and not enough to be taken seriously).

The question is: Just how effective can he be, and how effective will he try to be.  His legacy, more or less, is already set...his presidency pretty much defined.  I think he's going to (if he hasn't already) resign himself to being a lame duck, make token efforts to clean up this mess, and leave it for the next guy (or girl) to actually address....especially if the "surge" doesn't work...but we'll have to wait and see.

[2007what!]

thanks for the response ^
guess we are stuck with him for two more years then.

[Chief]

yeah all the talk about budget balancing was just funny. i mean, there is no way they are going to do that and even if they try it will take Forever!!

[pilferk]

yeah all the talk about budget balancing was just funny. i mean, there is no way they are going to do that and even if they try it will take Forever!!

Clinton did it.

But Bush just can't....not unless he ignores the funding for the war (which is likely what he's doing) when talking about balancing the budget and reducing the federal deficit.

Bush's proposed budget, if it's balanced without any rise in taxes, is going to have to cut a whole lot of stuff out.....which I'm sure he'd be willing to do.  Of course, congress won't pass it because, lets face it, we all know the types of programs Bush would be likely to cut.

I suspect Bush's proposed budget is going to, largely, be a way to try to extort some political capital from the current session of Congress....but I doubt it's going to work.