State of the Union

[sterlingice]

Well, since there's no thread for this, I might as well start it.

SI

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm listening.. no big surprises so far..

[sterlingice]

Did he just say funding for schools willing to drug test the students?

SI

[Eaglesfan27]

I believe he said he would give funding for the drug testing done by schools as a tool to save Student's lives.

[Noop]

How long does this usually last?

[Eaglesfan27]

Usually a little over an hour. Then the other party gets a few minutes to respond/speak.

[Eaglesfan27]

His prisoner reintegration plan is the biggest surprise I've heard tonight.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Tom Brady is a personal guest ....Hmmm I wonder who the president is rooting for .

[BishopMVP]

In case anyone's looking for something non-productive to do during the SotU:

http://www.drinkinggame.us/

[Eaglesfan27]

Wow, if I followed that I would have been unconscious in the first 15 minutes..

[FargoFreez aka fof playa]

*Stands up and claps*

then goes

*bahhhhhhhhhhhh*

[sabotai]

Wow, if I followed that I would have been unconscious in the first 15 minutes..

Isn't that what everyone watching a State of the Union speech wants? I know I can't stand those things for more than 5 minutes. Clapping for a minute after every 10 seconds of speech....screw that.

[corbes]

I feel like Nancy Pelosi is lecturing me personally. Or is afraid that her jaw will fall off if she doesn't keep it clenched.

[sterlingice]

Ok, as bad as the 20 minutes of speech I saw was, this rebuttal is so much worse. Who the hell said "Pelosi, you do this". Get someone with a decent speech writer and some charisma like Biden. He's a hoot to watch on CSPAN.

SI

[sterlingice]

Daschle reminds me of a somewhat younger but almost as senile Reagan. "Hi, kids. I'm here to talk to you like you're a juvenile and talk in our inside voices"

SI

[corbes]

Is that Tom Daschle in the bullpen? Looks like he's coming in to put out the fire...

[Easy Mac]

I thought it was classic when he began to say something the Dems liked and paused too long to counter it with his ideas. The Dems stood up and cheered. Then the next sentence, it was obvious Bush was pretty pissed. Classic.

I watched this with my American Presidency class, which was pretty evenly split between Dems and Repubs (with a Libertarian or 2 sprinkled among us). Pretty interesting, though we all got a kick out of Ed Kennedy. Overall, he didn't say anything out of the blue, although the "permission slip" statement may be a good play for ridicule later on. I can't say I really agree with much if anything he said, it was mainly "I want to spend, spend, spend, but I want to cut your taxes too." I did like how he said Athletes do not need to use any kinds of performance enhancers (I agree) and also talked about the ills of drug use... hello, you payed Juan Gonzalez and were a cokehead in college, you can't really say anything.

But overall he gave a nice speech and was articulate until about 10 minutes left when he started to slip up more (he said the little girl was 2 instead of 10, but it was a 50 minute speech), though I don't think it will move his approval rating more than 1 or 2 points.

[JPhillips]

Not bad, but certainly not the big hitters that his last two were, but then again he has no defining issue this year. To me it sounded a lot like a Clinton SOTU, a lot of little programs and a concerted effort to triangulate. I don't know what the biggest surprise was, the call to athletes to stop taking steroids(this is classic Clinton btw an unarguable idea that will go nowhere) or that very big lady in front who wore pink.

The dem response was dreadful. Did they let the repubs pick the speakers? Embarrassing.

As to style, I agree with those who hate the applause. I wish there was a limit to the number of standing ovations. Its like watching The Mikado at a community theatre. I'm certainly glad we didn't have this "tradition" for some of our truley great speeches.

"Four score and seven years ago"
[applause]
"Our forefathers"
[applause]...

[Easy Mac]

that very big lady in front who wore pink.
That woman was just a big blur on the projector... She radiated out.

Oh, and Edwards is speaking in downtown G-ville tomorrow at 8:30, so I think I'm going to head over before work to see whats what.

[CamEdwards]

Easy,

Just a couple of disagreements (of course). :)

First of all, I didn't watch the SOTU. I want to hear what's said and not be distracted, so I only listened to the radio. Just listening, it felt like to me Bush let that silence in there intentionally, hoping there'd be a reaction from the Democrats. Then he slammed them with the line about terrorism not expiring when the Patriot Act does. That sounded too scripted to be an impromptu moment.

As for the "permission slip" line... if that's going to be ridiculed, I'm once again going to be left scratching my head. I saw that as a direct slam at those who say we need to get the approval of other nations in order to act in our own defense. In fact, I thought it was one of the better lines of the night.

Now... where was a reference to the manned mission to Mars? And what was up with the steroids in baseball reference? This is a big enough issue that we need to talk about it in the SOTU? C'mon now.

He preached fiscal restraint (finally) and most of the programs referenced are already in place. Most of the new programs he talked about weren't big money programs.

I give it a B... maybe a B plus. It didn't make me stand and cheer, but I did crack a few smiles.

[mckerney]

First of all, I didn't watch the SOTU. I want to hear what's said and not be distracted, so I only listened to the radio.

Really? You don't strike me as the type to favor AM radio other other methods of mass communication.

:D

[Easy Mac]

First of all, I didn't watch the SOTU. I want to hear what's said and not be distracted, so I only listened to the radio. Just listening, it felt like to me Bush let that silence in there intentionally, hoping there'd be a reaction from the Democrats. Then he slammed them with the line about terrorism not expiring when the Patriot Act does. That sounded too scripted to be an impromptu moment.
The only problem I saw with it being scripted was, it wasn't a long pause, and he started to talk again just before someone started clapping. And I found what he said in response to be too weak in defending the Patriot Act. He just said he didn't want some things to expire (I don't have the transcript on hand, so this isn't the best written response), but it seemed he was cautious to say exactly the things he didn't want to expire, i.e. the more controversial issues.

As for the "permission slip" line... if that's going to be ridiculed, I'm once again going to be left scratching my head. I saw that as a direct slam at those who say we need to get the approval of other nations in order to act in our own defense. In fact, I thought it was one of the better lines of the night.

See, even my girl said she didn't understand the point to this line. On the one hand, I understand the purpose; but as it stands, we do need a permission slip. This can be seen in our current negotiating with the UN.

On an aside, I also was amused by how he said that Gadafi (sp?) voluntarily is disarming after 9 months of negotiations. Its not volunteering if you have to negotiate to do it. Sorry, its not a Bush trick, its a political trick that pisses me off.


I give it a B... maybe a B plus. It didn't make me stand and cheer, but I did crack a few smiles.
I'd mainly agree with the scoring even though I don't agree with the ideas. It was uncontroversial, if a bit to the right. Not too much going on for him to talk about though.

Although, having Tom Brady there when talking about the need for controlling STD's... he dated Tara Reid... he has to have plenty of STDs.

[CamEdwards]

Really? You don't strike me as the type to favor AM radio other other methods of mass communication.

:D

hehehe. Well, I was also instablogging the SOTU in my office, which is not equipped with a television. I could have gone into the newsroom and blogged and watched, but all the cutaways and whatnot really are distractions.

Wish I could have seen Nancy Pelosi, however. Sounds like she was rather scary looking.

[Easy Mac]

I think Pelosi is mentally challenged.

[sterlingice]

hehehe. Well, I was also instablogging the SOTU in my office, which is not equipped with a television. I could have gone into the newsroom and blogged and watched, but all the cutaways and whatnot really are distractions.

Wish I could have seen Nancy Pelosi, however. Sounds like she was rather scary looking.
A quote from a friend of mine: "Pelosi. Yeah, she had crazy eyes, the kind that make you think she may reach through the television and try to dig out your brain and eat it."

SI

[sterlingice]

I was watching CSPAN-2 and their response. Aside from having a panelist who looked like he had eaten the other panelists (probably tipping the scales at 450+), they had some New Hampshire (I think) college kids answering questions. Rather than actually address the topics of the State of the Union, they spent most of the time talking about how they were sick of people talking to them like children and how they liked the canidate (I missed who it was) who didn't treat them like kids who talked up to them. And you could tell that was who they were going to vote for.

I don't wonder why canidates don't try to do issues. When you can convince what are supposed to be educated voters (I mean, they were active enough to do a panel to get on national tv) and they spend their 15 minutes of fame bitching about how the canidates don't pander to them. If all you have to do is not talk down to a bunch of people and they'll have glowing reviews, why bother with actual substance.

It just made me sick and I had to turn it off.

SI

[WussGawd]

Easy,

He preached fiscal restraint (finally) and most of the programs referenced are already in place. Most of the new programs he talked about weren't big money programs.

I give it a B... maybe a B plus. It didn't make me stand and cheer, but I did crack a few smiles.

Hmm. Dubya talking about fiscal restraint. Isn't that kind of like a hardcore alcoholic saying he's going to give up the booze right after he orders one more beer?

[The Afoci]

Hmm. Dubya talking about fiscal restraint. Isn't that kind of like a hardcore alcoholic saying he's going to give up the booze right after he orders one more beer?

I think it would be near impossible for a candidate to show fiscal restraint and be re-elected. Try cutting education, medicare, defense, police and fire budgets and see how people like you then. People want no debt, but fully funded gov't that helps the poor and old and makes sure every kid is a doctor.

[tucker342]

Of course it would help the budget if we weren't wasting money researching the missile defense system, and going to war against other countries for no apparent reason.....

[Chubby]

Of course it would help the budget if we weren't wasting money researching the missile defense system, and going to war against other countries for no apparent reason.....


or sucking off big business so that they don't pay taxes AND still take all their jobs to other countries...

[The Afoci]

Of course it would help the budget if we weren't wasting money researching the missile defense system, and going to war against other countries for no apparent reason.....

Hello...

Hello...

Nope not on.

[sabotai]

Yup...government sure is corrupt and inefficient.

[The Afoci]

or sucking off big business so that they don't pay taxes AND still take all their jobs to other countries...

That started with Bush. I remember all the big companies were pay 50% tax rates with Clinton... come on...

[The Afoci]

I don't mean to be rude, but what I find funny is that a man who is widely credited with being the dumbest man on earth is also credited with tricking the Congress, the United Nations and 70 some countries that Iraq was a bad place that was close to blowing us up. God damn I wish I was stupid.

Pause for applause.

I got nothing.

[yabanci]

I don't mean to be rude, but what I find funny is that a man who is widely credited with being the dumbest man on earth is also credited with tricking the Congress, the United Nations and 70 some countries that Iraq was a bad place that was close to blowing us up. God damn I wish I was stupid.


I think most people recognize that Bush isn't the mastermind behind all of this.

[mckerney]

I think most people recognize that Bush isn't the mastermind behind all of this.


Shhh... We're not supposed to acknowledge that the Illuminati truely exist. Didn't you get a copy of that memo.

[The Afoci]

I think most people recognize that Bush isn't the mastermind behind all of this.

But who gets most of the blame? You don't see anyone calling Congress warmongers or whatnot. He can lead them, but they still must follow. If they don't, we got nothing.

[WussGawd]

I think it would be near impossible for a candidate to show fiscal restraint and be re-elected. Try cutting education, medicare, defense, police and fire budgets and see how people like you then. People want no debt, but fully funded gov't that helps the poor and old and makes sure every kid is a doctor.

Um, we had fully funded government just three years ago. In fact we had a surplus. So stop being an apologist for a spend and spend and spend President who cuts taxes and leaves a ridiculous burden of debt for future generations.

It is possible to do it. A Democratic President and Republican Congress has proven it. But this President? Welcome to Trickledown Economics Release 3.0.

[QuikSand]

What we know is possible is that a massively booming economy build tax receipts to the point where they miht even cover the still reckless spending of our elected politicians.

Suggesting that Mr Clinton was great for balancing the budget, and that Mr Bush is awful for unbalancing it simply grants too much credit to the presidency, in my book.

My biggest fear is that public concern about a responsibly crafted budget just came and went like another political "fad" (cf. campaign finance reform). For a while (largely thanks for one Mr Perot) we actually had people on the street pissed off about the budget deficit. Now, we seem to have largely drifted back into the more comfortable position of wanting services paid for now, and also wanting to lower our taxes (and therefore the receipts to pay for those services).

[WussGawd]

What we know is possible is that a massively booming economy build tax receipts to the point where they miht even cover the still reckless spending of our elected politicians.

Suggesting that Mr Clinton was great for balancing the budget, and that Mr Bush is awful for unbalancing it simply grants too much credit to the presidency, in my book.

My biggest fear is that public concern about a responsibly crafted budget just came and went like another political "fad" (cf. campaign finance reform). For a while (largely thanks for one Mr Perot) we actually had people on the street pissed off about the budget deficit. Now, we seem to have largely drifted back into the more comfortable position of wanting services paid for now, and also wanting to lower our taxes (and therefore the receipts to pay for those services).

Actually, the IMF has actually given warnings to the Bush administration over the deficit and its impact on the global economy. All it would take is for inflation to come back (and it will, if this "economic recovery" ever really takes a long-term hold) and trust me, Wall Street will get religion again real quick.

You'll note that I cited Congress and the Presidency when criticizing Bush, but generally speaking, the President submits budget proposals, which Congress then modifies, so it is disingenuous to suggest that Congress get the lion's share of the credit (or blame). And since Bush has never submitted anything close to a balanced budget proposal to Congress, I would suggest he get the lion's share of the blame.

The facts are that A) We are spending more money on defense than at any time since Vietnam (whether you support or oppose the war, this is an objective fact) and that there is no clear sign when that will end; B) We have just given two tax cuts that frankly haven't had a whole lot of impact on the majority of Americans, and really haven't done much to stimulate the economy; and C) Dubya is now proposing new spending, when we are already running record deficits.

I'll stick with my original statement. Dubya talking about fiscal restraint is like a drunk saying he's going to swear off alcohol right after he has one more drink.

[pskov]

Tom Brady is a personal guest ....Hmmm I wonder who the president is rooting for .
Brady's a Republican?

Goooo Panthers!! :D

[sterlingice]

My biggest fear is that public concern about a responsibly crafted budget just came and went like another political "fad" (cf. campaign finance reform). For a while (largely thanks for one Mr Perot) we actually had people on the street pissed off about the budget deficit. Now, we seem to have largely drifted back into the more comfortable position of wanting services paid for now, and also wanting to lower our taxes (and therefore the receipts to pay for those services).
He may have been a crazy big-eared nut who talked about sucking sounds but, man, Perot got ordinary people up in arms about the budget deficit. I would have voted for the man in 1992. I wonder if increased use of presentation software like Powerpoint in the late 90s can be traced back to managers who saw how well his presentations appealed to people. Hell, as a 12 year old, I was interested in the economy. If you can get a 12 year old intersted in the actual numbers of the national debt (as opposed to just spouting off crazy platitudes) you must be doing something.

SI

[sabotai]

But who gets most of the blame? You don't see anyone calling Congress warmongers or whatnot. He can lead them, but they still must follow. If they don't, we got nothing.

If they follow, it is for their own political careers, not because Bush convinces them of anything. Most of Congress signed the bill giving Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq. When they did, Bush's approval rating was through the roof. If they had not signed it, they were possibly signing their own career death sentance.

Most democrats in Congress HATE Bush. If they follow him on anything, it's mainly because of appearance and getting enough votes to get reelected.

Like I said in the past, bipartisanship is an illusion.

[yabanci]

Although my political views are nowhere near John McCain's, at least he has some honesty about all of this:

"MCCAIN: ... It's disgraceful. We've gone from multi-trillion-dollar surpluses to multi-trillion-dollar deficits in a very short period of type. And no economist, whether it be Krugman or Samuelson or anybody else, will tell you that you can run deficits forever without driving up interest rates and driving up inflation. It's just like no family can live in debt forever without paying the fiddler.

VAN SUSTEREN: Then how do you sort of reconcile the fact that the administration wants -- doesn't want the tax credits to expire?

MCCAIN: I think that they have a very good political issue because anybody that doesn't want to make the tax cuts permanent, even though it was a shell game when we did it, is going to say, Look, you're for a tax increase then. So no Democrat -- hardly any Democrats and hardly any Republicans will say, No, I don't want to make these permanent. What does it do to the deficit? The Congressional Budget Office is a non-partisan -- the head of it is appointed by Republicans because the Republicans are the majority. The Congressional Budget Office says that we're just doing terrible things, that Social Security and Medicare are not going to be sustainable.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you suggesting that the Republican Party is now the big spenders?

MCCAIN: Yes. I am suggesting that the party that -- in the 1994 campaign, on the "Contract With America," one of the first items was a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I say all that has disappeared, and I deeply regret it.

VAN SUSTEREN: So what can you as a -- I mean, I assume many of your other Republican colleagues feel like you do, right?

MCCAIN: Not enough, obviously. The pork-barrel spending, the unnecessary and wasteful spending used to be the embroidery around a piece of legislation. It's what the energy bill was all about. The energy bill was just a series of giveaways to various special interests, buying votes in various parts of the country. And we barely beat it by two votes."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109187,00.html

[CamEdwards]

Unfortunately it doesn't look like any of the candidates offer anything better.

National Taxpayer Union study (http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=549&org_name=NTUF)

[BishopMVP]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040122-113950-1435r.htm

I think the headline claims more than Bush really intends, but it seems a step towards fiscal discipline.

[BishopMVP]

Unfortunately it doesn't look like any of the candidates offer anything better.

National Taxpayer Union study (http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=549&org_name=NTUF)
Sharpton proposing a 59% increase in the federal budget. :rolleyes: Even taking into account the pandering to the black vote, why does the Democratic Party even allow him on stage? Isn't he a convicted felon anyway, and thus ineligible to run? Or is that only to vote?

[QuikSand]

You'll note that I cited Congress and the Presidency when criticizing Bush, but generally speaking, the President submits budget proposals, which Congress then modifies, so it is disingenuous to suggest that Congress get the lion's share of the credit (or blame). And since Bush has never submitted anything close to a balanced budget proposal to Congress, I would suggest he get the lion's share of the blame.

And I guess I wasn't entirely clear with my "blame."

I think that the ability to balance the budget under Mr Clinton had much less to do with restrained spending thabn it did with the booming economy. And likewise, Mr Bush's deficits are in substantial part owed to the slumping economy.

Yes, the tax cuts have added to the problem, and one can argue that they were irresponsible. But even without them, and even with much more aggressive restrain in discretionary spending we'd still be in deficit, because the economy remains sluggish.

And my main point is that the incumbent president (and the government in its entirety) receives too much credit and blame for the country's immediate economic circumstance. I wasn't really trying to apportion blame between the branches of government - but rather assert that the economic cycle (about which we mostly just dance on the edges) is really in control more than any of them.