State of the Union?
- Thread starter DEmac
- Start date
State of the What?
Very little surprises me anymore where Mr. Bush is concerned.
And to think, the president used to deliver a letter to Congress regarding the state of the Union. Imagine that! I believe that's all the Constitution requires.
- Thread starter
- #5
I was actually thinking about that while he was speaking.
On a lighter note.... when I was an undergrad I would get together with a few other political science students (my minor) and we would take a drink every time he said "freedom" or "liberty," this would always lead to a drunken stuper by ten o' clock. Tonight I lost count at 17 by 9:33. I think this one could have been deadly for anyone trying to play that game.
Don't take freedom too lightly. Mel Gibson died while screaming its name.
Virginia.
One of the original 13, at that.
-Mo
One of the original 13, at that.
-Mo
I missed it because I was at work, but I wouldn't have been surprised if all he said was: "Peace out America!".
I've played that game before, it's great. Plus, he said "nucular" this year. That was always a finish-your-drink moment with my crowd.
- Thread starter
- #10
With us you had to finish your drink if he envoked religion. We pounded drinks when he called the "war on terror" a crusade, tonight we would have pounded them when he called Israel the "holy land." How scarry is that, we have a President who thinks a patch of dirt can have divine properties.
I am glad to hear he's going to demand a real cut down on ear marks, it would have been nice if he'd done it seven years ago, but better late than never.
Ah yes, a State of the Union address given by a lame duck to a Congress controlled by the opposition. I wouldn't hold your breath on any promises being quickly fulfilled.
Three hundred fifty-seven days to go.
As a Republican, I don't really see it that way.
Am I disappointed with some of his decisions? Yes. But I bet they are not the ones that you think I should be upset with him over. I am upset that Republicans (and this includes him and those in Congress) did such a poor job on spending, and have only now, since they have returned to minority status, remembered the fiscal responsibility bedrock that once dominated the party. I am disappointed with him over his immigration policy, but happy with the Republicans that stood firm against it.
On the other hand, I am quite happy with the Supreme Court justices that he brought in. I think the War on Terror was the correct course of action, even if the strategies for prosecuting it have not always been the best (but show me a war that has ever been perfectly executed).
Much has been made about how ineffective President Bush would be following the '06 midterm elections. They have been calling him a lame duck since November '06. And yet it is the Democrats who have had more of their agenda thwarted. He has gotten the funding he asked for the military, despite all the chest-thumping of the opposition. He lost the immigration battle, but he short-sightedly chose to jettison his base on that issue, foolishly thinking that Democrats would join in solidarity with him on that issue.
I am quite interested in how this will all play out in the coming years. Remember that Ronald Reagan was viciously hated by the Democrats. KGB records even show how Ted Kennedy had tried to broker a deal with the Soviets to help prevent him from winning the election. And yet 20 years following his tenure in office, the mood is much different. Compare that to Bill Clinton, who already has seen the apparent luster of his 8 years in office become tarnished, much by his own doing.
I had the wonderful opportunity to be in class...did he happen to say anything about immigration? It seems like all issues with immigration revolve around "seasonal guest" worker programs for Mexicans, and amnesty for illegal aliens...but what about us people who want to come here legally?
The prosecution of the war was a direct effect of Bush's reliance on Rumsfeld (and that's aside from any discussion on the choice to wage the SECOND war). Reagan, love him or hate him, was a real man. You're probably too young to remember this, when our Marines got blown up, Reagan got on TV, stood in front of the American people, and basically said "This was my fault, and I'm sorry". With Bush, he takes ultimate responsibility for absolutely nothing. For example, on 9/11, we saw the effects of a huge lapse in national security. I'd expect ANY president of any party to stand up and apologize for letting such a lapse exists. Yeah, you could certainly argue about whether it was a Clinton problem or a Bush problem, but its irrelevant. Our government let us down, and I've yet to hear an apology from our government.
One thousand people DIED in New Orleans, many of them because of inefficiencies (not to mention the incompetence caused by croneyistic practices) in our government FOLLOWING the flood. Somebody owes the families of those people an apology. It won't come from this administration.
The inability to accept responsibility is the main failing. It's hubris, pure and simple, and its been there since Day 1.
- Thread starter
- #19
Don't quote me on this, but I think I heard on the radio while I was in the shower this morning that this was the State of the Union address with the lowest number of veiwers/listeners.
The difference is that Reagan and Clinton left the "State of the Union" in better shape than they found it, Bush cannot claim that by almost any standard.
I'm sorry, I thought I was merely telling you why I did not believe that I would be reacting to Bush in the way you think I should.
The issue of Bush apologizing for 9/11 is an interesting one. I don't know what you base it on, other than that one instance you cite for Reagan. There have been two other occasions since the country was founded where we were actually attacked on our own soil, and one of those instances wasn't even on an actual state, but a territory (historians correct me here if I have overlooked something). I am, of course, referring to the War of 1812, where Washington, D.C., itself was attacked, among other cities, and Pearl Harbor. I am not aware of Madison or Roosevelt apologizing for those incidents. I have re-read FDR's address to Congress and the American people, and don't see anywhere in it an apology for not doing more to prevent it, even though evidence suggests that it was not as much of a surprise attack as we thought.
Yes, people died in New Orleans. An enormous hurricane hit a major city on the gulf coast that predominantly sits below sea level. Remind me exactly what words of apology President McKinley had for Galveston when it is estimated that 8,000 people were killed there following the hurricane that struck them at the beginning of the 20th century? I know we always need someone to blame, but to my knowledge, even with the Patriot Act, the president still does not have the power to command the winds and rains.
You said that I should be upset with Bush for what he has done to the Republican party. I am assuming you are saying that as one who is not a Republican. I am a Republican. I don't feel the way about him that you think I should. Plain and simple. I have followed his tenure since I voted for him in 2000. I am fully aware of all that he has done and not done. You are not going to change my mind on what I think of him.
Personally, I think that Democrats in general should be more outraged at the new lows that the Clintons have brought campaigning to as they seek to beat Barack Obama for the nomination. And yet Hillary continues to win primaries and caucuses. George H. W. Bush did not demean himself by the types of antics that Bill Clinton has perpetrated when his son ran for office, and the attacks against him were far more serious than anything Barack Obama has leveled against Hillary. I don't know if you are a registered Democrat or not. I will worry, though, about what I think of the candidates I have voted for, and you can worry about yours.
Similar threads
