Join 3,441 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


State of the Union
January 31, 2006 10:01 PM   Subscribe

The State of the Union Address was tonight. C-Span not only has the video, but transcripts of every State of the Union address starting from 1945. Howard Dean responded.
posted by I Love Tacos (110 comments total)

 
I wasn't impressed with the SOTU speech or the Democratic response. I feel that both of these speeches highlighted their respective weaknesses far more than their strengths.

Perhaps this is in error, but I thought it appropriate to have a thread focussing on the content of the SOTU and the various responses, rather than yelling about controversial pre-speech arrests.
posted by I Love Tacos at 10:02 PM on January 31, 2006


One interesting strategic point I've noticed is that the Republicans continue to take control of issues that should have been Democratic issues for long periods of time.

They beat the Democrats on the reform issue by a day, and now Bush is talking the talk about energy independance. This is another point that Democrats should've been shouting from the rooftops for years.
posted by I Love Tacos at 10:03 PM on January 31, 2006


Terrorism. bin Laden. False link with Iraq.

Same old bullshit. How long does this man think he can terrify us into compliance. And the man who has benefitted from some of the dirtiest politicking in recent memory has the audacity to lecture democrats that they must be polite in disgreeing with him?

Fuck polite. He shouted be shouted down.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:12 PM on January 31, 2006


Or he should be shouted down, rather.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:13 PM on January 31, 2006


Dude. Come on.
posted by rkent at 10:13 PM on January 31, 2006


That's because the Democratic party is pretty much incompetent at this point, Tacos.

Honestly, three years ago this speech might've convinced me to give Bush a second chance. At this point, I realize that it's nothing more than political sleight of hand, the Presidential equivalent of telling your creditors that the check is in the mail. The people who've stuck with him this long, though, will obviously shout from the rooftops that he's now a bold visionary who's f'real about improving things while Democrats whine.

I'd like to see the DNC crumble and die, really. An honest-to-goodness second party would be great. On the other hand, by the time one came together it would probably be illegal.
posted by verb at 10:14 PM on January 31, 2006


you know, I went through those archives and happened to stop at Carter's address in 1981. You know he started it with a flat and honest admission of how totally fucked the economy was at the time?

a world of difference.
posted by shmegegge at 10:15 PM on January 31, 2006


Think Progress is pretty damn speedy with their fact checking (probably did it before hand, predictable speeches are kind of a hallmark for W). Might be a good idea to hold out for a less partisan check from FactCheck.org. I also appreciated that Think Progress said sucks to the rules and posted the text of the speech at 8pm instead of waiting until 9:01pm as instructed.
posted by Farengast at 10:15 PM on January 31, 2006


The operative fact of this year is that if Bush allows Israeli strike aircraft to fly and refuel over Iraq, our adventure there is over.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:17 PM on January 31, 2006


What if we spent billions on research towards energy independence rather than overseas political reform? What is the economic step that I'm missing where this is not preferable? Can't you give no-bid contracts out to researchers just the same?

I just don't understand coming to the point we are now and saying that energy independence is the next step rather than the step we should've taken.
posted by GooseOnTheLoose at 10:19 PM on January 31, 2006


you know, I went through those archives and happened to stop at Carter's address in 1981. You know he started it with a flat and honest admission of how totally fucked the economy was at the time?

(You mean Reagan, right?)
posted by loquax at 10:19 PM on January 31, 2006


um... no?

here you go.
posted by shmegegge at 10:22 PM on January 31, 2006


oh, and your dean responded link is the same as the first link, I Love Tacos.
posted by shmegegge at 10:23 PM on January 31, 2006


oh shit, I just looked at the page again. the carter link goes to the reagan speech. my bad.
posted by shmegegge at 10:24 PM on January 31, 2006


(read the bit at the top, looks like they misidentified it in the index, Carter wasn't president in 1981)
posted by loquax at 10:24 PM on January 31, 2006


That's because the Democratic party is pretty much incompetent at this point, Tacos.

I have to agree with you on this point. The 2004 election wasn't 51% Bush, 48% Kerry. It was 51% Bush, 48% Anybody but Bush.

If the Democrats could inspire more people to vote pro-Democrat, instead of simply being anti-GOP, they could be a force to be reckoned with.

The Democrats should have been running "Get Rid of Arab Oil" campaign ads for years now, even (or possibly especially) while not in the heat of an election battle. Their failure to do this means that many Americans will credit Bush with coming up with this idea, and will trust him to implement it.

On the other hand, the Republicans really need to come up with a slogan other than "9/11 Iraq WMD". If they don't turn that corner soon, Not-GOP could take the lead in the coming years.
posted by I Love Tacos at 10:28 PM on January 31, 2006


oh, and your dean responded link is the same as the first link, I Love Tacos.

Oops, his response is here.
posted by I Love Tacos at 10:29 PM on January 31, 2006


The Democrats should have been running "Get Rid of Arab Oil" campaign ads for years now, even (or possibly especially) while not in the heat of an election battle.

Forget 'get rid of Arab Oil,' how about 'Keep America Strong: We Can Lead The World In Energy Independence.' The ad copy just writes itself. Especially if you actually mean it.
posted by verb at 10:34 PM on January 31, 2006


I have to agree with you on this point. The 2004 election wasn't 51% Bush, 48% Kerry. It was 51% Bush, 48% Anybody but Bush.

Why don't you assume that at least part of the 51% wasn't "anybody but Kerry"? Look at Bush I's (37%) and Dole's (40%) percentages - there's plenty of room for a real DNC candidate, bizzaro third-party candidates notwithstanding.
posted by loquax at 10:35 PM on January 31, 2006


Forget 'get rid of Arab Oil,' how about 'Keep America Strong: We Can Lead The World In Energy Independence.' The ad copy just writes itself. Especially if you actually mean it.

Yep. And the best part is the number of companies who would be willing to buy the airtime, since they'd be poised to benefit from reduced oil consumption.

It's a fantastic market opportunity, and America is going to regret it if they let somebody else get the edge, again.
posted by I Love Tacos at 10:42 PM on January 31, 2006


I hope that they're not actually trying to convince us that this Tim Kaine guy would make some kind of viable presidential candidate. He just doesn't appear to have it in him.

Yawn, he reminds me of a bad substitute teacher.
posted by redteam at 10:43 PM on January 31, 2006


oh, and your dean responded link is the same as the first link, I Love Tacos.

Oops, his response is here.
posted by I Love Tacos at 1:29 AM EST on February 1 [!]



Dr. Dean, that was not helpful. Tim Kaine did a much better job.
posted by caddis at 10:44 PM on January 31, 2006


Why don't you assume that at least part of the 51% wasn't "anybody but Kerry"?

I didn't think anybody, outside of the total right-wing extreme, cared about Kerry.

You're right though, the pendulum swings both ways. In this case, my totally non-scientific and unjustifiable opinion is that Kerry probably picked up more votes from Not Bush than Bush picked up from Not Kerry.
posted by I Love Tacos at 10:47 PM on January 31, 2006


Dr. Dean, that was not helpful. Tim Kaine did a much better job.

Totally agreement on both points.

transcript of Tim Kaine's response.
posted by I Love Tacos at 10:50 PM on January 31, 2006


"No sure, Shitlock" filter — AP's headline: Bush Skips Complex Realities in Address
posted by rob511 at 10:53 PM on January 31, 2006


The whole thing is theater but this time it was kind of a mean sort of theater. Sure, he said some nice things and made a war widow feel better while another was arrested for the audacity of wearing a shirt with a number on it. He got a dig in on Hilary, said lots of stuff that my toddler shouted over but I don't think I missed much because he was blinking alot. Not impressed as this was just a glad handing bullshit show.

I liked Kaine, he reminded me of one of the Brady boys done good.

And I liked Dean's response. But then, I'm the choir. Though, if the corrupt government were the Democrats then I'd be screaming just as loudly for their removal and swift justice.

I sense much spinning and rebranding over the next 9 months before the elections.
posted by fenriq at 10:54 PM on January 31, 2006


I'm curious, what do you who dislike Dean's response and like Kaine's response see as the difference between them? Was Dean too negative and unspecific? Ineloquent?
posted by loquax at 10:55 PM on January 31, 2006


Kaine talked about things that he wants to do first. Dean focused on what's wrong with the President, and offered little concrete explanation as to why a Democrat is a better alternative.

Dean mentioned poll numbers, as though those are a critical guide to what is right and wrong.

I would summarize the speeches as follows:
Dean: "Bush Sucks."
Kaine: "I'm your guy."
posted by I Love Tacos at 11:08 PM on January 31, 2006


I'm assuming they go over and over every word of the address fanatically, taking into account every nuance of the present situation, and looking back at previous SotU addresses for consistency and parallelism. With that in mind, I note that:

2006: "...the state of our Union is strong..."
2005: "...the state of our union is confident and strong."
2004: "...the state of our union is confident and strong."

Wait -- so we aren't confident anymore?

If anyone needs me, I'll be hiding under the bed.
posted by SteelyDuran at 11:12 PM on January 31, 2006


Interesting how so many people are posting in the Sheehan thread, but few are posting here.

This is the first State of the Union I could see in years (because my wife hates Bush, she refused to let me watch it in previous years.)

TANGENT: Can you imagine if Steve Jobs had to give a State of the Union speech? That would kick so much ass!

Anyway. I definitely liked Tom Kaine's response, and I liked that the Democrats interrupted with sarcastic applause. I could swear I heard Sen. Clinton yell "yay!" to start it, but I don't know for sure.

Bush and Kaine should do lunch.
posted by bugmuncher at 11:22 PM on January 31, 2006


Frankly, I'm not even sure that the state of the union address really serves any useful purpose for the Country anymore. It's pretty much all crap no matter who's in power, and an exercise in partisanship and posturing.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:25 PM on January 31, 2006


Kaine talked about things that he wants to do first.

Not just that. Things he's already done.

I've never heard of Kaine before today, but from this brief bit of exposure, I'd say he gets it.
posted by namespan at 11:30 PM on January 31, 2006


Frankly, I'm not even sure that the state of the union address really serves any useful purpose for the Country anymore. It's pretty much all crap no matter who's in power, and an exercise in partisanship and posturing.

You're right, it has almost no value anymore. But it's required by the Constitution, so...

Personally I'd prefer something along the lines of "Prime Minister's Questions"...once a week, the executive gets grilled (charbroiled?) in the House.
posted by edverb at 11:35 PM on January 31, 2006


Dean was way too non-West Wing and Kaine had the People's Eyebrow. Always go with with the eyebrow.
posted by ryoshu at 11:48 PM on January 31, 2006


Bush's Wiretapping Distortion
posted by homunculus at 11:51 PM on January 31, 2006


Personally I'd prefer something along the lines of "Prime Minister's Questions"...once a week, the executive gets grilled (charbroiled?) in the House.

Hell yes. My friends and I were just talking about this last night. Bush's incompetence would have been sniffed out in his first term (not that most of us didn't already know that) and he wouldn't have been re-elected if he had to face the questions Blair has to face each week. Instead, he gets to send out Scott McClellan to do all his dirty work.

Is there a bigger tool in this country than Scott McClellan? I'd almost feel sorry for him but I don't think he has a shred of self-respect left.
posted by ryanhealy at 12:00 AM on February 1, 2006


Kaine instantly reminded me of a personal injury lawyer commercial. Just in the way he spoke and moved. Anyone else get that impression? Oh, and by the way, that's a BAD thing, very bad. We Dems already have too many rigid, uncharismatic politicians for the mainstream electorate to swallow, whey would they put this guy on prime time TV? They should have put Clinton in there... BILL Clinton.
posted by Farengast at 12:32 AM on February 1, 2006


"They beat the Democrats on the reform issue by a day, and now Bush is talking the talk about energy independance. This is another point that Democrats should've been shouting from the rooftops for years."

I'm calling bullshit!

An article from the Aug. 24th, 2004 edition of the National Review states:

"roars of approval are routinely going up whenever Kerry thunders about the need for energy independence so that 'we're never again beholden to the House of Saud for our economic well-being.'"

I was at one of Kerry's speeches and can attest to the fact that he spoke in some detail about the need to become energy independent. He had a thoughtful, developed policy for energy independence, infact.

Perhaps some of you might have overlooked Kerry's energy policy while you were concentrating on his military record or about how he liked to zig and zag on his sailboard?!

Or maybe you ignored Barack Obama's recently proposed "Health Care for Hybrids" act, designed to boost energy efficient vehicles, or Evan Bayh's "Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act", introduced late last year?!

Or how about a green-friendly amendment from Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) in June, 2005 which would've established a goal to reduce imports of foreign oil by 40 percent in 20 years?

I guess you never heard about that one though... it lost in a 53 to 47 party-line vote, amidst Republican objections.

Why didn't you hear about this? Dunno... energy conservation isn't sexy unless the President calls for it?maybe a white woman was missing.

Are we to believe that these Republicans who are on record as opposing a reduction in our imports of foriegn oil now going to do something about it? Unlikely. More likely, they'll find a way to give the horse and buggy manufacturers (Chevron, Exxon, Shell, etc.) tax money they don't need in these times of record profits, in order to set them upon the path of having virtual monopolies on alternative energy sources/fuels/distribution.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:01 AM on February 1, 2006


Kaine instantly reminded me of a personal injury lawyer commercial. Just in the way he spoke and moved. Anyone else get that impression?

Farengast, I took the time to watch the video, and I see what you mean. I think one place where people misunderestimate Bush is the fact that he generally looks so much like he's struggling to get the words right and speak in public that he doesn't look much like he's got much left going into the affect. Whether that's an affect itself, I don't know. But while I loved his speech, I have to admit Kaine's delivery was bad. Gestures were awkward and self-conscious, facial expressions obviously intentionally affected, and I swear an eyebrow move was lifted from the Numa Numa guy. Yeah. If that's what he looks like every time, obviously he'd be a problematic spokesman.

But I think his message was right on.
posted by namespan at 1:09 AM on February 1, 2006


TANGENT: Can you imagine if Steve Jobs had to give a State of the Union speech? That would kick so much ass!

"Now, we've been doing some amazing, amazing things with the budget, some really great things, and today we're going to add something new to our long-term fiscal planning strategy family. And to introduce it, I'd like to show you a commercial we've been working on. I really love it, and I think you will, too."

*slick commercial*

"In fact, I like that so much, let's watch it again."

*slick commercial*

"And the best part is that these tax breaks will be available today."

*audience cheers as though they're surprised*

"So that's what's new in the State of the Union today. I'd like to thank Phil Schiller from Apple, Dennis Hastert of the House, and Theodore Gray of Wolfram Research for helping us show you guys all the great budget plans and energy initiatives today. This is going to be an insanely great year for America, and we can't wait to show you what else we've got in store.

"Oh, and one more thing . . ."

*map of the Middle East appears on the projection screen*
posted by Mikey-San at 2:11 AM on February 1, 2006


Politics, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

/Bierce
posted by The God Complex at 2:20 AM on February 1, 2006


thank you insomnia_lj. I'd like to also point out that when Carter said we had to approach a wartime footing level of effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil he was practically laughed out of office.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:30 AM on February 1, 2006


An alien observer might conclude that the U.S. economy runs on clapping. Or on servile impotence, whichever.
posted by milquetoast at 2:52 AM on February 1, 2006


On the other hand, the Republicans really need to come up with a slogan other than "9/11 Iraq WMD".

Why? It gets them things, so if it ain't broke don't fix it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:55 AM on February 1, 2006


For what it's worth, energy independence has been a SOTU theme since the early 70's. Republican and democratic presidents, all have called for it, but none have really managed to motivate real change towards it.
posted by crunchland at 2:57 AM on February 1, 2006


Quit pondering who are the most corrupted between Dems and Reps and Neocons and YourMomma and get yourself some energy saving CFL bulbs. That makes tiny, but a measurable difference in country consumption and it doesn't require changing your fat ass convenient car driving habits. Not yet.

Energy production should be the next jump-on-moon alike venture, but the money was spent in invading countries that keep their oil well under earth crust...try pumping oil when Abdullah is throwing IEDs at you for so many reasons.
posted by elpapacito at 3:23 AM on February 1, 2006


Interesting analysis from the Guardian:
He predicted the US would replace 75% of Middle East oil imports by 2025, but only a fifth of American imports come from the region. So the alternative fuels would only account for 15% of total imports. That does not sound so breathtaking.
and
Jason Mark, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: "We could save more than 75% of Middle East oil imports within ten years by increasing the fuel economy of our cars and trucks to 40 miles per gallon.
posted by nielm at 3:30 AM on February 1, 2006


Booming deficit? Need to reduce fuel consumption? I don't suppose there's any political capital in taxes on energy consumption like the fuel escalator tax policy of the mid-1990s in the UK?
posted by alasdair at 3:55 AM on February 1, 2006


From tonight's speech:

"Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025..."

That goal means little. It certainly doesn't mean that we won't be dependent on foriegn oil, or even that we will reduce our intake of foriegn oil. It doesn't even mean that we will reduce oil consumption... infact, imports could go up. It just means that we will produce enough non-oil energy to theoretically "save" that much oil *by today's standards*.

Making a law that singled out a whole region (the Middle East) for reduced US oil imports would be a very dubious act, and would undoubtedly get appealed to the WTO.

So, basically, there's no real policy in the president's policy. No guarantee of oil imports being reduced at all, infact.
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:57 AM on February 1, 2006


So, why did he single out the Middle East, as opposed to Nigeria or Canada? Well, it appeals to our most racist, xenophobic instincts sounds better that way.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:00 AM on February 1, 2006


A little off tangent, but I could swear Bush was wink'n, smirk'n and generally acting up anytime the cameras cut from him to the audience. The feeds and shots seemed to be the same across all networks: same close-ups on Hillary at the same time, same pans of the ovations at the same time. Anyone have any production notes on this show?
posted by klarck at 4:03 AM on February 1, 2006


edverb: Know your Constitution, and your history! The Constitution most certainly does not require that the president go before Congress and take part in this archaic bit of theater for mass media.

Wikipedia is accurate on this point:

George Washington gave the first state of the union address on January 8, 1790 in New York City, then the provisional U.S. capital. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice of delivering the address in person, regarding it as too monarchial (similar to the Queen's Speech). Instead, the address was written and then sent to Congress to be read by a clerk until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson re-established the practice despite some initial controversy. However, there have been exceptions to this rule. Presidents during the latter half of the 20th Century have sent written State of the Union addresses. The last President to do this was Jimmy Carter in 1981
posted by raysmj at 4:18 AM on February 1, 2006


From the White House too.
posted by raysmj at 4:25 AM on February 1, 2006


mikey-san wins.
posted by emelenjr at 4:28 AM on February 1, 2006


Even better, the constitution itself:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses [...]
posted by cillit bang at 4:29 AM on February 1, 2006


We Can Lead The World In Energy Independence

The rest of the world will truly be awed by your not-buying-oil-from-them.
posted by cillit bang at 4:33 AM on February 1, 2006


Steve Jobs? Why not Steve Ballmer?
posted by staggernation at 5:09 AM on February 1, 2006


Steve Jobs? Why not Steve Ballmer?

Because the guy giving the SOTU addresses now is already jumping up and down on stage and waving his arms wildly about weapons of mass destruction.

Can't write a joke that's already been written.
posted by Mikey-San at 5:14 AM on February 1, 2006


I didn't bother watching the SotU -- more than 10 seconds of hearing George W. Bush's voice causes my blood pressure to rise to unacceptable levels -- but from what I see in media coverage of the event it was every bit as insulting to one's intelligence as I expect a George W. Bush speech to be.

There's something about an oil man (a many-times-failed one, but an oil man nonetheless) whose administration is built on the oil industry, including his (ahem) second-in-command AND his secretary of State, admonishing America for being "addicted to oil" that makes you just want to reach out and bitch-slap the guy, not unlike every press conference in which he attempts to dodge out of a moderately tough question by pretending to teach a journalist the meaning of a word which he hardly understands and is sometimes unable to pronounce correctly.
posted by clevershark at 5:49 AM on February 1, 2006


Lately, I've been having stuggles with the Democratic party. I was a huge Dean supporter in the primary, and when he took his new position with the DNC, I thought, "Alright, we're finally going to see some meaningful changes." Instead I feel like people who at one point showed some amazing promise for implimenting exciting change in policy and thoughts are waiting to see which way the wind is blowing and missing huge opportunities to do something meaningful. The fact that so few senators were willing to phillibuster against Alito is just further proof of that to me.

Considering all that, I'm finding this SOTU and response very depressing.
posted by piratebowling at 5:52 AM on February 1, 2006


What a tease: "We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen."
posted by Modem Ovary at 6:08 AM on February 1, 2006


The rest of the world will truly be awed by your not-buying-oil-from-them.

Most of the world isn't selling oil.

--Jeff
posted by verb at 6:08 AM on February 1, 2006


Er. That's odd. Ireflexively sign my name on another board where it's common practice, and did it without thinking here. Der. Too early, no coffee.
posted by verb at 6:09 AM on February 1, 2006


The rest of the world will truly be awed by your not-buying-oil-from-them.

I believe the idea is that they'd be busy buying new energy technologies from us, thus creating an enormous market with the US poised as a leader.
posted by I Love Tacos at 6:20 AM on February 1, 2006


I hope that they're not actually trying to convince us that this Tim Kaine guy would make some kind of viable presidential candidate.

On the contrary, no Democrat who has ever so much as thought of running for president could be selected to give the SOTU response, because then anybody else thinking of running would raise hell. Kaine was selected because he's a Democratic governor in an overwhelmingly Republican state, who just took office a few weeks ago, who won handily with a bipartisan message.
posted by waldo at 6:31 AM on February 1, 2006


It's not a Kaine vs. Dean issue, guys. Kaine plays good cop while Dean plays attack dog. It's the same strategy that's worked for the Republicans for quite some time.

Personally, Dean speaks to me. Somebody's gotta call the guy out on his bullshit. And no phony, exploitive shout-outs to Coretta King, either, as if white politicians in DC even knew her name before yesterday.
posted by fungible at 6:33 AM on February 1, 2006


Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.

This human-animal hybrid deal is scary! Finally something Bush and I agree on. Werewolves are bad.
posted by tublecain at 6:37 AM on February 1, 2006


I had a good chuckle over the bizarre reference to "human-animal hybrids" until I remembered that pig skin is sometimes used for grafting onto burn patients, a technique known as xenografting.
posted by alumshubby at 6:43 AM on February 1, 2006


From Reason, a history of American oil independence initiatives (highlight: "Nixon also launched Project Independence, declaring, 'Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving.' ").
posted by hangashore at 6:47 AM on February 1, 2006


Selective quotation warning

Americans should not fear our economic future, because we intend to shape it.

As opposed to the rest of world that is looking forward who's going to be invaded next.

In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families -- and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth.

Which means that in the last five years each american (considering 300 million people) saved $2933 in taxes..which means that each american on average paid $585 less in taxes each year in the last 5 years. Did you save at least $585 in taxes in the last five years ?

Even so, paying less taxes doesn't imply one has more money to spend (aka being richer then before)..probably you spent part of that money in increased gas/utility/insurance prices. As there is also profit to be made (otherwise private companies wouldn't work) evidently not ALL of that 880 billion returned in citizens pockets ..part went to China , part was pocketed by companies under the voice "profit" , part went into dividends to usually already rich people, part finally went into wages that were also taxed.

Yet as the same time government spent billions in Iraq (with very debateable returns and likelyhood of return) by increasing the deficit spending...which means the government borrowed money from the citizens..which can be financed by either cutting a lot on the services/transfer the government made (but that's not without long term consequences) or by increasing taxation on the masses.

And that without considering deficit in trade balance with china, which are supposed to buy back western goods with the money they obtain..but they don't as nearly as much as needed. It would be nice to see how much of the trade deficit was pocketed by investors that moved their production to china and how much is coming back in private accounts.
posted by elpapacito at 6:54 AM on February 1, 2006


'First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources."

Nano technology and super computing? Hell yes, the iPod Nano fucking rocks!
posted by fandango_matt at 7:06 AM on February 1, 2006


I would have thought some people might have been happy to hear Bush proposing policies that the Left has been asking for.

Instead it appears some people are more interested in who gets credit or who said it first.

Proof yet again that politics trumps the substance of the policy.
posted by dios at 7:33 AM on February 1, 2006


So obviously written by his handlers. All he has to do is read (!) and smirk. Whattaturd.
posted by moonbird at 7:34 AM on February 1, 2006


I would have thought some people might have been happy to hear Bush proposing policies that the Left has been asking for.

Saying is not the same as doing. Given that Bush is a pathological liar, vague promises won't cut it this time.
posted by unreason at 7:40 AM on February 1, 2006


Milqutoast said "An alien observer might conclude that the U.S. economy runs on clapping."

I was less than impressed by the very distinct dividing line during applause and standing ovations. The reality of party-line politics is hurting more that it is helping. I can't imagine that every decision is so clear cut that it can so easily be decided on party lines. Apparently our elected officials are incapable of independent thought. So it is no wonder that Democratic energy policy is shut (or shouted) down by Republicans, and vice-versa. How long will America continue to waffle and wallow in partisan politics? With today's voters (see Utah thread from yesterday) reelecting the same old good old boys (from either party), and the incredible number of uncontested incumbents it will be business as usual for a very long time to come.
posted by Gungho at 7:42 AM on February 1, 2006


I like that Dean calls bullshit on Bush's bullshit and points it out. The media doesn't seem to want to so someone's got to step up and try to keep those dirty bastards honest (or more honest than they would be otherwise).

dios, yeah, he's proposing policies the Democrats have been proposing but I don't recall Bush ever mentioning that the Democrats have been pushing them. He basically stole their ideas and is trying to pawn them off as his own. But you knew that.

Proof yet again that Bush is a man without an ethical or moral bone in his body. The man is a plagiarist. Among his other crimes.
posted by fenriq at 7:43 AM on February 1, 2006


both responses kind of read like the democratic party has for years... like they were being written by a pussy.

Even the new democratic slogan "we can do better" seems pretty pussified. Howabout instead, "We arn't as corrupt, we don't sleep with the oil companies, we care about your health, we care about your schools, we care about your jobs, and the republicans seem intent on fucking you... i apollogize for the corse language, but ask yourself, "Have me and mine been thrown over a barrel in the last year so that the powers that be can play hacky sacky with my colon while playing lip service to my morals?" I believe the sad answer is yes, and we should work to change our lot, together, as a nation."
posted by sourbrew at 7:45 AM on February 1, 2006


Um... did anyone else notice that Condoleezza Rice was wearing white (well, off-white).

Not only is it after Labor Day... but shouldn't she, of all cabinet members, be aware of the fact that Coretta Scott King passed away less than 24 hours before?
posted by toxic at 7:46 AM on February 1, 2006


This speach (viewed through a nice coctail of mind altering substances) was probably one of the scariest reality TV shows ever.
The call outs to Iran and Palestine were unbelievably idiotic. Disarm? Do what now? Not when there are other countries more than willing to remain well armed, and well funded with those arms sitting right next door breathing down your neck.

Long view time.
Everyone talks about the words but not a lot of analysis is put into the actions. The PNAC theory of controlling the Middle East and the access to oil there is actually quite comparable to the exercise yard bully tactic for prison. Find someone who talks tough but obviously has problems staying upright. Go punch them in the gut, or better yet, knock their head off. Then look at thier close associates, say "you want some?" and then go fuck your bitch in the shower. Let's break that down for those not on the good drugs. We attacked Iraq. Deposed it's leaders, kicked it to the floor, and rolled the corpse for any loose change. Then we put a nice puppet head on the body (does anyone really thing the Iraqi National Congress, you know, the guys who were in the U.S. sitting across the table from Wolfowitz during the planning phase of the invasion who came up with the "flowers and candy" line, was actually welcomed by people who never left the country?) to oversee the "rebuilding". The SOTU speach where he has tried to state "we will be independant of foreign oil" blah, blah, blah, was the "you want some" threat to Iraq's neighbors. See? We kicked the crap out of your buddy, even if you didn't really like him. We'll do it to you too if you try and start anything. Now gimme your cigarettes and don't try and change the channel in the TV room, I want to watch COPS.

Rambling thoughts of hegemony.

Whoever the speach writer was this time, they did their research on the emotional triggers. From the "reading of the letter" section, to the recognition of the late Mrs. King, they were pushing all the "respect" buttons for the heartland. I was sorely tempted to try and watch this at a redneck bar, but that probably would have been about as much fun as the brain hemoraging caused by watching the analysis by Fox News. Thankfully ABC's coverage was without any trumped up rhetoric.

Strange derail that came to mind during the speach many times. Did you catch any of the shots that were from the camera positioned behind the Democratic side of the house? Where all you saw was the back of the Democrats and Supreme Court Justices, but got good side profile and frontal shots of the Republicans, and there was a lense flare from the ceiling lights up in the upper right corner of the screan causing a gold and blue streaming light that pointed towards the podium? I almost cried I was laughing so hard. It was a very well crafted shot. It also had that (I don't know french, but the term that means "I don't know what") totally framed and scripted feeling, like a film or photography students final before graduation, where they mainly studied the use of the Grand Exaltation originally pioneered by Leni Reifenstahl (I'm not trying to godwin, I'm trying to comment on the use of framing and camera techniques to elicit emotional responses from an audience. I could just have easily said George Lucas or Steven Speilberg, but they were students of this, not originators).

Why to they hang the flag vertically instead of horizontally? I know they're trying to make things big and stuff, but does anyone else feel it's a little to similar to certain religious or more facist approaches in attempting to instill emotional fervor towards a place or setting? Plus, the vertical lines behind Bush during his speach just got distracting. It's like trying to figure out how his ears manage to block an entire stripe by themselves. You end up mesmerized by that rather than anything he actually says. I don't know, it just bugged me.

There were also many admoshiments delivered during the speach that will probably go unheaded. His little line about how the economy needs the Democrats otherwise it wouldn't work. That was a wierd little backhanded "can't stand to be around them, but can't kill them either" kind of joke (at least as taken by a friend of mine who is ravingly anti-fruitcake). But at least it will give us a nice quote to use later when the morality squads start meeting every Thursday.

Yawn. Someone more intelligent feel free to add comment or try to disuade my observations. Otherwise I might become an anarchist.
posted by daq at 7:57 AM on February 1, 2006


This speach (viewed through a nice coctail of mind altering substances) was probably one of the scariest reality TV shows ever.
The call outs to Iran and Palestine were unbelievably idiotic. Disarm? Do what now? Not when there are other countries more than willing to remain well armed, and well funded with those arms sitting right next door breathing down your neck.

Long view time.
Everyone talks about the words but not a lot of analysis is put into the actions. The PNAC theory of controlling the Middle East and the access to oil there is actually quite comparable to the exercise yard bully tactic for prison. Find someone who talks tough but obviously has problems staying upright. Go punch them in the gut, or better yet, knock their head off. Then look at thier close associates, say "you want some?" and then go fuck your bitch in the shower. Let's break that down for those not on the good drugs. We attacked Iraq. Deposed it's leaders, kicked it to the floor, and rolled the corpse for any loose change. Then we put a nice puppet head on the body (does anyone really thing the Iraqi National Congress, you know, the guys who were in the U.S. sitting across the table from Wolfowitz during the planning phase of the invasion who came up with the "flowers and candy" line, was actually welcomed by people who never left the country?) to oversee the "rebuilding". The SOTU speach where he has tried to state "we will be independant of foreign oil" blah, blah, blah, was the "you want some" threat to Iraq's neighbors. See? We kicked the crap out of your buddy, even if you didn't really like him. We'll do it to you too if you try and start anything. Now gimme your cigarettes and don't try and change the channel in the TV room, I want to watch COPS.

Rambling thoughts of hegemony.

Whoever the speach writer was this time, they did their research on the emotional triggers. From the "reading of the letter" section, to the recognition of the late Mrs. King, they were pushing all the "respect" buttons for the heartland. I was sorely tempted to try and watch this at a redneck bar, but that probably would have been about as much fun as the brain hemoraging caused by watching the analysis by Fox News. Thankfully ABC's coverage was without any trumped up rhetoric.

Strange derail that came to mind during the speach many times. Did you catch any of the shots that were from the camera positioned behind the Democratic side of the house? Where all you saw was the back of the Democrats and Supreme Court Justices, but got good side profile and frontal shots of the Republicans, and there was a lense flare from the ceiling lights up in the upper right corner of the screan causing a gold and blue streaming light that pointed towards the podium? I almost cried I was laughing so hard. It was a very well crafted shot. It also had that (I don't know french, but the term that means "I don't know what") totally framed and scripted feeling, like a film or photography students final before graduation, where they mainly studied the use of the Grand Exaltation originally pioneered by Leni Reifenstahl (I'm not trying to godwin, I'm trying to comment on the use of framing and camera techniques to elicit emotional responses from an audience. I could just have easily said George Lucas or Steven Speilberg, but they were students of this, not originators).

Why to they hang the flag vertically instead of horizontally? I know they're trying to make things big and stuff, but does anyone else feel it's a little to similar to certain religious or more facist approaches in attempting to instill emotional fervor towards a place or setting? Plus, the vertical lines behind Bush during his speach just got distracting. It's like trying to figure out how his ears manage to block an entire stripe by themselves. You end up mesmerized by that rather than anything he actually says. I don't know, it just bugged me.

There were also many admoshiments delivered during the speach that will probably go unheaded. His little line about how the economy needs the Democrats otherwise it wouldn't work. That was a wierd little backhanded "can't stand to be around them, but can't kill them either" kind of joke (at least as taken by a friend of mine who is ravingly anti-fruitcake). But at least it will give us a nice quote to use later when the morality squads start meeting every Thursday.

Yawn. Someone more intelligent feel free to add comment or try to disuade my observations. Otherwise I might become an anarchist.
posted by daq at 7:57 AM on February 1, 2006


I would have thought some people might have been happy to hear Bush proposing policies that the Left has been asking for.
Instead it appears some people are more interested in who gets credit or who said it first.
Proof yet again that politics trumps the substance of the policy.


Rather, proof that lots of people have been burned by Bush talking a big talk but doing The Same Old Thing when it comes time for action.

Experience leads me to believe that this is not a case of Bush seeing the light and advocating policies his administration spent years strangling. If I am wrong, I'll be thrilled. But, you know. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and... you can't fool me again.
posted by verb at 7:59 AM on February 1, 2006


are we on mars yet?
posted by quonsar at 7:59 AM on February 1, 2006


Damn twitchy mouse button...

(Sorry about the double).
posted by daq at 8:00 AM on February 1, 2006


*adds daq as a contact. twice*
posted by matteo at 8:07 AM on February 1, 2006


Congressman Rush Holt of NJ blogged it on Blue Jersey--a sign of things to come? ...Tonight the President suggested again that if only he had tapped all Americans phones he would have prevented the 9/11 attacks. That's why, he says, he needs this nationwide surveillance program. You'll remember that for years he has been saying "no one could have foreseen the attacks." In fact, maybe we would have been better off if the President had been reading his Daily Intelligence Briefs the summer before the attack, which had more specific warnings. He wants us to believe that only bad guys will be watched and listened to. The kind of police states where the government knows no restraint begin with the government saying it only restrains bad guys, but who decides who are the bad guys-- a functionary at the NSA, or worse, a political appointee at the White House? ...
posted by amberglow at 8:07 AM on February 1, 2006


this is not a case of Bush seeing the light

light = lens flare
posted by matteo at 8:08 AM on February 1, 2006


Very unhappy with the SOTU and the response. Depressing, new lows every time.

Particularly scared about Bush telling people that we're addicted to oil. I'm glad to hear it being said -- if I believed that he were doing this out of the goodness of his heart, I might even be happy. But my deep fear is that he knows some shit is coming down the pipe onto us and wants to be able to say, "Hey! I warned ya!"
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:13 AM on February 1, 2006


RudePundit: ...However, the Katrina part and so many other sections of the speech existed in some nebulous bizarro America, without the existence of Republicans, neo-cons, religious nutzoids, and corporate hegemonies dictating policy. When Bush would bring up a problem, the only rational response would be, "Umm, who created that problem?" Stigma of AIDS? Lack of OB-GYNs? Don't think that was liberals who drove OB-GYNs out of rural counties. Too many special interest projects? Who's running the fuckin' Congress and who's signin' the budgets? And Bush sayin' that Americans are "addicted to oil" is like your crack dealer standin' over your shakin', shittin' body and tellin' you it's time to get off the crack, but, hey, while you're doin' that, you wanna buy some crack? ...
posted by amberglow at 8:27 AM on February 1, 2006


Particularly scared about Bush telling people that we're addicted to oil.

The first step is admitting you have an addiction. Now we just need to find a substance abuse program that will get us off it. Of course, we won't be able to hang around with our old friends any more. They're just enablers.
posted by crunchland at 8:28 AM on February 1, 2006


posted by dios I would have thought some people might have been happy to hear Bush proposing policies that the Left has been asking for . . . Proof yet again that politics trumps the substance of the policy.

Actually, it's proof that this administration is completely bereft of new ideas, so they're stealing old ones.
posted by fandango_matt at 8:28 AM on February 1, 2006


Does anyone have a solid number to attach to the 22% increase in funding for clean-energy research? What is the current level of funding? What % if any, do big energy corporations recieve? I welcome the idea of infusing more money into reseach in this area, but a 22% increase!!! How many new projects will get funded? Will this level of increased funding make any real difference? Is this just an empty gesture?
posted by batou_ at 8:33 AM on February 1, 2006


22% increase in funding for clean-energy research? Here in Colorado, the Solar Energy Research Organization (or something like that...in Golden, near Denver) which also does research in biomass, wind, etc....just got their funding cut by twenty million dollars. Bush speaks with a forked tongue.
posted by kozad at 8:50 AM on February 1, 2006


kozad, the better to fork you with.

My guess is that 22% increase means cuts for everyone but big Oil who gets a big, big payout to figure out some way to make oil not so oily.
posted by fenriq at 9:18 AM on February 1, 2006


I was happy to hear the oil independance thing. Hope it doesn’t go the way of the social security debate. Or health care.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:49 AM on February 1, 2006


Can anyone explain why Bush asked for the line-item veto in last night's speech? Isn't it enough that it was declared unconstitutional only 10 years ago?
posted by rxrfrx at 10:17 AM on February 1, 2006


Can anyone explain why Bush asked for the line-item veto in last night's speech? Isn't it enough that it was declared unconstitutional only 10 years ago?
posted by rxrfrx at 12:17 PM CST on February 1


Yeah, that was just stupid. He is wrong to be calling for that. It is unconstitutional, not to mention short-sighted. It was one of several things that I thought he was clearly wrong about in that speech. (Tort reform being another example).
posted by dios at 10:33 AM on February 1, 2006


What?
Nothing about athletes using steroids?
No axles of evil?
No trip to Mars?

I hear the speech was revised more than 300 times.
Still he dissed the GOP congress with the statement about Social Security.
Is David Frum writing his speeches again?
I couldn't watch so I must ask: which loser was sitting beside Laura this year? Chalabi again?
posted by nofundy at 10:49 AM on February 1, 2006


an afghani woman and a soldier guy, nofundy.
posted by amberglow at 11:38 AM on February 1, 2006


Oh yeah, out of Bush's three solutions to the health care crisis he very pointedly overlooked one better solution: Reform the entire damned health services industry.

I wish I could have taken control of his teleprompter to make him say that.
posted by fenriq at 11:41 AM on February 1, 2006


Bush is talking the talk about energy independance. This is another point that Democrats should've been shouting from the rooftops for years.

Hm, it was a Democrat who nearly thirty years ago established the Department of Energy. And it was the first Republican to come along after him who gutted and militarized it.

I just love people who exclaim how Democrats need to stand up to Republicans and get some back bone, but when one does he's declaimed as either negative, partisan, or a publicity whore.
posted by 3.2.3 at 12:14 PM on February 1, 2006


Presidents during the latter half of the 20th Century have sent written State of the Union addresses. The last President to do this was Jimmy Carter in 1981

So.... what is this with Carter being president in 1981? Did they do the SOTU address before the presidential handoff then?
posted by namespan at 12:18 PM on February 1, 2006


Proof yet again that politics trumps the substance of the policy. posted by dios at 4:33 PM CET on February 1 [!]

How true, dude , how true. A balance surplus, a growing economy..all of this is quickly forgotten in the name of calling people liberal or republican.
posted by elpapacito at 12:44 PM on February 1, 2006


shmegegge, actually it was my bad after all - you were right, it was Carter's speech. The site in the original post misidentified it as Reagan's. Though I have no idea why Carter submitted the SOTU in 1981 and Reagan didn't. Both Eisenhower and Kennedy had SOTUs in 1961, for example.
posted by loquax at 12:48 PM on February 1, 2006


Fightin' Dios wrote: Instead it appears some people are more interested in who gets credit or who said it first.

Proof yet again that politics trumps the substance of the policy.


Alternately, it could be that the left doesn't believe that the right will actually implement any of these policies, and is merely saying it to steal political thunder.

But the way you parsed it is way more dickish and condescending, so it's no surprise that you took that route.

Fightin' Dios is back, and he wants a fight, whether or not a legitimate argument exists! Watch out!
posted by I Love Tacos at 1:02 PM on February 1, 2006


Actually I should clarify. It's not just the left that doesn't believe Bush meant a word of the oil independance crap, it's every thinking person on the planet.

Bush has continuously denied the validity of anti-fossil fuel arguments, and has a track record that is extremely pro-oil.

Bush (like almost every politician on the planet) has repeatedly said one thing to get votes, and then taken a different tack.

The Democrats recently relaunched a push for energy independance.

As such, I think it is far more likely that he was pandering to undermine the Democrats, than it is that his energy policies have taken a sudden and unexpected turn.
posted by I Love Tacos at 1:12 PM on February 1, 2006


I Love Tacos, he is, afterall, a Texas oilman with an addictive history. I thought he was brave for admitting he has a problem. And then realized he wasn't talking about himself, rather the nation and then I returned to my natural state of thinking the man is a lying skunk.

I think Fightin' Dios should be renamed Intellectually Dishonest for Argument's Sake Dios.
posted by fenriq at 1:50 PM on February 1, 2006


quonsar beat me to it, but I think Bush will get us off foreign oil right about the same time he gets us onto Mars.
posted by bashos_frog at 2:23 PM on February 1, 2006


Speaking of human/animal hybrids, are they going to outlaw insulin?
posted by amberglow at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2006


Ethics, shmethics, I want my monkey man!
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2006


...Behold! To Giblets's right is the family of an unborn embryonic soldier recently killed in Iraq whose stem cells were kidnapped by gay married terrorists to be used in the creation of an animal-human hybrid. One day we will win this war and we will win it for him. And on that day he will rise from the dead and receive a health savings account! ...
Witness! To Giblets's left is an American flag which has used its tax cuts to make a bipartisan commission for its starving family of ethanol subsidies. Would you take all that away by letting isolationist courts tax the Jesus fetus? Never! Because history is written in courage, and courage will remember us in the future how we were today: pandering, desperate and barely coherent! ...

posted by amberglow at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2006


« Older Spider-man...  |  Kim Taylor's Online Art Galler... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments