State of the Union

[twhy77]

I thought it was pretty good. I missed the first 7 minutes. I'm surprised there is no thread about it so I wanted to open it up.

His numbers should go up after it... kind of sad that the Democratic side didn't stand up for things like education reform and some of the other good things I'd think they'd be in favor of.

All in all I give the speech about a 9 out of 10 politically speaking.

[MR. MEOWGI]

I thought it was unwatchable. The guy is unbearable. The clapping is out of control. Overall it just made me ill.

[twhy77]

Clapping is always that bad at a State of the Union. I thought he was pretty resolute on what we've done and what AMerica's role in the country is.

[outlaw]

I think he was trying to one up Dean by naming all those countries. Too bad he didn't do a Aaarrrrhhhh scream too.

I can't say I'm too surprised he said the following though:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

If he really wants to protect marriage he would advocate a ban on divorce and make adultery a felony.

[mleahy999]

It was funny to see Ed Kennedy play with his face fat. And I guess Tom Brady has nothing important to do or plan for.

[Woofer]

Originally posted by outlaw If he really wants to protect marriage he would advocate a ban on divorce and make adultery a felony. [/B]

You're not serious are you? One of the Latin American countries banned divorce, it just made marriages a farce.
If one wants to strengthen the family, people should be forced to undergo conflict resolution classes with some authority figure in their religion of choice and study what happens to children in divorce before being permitted to marry.

[TL]

Originally posted by outlaw If he really wants to protect marriage he would advocate a ban on divorce and make adultery a felony.

I don't know the how the laws work right now (I assume there is no real consistency), but if "civil unions" were recognized by the government and it afforded the exact same legal protections as marriage, would that be acceptable?

The reason I ask is b/c I've heard a number of people argue that the term "marriage" has historical roots as a man-woman thing, and they think it should remain that way. I don't know if that is true or not.

In other words, I'm asking is it a question of getting the same legal rights as straight people, or it a question of the government recognizing people of the same sex can love each other in the same way as people of the opposite sex (and therefore deserve to get the same terminology, etc.)?

[outlaw]

Originally posted by TL I don't know the how the laws work right now (I assume there is no real consistency), but if "civil unions" were recognized by the government and it afforded the exact same legal protections as marriage, would that be acceptable? The reason I ask is b/c I've heard a number of people argue that the term "marriage" has historical roots as a man-woman thing, and they think it should remain that way. I don't know if that is true or not. In other words, I'm asking is it a question of getting the same legal rights as straight people, or it a question of the government recognizing people of the same sex can love each other in the same way as people of the opposite sex (and therefore deserve to get the same terminology, etc.)?

it's a question of both. But Bush isn't even willing to compromise and accept civil unions. This proposed amendment would ban those as well.

[ROXTXIA]

Originally posted by twhy77 I thought it was pretty good. I missed the first 7 minutes. I'm surprised there is no thread about it so I wanted to open it up. His numbers should go up after it... kind of sad that the Democratic side didn't stand up for things like education reform and some of the other good things I'd think they'd be in favor of. All in all I give the speech about a 9 out of 10 politically speaking.

Bush's education reform needs reform.

The current Secretary of Education, I believe, was in charge of HISD or some such job; the same entity that has fudged the numbers to make Houston look like a great success story.

Ever notice how Bush always gets a photo-op at schools with black kids? As if that will get him the African-American vote. "No Child Left Behind" is just some more of that empty compassion rhetoric. Sorry, but it's true. Bush talks up such programs and then never funds them. At the college level, Federal Pell Grants and other programs are already being frozen at current levels, maybe even slashed.

But maybe enough people will buy his current bill of goods.

[outlaw]

Originally posted by ROXTXIA Ever notice how Bush always gets a photo-op at schools with black kids? As if that will get him the African-American vote. .

Forget about "at schools", he did it tonight taking a photo with that little black girl! don't tell that wasn't scripted.

[MacBeth]

So what's been the general reaction to the SOOTU?

[ZRB]

Not only do I disagree with everything Bush said, the man is just a pain to listen to. He has ZERO public speaking skills.

I hope that was the last of the Bush Union speeches. All four have been horrendously pathetic.

[StupidMoniker]

The liberals didn't like Bush's State of the Union speech? Color me shocked. I watched part of it, but my cousin came over and wanted to play some ESPN basketball, so I turned it off.

[giddyup]

Steroids? I can't wait to hear andymoon's take on that...

[Manny Ramirez]

Originally posted by giddyup Steroids? I can't wait to hear andymoon's take on that...

ESPN has been going nuts about what Bush said about steroids.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by outlaw Forget about "at schools", he did it tonight taking a photo with that little black girl! don't tell that wasn't scripted.

Don't know if it was scripted or not, but the little black girl was Jesse Jackson's granddaughter. She is the daughter of Jesse Jackson Jr., the congressman from Illinois.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by ROXTXIA Bush's education reform needs reform. The current Secretary of Education, I believe, was in charge of HISD or some such job; the same entity that has fudged the numbers to make Houston look like a great success story. Ever notice how Bush always gets a photo-op at schools with black kids? As if that will get him the African-American vote. "No Child Left Behind" is just some more of that empty compassion rhetoric. Sorry, but it's true. Bush talks up such programs and then never funds them. At the college level, Federal Pell Grants and other programs are already being frozen at current levels, maybe even slashed. But maybe enough people will buy his current bill of goods.

Rod Paige is a joke, just like No Child Left Behind. They ought to rename the piece of crap legislation "No Child Funded" because that's exactly what it is...forcing education reform on schools without providing them with the funding to make it successful.

Like I said in another thread, if King George II's space initiative is funded like No Child Left Behind, our brave Astronauts will be hitchiking to Mars!

[The Real Shady]

Originally posted by ZRB Not only do I disagree with everything Bush said, the man is just a pain to listen to. He has ZERO public speaking skills. I hope that was the last of the Bush Union speeches. All four have been horrendously pathetic.

He might not give the most exciting speeches, but is that really what you want?

[No Worries]

Renew the Patriot Act!!! It is truly sad that all the Republicans stood up for that line. One could only hope that the Patriot Act will actually get leislative review this time round. Given that the Democrats want this as a hot button issue, I suspect it will.

Overall I thought GWB did a good job of getting his point across. Listening to his speech, one would never know that No Child Left Behind was underfunded or that the federal government was running a half trillion deficit this year and last or over 2 million net jobs have been lost.

GWB still is joining the War On Terror and Iraq at the hip. He also appeared to be begging the Democrats to Bring It On wrt Iraq.

OTOH the Democratic response was limp. Sad, really.

[Rocketman95]

This guy didn't like it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jan21.html

State of the Union: Long on Long, Short on Lofty

By Tom Shales
Wednesday, January 21, 2004; Page C01


We like a confident president, but we don't like a cocky president, and George W. Bush had too many moments of cockiness last night as he delivered his third State of the Union address to both houses of Congress and the viewing nation. Often the words of the speech were written to sound lofty, but Bush had such a big Christmas-morning grin on his face that they came out sounding like taunts -- taunts to the rest of the world or taunts to Democrats in the hall.

The dividing line between the parties has rarely appeared so graphic. Republicans on one side of the House chamber couldn't scramble to their feet fast enough to give Bush his obligatory standing ovations. He probably would have gotten one if he'd sneezed. Democrats, meanwhile, sat their ground. They rose for some of Bush's sentiments, as when praising America's military forces, but they weren't on their feet when Bush called for making last year's tax cuts permanent.

And the split was even more dramatic when Bush called for renewing his controversial Patriot Act, a piece of emergency legislation that has had the effect of trampling civil rights into mush. In fact, Bush got applause he didn't want when he introduced the subject by saying certain provisions of the Patriot Act would end next year. Yes, some people, presumably Democrats, heartily applauded that.

The speech was pretty much so-so, and Bush's gung-ho delivery -- something approaching the forced jollity of a game show host -- lacked dignity and certainly lacked graciousness. Bush has never been big on those things anyway.

Dan Rather of CBS News, who sometimes goes out of his way not to upset the Bush people -- since they are all ready to pounce on him for what they perceive (or claim to perceive) as a bias against their exalted glorious potentate -- said afterward that Bush's was "a strong speech, strongly delivered." It was one of the few times Rather sounded less than astute.

Over on the Fox News Channel, Fred Barnes, sounding as if he had walking pneumonia, allowed as how he'd heard George W. Bush deliver many an important and eloquent speech over the years, "and this was not one of them." It takes courage to say something like that on the Fox News Channel, normally a Bush cheering section. Someone noted that Bush is considered a master of the half-hour speech and State of the Union 2004 had dragged on for twice that length.

Actually, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, before the speech began, quoted sources as saying it was a 40-minute speech if no one interrupted it for applause (fat chance of that) and 60 minutes if Bush got the usual perfunctory but time-killing cheers and claps. Bush started speaking at 9:11 p.m. and said his customary "May God continue to bless America" at 10:05. He's getting into Clintonian territory, and are there any Americans who want to go back to those marathon speeches Clinton used to give, regardless of how they feel about his presidency and his policies and his pigs-in-a-poke?

The best reaction shots were those of Ted Kennedy, whose stature seems to grow right along with his nose year after year after year. Kennedy has now reached a grand moment in the life of a senator; he looks like Hollywood itself cast him in the role. Seriously. With that waving mane of bright white hair, he evokes memories of Claude Rains looking distinguished as all get-out in Frank Capra's once- controversial, now-classic movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Never mind that the senator played by Rains had some shady dealings in his repertoire.

Kennedy looked great, like he was ready to take his place next to Jefferson on Mount Rushmore. He gives off the kind of venerable vibes that some of us got from an Everett Dirksen way back when, or a Charles Laughton -- oh wait, Laughton was a make-believe senator, too (in "Advise and Consent").

Bush's speech was on the perfunctory side with the by-now- predictable list of oratorical ingredients. There has to be a guest star in the audience, a tradition begun grandly by the great communicator Ronald Reagan. And so Bush had, among others in the audience, representatives of U.S. troops plus Adnan Pachachi, president of the Iraqi Governing Council, who got that prime gallery seat right next to Laura Bush, who was looking slightly hypnotized as usual.

Among other things proved by the U.S. incursion into Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein in his spider-hole, Bush said, was that "No one can ever doubt the word of America," a platitude for which he was rewarded with yet another standing ovation.

CNN looked smart before the speech by spreading its anchors around to the most recognizable spots in the capital: Paula Zahn had the U.S. Capitol over one shoulder; Blitzer lucked out by being stationed indoors, in Statuary Hall; and Aaron Brown was perched so that the White House was in the shot behind him.

Anderson Cooper did his "360" show from George Washington University and so was not directly involved in the speech coverage.

Tom Brokaw of NBC News and Peter Jennings of ABC News were both on duty.

One of the bigger surprises of the night was instantly evident, even as Bush made his tedious way down an aisle before delivering the speech. Though he's favored blue ties (sometimes baby blue) throughout his presidency, Bush wore a red necktie last night. Could this signify a change in terrorism alert status? Or maybe just the fact that Bush is now in full ramming mode, not merely a president but a politician again, up to his collar in the rigors of an election year?

It was obviously the latter, and the fact that Bush appeared to be so happy, so elated, so giddily primed for another political slugfest was a little bit disheartening, and even a little bit scary.

I didn't watch the speech. UT basketball and baking some salmon were too attractive alternatives.