Well, he didn’t close quite as strongly, but overall I’m quite impressed. The bit about calling the torture acts of the Iraqis “evil” was unfortunate. Those are awful acts, no doubt, but that now opens the door to others pointing to US acts of torture (Guantanamo Bay or others) as evil too. There is an element of self-righteousness to that kind of language and that almost invariably comes back on the speaker. Generally it was a very humble and compassionate message though. I also think he made a compelling argument on Iraq’s failure to disarm. I’ll have to digest this a bit but my first impressions were very surprisingly good.
I've already addressed that BS...... Regarding suvs? Please don't ruin your reputation by stupid insults.
Yes....regarding SUV's. I assume you're talking about that weak spin put out last week about raising the limit on "a" deduction to $75,000 for small business owners and the self employed for SUV's.
I was kinda hoping that HMO cheap-shot was BS; my parents were very disappointed when they lost their HMO (and thus Rx coverage) under Clinton. And FWIW, under many HMOs seniors get extended coverage for nursing homes (so they don't have to become destitute to gain Medicaid coverage after their Medicare coverage has been expended).
I'm not big on campaign promises, but the next candidate who promises to make Senators and Congresspeople sit and not clap until the end of his State of the Union speech will have my vote.
I'm not sure if this has been answered before here, but George W. Bush pronounces "nuclear" the way he does because of its use by another Texas president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who pronounced it the same way. It was a good speech.
Lots of commentary about how Bush failed to emphasise the need for coalition building. That’s not how I read it. I thought the information on the chemicals and weapons that Iraq is known to have had, and that are now unaccounted for did make a solid case for possible intervention, which will allow the allies to agree and join the coalition in a informed manner. This is very different than the “you are either with us or against us” line that the US has sometimes used in the past. A broad and solid coalition is still extremely important, of course, to ensuring lasting change in the area, and now there is a foundation for it to exist on. This also gives Iraq one last chance to comply, or for Saddam to agree to go into exile to save his neck.
What about "peninshula" and "'sposed?" I thought the speech was fine as far as the writing goes, but he butchered a few of the points of drama and transition - either stumbling a bit in enunciation or improperly timing the moments. For me (and probably to the speech writer), it was very painful to see those spots wasted. I thought it was really odd when he very directly alluded to the fact that we are hunting down and killing suspects. Not that I didn't think such things happen and have happened throughout our country's history, it is just different to hear the president say it so emphatically.
Weird....I raised my eyebrows at the exact same things. One thing for sure, Bush will never go down in history as a great orator.
One of the bigger dishonesties in the speech was his health care portion. (Big surprise!) Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need. Instead of bureaucrats and trial lawyers and HMOs, we must put doctors and nurses and patients back in charge of American medicine. Looks like he doesn't like HMO's doesn't it? and he is strong on choosing your own doctor, doesn't it. However, all seniors should have the choice of a health care plan that provides prescription drugs. On Hardball several panelists all agreed that the plan the president is proposing is that many seniors can only get prescription drugs if they give up their fee for service medicare coverage that allows them to choose their own doctors and then join a HMO that doesn't allow yoou to choose your own doctor.
Did anybody (besides Warren Rudman and myself) catch the Iraq policy shift in the speech. The threat no longer has to be imminent for him to act. The bar has been lowered even further.
The insurance companies aren't going to offer a plan that does both. In order to make the current framework the most fair it can be, the President is supporting the ability to choose. Some people have no problem paying for their drugs. Those people will likely take the plan that affords them the choice of doctor. Others have serious issues with the cost of medicine. Those people will take the prescription drug benefit. In theory, a plan that offers both would be so expensive that virtually nobody could afford the premiums. It's all about choices.
In theory, a plan that offers both would be so expensive that virtually nobody could afford the premiums. That is the Democrat plan. You have Medicare, which allows you to choose your own doctor, and as part of that it would include prescription drug coverage. It is only too expensive if you insist on large tax cuts for a wealthy minority such as that for dividend paying stocks that aren't in a retirement plan, where you pay no taxes and at the same time drastically increase US military spending, which already exceeds that of the next 19 or so countires of the world combined. I know you don't like to hear that something that you seem to claim is desireable but too expensive, is possible if you just reprirotized government spending and tax policy but that is just arithmetic and the essential difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need. Instead of bureaucrats and trial lawyers and HMOs, we must put doctors and nurses and patients back in charge of American medicine. It’s funny how the perspective that you hear something from affects its meaning. To me what this says is that he wants a system that provides universal coverage with reduced overhead and bureaucracy. The clear way to do this is with a single insurer (perhaps by state so there could be competition/innovations between states) government funded system that offers universal coverage. Your current system spends 30% of its revenues on administration and bureaucracy, whereas a single payer system is close to 5% IIRC. Incredibly wasteful. You can chose whatever doctor you want in this system, because they are all paid by the same insurer. Even further, regional overseeing bodies are composed of elected and/or appointed doctors nurses and patients/citizens. This is the perfect solution for Bush’s objectives, but you think he’s really taking about something else?
glynch, The fact is that we operate as kind of a world police force. Doing so means that we get in a lot of fights. Since no one wants to see American soldiers get killed, we spend a lot of money on the military. That is why all the death tolls in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are so lopsided. BTW, anyone can buy stocks that pay dividends, not just a wealthy minority. Most stocks prices are in the 2 digit range.
