A very positive State of the Union Address, but not full of major revelations or great new ideas, except perhaps on energy policy.
Like many around the nation I watched the President's State of the Union Address eager to hear something interesting, but was largely disappointed. Maybe I'm too familiar with what's going on in the country or his past speeches, but it seemed like the speech was pretty much a rehash of things I'd heard before - some of them very good points, but few of them striking or original.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - zingzing
i liked the part where bush decried iran being governed by a "small clerical elite." it was funny. made me laugh. some guy in the room with me (whom i didn't know) started laughing and yelled, "fuck" as loud as he could... some woman scoffed and left the room.
that said, it was an interesting speech. the bits on oil and alternative energy were interesting, the bits on social security and my parents generation siphoning all my dough was frightening... bush really didn't seem to say much or offer anything more than vague "future" solutions to pretty obvious problems (and he skipped right over some glaring issues)... there was a lot of back-patting.
it took me a while to notice that the dems and the republicans were sitting on opposite sides of the room. usually, i don't watch the state of the union, but i was kind of a captive audience. the sound was off, but i could read the subtitles and there were interesting reactions from both sides. especially mccain. was he being sarcastic? hard to tell...
27 - Imelda
Hey Patfish (#14) are you equating the meaningless death of a child with a blow job? Nice.
28 - Nancy
I thought Dubya's speech was interesting for what it didn't say more than what it did; the things he carefully skirted rather than addressed; the items ignored rather than those acknowledged. On the whole, however, his speechifiers get a 'D' for dishing out the same old same old again. Maybe it's just me, but I've gotten to the point where every time Dubya starts in on terrorism vs national security, I roll my eyes. This fearmongering tactic is SO 2001, and BTW if terrorism is such a threat, then why isn't BushCo working harder at getting their hands on Osama & Al-Zarqawi...unless, of course, such persons being at large is more valuable to BushCo than if they were captive or dead? An intriguing question I'm not the first person to begin wondering about, & I suspect some of the more sentient members of the US general public might also be starting to wonder about it, altho it obviously is over the heads of the majority who still think Dubya is their national security hero.
As for Ms. Sheehan, if she wants to make a spectacle of herself, let her. As it is, it seems to me BushCo played right into her hands with such a response to what could have been shown to be a juvenile, cheap trick if handled better.
Oh well. Guess there's always next year.
29 - troll
*but i will say i am all for bin Laden's head on a spike on the Capitol lawn*
to what end - ?
troll
30 - gonzo marx
decent Question, troll...
how about...decoration?
if he can be taken alive, and welded into a cell for the rest of his life, then i am fine with that too
but i would like some time for questions and answers, like the stuff between his working for the CIA in the mujahadeen in the 80's to the formation of al Qaeda
fair enough?
Excelsior!
31 - Bliffle
I'd be more enthusiastic about GWBs call for free trade if I thought he had any intention of freeing up domestic trading. There are so many industries being protected from free markets that if we de-privileged them a New Golden Age would ensue. The pharmas, in particular, are the cause of most of the contortions and extravagances in domestic econ policy, certainly in medicare, and will become even worse as more medical problems are solved thru drugs. The drug leviathon, which for perverse reasons we've heavily subsidized not thru direct subsidies but thru egregious patent privileges and monopoly exceptions, is the core of the menace people imagine in 'entitlements' problem.
32 - ss
I've had some time to think about my last post, and although it wasn't actually meant to be hate-filled lefty rhetoric, it did hit way WAY below the belt for any rational conversation. It's to late to withdraw it, but I would like to at least ammend it:
Patfish, if you wan't to point out out the moral ambiguities of the left, bring up Saddam and the consequences of inaction in Iraq, bring up Rawanda, bring up abortion if you want (though if you're also against contraception you'll lose the moral high ground on that one fast)
but
For the love of God
don't equate a war, an activity which must take innocent life (even if it's for a good reason in the larger scheme) with a philandering husband and his frigid (just a guess) wife.
We can argue over the necessity, the motives, the outcome, but for certain one's a gut wrenching tragedy, the other is actually kinda comical to everyone but the couple themselves.
Again, I saw the article in the last post, I was angry about it, but I shouldn't haven't used it the way I did.
33 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, Bush's idea of free trade on the international front isn't exactly free trade either, it's selective and exclusionary and exploitative. NAFTA, CAFTA and their ilk may end up being good for the US, but they are certainly not free trade in any genuine sense of the word.
Dave
34 - Bliffle
NAFTA and CAFTA are good for a few targeted US companies, but not for US business in general. If Bush could get Mexico to change it's laws so a US businessman could build a business and KEEP it there would be a gold rush of US businessmen and investors rushing to Mexico to invest and hire workers. It would end the immigration problem and produce a blossoming of prosperity in Mexico that would be the wonder of the world. But a US businessman simply cannot do any good under the current rules, so after they get burned they quit. I tried it and many of my friends tried it.
35 - Randy Park
Bush stated "Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." My first thought was "that's quite an admission, where is he going with this?"
Then he said: "The best way to break this addiction is through technology. ...To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy."
I'm confused - does Bush view this addiction as a problem or an opportunity? To put it another way, is he a healer or a dealer? Every addiction treatment program I've heard of works on weaning the addict from the substance, not substituting one drug for another. It's like a drug dealer telling his customers "we're having trouble getting cocaine, so we're opening some labs to make crystal meth for you."
If President Bush is truly serious about reducing the addition to oil, he should be supporting programs to reduce oil use.
36 - Judith Waits
Victimless crimes? If that is the truth, how do explain to crack babies that they had the choice to use or not to use?
You need to think before you "speak".
37 - Dave Nalle
Randy, the alternative to substituting one form of energy for another in your extended drug addiction analogy would be going 'cold turkey' in other words, not having things like electricity and cars. Is that really where you wanted to go with this analogy?
Dave
38 - Dave Nalle
Victimless crimes? If that is the truth, how do explain to crack babies that they had the choice to use or not to use?
You need to think before you "speak".
Seems like you haven't really thought this one through, Junior Drug Warrior. If you legalize the drugs then you can control the drugs, get treatment for the users and monitor them so that they can be given long-term birth control, pregnancy counseling and even abortions. If you don't legalize drugs then their habit is entirely underground and there's no way to get them this kind of help.
Dave
39 - Randy Park
Dave, the analogy is not perfect, nor did I start it, the President did. I don't think it is desireable or necessary to go cold turkey; I think electricity in particular is essential to maintain and that will involve nuclear among other technologies. But unless energy use is reduced, I don't believe the "technology will save us" solution will happen fast enough in view of declining oil and natural gas production.
40 - Dave Nalle
Well, one of the big technologies at issue will be hybrid vehicles and they're a win/win because they straight out reduce fuel consumption plus they can also use E85 ethanol as their fuel source. So that means reduction of total gas consumption by about 93% per vehicle. That's a hell of an improvement. And it's not far off. We've got the vehicles now and we've got ethanol production. What really needs work is the ethanol distribution system and the development of demand which will lead to greater levels of production.
Oh, and as for the addiction analogy, I think of it as being more like an addiction to food rather than a drug. You need food, but you can get by on less of it. It's more like putting America on a diet and eating healthier (ethanol and biodiesel).
Dave
41 - gonzo marx
biodiesel hybrids...i said it months ago...
for Margaret...your Wish is granted, we will see when it gets past the Editors and Posts...
i will say there were one or two things that if the Pres is serious about, could be decent...but there was soOOooOOOooOOooo much pure shit in there that i just can't believe ANYthing that comes out of that smirk
Excelsior!
42 - tony
Isn't anyone slightly upset by the fact , we cheered and became teary eyed when the mother who lost a son in the Iraq war was recognized with a standing ovation. However, a mother who also lost a son in the Iraq war, who was lead away in handcuffs is maligned. How have we accepted and allowed the politics we embrace to determine the way we are treated as Americans?
43 - Bliffle
Everyone on TV is buzzing about the Oil Addiction and Ethanol parts. But we've known about this for at least 30 years. Is it only now, when it appears important to Bush, that we give it attention? Do we elect Czars now, whose whim governs?
44 - Margaret Romao Toigo
"Crack Babies" were a 1980s drug war myth, which has been thoroughly debunked for quite some time now. Babies born addicted to cocaine (crack) do not usually suffer permanent dysfunctions once the drug is out of their systems.
Even the most senior drug warriors do not seem to understand that, if you support prohibition, you support organized crime.
45 - Lumpen Prole
Tony, the mom who respects her son's memory and choices tends to get a bit more sympathy from most people than the one who offers her son's memory up as a political football.
46 - RogerMDillon
Yeah, Tony. Just because you have freedom in this country doesn't mean you are supposed to use it.
File away in the spoke to-soon dept.:
"Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts," said Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer.
[Roger: please feel free to make your links active. You can email me at editoratlarge AT gmail if you'd like me to explain how. Comments Editor]
47 - SonnyD
Come on, people, it's just another State of the Union address. Why pick it apart word by word. Haven't you ever heard one before? So he didn't solve all the worlds problems. What did you expect him to say?
Most of the things I would have liked to comment on as I read this have already been answered. Doesn't matter anyway, if you have already made up your mind to approve or disapprove, you won't listen to someone else's view.
One thing that wasn't answered was the human/animal thing. Well, there was the mermaid bit. But, seriously, it's in the bible. Don't remember where. I must have been around ten years old when I read it and thought, "Neato." Things like that seem to stick in a kid's memory.
48 - Dave Nalle
SD, the bible talks about having sex with animals, it doesn't say anything about hybridizing humans and animals. I admire Bush for even thinking it might be an issue, but dammit I want my near-human-intelligence slave monkey houseboy. I'm going to name him Caesar.
Dave
49 - Dave Nalle
If President Bush is truly serious about reducing the addition to oil, he should be supporting programs to reduce oil use.
Isn't that exactly what he proposed in the speech? Sure sounded that way to me. Plus there was a lot of support for alternative fuels and more fuel efficient vehicles in his last energy bill.
Dave
50 - Bliffle
We've known for decades that we can't drill our way out of our energy problems. 30 years ago I was reading that 2005 was the 'peak oil' year, after which oil yield would decline. And we proved during the '73 oil crisis that we could use alternative fuels and conservation to reduce consumption 20%. Nevertheless, in 2001 Cheney bald-faced lied and said conservation wouldn't work and we could only drill more. And people supported the oaf! Seemingly well-informed people!
Now that GWB broached the subject of conservation and alternative fuel, people are supporting it! Did it not exist before it entered the Emperors little mind? Do we really need to bring a drugstore cowboy out of the backwoods of Texas to do our thinking for us?
What sheep and dunces the American people have become!
51 - Dave Nalle
Bliff, I think the problem with the alternative fuels issue is that no one has been willing to take a leadership role on a national level. Lots of consumers are interested and the auto manufacturers are playing along, but the oil companies are the only ones with fuel distribution networks and it's going to take someone like Bush to basically force them to distribute ethanol and biodiesel. Hell, half the stations don't even carry regular diesel.
All it would take is some cajoling from Bush for the 'good guy' oil companies like BP and Shell and Chevron to add alternative fuels to their inventories. Give them some sort of tax break and you'd see them on the pumps in a couple of months.
Dave
52 - Scott
Re-thinking it now...I'm not quite sure just how sincere Bush's ideas on alternative energy really are. I'd be surprised to see him take any really big steps in that direction.
53 - Mark Saleski
that's my next granola move: a biodiesel volkswagan.
always wanted a car that smelled like french fries.
54 - Bliffle
Dave:
Well that's the problem with allowing monopolies to flourish. Heck, the monopoly corps and the feds are partners in crime.
55 - Dave Nalle
You have a point, bliff, but the 'good' oil companies have branched out into solar and other areas of alternative energy and alternative uses and means of processing petrochemicals, so if there's money to be made with ethanol and biodiesel all they should need is a nudge in the right direction.
But the problem may be monopolies in a different way. A few giant agrobusinesses have the potential to dominate ethanol production, and if companies like ADM can't be made to step up their productions it may be hard to get small companies to expand to fill the vacuum, especially if the giant agrobusinesses try to stop them.
Dave
56 - MT
I date back more than most of you and clearly remember Nixon in 1973 saying that we must address our dependency on oil and develop alternate fuel sources. That was 33 years ago! What happened? Where have all our politicians been all this time when it comes to this issue? Bush is a bull in a china shop and sucks -- we all know that -- but so do all the Democrats and the rest of that bunch of corrupt old world blowhards in DC. This will not be the USA's century. The good old days have come and gone.
57 - Dave Nalle
Bush may be late coming to this issue, but unlike all of his predecessors except for Jimmy Carter he's actually trying to do something. And his efforts appear to be far more sensible than Carter's half-assed speed limit lowering.
Dave
58 - SonnyD
Dave #48: You misunderstood my reference to the human/animal subject in the bible. Not having to do with humans having sex with animals. I suppose that is in there, too. This was a mention of creatures that roamed the earth at some time and were considered atrocities. If I remember right, they had been created in the past by some sort of human experimentation.
I was just wondering if Pres. Bush had been reading his bible and thought it was possible that somebody might use cloning to attempt something like that.
59 - MT
Dave -- time will tell if Bush actually means what he says about developing alternative fuel sources, or if its just more rhetoric. Already he has retracted his pledge to free us of oil dependency by the year 2025.
You're such a Bush-ite that you can't see that this man is in over his head. The tide is turning, Dave, and you're on the wrong side of the tracks. Americans do not like what they're seeing.
60 - Dave Nalle
MT, I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt. No one else is doing anything to help out with important issues like fuel conservation or social security reform, so I have to hang my hopes on the little bit he's offering.
Dave
61 - MT
Dave -- at the risk of sounding disrespectful -- which is not my intention at all -- all I can say is dream on. I don't know what the mood is in your neck of the woods but in mine, Virginia, even the most rural folks are turning against W. The GWB hype has imploded. The spin won't work anymore. The smear, the slur, the covert trick tactics have been revealed.
62 - Scott
Wait, wait, wait...Dave...you give people the benefit of the doubt?? When in the hell did this start happening??
63 - Dave Nalle
Always, Scott. It's my great weakness.
MT, I live in Texas, and here we're a little more realistic and there are still plenty who give Bush the benefit of the doubt.
Dave
64 - Christopher Rose
Texans realistic? Now I truly have heard the last word in self delusion. I'm gonna be sniggering over that one for weeks!
Thanks Dave, I needed something to cheer me up on a rare rainy day in Spain...
65 - Scott
"there are still plenty who give Bush the benefit of the doubt"
They're called "morons."
66 - MT
Texas more "ballistic" is more like it, Dave.
67 - Bliffle
"Bush may be late coming to this issue, but unlike all of his predecessors except for Jimmy Carter he's actually trying to do something."
What?
68 - Dave Nalle
Christopher: Realistic in the sense of not having false expectations or unreasonable idealism.
Scott: There are morons everywhere even in (insert home state).
MT: Everything is better if it's more ballistic.
Bliffle: Read carefully. Jimmy Carter actually tried to do something about our dependence on foreign oil. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton did nothing. Bush II did more in his last energy bill for alternative energy than has ever been done before. See what I'm saying?
Dave
69 - gonzo marx
#68 sez...
*Bush II did more in his last energy bill for alternative energy than has ever been done before. See what I'm saying?*
translation:Bush2 gave away a shitload of money to energy companies via outright cash and tax break fo rthem at least saying they would look into alternatives when they get around to it...no performance or milestones set...
there....fixT
Excelsior!
70 - Dave Nalle
Did I say 'enough', gonzo? He also provided a nice fat tax break for people who buy hybrid cars, and that's a nice market-based effort that earns him some points.
Dave
71 - gonzo marx
now now, Mr Nalle..did i aim that barb at you?...nope...that wa for the Shrub and Cheney and the s00per sekrit energy task force bullshit
the hybrid hype is a step in the right direction, but if you look closely...much of it is in SIUV's that get no bette rmileage, just boosting underpowered engines and a feel good sticker
fuck that
but i do agree it IS a tiny, baby step of progress
nowhere near what the Admin is trying to crow about...and hence my snark...even you made it seem a bit more than the Reality in your quoted statement
fair enough?
Excelsior!
72 - Dave Nalle
the hybrid hype is a step in the right direction, but if you look closely...much of it is in SIUV's that get no bette rmileage, just boosting underpowered engines and a feel good sticker
Point me to these hybrid SUVs, because they are a tiny portion of the market and one of the whole TWO of them is the incredibly crappy Ford Escape. And if we can give the public what they want to drive (an SUV) with the gas mileage of a smaller car, then that's ok with me. It's still progress.
Dave
73 - Scott Butki
I'm pro-mermaid and pro your idea of ending the drug war.
So we're actually agreeing on something.
Mark your diary accordingly
74 - MT
Dave -- in your post # 68 you stated that everything is better if it's more ballistic. Your comment was in response to my comment that Texans are ballistic versus your comment that they are more realistic when it comes to Bush and there are still plenty willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
This prompted me to turn to the dictionary for a definition of ballistic. Def:: "suddenly and extremely upset, or angry - not amenable to human habitation, or cultivation - uncontrolled, unruly, stormy, uncivilized, barbaric, wild."
Do you realize they could lynch you in Texas for such a comment?
75 - Dave Nalle
MT, I was making a pun. Look at the other definitions of ballistic.
Dave