|
 |
January 20, 2004 STATE OF THE UNION....Real-time thoughts on the State of the Union address.... Overall impressions of the Democratic response — Jeez, that was just horrible. I don't think they said a single memorable thing, their delivery was stiff (though Daschle was better than Pelosi), they didn't really offer any kind of competing vision, and I don't think they drew any blood at all. What a missed opportunity. 7:30 — Why is it that "response" speeches are always so bad? Is it bad speechwriters? Lack of preparation? Or what? 7:29 — Uh oh. A nurse in Sioux Falls with cancer.... 7:26 — Come on, guys. Now some tedious arithmetic about job losses? Sheesh. 7:25 — Ah, something about paying for Bush's plans with your Social Security money. Good point. Too bad he didn't follow up on it. 7:23 — OK, it's Daschle's turn. He agrees that the state of our union really is strong. 7:21 — Some good stuff about increased funding for homeland security and loose nukes. Still badly delivered, but decent points. 7:20 — This is about the fourth or fifth miscue from Pelosi. Has she never read from a TelePrompter before? 7:17 — Wow, Pelosi is a really bad speaker, isn't she? Totally wooden. 7:15 — Hey there's more! Now we get to hear from Tom and Nancy! But why aren't they standing up? It's awfully hard to give a good speech sitting down. Overall impressions — Very light on substance, but also very optimistic and inspirational. And very much aimed at the base, with talk of drugs and marriage and faith-based charities. I have a feeling it's a speech that won't go over too well with the punditocracy but probably played pretty well at home. 7:06 — That's it? Wow. That was surely one of the shortest and least substantive SOTUs ever. And commenter Frugal Liberal wins a prize: Bush didn't mention the Mars mission. I thought he would. 7:05 — On the other hand, I have to admit that he's able to pull off this kind of heart-tugging stuff pretty well. 7:03 — Oh no, not a letter from a child from the heartland.... 6:59 — So does he want a marriage amendment or not? It would be nice if he'd give us a straight answer on this one of these days. 6:57 — Get rid of steroids in professional sports? What the heck is that doing in the SOTU? 6:55 — Lots of retrospective stuff so far: the war was great, the Medicare bill was great, NCLB was great, etc. etc. But really, not much in the way of new policy proposals. 6:54 — This is the second time he's talked about eliminating frivolous lawsuits. But what's his proposal for doing this? 6:51 — Any attempt to take away Medicare prescription benefits will "meet...my...veto." Huh? Who's proposing that? Especially given that Republicans control both houses of Congress? 6:48 — We can cut the deficit in half in five years, apparently by limiting the growth in discretionary spending to 4%. This simply defies all reason. That won't even come close to cutting the deficit in half. 6:45 — Lots of good words about energy policy. Too bad none of that stuff is actually in the energy bill he's trying to get through Congress. 6:44 — A standing O for increased support for community colleges? 6:40 — The people are spending their tax money better than the government could have? But isn't the government still spending all that money too? 6:35 — So far the entire SOTU has just been platitudes about Iraq and the war on terror. That's fine, but when do we get something concrete? 6:25 — Did he really have the gall to pretend that the Kay report vindicated all the prewar WMD allegations? Posted by Kevin Drum at January 20, 2004 06:38 PM | TrackBackComments
One must turn off their brain when listening to a Bush speech, else depression sets in. You must try it some time, Kevin. D Posted by: Dano at January 20, 2004 06:42 PM | PERMALINKI had the same thought about the community colleges line. I also loved how some applauded the fact that the parts of the Patriot Act are set to expire (who told Bush to pause there?) Then Bush says "but the terrorist threat will not expire" ... and DeLay & co CLAP about that? Is that something to cheer? Posted by: kormal at January 20, 2004 06:46 PM | PERMALINK
This is playing a lot closer to his base than I expected. That WMD Program reference was a little far-out. Love the Kennedy shots, BTW. Posted by: Frugal Liberal at January 20, 2004 06:51 PM | PERMALINKThe Repubs are risking injuries to their hamstrings with all the ups and downs. Did Rove install seat buzzers for them? Posted by: lk at January 20, 2004 06:51 PM | PERMALINKWow! We're going to pursue an aggressive pro-growth strategy! Stand up and clap, y'all! Posted by: bob at January 20, 2004 06:53 PM | PERMALINKCableNewser.com is live-blogging the media's coverage tonight. Posted by: mike abrams at January 20, 2004 06:56 PM | PERMALINKWhy in the world is he talking about steroids. This is unbelievable!!!! Posted by: Moebetta at January 20, 2004 06:56 PM | PERMALINKTerrible and desolate speech. Like a WMD barren wasteland. Hey? Kind of like Iraq. This guy is so done....Edwards or Kerry will chew him up alive in Clintonesque fashion. This election is about domestic issues. W simply can't campaign on that this late in the game. The gig is up. We have just regained the Presidency :) woo-hoo. Posted by: what2 at January 20, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINK
I wonder if Bush will support Satanists, too? (I think Santorum creamed his pants on the whole family bit.) Posted by: Frugal Liberal at January 20, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINK6:54 — This is the second time he's talked about eliminating frivolous lawsuits. But what's the proposal for doing this? A pre-emptive shot at a certain trial lawyer with a strong showing in Iowa? Probably not, but you never know with this crew. If Edwards stays hot, Rove and Co. will be trying to turn "trial lawyer" into his first name. Good idea to remind people why they don't like them. Posted by: Merv at January 20, 2004 07:01 PM | PERMALINKTerrorism, Terrorism, Spend, Spend, Spend...this speech is as bad as Dean's. Has he said one thing about HOW we are going to cut the debt in half in 5 years? Hardly, more like spend, spend, spend again. Either way, soon I will have my country back! Posted by: what2 at January 20, 2004 07:02 PM | PERMALINKHe mentioned steroids because Pete Rose bet him $100 he couldn't find a way to put it into the SOTU. Oh Oh letter from little girl part, I think I am going to cry, or gag. Posted by: lk at January 20, 2004 07:03 PM | PERMALINK7:04 PM PST. GWB 25, common sense 0. Glad I took the over on the over\under. Posted by: bobbyp at January 20, 2004 07:04 PM | PERMALINKThe line that drove me over the edge was, "We will not ask the rest of the world for a permission slip before we take action to defend our country." What the hell does invading Iraq have to do with our national defense? Posted by: peter jung at January 20, 2004 07:04 PM | PERMALINKThis is so much more fun than just watching the speech. Posted by: poputonian at January 20, 2004 07:04 PM | PERMALINKEverything's coming up roses! Yippee! Posted by: poputonian at January 20, 2004 07:05 PM | PERMALINKI wish we were all a little more like Ashley. Posted by: Jeffrey Gordon at January 20, 2004 07:05 PM | PERMALINKFrugal Liberal- Republicans want government out of our economic lives, not our personal lives. You see... When you let people buy and sell what they want, everyone ends up happy. If you let them love whoever they want, though, well... Society falls apart, apparently. Look at Canada. -Mev Posted by: Mev at January 20, 2004 07:05 PM | PERMALINK>I wish we were all a little more like Ashley. Ahh, to be "...age 2 -- 10 years old"! Mev, Ahh. I see the difference, there. I guess I don't mind the intrusion if he's keeping me from a bleak, desolate Canadian existence. No mention of the space plan. I guess there wouldn't be enough applause from either side on that one. Posted by: Frugal Liberal at January 20, 2004 07:09 PM | PERMALINKwhy is he signing autographs for members of congress? Posted by: ian at January 20, 2004 07:10 PM | PERMALINKDid Dick Cheney dump his glass of water on Bush? Did I see that right? Posted by: Brian Griffin at January 20, 2004 07:11 PM | PERMALINKHeh. 2/3 of Al Qaeda's known officials have been caught. I guess Omasa-What's-His-Name is in that *other* 1/3. This played a lot closer to base than expected. Will this play well in the swing/moderate states? Peter, we now have a Department of Offense. It is the same logo except with a really really pissed off looking Eagle that shits a lot.
Kind of queer when the president of the US feels a need to bash a bunch of fags after he's had over 500 of his soldiers die in a war that was nothing more than a family feud. After all, Saddam tried to kill his daddy. Posted by: raj at January 20, 2004 07:20 PM | PERMALINKI'll tell you what is depressing... watching the knee jerk reaction from this group! I think most of you had canned responses before you even watched the speech. Unfortunately this site has become nothing but a forum for Bush Haters. Try and be a little objective. I am by no means a Bush lover but you guys are ridiculous. A little objective critisism goes a long way but you guys sound about as wacked as Dean did last night! Posted by: Lyvouch at January 20, 2004 07:22 PM | PERMALINKLyvouch, I for one know my response wasnt canned. His speech was pathetic from a content and inspirational perspective. It was naive in the fact that it promises everything yet never mentions how we will cut the deficit or pay for any of it. Pipedreams my friend. It was in short. Terrorism..Terrorism...No Taxes...No Taxes..More spending for Johnny...More spending for Johnny. Hardly, a classic inspirational conservative platform. Sad. Pathetic. Crappy. Bush will lose significantly in 2004. I have no doubt. We can not only win but win big. Easy-day. Posted by: what2 at January 20, 2004 07:26 PM | PERMALINKI couldn't listen to the whole thing (delicate stomach and all) but I was impressed with his delivery of the summary of the Kay report: " They've found EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION programs..." The line that drove me over the edge was his promise of Pell Grants for every student who takes advanced-placement classes. Sorry, something about this idiot wastrel, who has never in his life had to worry about paying for tuition (or anything else), condescending to offer pocket change to kids who actually might, y'know, study or something — there's gotta be something better on cable. Posted by: nina at January 20, 2004 07:26 PM | PERMALINKLyvouch, If you would care to make the case for any of the President's points (say, the war on steroids, or the return of the Patriot Act), then please do so. Posted by: Nate at January 20, 2004 07:27 PM | PERMALINKTry and be a little objective. Objectively? Worst. Speech. Ever. I was shouting obscenities at the TV at every lie. (Private Eye got it right: 'GADAFFI TO GET RID OF WEAPONS OF NON-EXISTENCE'.) It wasn't just the Stalinist rally qualities from the GOPper side, too. Watch Tony Blair face Question Time, Lyvouch -- CSPAN shows it on Sunday evenings -- and you'll realise just how Dubya (literally and metaphorically) gets away with murder during set-pieces like this. More heckling the SOTU, please. Posted by: ahem at January 20, 2004 07:27 PM | PERMALINKWhat impressed you Lyvouch about the speech? I found it extremely broad with most of the facts in dispute, and with nothing bold like his AIDS/Africa program last year. It was a regurgitation of the programs he's already mentioned in public. I wasn't impressed. That being said, how awful was Pelosi?? I mean that was just horrible. Posted by: Double B at January 20, 2004 07:29 PM | PERMALINKCan someone please point me to the 'Remove Daschle from the
Leadership at All Costs' website? This guy has to go. I wonder why the
Dems project an image of incredible sheepishness and dullness... More heckling the SOTU, please. I was doing a tyrant watch early; There went Rumsfeld, Powell, Ashcroft; there's Bush, Cheney. Posted by: poputonian at January 20, 2004 07:32 PM | PERMALINKCan someone please order up a charisma transplant for Pelosi and Daschle? Sheesh... Posted by: Anarch at January 20, 2004 07:32 PM | PERMALINKI liked the Democrat response from a left-brained, logical perspective. A lot of good policy points were made. I agree that presentation was lacking for Dems, they need a
right-brain emotional hook (beyond the nurse in Sioux Falls with
cancer). Fight the Patriot Act! Tell your congressperson and senators not to renew the provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire. These provisions were considered such a threat to civil liberties that even conservative Republicans led the fight to put sunset time limits on them! It is likely that if not abolished these parts of the Patriot Act will be used to punish dissent. Remember Nixon? Our future liberty and that of our children may well depend on our taking action now. Contact your representatives now: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Posted by: Rick Barton at January 20, 2004 07:34 PM | PERMALINKWow. That Democratic response was a bit subdued. Is Daschle a Republican double-agent or something? I think somebody needs to follow him for a couple weeks, see who he meets out in the park at midnight. (And please, God, let that other person be Rick Santorum.) Kevin, Thanks for the Moon recognition. Bush couldn't give two craps about Mars. I think he's keen on the idea of more Army influence over NASA, though. Posted by: Frugal Liberal at January 20, 2004 07:36 PM | PERMALINKFuck Osama, he's after Barry Bonds now! Soon pro-sports will be drug free, just like Southeast Asia is now child-sex trade free. Posted by: Talking Wall at January 20, 2004 07:38 PM | PERMALINKAhem, Nate and What2, You are missing the point. I agree with very little of what the president proposes or does, but knee jerk reactions from people that seem like they are screaming at the TV just don't seem like they are ready to discuss anything. I mean no disrespect but step back and look at yourselves. I am looking at what both sides have to offer. I don't see much from Dems are Reps that I like. Your demeanor is very unattractive and sounds like nothing more than wishfull thinking. A desperate hope that because you wish it to be bad than people will see it as bad. I could sit here and discuss the individual points of the speech with you but I probably wouldn't disagree with as much as you think. I also didn't think much of Pelosi and Daschle's followup. They were equally as void of substance. Posted by: Lyvouch at January 20, 2004 07:39 PM | PERMALINKFor what it's worth, we thought the response was pretty good in my house. Not the best delivered, but it: Overall, much better in my opinion. Posted by: MDtoMN at January 20, 2004 07:43 PM | PERMALINKI wonder if response speeches aren't simply destined to sound bad. Maybe next time a Democrat is giving the response to a SOTU (hopefully not until 2013!), you might try taping it and watching it the next day, when the psychological baggage of the pomp-and-pageantry aspect of POTUS addressing Congress, with all the applause and better lighting and additional claptrap. You go from all that, to a couple of people sitting down in a closed room, with less-bright lighting and no applause to punctuate the speech and no crowd reaction for the speaker to feed from. I suspect it might play better the next day. (Well, maybe not Daschle.) Posted by: Jaquandor at January 20, 2004 07:44 PM | PERMALINKI'm a left-wing progressive and I really like Pelosi. The response flat-out sucked. I couldn't even pay attention to the policy points because it was so poorly given. Seriously, those two need to spend some of their campaign money and hire a personal debate coach or something. It was that bad. Posted by: Double B at January 20, 2004 07:48 PM | PERMALINKLyvouch... So that's it? you're just sick of the empty Bush-bashing? Who's to say you're not just engaging in empty Bush-basher bashing? (Or maybe I'm just dabbling with empty Bush-basher-basher bashing.) More seriously... what would you have liked to have heard in the SOTU or the minority response? Posted by: Nate at January 20, 2004 07:48 PM | PERMALINKThe Democratic response is always bad. I missed the whole show this year, but I remember that Gary Locke totally bombed last year. Half the speech was about his grandpa or something. I understand why they can't put presidential candidates up there, but if they were smart they'd use somebody like John Edwards. Young, up-and-coming, telegenic, and actually good at public speaking. Surprising that they haven't thought of that concept before. I don't know who would fit the bill though. I keep reading all this good stuff about Granholm of Michigan. Maybe Harold Ford or Russell Feingold? I dunno. Posted by: JP at January 20, 2004 07:48 PM | PERMALINKI'm checking out the real Democrat response. He's ending, but the archive should be available sometime soon. Posted by: Frugal Liberal at January 20, 2004 07:50 PM | PERMALINKJP, Any Democrat who can real a teleprompter and speak. Hell I could have given a better response than that. Posted by: Double B at January 20, 2004 07:50 PM | PERMALINKIs it me...or did Pelosi look like she came from the wax museum. Yes our response did suck. Yes Dean was an idiot yesterday. However, Iowa has shown that we have atleast two viable candidates that can not only beat Bush but whoop up on him. Let us get to work in taking out the garbage. Posted by: what2 at January 20, 2004 07:51 PM | PERMALINKABC lets John Kerry give the 3rd Democratic response tonight which consisted of his usual boring stump speech material. Do the other candidates get equal time? What is with that anyway? Didn't Pelosi and Dashkle score enough points in ABC's opinion? I can't believe what the media goes through to discredit the President. Posted by: Dennis Slater at January 20, 2004 07:51 PM | PERMALINKBut I can't spell better. Should be "read" Posted by: Double B at January 20, 2004 07:51 PM | PERMALINK
And, naturally, they were happy to oblige. Posted by: Jon H at January 20, 2004 07:54 PM | PERMALINKMaybe I'm mostly happy because Bush's speech was so bad and reeked of real fear. I had almost given up hope for the Democrats, but I think his speech shows that they really feel worried. It was whiny and nervous and week. It focused on the wrong issues. He didn't mention Osama Ben Laden, and his take on Jobs was weak. Also, he just kinda mouthed off about families etc. I just don't think it will play very well with the type of people who actually watch it. Meanwhile, the Democrats POINTS were good, even if their delivery was poor. Sometimes both are poor, and that's the real tragedy. Remember, only junkies are watching at that point, so it really is the substance more than the appearance that matters. Posted by: MDtoMN at January 20, 2004 08:00 PM | PERMALINKJon H, He said the state of the union was strong and the economy is getting better. Kinda neglects how far we have to go. You know, I just realized every time I jump up, I'm closer to the moon. Posted by: Moebetta at January 20, 2004 08:07 PM | PERMALINKIn a previous speech, I saw Pelosi simultaneously demanding citizenship for 40 million new Mexicans while demanding their prohibition as strike breakers in the grocery workers dispute. This women lives a contradiction. She exemplifies why the liberal California view survives only in fantasy, never passing the test of real government. Posted by: Matt Young at January 20, 2004 08:09 PM | PERMALINKPresident Bush gave a speech full of various generalities, invoked 9/11, but gave little detail as to how his proposals were to be funded. The speech also seemed to lack a focus. Bush appeared to be stating that he was going to give everyone everything they wanted, and best of all, it would require no money to do this. This was his worst State of the Union. I am also disturbed that despite the fact that he is constantly in very learned company, no one has instructed the President that the word nuclear is not pronounced "nuc-u-lur." Posted by: Roland at January 20, 2004 08:12 PM | PERMALINKI should feel bad. Bush has been doing nothing but studying that speech for three days and I didn't pay him the courtesy of my viewership. But with the excellent Calpunditer's responses--I feel like I was there, without having to hear that despicable voice. Thankyou. Nate, Unfortunately I dont think I'll ever hear what I'm looking for in the SOTU or response. It is mainly just for public consumption. The presentation is more important than the content. A lot of people seem to respond to general discussion that the candidates hope will present them like a leader or a statesman. Too bad for us it also means very little specifics or content. About the only thing I draw from SOTU and response are the general directions each is taking toward next years election. In my evaluation the President is going to continue presenting himself as someone addressing the domestic issues and at the same time fighting the war on terrorism (keeping us safe). What that means to me is that he will continue spending money on domestic programs no matter what the cost and do everything possible to keep things stable in Iraq and Afgan until after the election. The Dems tried to paint a rosey picture despite the President. They are for the first time acknowledging that the economy is turning for the better but are pointing out everything they can possibly see that is bad about it like job creation. I can say similar things about Iraq and Homeland security. Unfortunately their speech had less substance than Bush's. They proposed no specifics. (I can't wait for some of you to scream at that one) Bottom line is all the SOTU did was set up the line that the Dems and Reps are going to be spouting for the next 10 months. Thanks for asking Nate. I'd like to continue this dialog. Don't want each response to be a mile long. This is the first time i've ever chatted like this. Posted by: Lyvouch at January 20, 2004 08:20 PM | PERMALINKNacy Pelosi looked like Malcolm Mcdowell from A Clockwork Orange where he's strapped down Forgot about the Pell grant thing. What about all the kids who lost pell grants this year due to budget cuts? at my university the number of pell grants available in 2004-05 is going to be decreased about 70%. That's go down by 70%. So basically he's full of shit. But you all already knew that. Posted by: four legs good at January 20, 2004 08:27 PM | PERMALINKThey are rebroadcasting the speech on C-span right now. It is not only unremarkable; the speech itself is horrid and confusing. I find the mention of the steroids truly bizarre and out of place in a speech that should have concentrated on Iraq and the terror war. At times, President Bush himself seemed to barely be able to contain laughter. Posted by: Roland at January 20, 2004 08:27 PM | PERMALINKHey, maybe it was only on ABC, but did anyone else note the expressions on the faces of the servicemen and servicewomen in the audience? I'm not talking about the Joint Chiefs, but the actual soldiers in the audience. It came as close to disgust as anything I've ever SEEN in a SOTU. My wife picked up on it immediately (and this kind of stuff is not her thing). They literally looked sickened. I'm just wondering if we imagined it, because nobody else blogged it that I've read so far. Like I said, was it just an ABC thing? --will6 Posted by: will6 at January 20, 2004 08:32 PM | PERMALINKOn the right, one political hack. On the left, two political hacks. I'm starting to understand why my wife refuses to watch these spectacles. Politics used to be interesting and even fun. The three dimbulbs I saw tonight amounted to a wasted hour-and-a-half. I agree with the Democrats that Bush needs early retirement, but how in the world do they expect to accomplish that with responses such as those tonight? The best they could come up with was two shining pillars of the welfare state who must have snoozed through rhetoric class. Weak, boring and embarrassing. Posted by: JT at January 20, 2004 08:43 PM | PERMALINKSo the smirking chimp finally stopped flapping his chops and wiggling his tail. My, for someone who was born with a silver foot in his mouth, he is truly inarticulate. And vile. Republican Talibans would enjoy it, though. Posted by: raj at January 20, 2004 08:51 PM | PERMALINKBetter go to Eschaton and see the Chimp Gone Wild photo. It'll bring tears to your eyes. Posted by: Conker at January 20, 2004 09:15 PM | PERMALINKI've got to agree that Pelosi (is it botox that makes here eyes open that wide all the time?) and Daschale looked and sounded terrible. I thought however that Kerry's response was good. I saw him on NBC (i think, I was flipping networks) and ABC. He came very close to lifting (and I think did actually use) Edwards' "two Americas" line, but used it two point to the differences between what Bush says is happening or what is actually happening. Kerry also refused to equivocate about voting against the Defense of Marriage Bill, coming about as close to endorsing gay marriage as you can without using the two words in the same sentence. given the war and the economy, I don't think too many fence sitters will be impressed with government intervention into the nature of marriage, as bush suggested in his speech. If bush sticks with this it could help educate people about what a right wing crank he really is.
In several places tho, bush rested key points on very carefully parsed statements and statistics. Daschale pointed out that a "36% increse" in funding for No Child Left Behind still leaves that program not funded enough to accomplish its goals. Likewise, one of the news commentators also highlighted the phrases having to do with "weapons of mass destruction PROGRAMS..." the democrats really need to jump on this stuff. The "liberal" media has shown little desire to engage in any real follow up or analysis of Bush's statements. Posted by: Urk at January 20, 2004 09:17 PM | PERMALINKWhy is it that "response" speeches are always so bad? Is it bad speechwriters? Lack of preparation? Or what? Because response speeches tend to be bad per se, unlike, say, reviews of bad books, which are often the place to find some of the best writing possible. It's a combination of the timeframe, and also of being forced to mimic, to some extent, the narrative of the speech to which you're responding. Speeches have to have their own narrative, their own momentum, their own direction, and if you compare, say, the stump speeches of candidates such as John Edwards to the SOTU address, then it's easy to see how the former is not necessarily a response to the latter. Hence the kind of lame stuff from Pelosi and Daschle, where they have to concede to the narrative of Bush's speech before making their own. That said, there are some great response speeches in the annals of history. Problem is, they belong to parliamentary speakers, who are born and raised in a system of true rebuttal, as opposed to the Congressional model. If you ever get a presidential candidate who has experience of a proper debating society -- Clinton may have been a Rhodes Scholar, but he was (thankfully, I must say) not an Oxford Union type, then you'll hear how response is meant to be done. No-one remembers the rebuttal to the Budget speech in Britain. But some rebuttal speeches, such as Robin Cook's response to the statement on the Scott Inquiry into sales of potential weapons parts to Iraq, rank as the best political oratory of the modern age. That's because they don't have to follow the narrative of the previous speech, and can establish their own narrative to devastating effect. Ash for Bush's speech, to quote Bill Hicks: 'piece. of. shit.' At least there were those two fissures -- the bits on the expiration of the PATRIOT Act and the tax cuts -- which allowed the Dem side to derail it with applause. Posted by: ahem at January 20, 2004 09:33 PM | PERMALINKmachismo and God.... Yes Urk, it was Delightfully tacky, Velvet Elvis tacky. Bush and his irk are the reason Europe looks at us like a bunch of Viking thugs stuffing turkey legs in our mouths with our bare hands. America has no right to impose freedom on anyone. We do not have white mans burden. Bush is years late with that one. With Edwards or Kerry (hopefully not Kerry) we have the ability to
win big. Thank God. To paraphrase MLK, thank God Almighty, for we will
be free atlast. Re: steroids -- I bet he's covering his ass. He knows he'll need a job next year, and this sets him up for baseball commish. Posted by: Eric at January 20, 2004 09:39 PM | PERMALINKThe best opposition response I ever heard was from Fred Thomspon of Tennessee. Why can't the Dems find their own movie actor to put before the camera? Posted by: rachelrachel at January 20, 2004 09:50 PM | PERMALINK Get steroids out of professional sports -- and into Sacramento where they belong! Posted by: FlipYrWhig at January 20, 2004 09:52 PM | PERMALINKYou pretty much summed up my thoughts on the SOTU Kevin HOWEVER there are some things which I can't quite say I agree with you on. Plus, you missed one VERY important point. That being Bush's plan to spend (or should I say $pend?) THREE HUNDRED MILLION of YOUR TAXPAYING $$$ on a PRISONER REFORM/TRANSITION SYSTEM (How could you have missed THAT Kevin?). Visit my blog and you'll see what I've written. :) Cheers for now :) Pat Posted by: Pat Cook at January 20, 2004 10:17 PM | PERMALINKThat being Bush's plan to spend (or should I say $pend?) THREE HUNDRED MILLION of YOUR TAXPAYING $$$ on a PRISONER REFORM/TRANSITION SYSTEM How about this: spend $300m on non-custodial programs for the kind of prisoners who shouldn't be in jail in the first place, but end up there because of a racially- and socially- skewed judicial system? The point's simple: a 17-year-old crack user has most likely been failed by the system. That's not to say that there are issues of personal responsibility and familial responsibility, but let's deal with realities here. The prison population is a symptom of social failure, and of a failure in the judicial system. Ensuring that those who have been locked up don't end up spending the rest of their lives in jail -- at the cost of human life/quality of life and at the expense of the taxpayer -- is a social goal well worth pursuing. If rich white kids who toot coke got the same treatment as poor black kids smoking rocks of crack, then there'd be a demand for billions of dollars of taxpayer money to deal with it. In the meantime, it's worth putting taxpayer money into programs that treat black kids who got jailed for smoking crack as if they were white kids who escaped punishment while snorting coke. Just think, Pat Cook, of how much it costs in TAXPAYING $$$ to keep people locked up. And compare it to spending TAXPAYER $$$ to put people in jobs where they PAY TAXES. Posted by: ahem at January 20, 2004 10:51 PM | PERMALINKWow. That sounds like good old Senator Kerry, he was once a friend of mine....Is Good Kerry back? If so we've only got decent candidates left--and if that was Dean's role, the McCarthy to pave the way for the not-RFK-but-not-Humphrey-either-and-he'll-do, then I can accept that. I'm still skeptical however. Posted by: Katherine at January 21, 2004 12:40 AM | PERMALINKThe reason that response commentary pales in comparison to the SOTU bloviation should be obvious. The SOTU is held in an ornate hall full of people, at least some of whom feel it necessary to applaud at every semi-colon--or whenever the "applause" sign is illuminated. On the other hand, the response is held in a back room somewhere. Bereft of audience. And without the ornateness of the SOTU hall. The fact should be clear to any psychologist. People get cues from other people. With the SOTU, there are plenty of cues. With the response, there is nothing. Posted by: raj at January 21, 2004 05:13 AM | PERMALINKActually, one might seriously ask why the American pRsident is not subjected to questioning like the British prime minister. Whatever one thinks of Tony Blair's performances, the fact is that his policies are subjected to questioning by the opposition. On television. And he has to have some defense for his positions. Given the fact that Shrub has had--what--a miniscule 11 press conferences, which are a pale substitute for the British questioning practice, query whether Shrub is in a position to defend his policies. Posted by: raj at January 21, 2004 07:06 AM | PERMALINKAs to the community college thing. Read this weeks NYTimes magazine article about a poor woman. She went to college and still can't get a better job than walmart. Also read Ehrenreich's nickled and dimed. Posted by: mecki at January 21, 2004 07:17 AM | PERMALINKI wish I had come here last night instead of getting angry and fuming all alone. It would have been a healthier outlet for my frustration. A word about Pelosi and another reason why I am not a Democrat. Pelosi came to her seat by way of a death-bed endorsement by Sala Burton, herself a death-bed endorsement (or at least they propped her dead husband's body up and had his hand point towards her). It seems the Democrat machine in San Francisco felt that Nancy should be rewarded for all of her good works for the national Democrat Party, and that was more important than allowing San Franciscans a real opportunity to select someone of their own choice to be Congressperson (read that: No Gays Need Apply). She turned into an okay Congressperson, but since she didn't have to get her hands dirty on her rise in politics, she never developed those natural talents like, you know, talking to real people. I know Bush didn't talk about space, but we need to watch him closely on this anyway. How many billions is it worth to give the "contract" to Halliburton to further develop nuclear power without civilian oversight, not to mention the opportunity to exploit space for military reasons? Don't be counting the electoral votes yet. There's a lot of work to be done between now and November. These people are evil, and they're well financed. Cheers. Posted by: Ray Bridges at January 21, 2004 07:55 AM | PERMALINK> To quote our resident, "What's the difference?" Ed Hey, maybe it was only on ABC, but did anyone else note the expressions on the faces of the servicemen and servicewomen in the audience? I'm not talking about the Joint Chiefs, but the actual soldiers in the audience. It came as close to disgust as anything I've ever SEEN in a SOTU. My wife picked up on it immediately (and this kind of stuff is not her thing). They literally looked sickened. I'm just wondering if we imagined it, because nobody else blogged it that I've read so far. Like I said, was it just an ABC thing? No, it wasn't just an ABC thing. I watched on NBC and noticed it also -- a complete lack of smiles or enthusiasm from almost anyone in uniform. But they were stony faces, not angry faces. I couldn't tell if they were truly upset by what they were hearing, or if they were simply being real (as opposed to all the politicians present who know how to smile and preen for the cameras). Even so, you'd think that if the Repubs could find some soldiers to populate the audience with, they would have found the most supportive, gung-ho of the bunch. Or maybe they were people who'd seen action in Iraq and the administration just thought they'd be supportive because they couldn't imagine anything else? Notice also how Bush addressed the notion of an American "Empire." Clearly, his speechwriters were listening to and reading all the dissenting opinions in the last few months, which makes me happy that someone is. There were other instances of trying to address specific criticisms, but I can't think of them offhand. But it was obvious they were paying attention to what people are saying, even if they're not paying attention to the substance of their words. Posted by: Spirit at January 21, 2004 08:30 AM | PERMALINKThe whole thing seemed like so much BS - "we've got money to spend on everyone and everything and nobody will ever have to pay the bill!" Does this guy ever stop spending money? And please, please quit stop saying tax cuts mean more jobs. Is there anyone left who still actually believes that BS? Posted by: Tripp at January 21, 2004 08:40 AM | PERMALINKTripp wrote: "And please, please quit stop saying tax cuts mean more jobs. Is there anyone left who still actually believes that BS?" Sadly, yes. Just as there are those who believe that Iraq was linked to 9/11 and that we found WMDs in Iraq. 6:51 — Any attempt to take away Medicare prescription benefits
will "meet...my...veto." Huh? Who's proposing that? Especially given
that Republicans control both houses of Congress? The response felt like one long, boring, infomercial. In future, what about doing a speech in front of an audience that is meant to rouse? It would be a lot more interesting television and keep me, for one, from switching channels looking for commentary on the "real" speech. Posted by: catherine at January 21, 2004 03:52 PM | PERMALINKI was really disappointed in the SOTU speech. I did not hear promises of free cars for everyone who needs one to get to work, promises for free houses for those who do not have one, promises for free live-in doctors and free drive-in pharmacies, promises for good paying (at least $100,000 a year) jobs for everyone who needs one, promises of free 24/7 live-in childcare for everyone with children, promises of free cash rewards for those who donate money to political campaigns, promises of free unlimited abortions, promises of free weddings for any combination of people you can think of, promises to shut down every power plant in the US, promises to destroy every dam, promises to prohibit use of any federal land by anyone for any reason, promises to provide a free college education for everyone, promises to provide live-in tutors to students that need them, promises to get every polluting truck, bus and car off the road, and promises of free mental health care professionals living at your house 24/7 if you need one like I do. Did I forget anything? All this will be paid for by taxing the rich at a flat 98.34%, taxing dividends at 85.45%, taxing capital gains at 82.23%, and taxing estates at 100%. People are suffering and we need to have the government act now to end the suffering. Especially the suffering of the children. President Bush let us down. Posted by: Dennis Slater at January 22, 2004 09:10 PM | PERMALINKWow. That Democratic response was a bit subdued. Is Daschle a Republican double-agent or something? Daschle is up for reelection this year I believe and is facing running against a ticket headed by a popular president who won in SD by 60%-38% in 2000. He is going to have to hide nasty, Bush-hating, Liberal Tommy in the basement for awhile. Unless Tommy can do some bigtime stuffing of some ballot boxes on the reservations he is in for a difficult re-election bid. TD has been popular in SD because he is good at bringing home the farm related pork for the big farmers in the state. That might not be enough this time. Posted by: Dennis Slater at January 22, 2004 09:31 PM | PERMALINKThis artice is very interesting!!! black cocks white sluts border bangers mpegs boys first time choking on cock cum fiesta free exploited mom facial for a buck gay broadband flicks Posted by: mr skin at June 30, 2004 08:08 PM | PERMALINKhttp://www.amateursexlogins.com/livevideo-sound-zebra-video-sexual-baby-fucking-porn-small-photos-erotica-nudity-virtual-extreme-porno.html livevideo sound zebra video sexual baby fucking porn small photos erotica nudity virtual extreme porno html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/shot-vivo-rm-redheads-supermodels-fuck-real-bondage-african-nasty-orgy-cats-pissing-fisting-blowjobs-toys-cindy-cum-demi.html shot vivo rm redheads supermodels fuck real bondage african nasty orgy cats pissing fisting blowjobs toys cindy cum demi html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/lesbian-cartoon-art-dick-adult-fuckers-nitro-toons.html lesbian cartoon art dick adult fuckers nitro toons html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/zoosex-single-into-beauty-beast-beastiality-beastality-wwwanimal-freevideos-of-fucked-by-chield-beastfuck-bestialty-animal-sex-pages-personal-pictures-women-sexualy-animals-adult-girls-getting.html zoosex single into beauty beast beastiality beastality wwwanimal freevideos of fucked by chield beastfuck bestialty animal sex pages personal pictures women sexualy animals adult girls getting html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/photo-milk-video-hustler-models-hair-teens-anal-gayman-clicnic-fisting-facials-bodybuilder-zoosex-large-real-early-playboy-bears-toy-demi-moore-woman-drinking-sexxx-men-pussy.html photo milk video hustler models hair teens anal gayman clicnic fisting facials bodybuilder zoosex large real early playboy bears toy demi moore woman drinking sexxx men pussy html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/tit-orgy-shot-you-indian-dildo-realvideo-beatiful-teen-cum-teens-cumshot-boys-fisting-animal-schoolgirls.html tit orgy shot you indian dildo realvideo beatiful teen cum teens cumshot boys fisting animal schoolgirls html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/100-free-farm-sex-zoo-beastiality-pics-women-with-dogs-beasiality.html 100 free farm sex zoo beastiality pics women with dogs beasiality html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/kontakte-pussy-bilder-tits-hardcore-sex-extreme-live-pornographie-kontaktmagazin-porno-livesex-erotika-vibrator-maso-pornographische-titten-callgirl.html kontakte pussy bilder tits hardcore sex extreme live pornographie kontaktmagazin porno livesex erotika vibrator maso pornographische titten callgirl html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/shemale-wife-picture-bizarre-stories-org-escorts-over-40-pics-cartoon-animal-free-bondage-girls-japanese-asian-beastiality-bizzare-facials-sex-pic-post.html shemale wife picture bizarre stories org escorts over 40 pics cartoon animal free bondage girls japanese asian beastiality bizzare facials sex pic post html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/titten-kontaktmagazin-klitoris-gay-geschlechtsverkehr-cybersex.html titten kontaktmagazin klitoris gay geschlechtsverkehr cybersex html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/blowjobs-dogsex-japan-amateurs-men-zoo-wet-orgy-clicnic-gymnast-foot-real-blondes-ass-toy-zoophilia-celebrities.html blowjobs dogsex japan amateurs men zoo wet orgy clicnic gymnast foot real blondes ass toy zoophilia celebrities html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/et-chatte-mouillie-oral-collants-de-sexe-sexo-anal-homme-en-francais-histoires-fesses.html et chatte mouillie oral collants de sexe sexo anal homme en francais histoires fesses html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/beastialiy-beastiality-xxx-farmanimal-animal-beauty-beast-men-fuckin-farm-pic-gallerys-sexo-animals-animalporn-clips-fuck-video-free-pics.html beastialiy beastiality xxx farmanimal animal beauty beast men fuckin farm pic gallerys sexo animals animalporn clips fuck video free pics html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/tit-zoosex-girls-nudity-gynecologist-camp-zoophilia-porn-cindy-crawford-livevideo-japan-animal-supermodels-rooms-photo-petsex.html tit zoosex girls nudity gynecologist camp zoophilia porn cindy crawford livevideo japan animal supermodels rooms photo petsex html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/xxx-studs-fag-gay-sex-harcore-video-avi-mov-man-men-vivo-homosexual-queer-fun.html xxx studs fag gay sex harcore video avi mov man men vivo homosexual queer fun html http://www.amateursexlogins.com/animals-fucking-beauty-beast-dogs-beastly-beastiality-sex-animal-animalsex-freepics-beastialiy-pics-animalcocks-women-sexgalleries-amy-free.html animals fucking beauty beast dogs beastly beastiality sex animal animalsex freepics beastialiy pics animalcocks women sexgalleries amy free html Posted by: hardcore sex hardcore sex online and hardcore pictures with hardcore live video sex at August 2, 2004 05:23 PM | PERMALINKhttp://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/beastility-clip.html beastility clip html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/sex-animals/index.html sex animals index html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/beasty-site/index.html beasty site index html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/free-fetish-pics.html free fetish pics html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/dog-fucking-women.html dog fucking women html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/hardcore-animal-sex-free/index.html hardcore animal sex free index html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/beastality-gallery.html beastality gallery html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/sex-women-animal.html sex women animal html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/Animal-Porn-Sex/sadboy's-beastiality.html Animal Porn Sex sadboy s beastiality html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/xxx-free-beast.html xxx free beast html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/animal-porno-sex.html animal porno sex html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/stories-bestiality-free-animalsex-movie-sex-animal.html stories bestiality free animalsex movie sex animal html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/sexo-animal.html sexo animal html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/animaltop.html animaltop html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/farm-girl-bart-s-stuff-video-beastiality-sex-fucking.html farm girl bart s stuff video beastiality sex fucking html http://www.lesbianrmnipples.com/asian-petites-sexy-pumping-sexe-rencontres-actrice-clitoris-amateur.html asian petites sexy pumping sexe rencontres actrice clitoris amateur html Posted by: Free Farmsex Pics at August 5, 2004 01:28 AM | PERMALINK7707 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 8, 2004 03:12 AM | PERMALINK1710 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - Is it true or not? Could the pill work for me? Get more information! 6322 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 10:31 PM | PERMALINK859 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 01:29 PM | PERMALINK1554 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 12:31 PM | PERMALINK7116 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: blackjack at August 17, 2004 09:53 AM | PERMALINK1698 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 8619 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 09:42 PM | PERMALINK476 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 6436 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 24, 2004 03:14 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
