home

State of the Union Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:40:54 PM EST
Tags: State of the Union, George W. Bush (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


The day has finally come for our Imperial President, George W. Bush, to deliver his final State of the Union Address. He's almost gone.

What were the worst moments of his speech? How glad are you he's on his way out?

Let's tally the most egregious policies of his Administration, ones that should forever tarnish his legacy. My list starts with the War in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, his extremist judges and warrantless NSA electronic eavesdropping.

Attempts and failures count here too, like privatization of social security.

Neither Big Tent Democrat nor I will be live-blogging the speech, but we'll both check in later to read your comments.

< FISA Reauthorization Vote | Hillary and Obama Respond to SOTU >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    State of the Union Open Thread | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The State of the Union will be better (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:42:31 PM EST
    Next Year.

    This year, I will skip the Texas Moron yet again.

    Ditto, Molly!!!! N/T (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:50:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Whoopee..2500 more Marines in (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:48:36 PM EST
    Afghanistan...

    Iraq...changed course....new mission...enemy still dangerous...but we've achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago...

    Biden looks pensive...listening closely...

    Al Quida has been driven from many of the safe places in Iraq...among the terrorists there is no doubt...Al Quida is on the run in Iraq and this enemy will be defeated.

    Few Dems respond.

    Return on success...surge forces we sent to Iraq are beginning to come home....

    Talking to the troops now...solomn pledge...in the fight ahead you will have all you need to protect our nation.

    Gawd...what chutzpah...

    Ask congress to fully fund our troops....

    More than 20,000 troops coming home. (As if that were a policy and not necessary).  Further drawdown at the recom of our generals...pushing now to 'stay the course'....

    Could Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:56:18 PM EST
    look any less interested?  She didn't even take her papers out of her hand when she was clapping.  She's climbed several points in my books.

    Could Dick Cheney look any more evil or is it angry at the world?  Maybe it's just constipation.  Condi also looks angry, perhaps mourning her career and reputations.  Which reminds me of Novak's pushing her for VP - because if you thought she was a terrible Secretary of State, just wait and see what she can accomplish as Veep.

    Is Hillary asleep?  Nice mix of disdain and boredom on her part.

    Best Bush SOTU evah!  Of course, this is the first one I've ever watched and I've been watching for less than five minutes.  But it turns out that what makes Bush bearable is knowing how irrelevant he is.

    To add to his list of high crimes of misdemeanors - massive violation of civil service regs in hiring career prosecutors and other key civilian personnel, "losing" WH emails, complete disregard for the rule of law, treasonous outing of CIA agent, lying to start a war.  Eh, the list is too long and depressing to go through.

    Here's the FISA stuff - telecoms "believed to have assisted", he doesn't know.  Good for the Dems to sit on their hands.  And am I the only one who laughs every time Bush talks about "intelligence"?

    OMG! (none / 0) (#41)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:00:05 PM EST
    Pelosi's reading a book, it's not even a copy of his speech.

    Parent
    i think it was a copy (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:42:51 PM EST
    of his speech, they all had those books.

    Parent
    I caught a quick glimpse . . . (none / 0) (#70)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:49:32 PM EST
    of the title.  It looked like "something, something Goat".

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#71)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:50:08 PM EST
    It didn't look so bookish when I saw it in other folks' hands.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#44)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:01:45 PM EST
    At some points, she's looked like she's trying not to be physically ill.  All the Dems seem to be reading ahead in the printed copy (perhaps hoping to force time to speed up).  The facial expressions are priceless.  There was one moment where Hillary had this cynical smile on her face and she was clapping weakly (during the healthcare section).

    Parent
    So which cabinet official (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:58:49 PM EST
    won the lottery and got to sit this one out at an "undisclosed location."  I remember in the Clinton years that was seen as taking one for the team, it was seen as a disappointment to miss the speech.  Here I have to think there were multiple volunteers.

    Sebelius (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:19:01 PM EST
    Okay, she starts off with a hit against the media for obsessing over who stood, who sat, who clapped, etc.  You gotta love that.

    That part (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:29:19 PM EST
    I liked.

    What I don't like is how she gave the Republicans in Congress credit for the successes the democratic Congress has had.  The successes the dems have had have been in spite of the Republicans in Congress.

    I don't expect some sort of partisan warrior from this particular Dem, but she could've at least pushed Republicans in Congress to do more with Dems instead of making it all about Bush who isn't on the ballot this year.

    Parent

    The rest of the speech (none / 0) (#66)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    was pretty unremarkable.  I have to say that her style is so subdued that I found myself zoning out a bit so I missed what you caught.

    I didn't fail to notice her shoutout to JFK and then the reference to getting up tomorrow to get to work (the tomorrow where she'll announce for Obama).

    Parent

    Sebelious--Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lily15 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:26:15 PM EST
    This is one of the worst speeches ever...a total lost opportunity..that is representative of the Obama way of doing things.  Be afraid...very afraid..Jim Webb gave a memorable response.  This governor, along with Governor Kaine of 2 years ago, have shown the face of the moronic and weak Democratic party.

    Don't be conned by Obama and his loser ideas.  We need partisanship not this stupid and boring claptrap.

    Who picked this loser?

    Terrible (none / 0) (#68)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:34:33 PM EST
    This isn't even a good version of the Obama unity schtick.  She totally lacks energy.  There's no call for Republicans to join Democrats in doing X, Y, Z, the only call is to Bush to join Dems, as if Congressional Republicans already have.  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#74)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:58:10 PM EST
    I caught that and thought it was a strange formulation of the argument.

    Parent
    Someone Get Obama a History Book (4.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:56:00 PM EST
    Obama just claimed Americans were united 40 years ago.  Has he ever read a history book?  Because the 1960 election wasn't exactly a bipartisan love-in and neither was 1964 so I don't know what he's talking about (I'd ask what he was smoking, but I know that would be racist).    And he said in the early 1960s Americans were united in believing they can solve the civil rights problems.  Then I guess MLK didn't really have to do much since everyone was already united.  WTF?

    he sure needs (none / 0) (#75)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:59:02 PM EST
    a history book because I graduated from high school in 1963 and remember the strife well...Geezzzzz....

    Parent
    Please supply a link (none / 0) (#77)
    by phat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:07:03 PM EST
    Wow.

    That would be one of the stupidest things I've heard from a Democratic candidate in a long time, if he actually said it.

    He didn't actually say that, did he?

    phat

    Parent

    1967? 1967??!! Whaaaaa?! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:21:34 PM EST
    His reading list can start with that little-known governmental document, the Kerner Commission Report! on the urban riots of . . . 1967, 40 years ago.

    The report that declared us not one but two nations, separate and unequal.

    Darn that history, it just wasn't, y'know, unified.

    And for pity's sake, his undergrad degree is from Columbia, which has a great history department.  What was he taking classes in, "human kinetics"?

    Ohhhhh, this is bad, just very bad.  Those who do not know their past are destined to . . . etc.


    Parent

    And now that it's 2008, let's fondly remember 1968 (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:24:54 PM EST
    . . . when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., were assassinated.

    Well, those events were unifying, in a way -- but not a way I ever want to endure again.

    Parent

    He didn't say exactly 40 years (none / 0) (#82)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:16:27 PM EST
    He was clearly referring to the early 1960s.  Apparently he wants to go back to the way everyone got along before the "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" (no he didn't say it that way).  As if that's possible or even desirable.  

    Parent
    i think it rather odd that an african american (none / 0) (#83)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:36:11 PM EST
    would want to go back to the 1950s. that is before the civil rights movement and there was such disparity then. i am writing this in a literal way just to show how illogical and downright silly obama's comment is.

    Parent
    Early '60s -- Birmingham bombing and (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:02:41 AM EST
    killing of four innocent girls in a church in 1963 . . . after Bull O'Connor and his dogs and firehoses . . . after KKK also castrated a young AA man just walking down a street there . . . governors at schoolhouse doors refusing to abide by Supreme Court decisions to desegregate . . . James Meredith, Vivian Malone, and others refused access to campuses, too . . . and that was just a few fine moments in just the South.  I was in the North and remember the two nations, separate and unequal there, too.

    Not a time of unity -- even before the JFK assassination.  Even the 1960 campaign exposed the deep divisions in this nation over race and religion.  Disunity still, sadly, with us today.


    Parent

    Seriously...this primary (none / 0) (#80)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:23:52 PM EST
    is starting to feel like '68.  Will it even be worth having when all is said and done?

    Parent
    Katrina (none / 0) (#3)
    by koshembos on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:11:08 PM EST


    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:13:45 PM EST
    I love the sense of nostalgia he speaks with.  Ohh how I will miss Katrina, bad wars, 3.00 a gallon gas, tax cuts for the rich.  Being used as political bait because of my sexuality.  Ah the bush years!

    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:29:25 PM EST
    Because of your sexuality?  He must know you personally.

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:01:15 PM EST
    har har,

    using anti gay ballot initiatives to beat democrats is just Hilarious,  

    let me slap my knee.

    I love having my rights taken away.

    rolling on the floor laughing, what humor.

    please reserve the right for people to fire me, based on nothing else but who i sleep with.

    really couldn't be any funnier.

    Parent

    I have commented here (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:59:51 AM EST
    numerous times that I am a supporter of gay rights and don't care if John marries Bob, it being my firm belief that the government should stay out of marriage except for contract enforcement.

    But please show me where you have lost any rights because of laws signed into existence by Bush.

    Parent

    I see you are trolling. Catch any fish? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:36:47 AM EST


    Parent
    I see that you (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:44:15 AM EST
    still can't manage answers to hard questions.

    Every gonna go to school?

    Parent

    What hard questions? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:44:31 AM EST
    You never ask any.

    Parent
    Thanks for (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:08:10 PM EST
    proving that you are utterly incapable of recognizing anything that the big boys don't tell you.

    ;-)

    Have a nice night.

    Parent

    Coming from you that's rich! (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:13:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Here. I'll repeat the question. (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:28:17 PM EST
    But please show me where you have lost any rights because of laws signed into existence by Bush.

    Your turn.

    Parent

    That wasn't Jgarza's point. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 11:23:17 AM EST
    If the laws pushed by Bush were passed, he would have lost rights.

    You, of course, ignore his point.

    Parent

    Taxes? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:15:27 PM EST
    nope wrong, its gas prices, health care, education. energy, that is the problem.  

    Could quantify the gas price reduction? (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:01:02 AM EST
    That would greatly calm the stock markets and heaven knows they need it.

    Parent
    Spending tax dollars (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:16:16 PM EST
    wisely?
    Iraq
    Haliburton
    no bid contracts?

    OHH BRING ON (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:17:12 PM EST
    vetos PUHLEASE

    You think we will have vetos?? (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:05:29 AM EST
    Then you must think that the Repubs are going to win control of Congress and the Demos will, for the third time in 7 Presidental elections, win the race for President.

    Hmmmmm. Haven't heard that one before, or at least not on TalkLeft.

    Parent

    Global gag rule (none / 0) (#8)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:17:41 PM EST
    The first reprehensible thing he did, his first day in office. This looks like small potatoes now, but it was an outrage then. If only we'd known how much worse it would get.

    I went through complete outrage burnout about six years ago.

    Oh yeah - "First Amendment Zones." Reading a children's story while the towers were hit. Fleeing in AF1. The war of course. Mission Accomplished.

    So you believe he should have (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:11:57 AM EST
    jumped up screaming, jumped on Air Force One while ordering a strike on Iraq and Iran...

    Facts are there are carefully considered protocols on where the Pres and Veep go/do when we have such a national emergency.

    But then you know that, you just want to rant.

    Parent

    Carefully considered protocols? (none / 0) (#97)
    by urthsong on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:21:38 AM EST
    Of course there are. Nobody wanted to see our leaders falling into a terrorist attack. But as our leaders they are expect to lead, even if from the bottom of a silo. So what did we see? Bush sitting, blinking and making little head jerks for seven l-o-n-g minutes. Then he was wisked away to safety incommunicado from our government. And the VP. He was deep in a shelter, also incommunicado. Condi placed Richard A. Clarke in charge before heading off to the shelter too.

    Parent
    Dumb and dumber (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:34:34 PM EST
    What he most likely was doing was waiting for additional information.

    Of course you would rather that he had jumped up and ran in circles??

    And he was never out of touch. That also is part of the protocols.

    I am not a fan of Bush except on the war issues, but you are just another person from the Left who suffers from BDS.

    Try, if you can, to attack Bush on some actual failings.

    Parent

    NPR: "Cheers..... (none / 0) (#9)
    by dutchfox on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:22:41 PM EST
    from the Republicans."

    BTW, I love the photo accompanying this post. Brilliant!

    Heh (none / 0) (#10)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:23:29 PM EST
    I'm getting a kick out of CNN's coverage.  They've caught Hillary, Obama, and Ted Kennedy looking a tad less than enthused at various points.

    I can't believe this fool is talking about the fact that we have to balance the budget and that he's getting tough on earmarks.  

    Oh and we had the obligatory moment of worship for tax cuts, right after hearing about the challenges our economy faces.  

    Are the Dems clapping because they know they won't have to listen to him ever again?

    NCLB (none / 0) (#11)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:25:11 PM EST
    Kennedy not applauding - it's HIS bill! - not even looking at Bush...reading something.  Obama on his rt hand looking studious and pensive...

    Hillary sitting with Biden

    Bush smirking at the Democrats over and over.

    everyone seems to be interested in (none / 0) (#19)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:36:27 PM EST
    reading something. anything not to look at bush i guess. pelosi barely looks up also. i notice no dems are standing to applaud except pelosi.

    oh come on nancy, i'd respect you more if you just sat there and refused to applaud for this bull.

    Parent

    Pelosi sitting? (none / 0) (#57)
    by manys on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:20:51 PM EST
    That's pretty unrealistic.

    Parent
    probably, but i wouldn't mind seeing it. (none / 0) (#76)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:06:59 PM EST


    Parent
    First Napper (none / 0) (#12)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:27:16 PM EST
    It's 9:26a and CNN has caught the first person catnapping.

    9:26p, duh! n/t (none / 0) (#13)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:27:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Up or down, up or down! Unless (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:31:28 PM EST
    it's something the Democrats want, of course.

    Cathy McMorris (none / 0) (#16)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:32:07 PM EST
    looks terrible in school-bus yellow!

    Sorry

    ...couldn't resist...

    I was bored...

    It Has Been Years Since I've Listened (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:32:08 PM EST
    to any of Bush's speeches. Just can't stand to hear anymore of his lies. Somehow, I do better if I don't have to see his smirking face or listen to his voice.  I just read what he says after the fact if I think it is important.  

    Yes...it's difficult... (none / 0) (#20)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:37:17 PM EST
    ...kind of mesmerizing in a way...like watching a poisonous snake bobbing and weaving...

    Parent
    Judicial Nominees (none / 0) (#18)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:32:16 PM EST
    Strict constructionists -- drink!
    Up or down vote -- drink again!

    stay on the offense? bushie, you (none / 0) (#21)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:37:26 PM EST
    are the offensive one.

    Still spreading the hope of freedom. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:38:22 PM EST


    tick, tick, tick! oh no, now he (none / 0) (#23)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    wants to teach them in afghanistan. well, the bombs will go off there tomorrow.

    i am so glad that this is the last state (none / 0) (#24)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:43:32 PM EST
    state of the union i'll have to watch this idiot. one fantasy after another coming out of his mouth.

    Thank you for watching (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:45:05 PM EST
    so I don't have to.

    Why am I listening to this? (none / 0) (#27)
    by phat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:48:40 PM EST
    He still sounds like a 5th grader reading a book report.

    phat

    troops coming home? (none / 0) (#28)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:50:07 PM EST
    well legally they have to come home. he has no choice. and he won't replace them? well, there are no troops to replace them.

    now more lies about iraq. yeah,right, george! now i am telling the television screen/george that he is a liar.

    that's why i don't normally watch him. i yell at the screen and upset the family.

    Can you quote the law? (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:13:44 AM EST
    well legally they have to come home.


    Parent
    yawn, go do your own homework. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:33:35 AM EST
    clearly you are trying to start fights here. now smile and say i truly love hillary. that's right!

    Parent
    Nope, I have been here for almost 5 years (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:58:42 PM EST
    and I do it for the fun and to educate and be educated...

    Now show me the law that says they have to be brought home.

    Parent

    i keep wondering how many (none / 0) (#29)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    times he practiced saying terror and terroist before the mirror

    oh now palestine! he drags that out hoping against hope for something that he can claim as a legacy. nope, george, it won't happen.

    He has a legacy, just not one he ultimately will (none / 0) (#58)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:21:53 PM EST
    want to claim.

    Parent
    Lecturing Iran... (none / 0) (#30)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:53:34 PM EST
    threatening..

    iran now! (none / 0) (#31)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:55:56 PM EST
    now he shakes his finger at them. i imagine they got a good laugh in iran over that one.

    i don't believe it he just dug up that old story about the plane hitting the building in california. as i recall he wasn't even able to name the right one.

    now he is plugging for fisa. oh here we go, we are all going to blown away if bush doesn't get his way. repus are standing and clapping while dems aren't even applauding.

    Will he (none / 0) (#32)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:56:01 PM EST
    ever learn to pronounce terrorist

    No (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:57:12 PM EST
    Just like he'll never learn to pronounce nuclear.  It's a killer when he has to say the terrorists are trying to acquire nuclear materials.   It's like a tongue twister.  Except it isn't.

    Parent
    Taking credit for (none / 0) (#34)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:56:20 PM EST
    no  attacks in America and for stopping some attempts..

    must pass liability protection for companies who helped protect America by Friday.

    Democrats not responding..

    Oppose genocide in Sudan (none / 0) (#35)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:56:57 PM EST


    Is this still (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:57:41 PM EST
    going on jeez!

    now he is talking about helping the poor. (none / 0) (#38)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:58:10 PM EST
    the repubs don't seem to excited about that.

    Not as excited (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:02:33 PM EST
    as they were for the tax cuts, that's for sure!

    Parent
    increase funding for vets! (none / 0) (#40)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:59:32 PM EST
    that got a response from the dems.

    now he wants more for war. that figures!

    Administration policies (none / 0) (#42)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:00:36 PM EST
    blocking U.S. Funds to international family-planning groups that offer abortion and abortion counseling.

    signing the Terri Schiavo legilation

    failure to fund stem cell reseach

    Outing Valerie Plame

    firing the U.S. Attorneys (and all that went with it)

    Dares to talk abou trusting the people. (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:02:14 PM EST


    now we get a history lesson. (none / 0) (#46)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:02:22 PM EST
    i suppose now comes the attempt at oratory so he can have a soundbyte.

    FINALLY (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:02:55 PM EST
    It's over.

    the end! oh thank goodness! (none / 0) (#49)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:03:00 PM EST
    he won't give another one! yes!

    Laura looks bored...! (none / 0) (#50)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:03:41 PM EST
    She needs a cigarette.

    Thank gawd it's over...

    a tedious and forgettable speech...

    now ko has come on. (none / 0) (#51)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:03:55 PM EST
    oldies but not soo goodies! that's funny.

    he is taking about the fantasies (none / 0) (#52)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:05:23 PM EST
    and threats out for the tv audience. ko is still the man!

    Party of Ideas and BiPartisan Solutions (none / 0) (#53)
    by lily15 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:10:17 PM EST
    Why does this sound familiar? These are ideas...just bad ideas...There is no bipartisan solution..there  is only a partisan solution and partisan leadership to enact real ideas. Nor is this about Bush. This is about Republican hoodwinking. Which is why  Obama will surely bring us failure with the same phony rhetoric we hear from Bush. Empty rhetoric will not change things. And passive hope is not what we need. Rather, buying into the false narrative pushed by Obama  will just  damage Democrats further...why can't we all get along?  why can we find real bi partisan solutions?.Because it is not about bipartisanship or getting along...It is about fighting in the trenches to dismantle bad ideas and a deleterious Republican ideology that is merely a cover for the new robber barons of our time. Obama's rhetoric is helping the enemy by minimizing the problem and by blaming the Clintons for their partisanship and lack of ideas.

     If this Bush speech doesn't give lie to that narrative, nothing will.  Liberal elites must recognize their folly before it is too late.  We cannot allow Obama to keep pushing this crap of hope and change etc.  We must clarify what our policies are...as Hillary is doing in detail.  We must demonstrate that the conservative movement is a long prison sentence...rather than a party of ideas, Republicans are a party of false narratives that operate to silence or divert the majority while a small minority of elites and particular corporate interests take and accumulate power and set us on a backward course all the while making out like bandits.

      This is the face of the Republican party.  It is the Republican party we must defeat. It is the Republicans we must define.  And failing to articulate why this is necessary will result in disaster.

    This should be a warning about the dangers of good rhetoric and false promises and empty ideology. And the complete hollowness of bipartisanship.  Unless we fight back with ferocity, we will lose.
    Democrats have forgotten that Republican are still quite dangerous to be left in the hands of Obama.  Yet he damages the reputation of the Clintons and liberal applaud.  Our toughest competitors are excoriated by their own team. We need to fortify the Clintons not damage them. We need to get their back...not whine that they are unfair to Obama. Because there is a real "unfair" that is much worse and more powerful. And liberal elites don't recognize how lethal the real enemy is or they'd be assembling the army and advanced ammunition already not engaging in a circular firing squad.

    hmm, why don't you take the obama (none / 0) (#55)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:17:05 PM EST
    supporters to task instead of using this as an opporunity to try and chastise hillary supporters.

    Parent
    gee the pundits aren't being very (none / 0) (#54)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:15:25 PM EST
    nice about his speech. the honeymoon must be over for george. sure took long enough!

    Uh (none / 0) (#60)
    by manys on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:24:11 PM EST
    ...because it's safe for them to do so now. It's gonna be a year of distancing from Bush, and perhaps now is the time where the race away begins in earnest. So far it has only been via subtle distinctions in the Republican Presidential race.

    Parent
    sebelius is good with the dem (none / 0) (#59)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:22:14 PM EST
    response. i just wish she had a little more fire in her voice. as i understand it, she has done a good job.

    Sibelius' response (none / 0) (#61)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:26:11 PM EST
    An American first...not nearly as divided as our rancourous politics might suggest...

    detour from tradition...this time normally reserved for a partisan response...instead...an American response...a new American majority.

    Jesus...it's the Obama speech...

    Bipartisan action in congress...encouraging first steps.  Mr. President, will you join us?

    sign the children's health bill...

    going green

    national guard...whoa...thousands sent to Iraq...we are ready to chart a new course...regain our standing in the world...

    I know government can work...like you...I gew up in a household devoted to public service...parents served in congress..one a Dem and one an R....

    No more patience with divisive politics...tired of leaders who ask nothing of us at all.  Focus once again on the common good...

    ask you again to join us...to work together...

    Republicans Set Record for Filibusters (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:31:40 PM EST
    but STILL the Dem response thanks them for helping get the few things the Dem majority managed to get done passed.

    Sometimes I think the Democrats enjoyed being smacked around by Republicans.  They're the party of masochists.

    Parent

    Yes...painful to watch... (none / 0) (#78)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:20:28 PM EST
    Can't we all just get along?

    Oh, please, Mr. President, won't you join us again?

    This was pap.

    Parent

    mccain just came on and i thought (none / 0) (#63)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:29:04 PM EST
    tweety would have a fit right there. talk about hero worship! off goes the telly! good night all

    Unity ponies! (none / 0) (#65)
    by phat on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:30:43 PM EST
    For everyone!

    phat

    Don't Let Phone Companies OFF THE HOOK! (none / 0) (#95)
    by Loftlore on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:31:48 AM EST
    I urge the Senate to reject retroactive amnesty for telecommunications companies. These companies committed crimes, pure and simple. They used their position of trust and privilege to spy on Americans. They did this without warrants. If any Senator or Congressional Representative is EVER going to campaign on being tough on crime, I don't see how they can support amnesty for phone companies. How can these violations of American rights be forgiven? The phone companies MUST be punished. If not, our very freedom is at risk! The phone company amnesty bill is an abomination and it must be squashed!

    The National Security Agency directed these warrantless surveillance on Americans. If the surveillance of innocent Americans is not to be considered spying, can anyone explain to me why a spy agency directed the covert operation?  Remember, the Bush Administration denied that the spying ever happened! Do criminals ever lie about their crimes? The answer is obvious.

    The spying included the records and content of  private DOMESTIC communications. Millions of ordinary, innocent Americans were victimized. What's next, a listening device in every living room, a camera in every restroom? It's 1984, people.

    Last night, during the Bush swan-song State of the Union address, Democrats sat on their hands much of the time. Their greatest silence was earned when President Bush demanded that phone companies be forgiven their crimes. Republicans, amongst them the leading Congressional neo-con Candice Miller, were all for letting phone companies off the hook. Rep. Miller even had time to shake the hand of George Bush when the last-gasp event was over. Who knows how deep the neo-cons self-interest goes in demanding amnesty for phone company crimes?

    If George Bush is concerned about criminal charges against those involved in spying on Americans he has the option of pardoning every last one of them. Instead he's asking Congress to do his dirty work for him. Typical.

    Senators! Congressional Representatives! Do not back Bush by allowing phone companies to escape their criminal acts! Do not forgive! Do not forget

    http://www.loftlore.com/blog

    How to destroy Right and Wrong (none / 0) (#104)
    by Loftlore on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:29:05 PM EST
    HOW TO DESTROY WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG

    The Senate has voted a fifteen day extension to the "Protect America Act". This bill is widely known as the Telecom Amnesty bill. The bill is a favorite of Dick Cheney's. The President has expressed his wish that the bill be passed. He gave special emphasis to the bill in his final State of the Union address. You'll recall that the Republican side of the House chambers gave the President's demand for passage a standing ovation. Representative Miller (R, MI's 10th Congressional District) was one of those standing to applaud this bill. You may also recall that President Bush has threatened to VETO the bill if it does not include retroactive immunity for crimes telecom companies may have committed by spying on Americans.

    The body of this bill extends changes the Bush Administration has made to the FISA court. This court used to control warrantless wiretaps on Americans. Under Bush there are no controls on warrantless spying upon Americans, none, except those that the President might deem to exercise. There is no evidence that Bush has exercised ANY discretion whatsoever when spying on Americans.

    Amongst the provisions of the bill is one giving amnesty to telecom (phone) companies for any crimes they may have committed by cooperating with the Bush Administration while they spied on Americans.

    Retroactive forgiveness used to be the purview of God. Now the Bush Administration wants a piece of that.

    It occurs to me that if wrong can be made retroactively-right by legislation, cannot the opposite also be made so? If the Senate of the United States and the President of the United States can, by law, retroactively make legal what is illegal, who's to say they cannot retroactively make illegal what is legal!

    Think of the possibilities! Think of all the acts one might commit with a clear conscious, in utter innocence, that could be retroactively be turned into crimes! If the President chooses to do so, any behavior, however innocuous, could retroactively be made criminal. Example: say one checked out a perfectly legal book from a county library. If that book should come into disfavor with George W. Bush, or perhaps more ominously, with Dick Cheney, they could have the Senate declare possession of the book RETROACTIVELY to be a felony! Why not? They can retroactively make spying on Americans legal! Why not make having read or even possessed a book retroactively illegal? All the President would need to suggest is that the once innocent act of having possessed that book is now a threat to the safety of America.

    Hell, perhaps someday the writing of this opinion, or any opinion, could be made a crime.

    Can you see the problem? By retroactively making a crime not a crime the President and the Senate would destroy the line between what is right and wrong. You'll never know, and laws will not delineate, what is criminal and what is not.

    Long ago the Bush Administration crossed the line between what is right and what is wrong, what is legal and what is criminal, now they want to destroy the line itself.

    loftlore@avci.net
    from the author and from
    http://www.loftlore.com/blog

    Parent

    Amnesty for Telecoms (none / 0) (#98)
    by urthsong on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:47:39 AM EST
    With amnesty comes inaccesibility to information on how widespread the wiretapping went. Let lawsuits go forward to expose the underbelly. Those who say, "I have nothing to hide" don't get it. The Watergate break-in was about bugging a few Democratic Party HQ telephones. This could well be about tapping into phones across the nation to gain advantages to interfere with campaigns and selectively harrass candidates and active supporters. We know that Sec. of Education Paige once blurted that members of the National Education Association were "terrorists."
    We know that this has been the method and thinking all along, accusing peace activists, environmentalists and the millions of Americans who have petitioned that we want our constitutional rights restored to be terrorists and the abettors of terrorists. That is sufficient to be wire tapped in Bush country.

    State of the Union Open Thread | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment