Bush's Stupid Off Topic Unintelligible Address

[Saint Johnny B]

Comments on Bush's SOTU Address?

[6 stringer]

Yeah, I saw it. I'm not impressed at all.

 

In Texas, we figured out when Bush was lyin again cuz his lips was moving.

[kylen]

Well - did you notice that Ted Kennedy was shakin his head during the WMD piece? If you had a camera in my house you would have noticed me shaking my head during the new jobs piece.

 

I like the war against terrorist piece - someone has to do something - World, well what are you gonna do - please help us, OK ? Exploding yourself in the middle of unsuspecting bystanders is unacceptable - right ? Quit it or be hunted !

[JimmieWannaB]

My favorite part was the applause when he mentioned that key provisions of the Patriot Act were due to expire next year. It completely deflated the impact of his plea that they be renewed.

[Saint Johnny B]

So some folks in Texas don't trust Bush?

[6 stringer]

Nah, he messed up Texas real bad, now he's doin the same thing to the country.

[Salyphus]

I think MoveOn.org wrote a nice essay about it:

 

----

 

In Tuesdays State of the Union address, President Bush led with war and terror which wasnt surprising. Itll certainly be a big theme for an administration that has used fear again and again for partisan political gain. The agenda is clear: permanent war, permanent abridgement of freedom, permanent tax cuts for big campaign contributors. Worse, the right has clearly decided to pursue a strategy of dividing America. In his speech last night, Bush tried to open a new front in the culture wars, calling for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage. We have to ask: from whom?

 

But what was clearly missing in the speech was any vision for the future of our country, which probably explains why early reports show that the speech left people cold. Where are we going as a nation? Whats the plan for fixing health care? Whats the plan for getting out of Iraq? Whats the plan for staunching the hemorrhage of high quality manufacturing jobs, and now even service and professional positions? Whats the plan for stopping the flood of red ink from irresponsible tax cuts?

 

Together, we can do better. Its a New Year time for a new start. We need your help.

 

Were asking MoveOn members to sign up to help develop a real, uniting American vision a 100% America plan. To be a part of this work, go to:

 

   http://www.moveon.org/mission/

 

In this coming year, candidates for President will be looking for great ideas that can truly inspire Americans to build a positive future for us and for our children. Last year, we asked MoveOn members to talk to each other about values and key issues facing the country. We got 100,000 pages of interview feedback from thousands of people across the nation.

 

What are we for? The themes were universal. Americans want true security based on working with allies and the rule of law not an American empire. Americans demand corporate and individual responsibility greed is not good and were all responsible to future generations. Americans want everyone to have a real opportunity to do well in our country and live the middle class dream we will not be divided into haves and have-nots, or by race or gender or lifestyle. Americans believe that we are the beacon of freedom and democracy the Bill of Rights is non-negotiable and democracy is not a partisan game. The themes that emerge are: Freedom, Opportunity, Responsibility and Security.

 

As a start, weve been collecting ideas for possible strategic initiatives based on these themes. To suggest your own ideas, and to be part of building a 100% America plan, go to:

 

   http://www.moveon.org/mission/

 

The Bush administration has cynically used fear to drive its special interest agenda. But Americans wont be cowed by fear and we wont be divided by cynical politicians.

 

Now is the time for us to build a positive future -- together.

 

Sincerely,

- Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack

  The MoveOn.org Team

  January 21st, 2004

 

P.S. For excellent in-depth coverage and analysis of the State of the Union speech, go to today's issue of the Progress Report.

[Chuck Moore]

Johnny didn't like Bush's speach.......now THERES a shocker

[Saint Johnny B]

Chuck, I actually withheld comment, see above.

[Chuck Moore]

You mean the topics title wasn't a comment?

[Saint Johnny B]

Yes, the topic title was a slam, but once you clicked I only asked for comments. Did you see it? Did you like it? Hate it? Or what?

[Peake]

But what was clearly missing in the speech was any vision for the future of our country, which probably explains why early reports show that the speech left people cold. Where are we going as a nation?

THX-1138

 

"Bush's Stupid Off Topic Unintelligible Address"

 

Is that anything like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"?

[Chuck Moore]

watched most of it on re-run, was in the studio while it was playing live. On the whole, it was a little long for my tastes, and not quite up to last years performance. But reading between the lines, you may see a glimpse of the campaign stratagy poking through. We went over the electoral college map on another post already..... Bush has his eyes on a few midwest states that went for Gore last time. I think....and no I havn't heard from Rove on this... that Bush is going to make gay marriage/defense of marriage act an issue there. If he can draw the dem's nominee into that debate, He'll be a big winner in those swing states there, especially if its Dean or Kerry, as many in that region are a little suspicious of northeast liberals.

 

You have to try and seperate what you HOPE will happen from what objective analysis, history, experience, and political savy says probably will happen. As long as Dean isn't the nominee, it will be a fairly close election. If it's Edwards, the dems may actually have a shot...maybe with Leiberman.

 

As far as the speach, another thing to notice is what he DOESN'T say. These speaches, especially in an election year, usually searve to announce some popular new program or spending initiative. The fact there was none indicates Bush may be feeling some heat over his speanding from his own party.

[offramp]

No. 'Greek Wedding' was MUCH better.

[Mats Olsson.]

If the terrorists don't stop blowing up themselves, we will kill them. - Doesn't make much sense, does it?

 

You can't stop terrorism with slaughter.

 

/Mats

[Mats Olsson.]

Speaking of campaig strategy, Alcohol posted this in another slam-dunk thread:

 

Regarding Bush and Saudi Arabia ties - There is an interesting interview at Rolling Stone magazine with Kevin Phillips, the man who developed the Republican Souther Strategy, that gets into the Bush ties with Saudi Arabia:

 

The House of Bush

I really would like to see a comment from the friends of Bush regarding what Mr. Phillips is saying in the Rolling Stone interview.

 

NOTE: I did not post this to start another mud-slinging contest. Please behave, I just want to hear your comments!

 

/Mats

[Salyphus]

Great article!

 

--

 

[What should Democrats do to beat Bush?]

 

You have to focus on the Bush family itself. They have made the presidency into an office infused with an almost hereditary dishonesty. There's so much lying and secrecy and corruption to it. Just look at the way Neil and Jeb and Marvin and George W. have earned their livings, with all these parasitic operations: profiting from their political connections, cashing in on favors from big corporations and other governments. It's a convergence of arrogance -- the sense that you don't have to pay attention to democratic values. It's happening again with Halliburton. They can't help but let their old cronies in there to make buckets of money off the war.

 

Their own arrogance provides a handle for their defeat. If the country does not come to grips with what Bush has done, then we may lose what we value about our republican and democratic government. - Republican strategist Kevin Phillips

[Alndln]

Originally posted by Chuck Moore:

Bush's speach.......

I missed it,what did he say?

[antimatter]

Did anybody catch the NY (d)congressman sleeping?

They got him on camera and put his name underneath. At least it looked like he was sleeping. funny stuff.

 

And the democratic response was terrible. Not the content, but the delivery.

 

And I love that cowboy "We don't need a Permission Slip!" thing Bush said. YeeeeeHaaaaa!

[pseudonym]

So some folks in Texas don't trust Bush?

It's not so much Bush per se, but the republicans, they have completely screwed with the districts here and I'm not even sure where mine is anymore, believe it or not, I think it runs all the way down to the border and I'm in the S-Central part of Texas. A judge up-held the whole thing as constitutional, so we're dealing with a vapid and insidious thing, it's and wholly pervasive - in other words "we're going to hell in a handbag on rails at supersonic speed". I really think these dudes are just about the dumbest bunch of MF's to ever have come down the line.

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

Originally posted by pseudonym:

I'm in the S-Central part of Texas.

[Chuck Moore]

The redistricting issue comes up every ten years. Somestates gain a seat or two, some lose a seat or two based on population shifts in the Census report. It's a longstanding practice that the party in power in a particular state house draws the new lines to favor themselves. The dems controlled a majority of state legislatures for much of the last half of the 20th century, and their redistricting plans were instrumental in keeping them in charge of congress for more than 40 straight years. The last decade has seen a lot of state legislatures fall into republican hands, so now a lot of states with new leadership in their state legislatures are doing the same thing. Occasionally someone will get overzealous in ther map drawing, and a judge will step in and make them draw it again. This has also happened on both sides. It is not unconstitutional to draw districts that favor your party. It IS unconstitutional to willfully gerymander districts to thwart the election process. Apparently a judge decided the texas plan didn't cross that line. It is a fine line sometimes though.

 

As far as Mr. Phillips interview and what the dems need to do to beat Bush, political families are nothing new in American politics. Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys etc. all have generational figures involved. I hardly call an election of any of them a "dynasty" or a "restoration". The Clintons are attempting to become the first ones to achieve that status in a single generation... we'll see. Defeating Bush this year is a tall order, and it is going to require breaking Mr. Phillips own creation, the southern stratagy. As long as they have Texas, it counters Cali.... the solid south counters NY, with a few electoral votes to spare, so you only need to break even in the midwest and your in. It's no suprise that all the dems that have won the presidency lately were from the south. Clinton, Arkansas. Carter, Georgia. Johnson, Texas. Break the South and you beat Bush. On the other side, The republicans that have won the biggest victories were both from Cali. Nixon and Reagan. Take away Cali, and the dems can't win. Thats why I think the Stratagy is going to be to threaten Cali with strong support from their popular governor, force them to spend money there, then hammer them in the midwest over the gay marriage issue.

 

To counter that the dems will have to first have a southerner at the head of the ticket, meaning Edwards. That puts a few states in the south into play. Second, They will have to drop the angry anti-war rhetoric. That stuff is not going to play in the states they will need to win, only in the states they are already GOING to win. 'Course then you run the risk of not energizing your base if you don't seem aggresive enough on their issues. Fine line to walk.

 

So anyway, it's on to NH. If Edwards pulls out another strong second there, he may well be the guy, which is a worst case for Bush. Kerry needs to be way out in front to maintain his momentum. Dean is dropping like a stone, Anger plays well in the pre-season, not when the game actually starts. Clark is a not ready for prime time player, we'll hafta see how he does. Leibermann needs to break out in NH, second or third to get his campaign going. Not looking good for him though. shame too, as I always liked him. The VP debate between him and Cheney was one of the most civil and polite exchanges between two oposing politicians in years. We could use more of that.

[pseudonym]

The redistricting issue comes up every ten years.

It's a longstanding practice that the party in power in a particular state house draws the new lines to favor themselves

I'm well aware of that, but it was just re-drawn two years ago and deemed "legal"? Also, the lines that where drawn are simply and completely psychotic. theres no other way to describe it, SORRY.

 

I thought I'd add someting else:Republicans are clinically insane

[coyote]

As an opponent of Bush, I feel the need to give some props where they are due. He is absolutely correct that our action in Iraq has brought at least one other terror proponent to heel - Libya's Qadafi.

 

But Qadafi is and always has been something of a pragmatist (as was Hussein - get past the propaganda and study his actions and that becomes quite clear). The extremists currently detonating themselves across the Mideast will not be deterred by the Iraqi war.

[ibescotty]

I think if Kerry winds Edwards will be the VP candidate to keep those southern states in play. It would be the wise move for the dems. Depends on how much rancor gets built up in the coming debates.

[Chuck Moore]

Yeah, thats a possibility. Kinda like Kennedy did with Johnson. Don't know if the VP slot would SERIOUSLY put any of those states in danger, but may have the same effect as Ahhnold campaigning in Cali, ie forcing the Bush campaign to spend money defending their own territory rather than spending it campaigning in the midwest.

[Funk Jazz]

dropping into the discussion late, but, here's my .02

 

bush isn't speaking to me, or anyone i know. the issues that he is putting importance on just seem out of touch. i was shaking my head and staring in disbelief many, many times during that speech.

 

it definitely had the feeling of a "campaign" speech more than a SOTU.

 

i'm worried that he wants to attack personal freedoms, i'm worried that he has no concern for fiscal responsibility, i'm worried that many of my brothers in arms won't be home anytime soon. as someone said, permanent war and division.

 

but i can't wait to hear how he's going to balance the budget while increasing spending on so many programs. i'm no political genius, but i can balance my checkbook.

[Saint Johnny B]

Say, Chuck how about posting that Electorial College Map for us?

 

And you guys with state maps, please post them too.

[Saint Johnny B]

A republican reveals in his book the entire Bush Crime Family is corrupt. Says the Bushes lie as a way of life.

 

Thanks for the above link to the Rolling Stone article. Very good reading.

[JimmieWannaB]

He is absolutely correct that our action in Iraq has brought at least one other terror proponent to heel - Libya's Qadafi.

So we attacked a country that may have had terrorist ties (now proven to be ten years out of date) and a WMD program (no comment needed), but all is forgiven with the one that has an active WMD program and a proven terrorist track record - including arranging the bombing of the flight over Lockerbee.

 

My favorite part of this Bush-logic is that hugs and kisses for Qadafi were announced on the anniversary of the Lockerbee bombing. Great timing! This is worse than last year's announcement of reducing funding for airport security on the same day the Security Level was elevated to Orange. Someone should have given GW a calendar for Christmas.