Opinion of Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It may have had more lies than substance.

Lots of vague stuff he won't follow through with. Anyone remember Mars?

NASA has a very good program on Mars on the books (and on their website).  A lot of R&D is going into creating habitation modules as well as identifying probable landing sites for bases on the planet.  It's not something that will happen over night, and Bush never said he expected it to. 

Care to insert your other foot into your mouth now?

Whatever, Bush didn't get sh**t done. His father promised the same thing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

When you child gets into school they'll be teaching that there are ten planets.

No, it'll be eight planets.  Pluto is an iceball, not a planet.

[Citizen James]

1) He said the abortion rate is down, and it isn't.  Because of his idiotic abstinence policy, abortion rates have gone UP not down.

http://www.factcheck.org/article330.html

Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is "significantly better" than his own.

Looking at Guttmacher's statistics, I can find no indication of any major change in the abortion rate up or down.  In fact, the data ends at 2002, so there is little information to support either point of view.   I recognize that the lack of data reflects most poorly on those making the claims, but I never particularly liked Hillary anyway.

Further, the downward trend is not new - the abortion rate has been steadily declining since the early 80's, with a signifigant drop under Clinton (which according to Guttmacher was due to the approval of "emergency contraception" - something many social conservatives oppose.

I know it can take a while to compile and interperet data, but I am curious as to what trend more recent data has taken, if anyone has access to it.

(I had class during the speech, but I'll read it shortly).

[angus]

actually, voyager 1 (or Vger as they called it Star Trek) entered the shock zone during Bush's watch.  Big news.  And the most recent mars unmanned mission was a huge success, reported widely.  anyone who's interested knows that.  Spirit and Opportunity are going strong, and we have the pics to prove it.  The images transmitted back to earth have shown watermarks and traces.  A lander in the works right now will explore the polar regions in 2008.  No doubt it's a very exciting time for martiphiles and spacegeeks.  I have to say that the year that Bush talked up Mars I was fully erect.  No doubt it was a matter of great national pride when our NASA robots tooled over to spot the hobbled english robot Beagle 2 get back on its feet after a botched landing.  Whether the Red Planet truly gives George W a raging hard-on is something only his god can know, but he certainly gives the unmanned space program its due.  Now, if only we can get back to good old-fashioned manned exploration.  Boing!

pluto and UB313 are Planets!  ah, whatever, it's such a subtle difference.  solid water which results from vapor cast off from Solis versus solid silicates cast off from vapors from Solis is only a chemical detail.  it's the elliptical orbit that really bugs you isn't it?  yeah, I got your back.  I feel the same way sometimes.  But this government feels it's worth of study, and that's the important fact.  we can and will argue about the details, of course.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

actually, voyager 1 (or Vger as they called it Star Trek) entered the shock zone during Bush's watch.  Big news.  And the most recent mars unmanned mission was a huge success, reported widely.  anyone who's interested knows that.  Spirit and Opportunity are going strong, and we have the pics to prove it.  The images transmitted back to earth have shown watermarks and traces.  A lander in the works right now will explore the polar regions in 2008.  No doubt it's a very exciting time for martiphiles and spacegeeks.  I have to say that the year that Bush talked up Mars I was fully erect.  No doubt it was a matter of great national pride when our NASA robots tooled over to spot the hobbled english robot Beagle 2 get back on its feet after a botched landing.  Whether the Red Planet truly gives George W a raging hard-on is something only his god can know, but he certainly gives the unmanned space program its due.  Now, if only we can get back to good old-fashioned manned exploration.  Boing!

pluto and UB313 are Planets!  ah, whatever, it's such a subtle difference.  solid water which results from vapor cast off from Solis versus solid silicates cast off from vapors from Solis is only a chemical detail.  it's the elliptical orbit that really bugs you isn't it?  yeah, I got your back.  I feel the same way sometimes.  But this government feels it's worth of study, and that's the important fact.  we can and will argue about the details, of course.

Both President Bushes have promised manned trips to Mars. I don't see them delivering.

[The Duke]

Aside from the fact that we've yet to land on Mars, it was an ok speech.

But it does signal the end of libertarianism as a meaningful force in the Bush White House.  For libertarian-conservatives, the House leadership race is big big big time now.  If Blunt wins, they are going to be completely shut out.  If its Boehner or Shadegg, you have something to be happy about.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Aside from the fact that we've yet to land on Mars, it was an ok speech.

But it does signal the end of libertarianism as a meaningful force in the Bush White House.  For libertarian-conservatives, the House leadership race is big big big time now.  If Blunt wins, they are going to be completely shut out.  If its Boehner or Shadegg, you have something to be happy about.

There's only 1 libertarian Republican in the House.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here are a bunch of Democratic reponses.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/1/02721/13072

[The Duke]

Aside from the fact that we've yet to land on Mars, it was an ok speech.

But it does signal the end of libertarianism as a meaningful force in the Bush White House.  For libertarian-conservatives, the House leadership race is big big big time now.  If Blunt wins, they are going to be completely shut out.  If its Boehner or Shadegg, you have something to be happy about.

There's only 1 libertarian Republican in the House.

Ron Paul, I presume?  You have a very narrow definition of libertarian.

[Citizen James]

Looked over the transcript - negative

Lots of vague glittering generallities, a number of half-truths, and the usual all-or-nothing/my way or the highway tripe which is red meat for the partisan hardcore but comes across as completely clueless for anyone living in a reality based world.

Highlights - he indirectly admitted that "a failed state" (reading between the lines, Afganistan) was behind 9/11, not Iraq.

Made some (probably empty) promises about overcoming our dependence of foriegn oil and strengthing our borders (after he slashed the funding and staff for the border patrol from the higher rates of the previous administration).

Lowlights:

 two houses, two parties - paralell structure, but are the libertarians offended?

Iran - are his neocon advisors so drunk with power and poisoned by groupthink that they think we can enter a third war (and second optional war of his administration) without instituting a full draft (rather than just the back door one that he is abusing our reserves with) - or is he just saber rattling to appease the knuckle dragging jingoists who help fill out the neo-con's numbers?

His excuse for ignoring the FISA was as lame as ever.   FISA already authorizes emergency wiretap now - get permission within 48 hours later (sort of like morning after permission).  He just doesn't want to give up his Nixonesque abuses of power.

Jobs - there hasn't so much been major job gains, as some of the jobs lost in his first administration have finally started hiring.  Good news to be sure - but no miracle.  It's like buying something that's doubled in price, then been marked down 20%.  (He uses the same trick in many of his 'funding' inititives as well).

Crime stats - Though it is true that violent crime is down since the 70's - a lot of that is because of the nosedive it took in the 90's - the Available data shows it's been on the decline since 1993, certainly not something he can take credit for without at least crediting his predicessor.

Similarly, though Juvinile drug abuse is down from 2001, it is up from 2002 (and down from 2003 - it's somewhat flat).  Unfortunately, adult drug abuse continues to rise steadily.

Thank you, and God bless America, and protect us from the fools we have chosen to lead us.

[The Vorlon]

A decent speech.

That being said, the average shelf life of a SOTU address is less than that of a quart of milk.

Other than Kennedy sending us to the Moon in the early 60s, I cannot recall a SOTU address that actually had an impact on anything.

A "home run" SOTU speech gets a 2/10 on the political relevancy scale. 

This thing gets maybe a 1.2 or 1.3.

Next week it's ancient history.

[Nation]

He used 22 of the 25 key words, which means I'm drunk.

Hahaha

oh i am SO glad  I am not the only person that did this. we were ing hammered by the end of that thing.


25 standing ovations.

"freedom" 21 times

"terrorist/ism" god knows how many times.

"nucular" 3 times, which was a shot of liquor rather than beer.

1 zoom in on hillary clinton - chug the rest of your beer.

1 zoom in on john kerry - eat some waffles.

haha, just kidding about the kerry one. we were too drunk to have waffles.



Seriously though, this SOTU was nothing more than a bunch of rhetoric and  empty promises that won't be completed. Absolutely no room for compromise on any issue.

[Storebought]

patiently waits for a president to revive the old habit of written State of the Union addresses

[J-Mann]

actually, voyager 1 (or Vger as they called it Star Trek) entered the shock zone during Bush's watch.  Big news.  And the most recent mars unmanned mission was a huge success, reported widely.  anyone who's interested knows that.  Spirit and Opportunity are going strong, and we have the pics to prove it.  The images transmitted back to earth have shown watermarks and traces.  A lander in the works right now will explore the polar regions in 2008.  No doubt it's a very exciting time for martiphiles and spacegeeks.  I have to say that the year that Bush talked up Mars I was fully erect.  No doubt it was a matter of great national pride when our NASA robots tooled over to spot the hobbled english robot Beagle 2 get back on its feet after a botched landing.  Whether the Red Planet truly gives George W a raging hard-on is something only his god can know, but he certainly gives the unmanned space program its due.  Now, if only we can get back to good old-fashioned manned exploration.  Boing!

pluto and UB313 are Planets!  ah, whatever, it's such a subtle difference.  solid water which results from vapor cast off from Solis versus solid silicates cast off from vapors from Solis is only a chemical detail.  it's the elliptical orbit that really bugs you isn't it?  yeah, I got your back.  I feel the same way sometimes.  But this government feels it's worth of study, and that's the important fact.  we can and will argue about the details, of course.

Both President Bushes have promised manned trips to Mars. I don't see them delivering.

Do you have any concept of how long and complicated a single manned mission to Mars will be, let alone how time consuming the planning for such a mission?  Apparently not -- you seem to think this is something that Bush proposed one day and should have undertaken the next.  Before he announced the Mars initiative (which was 2004, if I remember right), we had no vehicle to get there and back: there's the biggest and most time-consuming problem right there.

If you followed the space industry at all, you'd know that there is a bit of a resurgence going on at NASA in terms of new R & D, which is given a boost by the success of a whole string of NASA projects.  The agency is going to see a significant turnaround under new administrator Michael Griffin.

Your pithy one-sentence replies that "Bush hasn't done sh**t" hardly tell us what exactly you take issue with him about in this realm.  Is it because we haven't set foot on Mars and it was something he promised?  Realize that sort of goal is still 10 to 15 years away, at the very soonest.

MODU is right -- the programs are in place.  Have an iota of perspective and understand that we're not going to Mars tomorrow just because the President says it's a good idea; nor should a finger be pointed at him because we're not there already.

[MasterJedi]

It was a decent speech, not his best, not his worst. And it will be forgotten within the week.

[Democratic Hawk]

Eh, it was decent.  I gave it a positive. 

I did as well. Of course, my positive rating was solely based on what he said in relation to defense and foreign policy (and only then because he was speaking to the converted); but when he moved onto domestic issues, I was much less receptive

Those, who think he's doing fine will continue to think so but those who don't won't

Dave

[angus]

But it does signal the end of libertarianism as a meaningful force in the Bush White House. 

I think you may be on to something.  I don't claim to be a Libertarian-Republican, or a Libertraian, or a Republican, but I know the Libertarians and the L-R's cringe when they hear talk of massive programs (military or scientific or socioecomic).  I think this fiscal conservatism is what keeps me, and others, just a bit put off from both groups, even though on privacy issues I think they're right on.  I think Bush and his brother were raised to be country club republicans, but times have changed.  Such republicans have had to change with the party--this is partially what I meant by "wisely written speech" earlier--and the Bush Brothers have changed in a way that gets them elected again and again.  Idealism aside, you have to stay in the middle of one of the two major corporate-controlled groups if you want to get, and stay, elected.  Not unlike the way that the Kennedy's of the world have had to change with their party during its changes (e.g., the clintonian diminution of Great Society programs.)  These parties are not static.  The only unflinching, fixed quality of the Republican Party has always been abject nationalism.  And the only fixed quality of the Democrat party, at least since the inception of the GOP in 1856, has been the maintenance of a fashionable counter to nationalism.  (Veriously incarnated as sectionalism, isolationism, multilateralism, and internationalism, depending largely on external factors out of the party's control.)

Back on topic, I personally really liked the recognition of our national oil addiction.  I liked the way Bush vowed pressure for alternative energy sources.  I like the suggestion of allowing the USA to replace the majority of the petroleum now imported from the Middle East by 2025.  I like the suggestion of putting more money into scientific research and education while working to reduce health care costs.  That is the part that left me at least somewhat erect.  Though again, the lack of details helped me maintain sufficient flaccidity to stand up and walk over to the computer to type my thoughts about it.  I know all this big spending is not "your father's GOP" but then neither is Bush.  And that's not a bad thing, imho.  One can make similar statements about the Democrats.  Remember, which party is the leftmost and which the rightmost, at least in sheer economic terms, cycles and changes every half-century or so.  We're due for a shift.  Anyone under about 50, myself included, will find the marriage of nationalism and Big Government a bit strange, but it's been that way before.  The GOP is finding its way back to its 1856 roots in a real way.  Of course the world has changed so much, and now that means funding scientific searches for alternate energy and funding space exploration rather than quashing internal rebellions and the like.  Not that this is a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a thing that appeals to some while losing appeal to others.  If it weren't for their secrecy, their exploitation of the deeply held moral beliefs of traditionalists, and their apparent need for imperials wars, I'd be a true republican myself. 

Overall, and upon further reflection, I'll agree with Diane Feinstein's comment to Chris Matthews last night when he asked her to grade the president's speech:  "I'd give him a B, Chris."  So would I.  And I'm refreshed by the fact that our boy is finally able to read from a teleprompter in a way that makes him appear at least partially in command of facts.

[afleitch]

I didn't like i that much on reflectiont. While I agree with him and the administration on foreign policy issues in general, I am tired of the soundbites of the past 4 years and would rather he put some 'meat on the bones' of his future foreign policy plans rather than giving us outdated hollow rhetoric. If I hear the words 'defend freedom' once more I'm going to go nuts I did like the fact he named Zimbabwe and Burma as two undemocratic nations and I hope further diplomatic action will be taken against them.

I was also pleased with his alternative energy plans to wean the US (and hopefully the West) off Middle Eastern Oil and I'm sure the feeling is mutual in the Democratic Party too.

Once he reached domestic policy issues of course I turned right off.

[angus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that's because your socialization is so radically different.  you're coming from a different place, both figuratively and literally.  e.g., when an american hears the phrase "I vow to reduce health care cost" it means something.  That's just one of many domestic policy issues that we like to hear.  Well, I suppose if you're a leftist and support socialized medicine it's a meaningless phrase, and if you have just shut out the possibility of Bush ever being honest it's meaningless.  But for those of us who don't want government into healthcare (and yes, there are those of us who like big spending in education and science, but not Single Payer Healthcare), then it resonates, as they say.  Put yourself in the place of a middle-class american and hear those phrases as we hear them.  If you're a swing voter and generally allow for the possiblity that politicians can be telling the truth, then hey're really not such a turn-off.

[afleitch]

To some extent that's true. To say such a thing to a UK audience is political suicide, as all parties still favour a basic National Health Service, including the Conservatives.

[minionofmidas]

Sorry, I should explain my last post.  This keyword bingo card is brought to you by the DNC:

Link (Click on 'bingo cards')

Which of these did he not use?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

e.g., when an american hears the phrase "I vow to reduce health care cost" it means something

True. After all the U.S healthcare system costs a hell of a lot more tax dollars for an average voter than (for example) the NHS does for an average voter over here. Despite less people (as a %) being covered. When it comes to bloated administration you guys really are world beaters

[MissCatholic]

I feel nothing. Hence everyone will forget what he said by monday.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

actually, voyager 1 (or Vger as they called it Star Trek)

V'ger was Voyager 6 not Voyager 1.

[Speed of Sound]

[lazy partisan] It sucked and was lame [/lazy partisan]