State of the Union

Much to Adam’s chagrin (I would assume), his post will not be on top, I shall attempt to live blog the State of the Union–until I lose interest.
As of now, I am having to endure the closing moments of American Idol. Before it begins, I am curious to see how President Bush handles his first “State of (anything)” speech to a legislation that is in opposition to him. Does anyone know which network has the best coverage?

[9:09] President Bush enters and on first impression seems quite nervous. I like hearing the candid comments to the president.

[9:11] Free link to my opposition.

[9:12] Speaker Pelosi’s command over the congress had an odd juxtaposition with the rancorous cheers of a majority male congress. The president’s acknowledgment of “Madame Speaker” was very classy. This is a great introduction and serves as a great nod to a historic moment.

[9:16] Well he seems to be ignoring the past few years of his tenure saying “spend wisely” and “not leave problems for future generations”.

[9:17] Did I just hear a move to bi-partisanship? Balance the budget? This is almost revolutionary, relatively speaking. It looked like Pelosi had a snide comment after Bush said “not raise taxes”. Maybe that is just me. And curse you Fogle!

[9:20] I am vehemently in support of the President making earmark reform his first key point. Although, isn’t there something else happening in the world we have to take care of? Is Sen. Kennedy doing Soduku?

[9:22] NCLB is a “good law” it has “helped our children”. If only either were true…

[9:24] Can this health-care proposal work? Will it do anything? Color me skeptical.

[9:26] The GOP Caucus seemed moderately non-plussed about the health care ideas.

[9:29] It seems to me that immigration is what he wants this segment of his presidency to be remembered by. Because there isn’t anything else that he did that he will be remembered by (slight sarcasm). “Safe nuclear power”? Is that similar to a “good Tech football team”? Sorry, I generally like Tech, that’s just the best I could do.

[9:31] Reduce gasoline use by half in 25 years, I like that. Some senator in purple just yawned on TV. Heh.

[9:33] As long as Gore is working on global warming, Bush will never say “global warming”.

[9:34] The quick up or down vote for judges was a direct slap to the face of Democrats and Pelosi’s face showed that. I wonder, does this mean very conservative judges will be put forward? Oh, now we get to some foreign policy!

[9:37] The thanks to our troops was a great gesture. Well done sir.

[9:38] He is reciting the same trite statements he has been using for the past few years about al-Qa’ida and one wonders, how much less of an effect it will have now than it has for the past 12 months. Now, I don’t think the message is trite, but they have become cliched.

[9:41] Promoting “moderate Islam” will not work. It is too vague, and ignores the fact that the mullahs and imams are brainwashing citizens. Yes, we get that democracy is flourishing in terms of voting in Iraq. Its fecundity only makes more people vote, not control Iraq.

[9:44] I am glad at least that President Bush shows no sign of a quick withdrawal. I still refuse to believe that the most powerful and smartest nation in the world can not solve its own mess. Granted, the situation is far from good, but, we can repair the damage.

[9:47] Baghdad will not be the bellwether for Iraq. The rural areas (sans Kurdistan) are far and away the least stable parts of Iraq and act independently of Baghdad’s stability, or lack-thereof.

[9:52] The only problem with saying you want to increase the number of soldiers, is getting people to enlist. People do not desire to do so in a time of war. Especially one as unpopular as this one.

[9:53] A two state solution? Interesting…

[9:56] bowersville asks about a preemptive strike against Iran. I think that Bush’s idealism in American military might has dried up and this will not happen. With all the talk of fighting AIDS in Africa and ending the genocide in Darfur, that proves President Bush is not interested in any more military endeavors.

[9:59] Did the president actually say that “genocide” was happening in Darfur? Not “acts of genocide” but “genocide”? There are some very serious International Law implications if he called it “genocide”. Those implications are; he actually has to do something.

[10:02] Thus Spoke Bush (h/t: Nietzsche)! Overall it was not his best or most memorable, SoftheU. Not surprisingly there was almost a paucity of major ideas. I would say, it was a “B”. Soon we will get the litany and barrage of pointless statistics. Allow me to start;

Average number of claps in each ovation: 23, 519.39252355118
Average decibel level of each ovation: 74.921787353252…
Average level of enthusiasm in each ovation: 8

[10:10] I am going to migrate to the comments after this last update, but, before that, how could one acquire the program for tonight that was passed out to attendees?


  1. Bull Moose says:

    The President is hitting a very strong base hit. I’d say he scored a resounding C+.

    Not great, a little below average, but not awful.

    Funniest thing, he is the reason that the middle east is such a mess. His policies have destabalized an already unstable region.

  2. Bull Moose says:

    Okay, this may go down as the real turning point in which some Republicans begin to jump ship with more speed from the status quo of stay the course in Iraq and join the efforts of Senators John Warner and others against the new troop build up.

    It was a little below average address and didn’t really do much to rally the country to the challenges of our times.

    I wish we had more Senators and Representatives like Johnny Isakson who can decipher the political games and come up with common sense compromise on legislation. In looking at some of the Republicans and knowing that they had so many years in the Majority to address some of the issues that Bush mentioned, I can’t help but to question their commitment and sincerity.

    Let me remind readers that the ENTIRE REPUBLICAN GEORGIA DELEGATION in the US House voted AGAINST earmark reform.

    In contrast, I was VERY impressed by Senator Jim Webb. WOW is all I can say. He seemed authentic.

  3. rugby_fan says:

    I didn’t see Senator Webb’s speech. I too think many GOPers will totally abandon the President because the rhetoric is the same as it ever was (see 9:38).

    And if anyone is still watching any SoftheU punditry, stop and go watch the Australian Open.

  4. Mike Hauncho says:

    I think the President’s comment “you did not vote for failure” was a very strong statement that is very true. I also found it very disturbing that when the President spoke of winning the war the Democrats all sat in their seats as though they did not hear what he said. No matter what you plan is for winning the war that statement needed to be supported by both sides of the aisle. Webb’s comment that a majority of the troops do not support the war needs to be explained. I thik he is way off base with that comment. He complained about the war but with no ideas for how to make it better. Anyone could have made that speech.

  5. Harry says:

    Bull Moose, isn’t it about past time for you to declare yourself a Democrat? Or are you just pretending to be a copperhead?

  6. Chris says:


    I’m not sure that blind support for the president is the best qualification for being a Republican. Blind support for the president is one of the reasons we are now in the minority.

  7. Michael C says:

    Bull Moose seems to be enamored with whichever party is in power. I understand everyone likes to be on the winning side but come on man, grow some principles.

  8. Jmac says:

    Well, Mike there are two different bipartisan resolutions circulating through Congress that not only offer opposition to the surge, but also offer pragmatic alternatives to the president’s proposal.

    I will say, however, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have some saying ‘don’t question the president on national security … he’s the commander-in-chief and he sets policy.’ So when criticism is offered of said policy, it’s not logical to come back with ‘well, why don’t you offer a plan then.’ Either you want those who oppose to pitch new ideas or you don’t.

  9. Bull Moose says:


    Blind support for a President is not a requirement to be a Republican.

    I believe in a balanced budget amendment with a 2/3 majority required to allow deficit spending.

    I believe that we should have comprehensive and major tax overhaul at the federal, state, and local level. We need a systematic dialogue as to how we fund the role of government.

    If I sound like a Democrat just because I do not agree with President Bush or the Congressional Republicans then I would submit it is them who have moved away from the tenents of the party and not me.

    For heaven’s sake, I voted for Steve Forbes in the 1996 primaries, John McCain in 2000 primaries, and finally Bush in 2000 and 2004. I worked for the NRCC for 3+ years.

    My Republican card is well established, but blind loyalty is only the policy of a fool.

  10. Jmac says:

    Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.

    And, hence, the problem with politics today.

    I’m a good Democrat, but if a Republican offers a good idea then I’ll say so. Blind loyalty and ideological purity is foolish and counterproductive.

  11. rugby_fan says:

    Harry; that does not mean support the President.

    Suppose Bush said we should limit our breathing time to 15 minutes a day or some other ridiculous policy. He kept saying it and his numbers, and the GOP’s, plummeted to abysmal levels. “Aiding the party” wouldn’t include continuing to support that policy.

    Now there is a similar situation today. You can figure it out.

  12. Bull Moose says:

    My name here is Bull Moose. I chose that name after one of the greatest Presidents ever, Teddy Roosevelt. President Roosevelt was a man who did not allow party loyalty to blind him from what was right for the country.

    Your point about that this is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party is absolutly an indication of your foolishness.

    Now is the time for all great men and women to come to the aid of their country. Raising questions about the President’s proposals and challenging the administration’s conclusions are in context with doing what is right for the country.

    Those who blindly accept his assertions and just follow are abdicating their responsibility to the public.

    We are at a serious crossroads as a country. Now is not the time for blind dogmatic party loyalty, but rather to set aside party and focus on what is good and right for America.

  13. CobbGOPer says:

    Webb did nothing to convince me that the Democrats have any ideas at all. It sounded like 2004 continued: we oppose the President and everything he does.

    As for viable alternatives to the troop surge, where are they? If the Democrats have them, why don’t they spend their TV and radio time espousing those ideas and trying to build support for them? Instead they go on TV and they continue their contrarian strategy.

  14. Jmac says:

    If the Democrats have them, why don’t they spend their TV and radio time espousing those ideas and trying to build support for them? Instead they go on TV and they continue their contrarian strategy.

    Need I point out that phased redeployment and increased diplomatic efforts actually is an alternative plan. Or how about the fact that the overwhelming number of Republicans on this very blog are in agreement with me regarding the troop surge proposal?

    See ‘blind loyalty’ …

  15. Harry says:

    Bull Moose, Here is your specific comment that didn’t seem right:

    “In contrast, I was VERY impressed by Senator Jim Webb. WOW is all I can say. He seemed authentic.”

  16. Bill Simon says:


    Bull Moose is not a Democrat. The President is a dumbass, and has been one for most of his life.

    You are unable to admit that because you are all wrapped-up in the “He’s a good Christian, therefore I support anything he says” Kool-Aide.

  17. rugby_fan says:

    Harry; I was unaware that being impressed with a politician means you support him or her, same with thinking that he or she is authentic.

    So allow me to propose a scenario.

    George Wallace was an impressive politician. He was authentic.

    Yet I do not support Wallace’s policies in any way. In fact I find them morally abhorrent and repugnant.

  18. GeorgiaConservative says:

    The comment about judges was nice. ..not that it will help much.

    The balanced budget proposal was also good, even though he has already announced it.

    I think he missed an opportunity to lay down ground rules to the Democrats. I would have liked for him to announce plainly and emphatically that any tax increase will be vetoed without a second thought, any bill that spends more than he asks will be vetoed, any form of socialized health care will be vetoed. That is just what I think though.

    Overall, I liked the speech.

Comments are closed.