Posted on 02/02/2005 3:43:44 PM PST by Timeout
The pre-spin: Bush will spend about 1/2 the speech on foreign policy, 1/2 on domestic, with heavy emphasis on Social Security reform. It's said he will provide a detailed tutorial on the SS system and its problems with a few details on his personal accounts proposal.
Laura's guests are said to be an Afghan voter and an Iraqi voter (too bad there's no Ukrainian wearing an orange hat!).
Should we start a drinking game on how many times the pool camera swings to Hillary? Hmmm. Probably not...it would likely hamper out typing ability.
Word on the blogs has it that the closing part of the speech is a hum-dinger. Set your VCR's.
Report here on outrageous MediaCrat spin before AND after the SOTU. Pictures and screen caps welcome.
Absolutely it does, and we're still paying more of our share than Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, and other states!
The Big Dig went way over budget, but something was going to be done anyway--the elevated highway was way over-capacity and past its life span. The thing was falling apart. It also had too many exits (2/3 were eliminated when it was put underground) to serve as a proper interstate highway. It was built as a local elevated road to serve immediate Boston needs and was only later jerry-rigged into I-93.
A small price to pay for all the cash that Massachusetts taxpayers pay out for "emergency" farm bailouts and crop subsidies in the south and midwest, year after year after year...
The electorate is finally ready to demand more responsibility for their own welfare. Disillusionment with the ability of Government to provide for our futures is growing.
The electorate is not yet quite willing to toss the entire system away. This is why the President's plan is encouraging. If put in place it'll lead to a growing momentum for individual responsibility. With that desire will come demand for less government as the years pass. This is the brilliance of his policies. He's implimenting policies that encourage individualism. Once the electorates puts that first toe in the water it's all down hill for the Dems' strategy of increasing dependence on government.
They should be embarassed, not devasted! My Senator didn't do it so no prob for me, but they acted like Freshmen in highschool. Anyway, it took away from the greatness of the President's speech. And it was the best I've ever heard in 20 years of my paying attention to SOTU speeches.
So why bother having our elected representatives swear before God and country that they will do everything in their power to uphold the Constitution? The whole point of a representative republic is to avoid mob rule. But if politicians simply govern by the will of the majority, that's exactly what we have, making us no better than countries like Zimbabwe.
Can someone please tell me what MSNBC is thinking? They actually have Ron Reagan and Jeanine Garafolo on as panelists/hosts these days following important political events! A dog show enthusiest and comedian who didn't finish but one semester of college and suddenly they are political experts! Give me a HUGE f#$@! break! UHG!
No wonder no one watches MSNBC anymore.
I caught little Metro/boy Ronnie last night and disgusting was the only applicable word for him. Thank God pmsnbc will never get any numbers as long as they put him and fat Chris out front.
Joe understands that WE set the standards for the planet! Of course we're pleased that Iraqis finally got up the nerve to do what's right after the dust finally settled... But it was up to us to make the dust and yet we most often end up like Rodney Dangerfield in these emotional aftermaths.
But we are somehow expected to "PC" down our desire for respect when those we've sacrificed for show the slightest appreciation for our efforts. You know, like the French do now-a-days... That's what's REALLY "getting tiresome" and it very well could happen again with Iraq in the future!!!
The undying gratitude toward America for her unparalleled exceptionalism can be a VERY short lived thing and everybody knows it!!!
It's a wonder Roger Ailes doesn't demand a bit more show prep from Sean.
It's gotten predictive and boring.
Speaking of Rush.........he just said that this was "A SPEECH FOR THE AGES"........."THE BEST SPEECH BUSH HAS EVER GIVEN."
Do you think Rush is reading our thread.....LOL
You must be referring to the "Red Welfare State" story that was released by Democratic operatives just prior to the election. This was later thoroughly debunked as being due to 1) the progressive income tax structure [MA has a lot more millionaires than MT] and 2) the effect of defense spending [most of the nation's nuclear arsenal is in MT and ND].
Montana and North Dakota receive one train each way per day. That train makes money on solely-related costs, but thanks to Amtrak's bizarre accounting scheme, appears to lose money. That's because the western long distance trains are "taxed" a fee to connect to the Northeast Corridor -- without that fee, all but one make money. The NEC, in contrast, makes money on its operating costs, but DOES NOT make its cost of capital, which is paid for by ... the long distance western trains.
To replace the one train per day, the federal government would have to either 1) build a string of Class 1 airports along the northern tier, or 2) bring US 2 up to Interstate standards, both of which would cost billions and certainly not break even.
The entire point of a representative republic is to avoid short term swings of majority rule.
Long term, in the case of social security and government spending, it's the people -- the electorate -- by majority who must want something. There's no protection in the constitution against that.
To depend on politician's over the long haul to protect you from government spending when the electorate wants big government spending is -- a statist idea.
Ben Franklin said we had a republic "if you can keep it." He wasn't talking about the politicians. He was talking about the electorate and it's the electorate that is to blame.
Perhaps Rush (and you) are right. One thing I definitely agree with, is that it was a speech for the ages............and I'm just beginning to digest it's import.
That is why I think voting strictly along the lines of Democrat and Republican is an exercise in futility. Under the current one-party system, it's no longer a question of whether or not government is going to grow; it's a question of who will be in charge of that growth.
Nothing will change unless the people can be convinced otherwise. Hopefully, they can be convinced to once again hold their elected representatives accountable. The only alternative is to admit that there is no going back--that the Constitution is indeed a dead letter and that our representative republic no longer exists--and prepare for another revolution. Frankly, I don't think even the most conservative among us is ready for that.
If you watched the President's speech last night, and came away believing there's no difference in the parties, you had ear plugs in, and blinders on.
It will be interesting. I am wondering how long it will be before something happens?
haha........I just give up.....you guys are stuck in your won little window......I will repeat it again.....I did not call one person narrow minded fro criticizing her........why are you guys so uncomprehending......anyone can crticize her for what she said.....what I had a problem with is some keep up at it and won't forgive her though she has spent most of her life as a supporter of conservatives and Repubs.......you guys are proving by your posts that you are not following me.......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.