Conservatives Disappointed with Bush 'State of the Union' Speech

The National Ledger ^ | 2-2-06 | Robert Novak

[Cboldt]

Now that is hard work.....I could not browse without my mouse...

It's not too bad, actually. It takes some learning, but keyboard shortcuts, once learned, are pretty quick. The arrow keys work as you expect, and combinations of Shift, Ctl and Alt cause faster and slower motion.

[IIntense]

"Then vote for another party."

WHAT kind of idiotic reply is that? That is your recommendation to, in this case, a registered Rep. who does not agree with every position that party takes?

The only alternative is to shut one's brain down in order to agree with whatever your party (of registration) wants you to believe. You can't possibly suggest that we never question any position a political party takes.

Hopefully you misunderstood me.

[nopardons]

Unfortunately, I'm still here an d shall never catch up. So, I really, REALLY am leaving now. Nighty night. :-)

[nopardons]

Nighty night. ;-)

[Howlin]

It is my answer to people who continually say that they won't vote for the GOP unless (fill in the blank.)

[nopardons]

I don't; I have NO idea how to CCP. LOL

Good night and thanks for all of the tutorials. :-)

[Cboldt]

Unfortunately, I'm still here an d shall never catch up.

Oh please read to #584 before you retire.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Sir Francis I think your being too kind to Bush. There was nothing conservative about his speech.

I specifically said I was not a “conservative,” never once claimed to be. I am a bitterly partisan Republican...

GWB did mention nuclear power. I do wish it was stressed a lot more, but given the circumstances concerning nuclear geo-politics I understand why it had only a cursory mention.

It is easy for me to be very kind to GWB. All I have to do is imagine John Skerry giving the state of the union address and six .357 bullet holes in my new plasma screen television!

I think the RINOs needed a good kick in the rear on the ANWAR deal also, but we just got our second Supreme Court justice, so maybe that is why they deserved a little slack.

Of course, if I were king, it would have been a whole different ballgame. The SOTU speech would have been a televised public lynching for the national security leakers and the leftist sedition lobby, then we would talk about reducing the size of government...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good night!

I am running with two windows open, and about 20 tabed windows within each of the Major Windows.,....

[Recovering_Democrat]

Novak doesn't speak for me.

[Howlin]

Wow, you're MY kind of Not-conservative!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Of course, if I were king, it would have been a whole different ballgame. The SOTU speech would have been a televised public lynching for the national security leakers and the leftist sedition lobby, then we would talk about reducing the size of government...

ROFL!!!

I'd go with you on that....

My Ideal world would be much further Right that it currently is...but Bush is moving it a bit Right in some key areas....But He is EXACTLY RIGHT on National Security....which is BY FAR the number one priority issue....now if He can Force the borders shut some more I would be much happier...

[IIntense]

"...part of the job description of a politician."

Okay. So we're stuck with dishonest government. No surprise to me but I wish it were otherwise. Yet we try to help foreigners with their dictatorships, medical problems, economies, disasters, etc.

Granted, we do better than that, but we could do better ourselves. Won't happen, though. I, for one, would like to see lobbys banned. They do not represent the best interests of the American people. It's just another fraudulent tactic.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Really Nite All!

[leadpenny]

At 7:45 this morning (for a full hour):

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp

Call-In
State of the Union Reaction
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Rich Lowry, National Review

[leadpenny]

And, Pat Buchanan will be on with Imus at 6:30.
Always a good guest.

[Wiseghy]

SOTU speeches are lousy times to "get tough", which is why Rove did not suggest it. It just would have set up the '06 election as a war, which is just what the Dems want. Lots of money, energy and turnout are what they need, and they DON'T have it now.

Nonetheless, this will be remembered as a good speech, and one of the best he ever gave in defining his leadership and connecting with the nation. You can already feel the nation turning back toward the President, and rejecting the idiotic static from the MSM and the beltway.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I think the biggest initiative in domestic politics should be to de-fund the left with all of their 501c tax-exempt corporations. It is corporate welfare for the left. I would want to have mandatory drug testing required for all paid employees of 501c corporations in the Internal Revenue Code (if it were not abolished altogether) as a condition for non-profit status. Watch all those ACLU, PETA, PFTAW, Greenpeace, PBS, NPR, GLSEN, ACTUP, PFLAG alphabet soup leftist groups fold overnight.

And national security? Harry Belafonte would remain in exile once he left the country and so would anyone else, including former presidents, who bad mouthed the USA overseas. I would instruct the State Department to invalidate their visa, let Congress vote to reinstate it.

[IIntense]

"...socialized medicine...then we will be under their (Gov) control..."

An excellent reminder! Most people in this country have no idea of what it is like to live in a Socialist country. That is unfortunate and they should be made aware. Some of us just know how bad that would be.

How do folks with little income resist gov't help? If they squandered money throughout their lives, shall we deny them the meds they need to survive? Or do the rest of us subsidize them? The whole thing gets complicated. IMO the pharmaceutical cos. can cut back on the cost of meds and still make a profit. Maybe their employees are paid more than other large companies get.

[BigSkyFreeper]

LOL!!!