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.
Why do you think Condi is there?? Velvet hammer.
LOL! We need to find someone who had an iron gut and listened to the whole thing.
If I were W, I would have grabbed her hands really quickly and put them around my throat and then start pretending to struggle to get them off me. It would only take the Secret Service about 2.8 seconds to add two pounds of lead to her weight. But hey, that's just me.
That's a good thing. Especially when you consider both DOD and Homeland Security discretionary costs are up...or are those costs going to be supplemental.
Now, about that mandatory spending and Medicare...
Amen my fellow freeper, amen.
Maybe he was joking?? Al's such a kidder, you know.......
Anyone who says they prefer Alan Colmes, needs to listen to his radio show---he goes way off the left end on it.
Like I posted earlier, he was saying last night that the Iraqis that voted were coerced and/or threatened into voting. That none of them did it of their own free will.
That is a looney-tunes way of looking at things, and all it is is dem talking-points trying to find ANYTHING to slam Bush about!
I watched Reid and Pelosi, because my associates insisted. I demanded a barf bag first, but made it all the way through without hurling, miraculously! ;-)
There are some of Reid's comments that were particularly inane. A couple of them would be hilarious if played on a loop, ala the old Limbaugh TV show...
So , the question is, why are the Democrats taking the position they are on Social Security?
It seems to me, that it will drive those under age 35 at least to move to the Republican's side... so the battle must be in the 35 to 55 age bracket.... which group is larger perhaps?
I don't understand the political calculus....
"I'm actually pretty pleased that Dean will be party chairman. Most of the "normal" Dems I know (the Joe Lieberman/Zell Miller types) are really upset about this situation. They were also pissed as hell that Robert Byrd was so vocal against Condi."
Lieberman was one of the Dems that was consistently applauding tonight and standing w the pubbies, even when some of the Dims weren't - I have to give him a lot of credit (just wished he hadn't switched when he was running w Gore - but the Kool Aid seems to have been flushed from his system and he's his old self again now).
You are a dangerously hateful, racist, and bitter man.
Do Federal/State employees contribute to SS? (including lawmakers?)
I had the mute button on, and had trouble just looking at their faces.
I hope Rush does a number on them tomorrow. I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say!
I kid you not, Ronnie Reagan just said, "We'll discuss the President's 2nd State of the Union Address". Obviously he writes his own stuff.
I only have cBS to watch (:o( but BlatherRather said it was the first time ever -
which makes we wonder if he didn't know ahead that they planned on doing it...and looked up the stats so's he could comment.
the funny thing is that "W" phrased things in a way that left the dems, when they disagreed, looks foolish - They planned on booing him on Soc Sec - but got trapped into booing over something that made them look like who they really are - badddd
Well, when Pelosi was talking, I literally had to look away. Put my Stetson over my face. Seriously. I can't stand to look at that woman. Listening was painful enough.
Brotha Shawpton did the same thing--I just had to turn the TV off--they are getting on my LAST nerve with that old warmed-up tripe!
I dont believe that works either. The same thing happened in 1981 but the regime is still there.
72 top Mullahs and Parliament members died in a bombing in July 1981. The president and premier of the Islamic Republic died in another bombing 2 months later but the regime is still there. The Mullahs are so hard to kill.
On this one speech? You must take her remarks with what she's written before, as you've already said.
This is from her June 14, 2004 column, in which she reprinted a speech she made at a gathering of former Reagan hands, following President Reagan's funeral:
"Are we a government that has a country, or a country that has a government? We are the latter; hold it high. Can dictators who run a country the size of a continent in the name of a life-killing ideology, can they push freedom around? They cannot. Say it, hold it high. Is there a natural thing within man that tells him God is real and good, real as a rock, good as clean water--is that thing, that knowledge, natural to man? Yes it is. Hold it high. Should we as a people try to rid ourselves of the natural expressions of this natural knowledge? No. We must keep that and guard it and love it. We must hold it high."
This is from her column which ran the day after the inauguration.
"This world is not heaven.
The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."
It seemed a document produced by a White House on a mission. The United States, the speech said, has put the world on notice: Good governments that are just to their people are our friends, and those that are not are, essentially, not. We know the way: democracy. The president told every nondemocratic government in the world to shape up. "Success in our relations [with other governments] will require the decent treatment of their own people."
...snip
"Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth."
I'm so glad that you were here defending her tonight. Because if you review the critiques of her column in light of the historic events that have happenned in Iraq just this past week, it's clear to see how shallow Noonan's thinking is. Much less how hypocritical it is to what she had said just 6 months ago.
ROFL!
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.