Republicans and Independant: What did you think of the SOTU address last night?

[XT]

I only see one thread on the SOTU address in GD right now and it is a prediction thread, speculating on what folks thought Bush would have to say. Well, we've seen what he said now and I was wonder if I could get the reaction from Republicans and Independants on their take. I pretty much know what self styled Dems on the board think of it already, but feel free to give your thoughts as well though I'm most interested in folks who are either pro-Bush or neutral as to the speech.

-XT

[Crotalus]

Republican here. I'm not a big fan of the State of the Union speech in general, so I give GWB a good grade for keeping it to under an hour. I was encouraged to hear him raise the Social Security issue again, in a way that suggested to me that he might try to move forward on this in a bi-partisan way, unlike last time. I thought he was right to take credit for some of the positive things that are going on, one of which is the economy, IMO. I thought it was silly to claim that he was doing anything about deficit reduction.

[Malodorous]

It was kinda blah. No big programs suggested, didn't threaten to invade anyone, etc. Lottsa stuff everyone more or less agrees on, like reducing oil dependency, reducing the deficit, more teachers, etc.

He threw down on the NSA wiretaps, but he'd already been making basically the same defense for a couple weeks.

Probably a good thing Bush is being less confrontational, but it doesn't leave much to debate after the speech.

[Malodorous]

Almost forgot. I'm relived the federal gov't is finally making a stand against the threat of human/animal hybrids. We've offically gone from basing our national defense startegy on bad Tom Clancy books to bad Michael Crichton movies.

[Cliffy]

As goofy as that sounded, you know there was some evil scientist in a bunker in Nebraska or somewhere watching who was all "Son of a BITCH! Bova, dear, I've got some bad news."

--Cliffy

[Malodorous]

Almost forgot. I'm relived the federal gov't is finally making a stand against the threat of human/animal hybrids. We've offically gone from basing our national defense startegy on bad Tom Clancy books to bad Michael Crichton movies.

Actually, seriously, what was with that human/animal hybrid thing. I imagine that no line of a SOTU address just gets thrown in, it must've come from somewhere. Here's the quote:

Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research, human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling or patenting human embryos.

Is this based on some legislation someone has brewing? Is this one of those "codewords" to the religious right?

And doesn't biology combine human and animal genes all the time, either to produce better animal models of human disease or to breed animals that can produce human proteins for experiments or medicines? From my limited understanding, banning this sort of thing would do a lot of damage to American biological research.

[Psycho Pirate]

Republican here. I thought that the speech was quite good. I think he effectively and correctly portrayed the war in Iraq as both necessary and winnable. I also cheered during my favorite part of the speech.
Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.
I had to laugh when the Democrats clapped when he mentioned that his proposed Social Security reforms were not enacted, but I was glad that he confronted them with the obvious fact that the problems aren't going away. Until both parties come together on this issue, it is going to be gridlocked, probably because each party:
1) Doesn't want the other to get the credit for correcting the problem, and
2) Doesn't want to take the heat of the AARP crowd by tinkering with something as sacred as Social Securiity.

Overall, I thought he did a good job.

As for the human-animal hybrids, as strange as it sounds, that stuff is indeed being researched (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html). Pigs with human blood, rabbit eggs fused with human cells, etc. Weird, wild stuff. I agree with his stance, btw.

[Patty O'Furniture]

Actually, seriously, what was with that human/animal hybrid thing. I imagine that no line of a SOTU address just gets thrown in, it must've come from somewhere.

Just a boogeyman, I suspect. It's easier to get something banned if you can frame it as a potential monster. I mean, you don't disagree that we should stop human/animal hybrid experiments, do you??

[Liberal]

I suppose that I qualify as "Independant". I thought it sucked. Same old drivel. God bless America. Siss boom bah. Yadda yadda yadda.

[homeskillet]

Republicans and Independant: What did you think of the SOTU I'm most interested in folks who are either pro-Bush or neutral...

I find it funny that you seem to think that Independent=Neutral to Bush. Speaking as an independent, from a family of independents, with many independent and third party friends. I don't know a single independent that has a neutral attitude towards Bush. Most, myself included, loathe him! The rest I know are on the fence.

While I didn't watch it last night, I did quickly read the transcript this morning. I really don't see anything to get excited about, it's basically the same trite from any one of his other speeches, rehashed together and served with pomp and circumstance.

A few things caught my attention though:

The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end.
I hope this isn't an allusion to more military shenanigans!

This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my dad's favorite people -- me and President Bill Clinton. .
Hmmm, and there was just a thread about this. I don't find their friendship odd, though I do find it bizarre that W would mention it in his address!

Speaking of creating human-animal hybrids, this was in News of the Weird this week:
"The Island of Dr. Moreau" Comes to Life: (1) Recently opened archives in Moscow show that in the 1920s, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin ordered his top animal breeding scientist to create interspecies "super warriors." Stalin's half-men, half-apes would be "invincible," "insensitive to pain" and "indifferent about the quality of food they eat."

Uh oh! Not only is the boogeyman a monster, he's a Commie to boot! :eek:

[rjung]

I'm most interested in folks who are either pro-Bush or neutral as to the speech.
Translation: "Wahh! I can't handle dissent!"

What's next, asking Scientologists how they feel about Battlefield Earth?

[BrainGlutton]

I find it funny that you seem to think that Independent=Neutral to Bush. Speaking as an independent, from a family of independents, with many independent and third party friends. I don't know a single independent that has a neutral attitude towards Bush. Most, myself included, loathe him! The rest I know are on the fence.

Socialists, Greens and Libertarians are all "independents," xtisme. And practically all of them hate the Bush Admin.

[alaricthegoth]

Socialists, Greens and Libertarians are all "independents," xtisme. And practically all of them hate the Bush Admin.
aha! a clever ruse to "out" the pugs on the board. I approve....

[alaricthegoth]

Socialists, Greens and Libertarians are all "independents," xtisme. And practically all of them hate the Bush Admin.

Bolsheviks?? Any Bolsheviks? Bolsheviks line up under the portrait of Lenin, please.

[alaricthegoth]

"indifferent about the quality of food they eat."


at long last, a market for MRE's

[Sam Stone]

I could have done without the idiotic, "We're addicted to oil" comment. The U.S. is 'addicted to oil' the same way that I'm 'addicted to breathing'.


I know exactly what he was doing - trying to take away the Democrat's issue. The buzz is that 'energy independence' was going to be one of the Democrat's big talking points in this election cycle. Bush is trying to co-opt it. It's still nonsensical.

[BrainGlutton]

I could have done without the idiotic, "We're addicted to oil" comment. The U.S. is 'addicted to oil' the same way that I'm 'addicted to breathing'.

:rolleyes: The difference, Sam, is that we're not going to run out of air.

[alaricthegoth]

:rolleyes: The difference, Sam, is that we're not going to run out of air.
and they can't raise the price

[vinniepaz]

I suppose that I qualify as "Independant".
Anyone else find this funny?

[furt]

Independant: What did you think of the SOTU address last night?-XTMeh.

[XT]

I find it funny that you seem to think that Independent=Neutral to Bush. Speaking as an independent, from a family of independents, with many independent and third party friends. I don't know a single independent that has a neutral attitude towards Bush. Most, myself included, loathe him! The rest I know are on the fence.

Independents by their very nature are at least nominally unbiased...at least they don't associate so strongly with either the Democrat or Republican PARTY as far as blindly toeing the party line. I consider myself an Independent btw and while I'm no fan of GW's I'd say that at least a fairly large percentage of Independents of various stripes were either neutral towards Bush or in favor of him...otherwise he would never have been re-elected, no?

Socialists, Greens and Libertarians are all "independents," xtisme. And practically all of them hate the Bush Admin.

Gee...really BG? Being a libertarian myself I never would have realized that we were independents. :p

The reason I asked for 'Republicans and Independents' is I wanted to get a different viewpoint not always seen on this board...instead of the same old knee jerk anti-Bush crap. Personally I thought the speech sucked and I wanted to see if the self styled Republicans on the board agreed. As for the Independents, I generally like to hear what they have to say more than either of the folks who self identify with either of the major parties as they are often more non-partisan...i.e. they actually have valid reason for disliking Bush and looking critically, while also are able to listen objectively if he actually makes good points.

Translation: "Wahh! I can't handle dissent!"

Case in point. rjung doesn't even need to post and I already know what he thinks and can predict he will say stupid shit like this reguardless if Bush is even mentioned in a thead. And he obviously is incapable of reading more than a few words at a time since I said "I pretty much know what self styled Dems on the board think of it already, but feel free to give your thoughts as well though I'm most interested in folks who are either pro-Bush or neutral as to the speech."

You see rjung there are ALREADY at least two threads on the board that give plenty of examples of what folks like you thought of the speech...I was interested in trying to get ANOTHER viewpoint for a change. More specifically I was trying to draw out the very few pro-Bush or Bush-neutral dopers out there to try and coax them to give THEIR thoughts on the speech where perhaps they wouldn't feel like they were going to be overwhelmed by, er, folks like you.

Not that it seems to be working...none of the folks I had hoped to hear from have showed up, while all the usual suspects have come crashing in as, well, usual. C'est la vie I guess. You could at least be well behaved and actually give your thoughts on the speech...something a bit more than 'it sucked' would be niece.

-XT

[cmkeller]

alaricthegoth:

and they can't raise the price

I don't know about that. The price has nowhere to go but up.

[Martin Hyde]

Bush actually closely split the independent vote in 2004, he got 48% Kerry got 49%.

As for the speech? The State of the Union is meaningless political theatre at its worst. In general while it's useful to have an idea what the President has planned for the coming year, ultimately I'm a whole lot more interested in what Bush actually does versus what he says he's going to do (same for all politicians, actually.)

[SteveG1]

Almost forgot. I'm relived the federal gov't is finally making a stand against the threat of human/animal hybrids. We've offically gone from basing our national defense startegy on bad Tom Clancy books to bad Michael Crichton movies.
I wonder how that little gem will affect things lik insulin for diabetics??

[Kimstu]

I'm a lefty myself, but maybe some other respondents will have ideas on the subject I was wondering about: What happened to the Space Exploration Initiative?

A little over a year ago, many on this board were delighted to see that the Administration was committing serious resources to a renewed space program: (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=288412)

The Space Exploration Initiative is a Go
Back a few months, we debated Bush's Space Exploration Initiative. The doubters here on the board said that it was just an election gimmick, that Bush wasn't serious, and that it would quietly die after the election.

But nowadays it seems that NASA is having budget troubles that threaten the Initiative, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/23/AR2005112301970.html) and I didn't hear any mention about it in the SOTU address. Will there be a renewed Administration commitment to funding it in next year's budget? Or is the President's silence on space exploration a tacit signal that the White House is "backing away" from the program?

A large deficit in NASA's troubled shuttle program threatens to seriously delay and possibly cripple President Bush's space exploration initiative unless the number of planned flights is cut virtually in half or the White House agrees to add billions of dollars to the human spaceflight budget.

Sources familiar with ongoing negotiations between NASA and the White House say the administration has no intention of spending extra money to deal with a shortfall that some space experts say could exceed $6 billion from 2006 to 2010, when NASA plans to retire the shuttle for good. [...]

The impasse has put the future of Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration" in doubt less than two years after it was announced. Without extra money, experts say, NASA could have trouble developing a new "crew exploration vehicle" by 2014, as originally planned, let alone fulfilling Griffin's wish to fly it by 2012. The dilemma is also fueling an odd confrontation between the administration and Congress, where once-wary lawmakers now appear willing to provide the extra funding even as the White House backs away from its own initiative.

"The decisions made over the next few weeks will determine whether the Bush White House is serious about supporting the vision," said John Logsdon, director of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute. "We've reached a watershed." [...]

Last year, it took an eleventh-hour arm-twist by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) to win passage of NASA's $16.1 billion budget, but this year lawmakers easily passed the 2006 budget -- for the full $16.5 billion the White House requested. [...]

NASA and the White House budget office said they could not comment on the shortfall before the official 2007 budget rollout in February, but several expert sources described ongoing negotiations to find a solution. [...]

"The budget associated with the Vision's announcement in 2004 [anticipated] that the shuttle's demands would significantly decrease in 2008 and 2009," said one longtime NASA watcher. "That was a myth." [...]

"The message to the White House is to pony up," one congressional source said. "The green-eyeshade approach undermines the president's legacy. You've got to have a space station worthy of the name, and you've got to close the gap."

[John Mace]

Anyone else find this funny?
Yes. :D

I thought the speech was fine. Of course, I didn't listen to it. :) When was the last time anyone heard a good SotU speech? It's a constitutional requirement that is made into theater. And, frankly, I'm finding it impossible to listen to Bush talk these days without wanting to smash my TV. I know he's not as sutpid as he sounds, but my God does he ever sound stupid!! How long is it until the next election...?

[Mtgman]

Meh. I could get behind most of his talking points if it weren't for those pesky details of implementation. Being a force to end tyrrany in the world is all well and good as long as the methods chosen do not merely substitute one tyrant for another. Ending dependence on oil sounds good, but what if the plan is massive ethanol subsidies? Social Security needs to be fixed, but record spending and tax cuts aren't going to give much wiggle room to actually DO anything with it. Not thrilled with the "life is a gift from our creator" bit, even though I'm pro-life I don't have anything against research. Especially research as promising as stem cell research.

Personally I think the Fed and foreign capital had much, MUCH, more to do with the recovery we've seen so far than anything Bush did, so kind of annoyed with his taking credit for it.

Iraq. Don't even want to go there.

Enjoy,
Steven

[rjung]

Related item:

Bush Advisors Clarify Oil Reduction Pledge (http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/NEWS02/602020405)

One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting 75% of imports from there by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said yesterday that the president didn't mean it literally.

[BrainGlutton]

How long is it until the next election...?

Nine months.

[Clothahump]

aha! a clever ruse to "out" the pugs on the board. I approve....

Pugs? You mean we have PUGS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pug) posting on this board? Oh, the horror.

[Clothahump]

It was a good speech overall. Hit some good points but unfortunately omitted some others (tax reform? border closure?).

I'd score it a B.

[Quartz]

I think I qualify as an independent, not being American and all that. I didn't hear the speech, but I have read it, so I won't comment on the delivery. It's full of stuff which sounds good. He's learned from Tony Blair to give total figures rather than figures per year. A robust defence of Iraq. Etc.

It remains to be seen whether he will carry out what he has pledged.