A few? Hell, I thought I was at Wizard of Oz auditions. His favorite mode of attack is along the lines of:
“There are some among us who are in favor of kicking cute little puppies. I am firmly against the kicking of puppies.” 
John Mace: I was specifically referring to the context in which he said it, that is the context of “gay marriage”: now that another group is looking for equality under the law, the same cliched idiocy is being used to hold them back. He knew his reactionary audience, and knew what the reference meant. It was vomitacious.
Man, what are you on?
For myself, I was most struck with the boldness and leadership of the “vision thing”. His unprecedented effort to rid professional sports of steroids may very well stand as the single most significant contribution of his tenure. One gasps with awe at the grand sweep of his leadership! And the bold proposition to spend chump change on community colleges, presumably to retrain truck drivers to be computer programmers (got two bits says they get a two year program in BASIC and COBOL…)
But I’ve overlooked the Bushiviks stern initiative to keep teenagers abstinent! Yeah, that’ll work!
I also got two bits that says the guy who wrote the line about the Patriot Act expiring is looking for work today.
I thought the President’s threatened veto of “Any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors, or to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare” was just silly. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are for limiting the choices of seniors, or taking away their drug coverage under Medicare. Such a bill has about the same chance of reaching the President’s desk as I have of making out with Naomi Watts.
Why? Do you think Congress wouldn’t pass it again?
I can’t think of a SOTU since FDR that wasn’t politicized or included the President’s pet projects, and that’s especially true in election years. Bill Clinton used the SOTU to address such pressing issues as school uniforms. Reagan talked about cleaning the Chesapeake Bay and establishing “a bipartisan National Commission on Excellence in Education” to combat falling SAT scores. LBJ proposed the Highway Safety Act of 1966 to “arrest the destruction of life and property on our nation’s highways,” and asked Congress to increase the limits on political contributions and the tax incentives for such contributions to "make it possible for those without personal wealth to enter public life without being obligated to a few large contributors. "
I agree with John Mace that gay marriage is neither a federal issue nor appropriate for the SOTU. I agree with elucidator that I was a bit surprised when Bush started talking about getting rid of steroids in sports (“Hey, baseball, we’re looking at you”). I just don’t think the political content and pet projects are anything new or surprising.
That same pollster was claiming Kerry as a poor 3rd in Iowa a week before the caucuses.
While I’d like to believe him these Jan.polls usually have little bearing on what transpires in Nov.
The problem for the Dems is to present a leader that either doesn’t come across as Bush Lite on the war,or can articulate his positions better.
There’s time,tho hardly enough for Dean to shake that angry man image.
When people talk about activist judges, they’re usually talking about judges that change or strike down legislation in a manner inconsistent with previous laws or decisions (and the speaker’s political philosophy). The Mass SC handed the matter back to the lesiglature with instructions to reform the law’s definition of marriage and/or create civil unions consistent with the SC’s opinion, or else they’d strike the law down or change it themselves. That’s not inconsistent with being activist.
Right. Because he should have sent the FBI into Afghanistan. :rolleyes:
Dunno. What I meant was that the speech was carefully combed to be sure all the applause/standing ovation lines were correctly timed and the pauses in place. The applause for “set to expire” wasn’t anticipated, and poor GeeDub had to stand there looking like he just bit into a sour persimmon.
I listened to the speech on the radio at work. Saw parts of it again on TV and was stunned by the world of difference between the two. On the radio it sounded like a love-feast, that they would carry him out on thier shoulders chanting “40 more years! 40 more years!”. Televised, it was a whole different ball game.
Nothing like watching a whole slew of fat, rich white men doing standup/siddown calisthenics on cue.
And have we ever had a Constitutional Amendment to define a word? Isn’t that usually left to dictionary makers?
As much as I hate to become completely cynical, it’s probably time to give up on the notion that the SotU address should not be judged as political speech. It is and has been for some time. So, looking at this as a political speech (and a campaign kick-off speech to boot), I think it was pretty effective. Bush did a good job on delivery, and hit on the themes that should help get him elected. And the Dems did the same thing in their rebuttal, although I think they did it much less effectively. To be fair, though, the Dems did not have the advanatage of a long speech in front of an audience. But their food marking plan stacks up (or down) with Bush’s steroid concerns anyday.
I asked this same question in another forum, not knowing how much cross-forum reading some Dopers do. If you see it there, you’ll know why.
What legitimate governmental interest is there in “preserving the sanctity of marriage” such that same sex partners can’t have equal protection under the law? I’m asking for a real, negative outcome that would result if, tomorrow, same sex marriages were permitted in all 50 states? Would there be some astronomical increase in the crime rate? Would financial markets collapse? The ozone fail to do whatever it is that the ozone does and we all fry to a crisp from radiation? Just what, exactly and specifically, is the harm in permitting a consenting adult to marry another consenting adult, whatever their sex?
If Brittany Spears and her childhood friend can get drunk, get a marriage license, get hitched, and then have the whole thing written off as some sort of drunken prank, why in God’s name can’t a monogamous couple, who have been partners for years, who may have children that they are raising, and who pay their taxes, participate in civic life, and are law abiding citizens get married?
Anyone?
Age: that’s the exception that proves the rule. I’m sure you guys’ll be using that to fund a swollen military establishment forever.
plnnr: it’s got nothing to do with logic and everything to do with prejudice. Which is why that reference disgusted me so.
So, when you talk about Democrats who oppose the Patriot Act, where do people like Bob Barr and the American Conservative Union fit in? Libertarian-leaning conservatives aren’t too fond of some of its provisions either.
So, when you talk about Democrats who oppose the Patriot Act, where do people like Bob Barr and the American Conservative Union fit in? Libertarian-leaning Republicans aren’t too fond of some of its provisions either.
I suspect Karl Rove and the neo-cons are taking them for granted.
“Ah, let them Libertarians whine and bitch! What are they going to do, vote for Howard Dean? Muahahahahahahahaha!”
Perhaps unusually for a news junkie like me and the rest of you, I couldn’t make the decision to watch another hour of the same lies and divisiveness that we’ve dissected thoroughly here, not when there was a good hockey game on another channel. But we now know he’s going to continue that line all the way to November, not that he has any choice. Yes, the annual address is just a free hour of campaign advertising for the incumbent - when has that ever not been the case?
AQA, you need to reread the Mass. ruling on gay marriage - it doesn’t strike down a law at all; just an administrative practice. Calling it “not inconsistent with activism” as a rhetorical version of “activist” is one of the weakest arguments you’ve ever made, even at that.
A constitutional amendment to put those durn non-social-conservative judges in their place would have even less public credibility than the one to establish Prohibition - an earlier generation learned that lesson about tampering with the document that defines the fundamental principles of our government, but a part of this one has forgotten it or never learned it.
Titan2, a 50% disapproval rating is virtually radioactive for any US politician, especially in an election year. It’s amusing to see the loyalists claim a 43% + rating as good news, when many of the same individuals were happy to see Clinton impeached despite his 60% ratings.
Then I’m confused. I doubt you’re saying that the FBI should have been sent into the Phillippines or Indonesia or any of the other countries to which we’ve sent our military to combat terrorism.
Are you saying that the war on terror within our own borders is being fought by the military? Because I’d disagree with that. International and domestic intelligence agencies share information (made easier by the Patriot Act), but the people breaking down the door of a terrorist operating within our own borders are typically the FBI, not the US Army Rangers.
Do I misunderstand what you’re saying?
With the cheese factory dismantled too!