1

Isn't it obvious? He's using his "base" to get elected, but that's about all the use he has for them.

Typical.

2

I dunno, banning of ATM fees? Shorter Red Lights? Usable left-turn lights? An Amendment to ban future record deals for Hotel heiresses?

Seriously, I know the religious right (and I'm more or less both of those adjectives) and the Focus/FRC/AFA people are upset their pet issues didn't get mentioned. Why were they expecting him, who has had Iraq, Immigration, Terror, and bad ratings hanging over him, to spend time talking about a marriage amendment that won't get past the new congress, let alone the old GOP one? What would he say about abortion, when he's always been notably but passively pro-life (not that I think this is a bad thing) for 6 years and two campaigns? What is he to say about stem-cells that is new, when his actions have already shown his intent in this arena? What on earth is he supposed to say about abstinence or cloning that he hasn't talked about for 6 years?

I get a little annoyed when people expect the President (whoever he is) to cater to their special interest, and then count the things he didn't say. Groups on the left did it with Clinton, and I really don't see that much difference on the right. If people just want their ears tickled at the right moment, there are more politicians in the waiting.

I'm not a big fan, but Bush's first show of power as a President was to restrict abortion, and his only veto was to stop embryonic stem-cell research. He is threatening a veto of a similar bill, again. To the consternation of many, he has made abstinence a major part of AIDS relief in Africa. These are all things that get him mocked worldwide, but is centered around "his base." If he didn't jump through our hoops the right way or placate us enough last night, then our expectations of real-life Washington are likely a bit off.

3

I guess what's missing would be the words that happened 0 times:

abortion
values
cloning
stem cells
marriage
abstinence

I'm not sure how many times a President should use the word abstinence in a state of the union address. I'm sure conservative Constitutional theorists can explain how our sexual habits (or lack of them) became a function of the Executive Department's responsibilities.

4

Given his unpopularity (and I'm putting that nicely), Bush can longer throw red meat to his base. His base is now a small minority of Americans.

Instead, he had to at least try to demonstrate that he "gets it" on energy, climate change, healthcare and other issues he's been ignoring. Sadly, he stomped his little king's foot down and insisted that we will continue to pour our last remaining wealth as a nation into the thirsty sands of Iraq.

5

Two things from the SOTU speech stood out to me:
First, President Bush said he would balance the books and cut spending within 5 years with his new budget. What changed? For the previous 6 years, he has yet to veto a spending bill, and contrary to previous Republican presidents, has become the highest-spending president in our history as a country.
Second, President Bush claims to stand firm on controlling our borders by allowing our Border Control Agents to do their jobs, hunting and capturing illegal aliens and drug traffickers. If that's true, why is their budget being cut and why are two agents sitting in jail, serving 11-12 year sentences, for capturing a known drug trafficker in Texas? For shooting him? When he shot first?
For the record, I am right-wing, fairly conservative, in the military, and voted for President Bush. However, I believe he has lost touch with America and is completely out of focus on the direction our country needs to take.

6

David I get a little annoyed when people expect the President (whoever he is) to cater to their special interest,…

That statement encapsulates one of the main problems with our country: we think that defending dignity and protecting innocent human life is a “special interest” rather than a matter of duty and justice.

7

I think the people who focus only on abortion and gay marriage should also consider the issues of Global Warming, lack of health care, the Iraq war, and treatment of detainees, as "culture of life"/"pro-life" issues. Otherwise, you just come across as irrelevant hypocrite. Please pardon my bluntness.

One thing Bush could have said last night to enhance the culture of life would be:
"effective immediately Dick Cheney and I hereby resign".

8

I think the people who focus only on abortion and gay marriage should also consider the issues of Global Warming, lack of health care, the Iraq war, and treatment of detainees, as "culture of life"/"pro-life" issues. Otherwise, you just come across as irrelevant hypocrites. Please pardon my bluntness.

One thing Bush could have said last night to enhance the culture of life would be:
"effective immediately Dick Cheney and I hereby resign".

9

That statement encapsulates one of the main problems with our country: we think that defending dignity and protecting innocent human life is a “special interest” rather than a matter of duty and justice.

Then why carp aboout gay marriage not being mentioned? It is probably the least connected to abortion since gay couples generally do not conceive children nor have abortions.

10

Joe writes:
"That statement encapsulates one of the main problems with our country: we think that defending dignity and protecting innocent human life is a “special interest” rather than a matter of duty and justice. "

Actually, that's just taking me out of context - since I made a comment that people are bugged about what he didn't say at a certain time. Meanwhile, look at what he does. I listed it. He's done more for Pro-Life causes than the last two presidents combined - I seriously doubt even Reagan would have gotten involved in stem cells and Terri Schivao like he did. He's shown his cards on all of the issues you complained about - and it looks like you agree.

"Defending dignity and protecting innocent human life" is not a special interest, and I somewhat resent the idea that I implied this. I am Pro-Life, annoyed with the horrible media coverage of the stem cell debate, and would probably be on the same ideological side of things as the FRC more often than not. However, when a group doesn't look at the whole picture, and instead gets upset because their few issues don't get mentioned by the President every time he makes a major speech, it seems to me that things are out of balance. What in his speech last night implied he was less likely to defend innocent human life? What part of Human Dignity did he freshly assail? Did he contradict his previous statements? Using my own language, he "caters" to our interests on these major issues, even if it doesn't get mentioned. For a politician, I'm far more interested in what he does than what he says he'll do -- which is why most State of the Union speeches are pep rallies at best in my view.

11

Well, at the moment, having President Bush attach his name to something is like the kiss of death, people hate him so much. Frankly I'd rather he didn't SAY anything about cloning, killing embryos, abortion, and gay marriage, and just continue to DO the right thing.

And I have as much contempt for people who count quotas in speeches as I do for people who count racial quotas in hiring. it's a meaningless statistic for posturing purposes only.

12

And I have as much contempt for people who count quotas in speeches as I do for people who count racial quotas in hiring. it's a meaningless statistic for posturing purposes only.

Hmmm, hiring should be about finding the best person for the job so yea I can see how counting racial quotas would be irrelevant. If, though, you were doing a study of cancer in blacks then yea I can see why you would want to know the racial makeup of a sample of cancer patients.

But isn't making a speech about choosing words and wouldn't looking a the words used in a speech be a good way of analyzing what a speech is about? I don't think it's way off base to note that Iraq was a major part of last night's speech, for example.

13

Why do we expect that the SoTU must cover *everything*? There's other, better reasons to criticize the policies and practices of this admin. But this is, as I see it, just a point in time taken out of context. Let's wait and see if Bush accomplishes any of the significant things that his supporters desire. So far, just 1: SCOTUS appointments have been pretty good. Apart form that, I'm still waiting ...

Enjoy. Go Badgers!

14

Well John W, finally a thread where your rantings will be at least faintly on topic.

Now, do you have anything thoughtful to say about the issues you seem to want the rest of us to ignore as well as the issues you would like to see them replaced with, or did you just come to throw the h-word about? I would remind you that someone has to actually have values before they can be hypocritical.

15

Hi Cheesehead. No, I don't have anything further to say on this topic.

16

But not surprising. While I don't fault him for speaking on the issues that he did, he can not forget why he was elected in the first place.