George Bush's speech last night featured Iraq, national security, and the economy.

Bush's speech story

Did you think that Bush's speech was effective? How does it compare to other SOTU speeches that you've seen?

I am usually not in vanguard of Bush praisers, but I really liked his call to break the dependancy on oil and invest into the development of alternative fuels (judging by calls to AD Radio yesterday night I am not the only one). How much of it is air and how much of it will actually come to fruition remains to be seen. Theoretically this is not an issue Democrats would be opposed to, so if he can muster enough support in his own party, maybe something good will come out of it.

I'll leave things that were not effective to others

P.S. Why do they release the text of SOTU to the press beforehand?

I read your thread and then something didn't feel right and I couldn't put my finger on it immediately. Then it struck me. You used the word "effective". And that shows insight into your mode of thought.
I was feeling sick and took medicine, then my sickness went away. The medicine was effective.
I had a tooth removed and I was in pain. I took some Tylenol 4's and the pain stopped. The painkiller was effective.
I broke an antique vase of my mother's. I knew she'd be mad so I made up a story about how someone else did it. She no longer blames me. My deceitful story was effective.
See what I mean? A SOTU speech isn't for innoculating people.
Regarding his speech, I was drawn to the fact you could replace "Iraq" with "Vietnam" without anyone missing a beat. You're winning in IraqNam? Yeah right.



This is a classic example of duplicity at work. We know for a fact that the US military commanders were asking Rumsfeld for three times the number of troops Rumsfeld and Co. deployed. They were ignored. So to hell with anyone in the Bush administration who now claim to be "honorary" 2nd-in-command leaders fully detatched from the military. It's easy to see through that pack of lies.
Personal Interpretation
The US have coveted Iraq's reserves for eons. How do we know that? Simple. Because Cheney, in the late 1990's, had a high echelon meeting where maps of Iraq's oil fields were being studied. That the meeting took place and the Iraqi oil field maps were present is not disputed. Cheney won't release any documents pertaining to the meeting. Cheney won't discuss what was being said and done at that meeting. So, if we apply basic grade one-level logic we all know that it means someone is deceiving and is unwilling to come out with the open truth. Why? Because they're guilty, that's why.
The US knew they were going to stay in Iraq for the long haul in order to get the oil reserves under their control. But how could the most advance lethal technological army in the world do so when their 'enemy' melts away like butter while living on an income of a few bucks a month? The only solution (if you're choosing to stay in Iraq for the long haul) is to incite and maintain disorder and violent chaos thereby guaranteeing the supposed necessity of remaining until "order can be restored". If the US sent in the amount of troops the commanders requested ('but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C.') , then chaos and civil disorder wouldn't be as rampant meaning the transition of power would go more smooth and quick thereby making the need for a US presence in Iraq futile. Notice how the motives have changed like the wind, unnoticed. First it was Iraq's scary (US made and provided) WMD, then it was to get rid of the evil (US supported him fully and considered him their very good friend) Sadaam Hussein who tortures Iraqis (just like the USA now does...in the same prisons too I might add), then it was to free the Iraqi people from tyranny and from there it was on to 'we want to export democracy'. Why Americans can fall for such gullible illogical shenanigans is almost beyond me.
"Effective".

Since this isn't really a debate about GWs policies or invasions or whatever- but about the basic content of the speech itself- with each thing a debate in and of itself, and to not run afoul of the mods on this one -

I rated it on

Delivery:

Effectiveness of delivering his political message:

Well, I would have to say that, only grading against his other speeches- in other words, rating him against other SOTU addresses- so no rating him against other Presidents-

I would have to have called this the worst of the group.

Seriously-

Delivery- I didn't count total slip ups in delivery- but if we had a drinking game going- the party would have had cabs for everyone home!

I winced at each flub of phrase or stumble. Not for him, couldn't give a wit about him- but I am sure there are other countries listening- and he gives truly awful speeches.

Effectiveness of delivering.

I think re-iterating stuff on Iraq at some point doesn't actualy help his cause, because it sounds like he is just reading propaganda off a page after a while- no matter what your position on the war. Something more creative to bolster his case would have been good, it was pretty high on content sloganeering. the winking at the family of the dead soldier came off very used car salesman- and GW has done better in this area in past speeches.

Domestic- I think he did okay with the thanking of the justices- and Sandra Day O'Conner- but his delivery of his domestic stuff was extremely flat, but I can't help be encouraged, that even lip service to alternative sources of energy (is there a president since Carter that has said "hey, let's not look for alternative sources of energy and spend alot more on oil!"- )- but it DOES mean no matter what- there will be more money available towards research of alternative energy sources- even lip service by congress costs a few billions!

Overall, rated against soley his other speeches, with no thoughts toward whether agreeing or disagreeing with political content-

I would say it is his worst performance to date- I have seen every SOTU address in it's entirety for both Bushes and Cllinton- and am going to have to give
GW a failing grade even if only graded against him self. He fumbled on this one.

Did you think that Bush's speech was effective? How does it compare to other SOTU speeches that you've seen?

He gets a "C" because it wasn't anything new, special or different. Honestly I think Presidents must pass the outline of their SOTU speeches around and only substitute minor policy decisions and current events. Every speech since I've been politically aware has essentially been the same.

The whole thing was political kabuki as usual where Bush predictably said that the "state of the union is strong" even though at that point most Americans were collectively rolling their eyes. Save the civil war I don't think we've ever been more divided and weak as a nation. All of the members of congress applauded on queue when Bush used the appropriate policy buzz words even though they know them to be hollow promises.

Bush should probably get a lower grade than a "C" for not spending hardly any time on domestic issues, you know the ones that we should actually care about. He did talk a good game with his "addicted to oil" and "competitive America" soundbites but he has made similar promises in the past and he hasn't delivered on them, as recently as last SOTU as a matter of fact. I really hope they aren't just promises this time but after being promised similar things during the past 5 years you'll have to excuse me if I don't bank on them quite yet.

What I did find refreshing to read this morning is that some in the media actually fact checked him instead of just accepting what he said as the gospel even though all of it has been hotly debated recently. I would highly suggest taking a read of this LA Times article. Hopefully I'll run across other articles and commentary as the day goes on.

Edited to add an AP article titled: Bush skips complex realities in address. The fact that the media even has the courage to print a headline like that says something, it certainly wouldn't have happened last year (and didn't).

The "addiction to oil" angle wasn't new, special or different? At least from him?



I think someone needs to fact check the LA Times...

In addition to them just cherry picking (Bush didn't tell the whole story about a, b, and c... No kidding? in a 51 minute speech he didn't get into the minutiae of a dozen different issues? I'm shocked. ), the Times leaves out mention of the Court approving of warrantless searches and seizures.

In the area of the deficit, the Times remains strangely silent as to the role SPENDING has on the equation...


Bush did mention the Middle East, but the gist was reducing dependency on foreign oil.



Many people equate foreign oil with Middle East oil, which while not quite correct is still the impression.

The real fact (missed by the Yahoo article as well as Bush) is that it will take Americans to move America away from a petroleum dependent economy. And until it is economically viable to do so, it will not happen. The President is virtually powerless to change this although he continues (as every President since Nixon has) to give it lip service.

CBS News says its viewers (36% Republicans) liked the content of the speech 77% to 23%. 59% say the Presidents ideas would improve their lives. However only 32% think he can accomplish these goals.

It seems like a good majority liked the content.

The speech was concise, to the point, and well delivered.

Just like nearly all of my posts.

I thought it connected well with the public as reflected in the latest gallup poll where 75% of those polled saw it as favorable or very favorable.

CNN Gallup Poll Story

I especially liked his characterization of the defeatism, isolationism, and obstruction of his democrat opponents. I thought the reaction of the democrats, jumping up and cheering wildly when he chastised the congress for not passing social security reform was particularly telling. And, he handled it with the proper pause, look, smile, followed by a strong statement that the "problem will just get worse every year". Touche'.

For a president who "can't speak well", he sure has given some excellent speeches. This state of the union was far better than the Clintonesque laundry list of unrelated bullet points, statements, and uncorrelated plethora of feel-good positions that we saw for 8 years in the 1990's.

It was strong, delivered well, and on target.

I'm not surprised that the polls showed up so positive. If Bush is smart, he'll stay on the offensive, use this speech as a great starting point for 2006, and use his momentum to get the congress to follow his leadership.

AML, yep, first time I've ever witnessed the phrase coming from a Republican's mouth or keyboard. The reaction of Republicans will be interesting. Is this another thing that the President is doing wrong? Is he a real Republican or another RINO? After all, he uses alternative energy on his ranch. He's a big fan of the technologies:

President Bush's Technology Policies

Well, that's downright Democrat of him, isn't it? Since oil prices don't care what political leanings one has, I suspect the die hard oil people will have to come on board at some point. It may be during the 2006 elections by some predictions I've heard, where oil might be going for $100 a barrel and we'll be seeing a gallon of gas breaking the $4 level. This would make driving the Hummer around town a dollar per mile proposition. Hate to think of the impact on inflation, but suddenly Wal*Mart might stop importing Chinese stuff due to the high cost of ocean transportation.

I'm not rating the speech because I'm prejudiced. I've never liked hearing the guy talk, and it's worse when he's on TV and I have to see his mannerisms. Think I'll like him better once he's out of office. Maybe he'll retire to Colorado, as so many Texans do, and start up an alternative energy business where I could work . . .

Naw, that's pretty much a fantasy.

Not burning any bridges though

I'm sure that was the point Amlord. If Bush promised world peace and a check for 1 million dollars for every citizen I'm sure that would be well received, the question is whether he would deliver or not.

Bush has made the same or similar claims and promises in every SOTU address he has made and in both of his campaigns. However, his domestic accomplishments have been very sparse and he simply hasn't delivered. He has had 5 years and during both of his terms he has had a Reublican majority on both legislative bodies, just how much time are you going to give him to come through on this Amlord?

I'm sure that if Bush was really serious about investing in education, alternative energy, scientific research and getting us off oil that would improve our lives and I'd support it. Just because he promises it doesn't mean it'll happen and the facts from the last 5 years support a different conclusion.


It isn't that he didn't tell the whole story it is that he was lying by omission on many topics, most specifically the stuff he said about wiretapping, the line item veto, etc. He chose the facts that would make him look good and I'm sure many of the sheeple watching TV believed him, it is the job of the media to fact check him and it is good to see someone taking their responsibilities seriously for a change.

And as far as approving warrantless searches and seizures yes there is approval for that, if you follow the provisions of FISA and submit them after the fact. We had a lengthy debate about this and it is pretty clear Bush went around FISA so your statement doesn't jive unless the court has made some ruling in the past week or two I'm unaware of.

There’s not much about the speech last night that’s memorable. Very few of these speeches accomplish anything. CJ, I quote you here because this argument can always be made. Many made the same arguments about the last President, the one before, and so on. As far as the “media’s responsibility” is concerned, it is a myth and has never existed (unless you happen to believe Clooney movies).

btw what exactly was the problem with the line-item veto? I guess I should check to see if this is debated in other threads, but I’m not sure why this isn’t an amendment already.

I agree with you that very few of these speeches accomplish anything, regardless of who is sitting in the White House. As I said they are political kabuki. The problem is that in the coming weeks we'll see Bush's supporters claiming this speech somehow meant something and that he "got one up on the Democrats", heck we are already seeing it in this thread and there haven't even been 10 posts yet.

Regarding the media, that is the charge they claim to have, I didn't assign it to them. It doesn't have anything to do with Good Night and Good Luck, the media has served as a check on our government and they've done a decent job until recently, recently being the past decade or so (at least in my opinion).


The Supreme Court has ruled every incarnation of it so far unconstitutional, although they haven't outright said the concept is unconstitutional. From the LA Times article I cited earlier:


Bush is either throwing around political buzzwords or seeking to increase the power of the executive over Congress. I'm not really sure why he needs the line item veto anyway, he has never vetoed anything. He has used presidential signing statements extensively which basically mean that he is going to ignore certain parts of the law, he's made 500+ statements more than any president in history.

I whole-heartedly agree with you AMLord, while I didn't watch the speach (and won't comment on it directly), when I heard he had said "addiction to oil" First, I thought it was a joke, then I immediately flashed back to when I first heard the metaphorical comparison of drug dependence to oil dependence...

Almost two years ago, in the The Progressive Magazine: In These Times, in Kurt Vonnegut's marvelous essay "Cold Turkey."
(I'm sure he wasn't the first, but it was the first time I'd heard the idea, and really who puts it better than Vonnegut?)


http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/cold_turkey/

I'm in absolute astonishment that an idea that was the center of what is indisputedly an extreme leftist essay, is now a centerpoint of the State of the Union. I don't really know what to say, except progress is good, and as my sig says, progressive ideas always win... eventually.

I'd say this is a major victory for environmentalists and hopefully Bush can get his side to get moving on Public Transportation intiatives (at the local level, of course), and real progress towards getting solar panels on people's homes and making Ethanol an option for drivers.

Edit **To Add link, fix a couple typos.

I am quite aware of the reasons why the line-item veto has been declared unconstitutional. Ever since that happened there has been talk of making it a constitutional amendment. That would eliminate the court's interference. The line-item veto would be a valuable tool to reduce pork barrel spending. President Clinton used it 82 times before it was struck down.

The LA Times article you mentioned here is really off base. By having such a shallow understanding of the issue, their bias comes through. Like I said before, the line-item veto has been supported by both parties; it shouldn’t be difficult to get the amendment passed. Considering many states already have it, it should be easy to ratify. Anyway, I apologize because this is a separate debate.

btw.... the history of the 1996 line-item veto act is a bit strange. it appears some of DC's big spenders played a part in the eventual demise.

Here's the non-partisan factcheck.org's analysis of the State of the Union address.

I'm going to provide the link without comment. Those interested may make of it what they will.

http://www.factcheck.org/article376.html

Did you think that Bush's speech was effective? How does it compare to other SOTU speeches that you've seen?

I had a long and unproductive day trying to get the bathtub to drain. I think I got as far as hearing him mention "9/11" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" before I fell asleep. Then again, I may have just been dreaming that he was still trying to rally Americqans to support the war in Iraq...

I haven't found the text yet. Did he really oppose genetic research because he didn't want animal human hybrid research as the comics have been quoting him? The only reference I have ever heard to creatures that were half human and half horse were in mythology, not in scientific journals.

Did you think that Bush's speech was effective? How does it compare to other SOTU speeches that you've seen?

It was a remarkably uncluttered speech, with few promises and not much ground that President Bush hadn't covered before. The talking heads pointed out that he mentioned nothing really ambitious, which was realistic for someone with his poll numbers.

I don't like the man. For him, it wasn't a bad speech. For the most part, I ignored the gaffes except for the chronic mispronunciation of nuclear. It was right and wrong, good and evil, the troops and 9/11, Iraq and Iran, etc. The oil thing was fairly new for him, but I have my doubts that his speech is really going to be followed by any real attempts at eliminating our dependency on foreign oil.

From the standpoint that it was expected of him, he turned in his "assignment" on time, and if the content was kind of sketchy, it is completed. The answer to mediocrity these days seems to be "When all else fails, lower your expectations."

I thought it was a hugely memorable speech and event. And normally I avoid his speeches because he does nothing more than retread his worn out lies (see my signature).

Reasons why I thought this was important:

1) Most importantly, it showed the huge divide between democrats and republicans...and even a divide between republicans and the president.

Can anyone remember a time when one of the parties was so dramatically ignored or left out of the process? This night just reflected that. I think it's horribly sad how divisive this president is and it has come to a head.

2) "Line item veto"? Uh, it was found to be unconstitutional by the SC. So maybe Alito and Roberts whispered in his ear...maybe they're going to do him a favor?

3) "Say hi to Iranians"? I guess they no longer are evil? That was bizarre.

4) "We need to stop our addiction to middle east oil". Uh, where were you the first 5 years....what changed suddenly? I like the idea, but it's obvious that he's just doing a "gay marriage" politicizing job.



I can't understand people that say there was nothing new. There were plenty of things new, IMHO. It seems like he throws out weird stuff, like steroids or line-item veto, then the issue evaporates.

The thing that made me give it an F, is that this country is in need of real leadership and this clown (and even congress) are making every issue a divisive issue to win votes. It's like they're playing a game and they don't really care about how it affects other people.

Bush is a liar, flat out. I don't trust anything he "promises", it's all just to win the mid-term elections. It's very sad. And the fact we can't all work together and this pathetic administration reinforces the animosity just ticks me off more.


His constant attempts to paint the democrats as isolationists or folks for cloning, or whatever is embarassing. I feel like we have Adolf Hitler running the country and my fellow Americans that love him are like sheep under the Nazi regime.

Not to mention his defense of illegal wire taping.



F.

Bush's defense of domestic wire-tapping and the way he phrased it was very predictable. Mind you, I am totally against it. But this issue and the issue of the line item veto are nothing new for a presidency that is so open about its desire to amass power for itself, to the detriment of the Congress and the American people (in my opinion, of course).

There is one irony about Bush talking about accepting constructive criticism: it is he who has not been communicating on a regular basis with the Congress. And yet he makes it out to sound like the Congress is not willing to communicate with him. There is little wonder that when Bush does pay attention, he is hearing the frustration of Congressional leaders whose less strident communications have fallen on the administration's deaf ears.

The SOTU speech was a dog and pony show. It was expected of him to give the speech; does anybody think he would have given the speech otherwise? It was a short speech because he was accentuating the positive that has occurred during his turn at the wheel.

Edit: And how did you like the little drama about Cindy Sheehan being invited by a Congressman to attend the State of the Union address and being arrested and taken away by police from the chamber?

Read this: Charges against Sheehan dropped


How awful darned convenient. Guess somebody was afraid that the SOTU address might have actually gotten interesting.

I can remember when the Republicans were the minority they were ignored. The only difference is that they were used to being ignored. How come when Clinton is President the Congress is divisive and when Bush is President he is divisive. After this administration ends, it will mark 16 years of bitter opposition from both sides. The Left has only replaced the vitriol that plagued the Right during the Clinton years. I don’t expect this to subside anytime soon, but perhaps the next leader will be able to rise above this cloud of partisanship.



Divisive indeed.

The Republicans had the majority in Congress under Clinton, how were they ignored? Democrats are intentionally left off of committees, excluded from decisions and simply left out of the process. It would be one thing if there were 2 of a 100 congressmen that were Democrats but you're talking about nearly 50% of the people's voices not being heard.

Clinton and Newt Gingrich were buddies and got along. There is no way you could say the situation under Clinton is the same as it is today. Clinton was NOT divisive.

Looking at the agenda from the Republicans you can see why they have to be that way. They are pushing for their special interests, like oil companies and insurance companies. So they talk about gay marriage to the public, in the back room they're giving away the farm to oil companies, wealthy people, insurance companies, pharma companies, etc. etc. They don't care about good policy, they're trying to pay off their lobbying interests.

I liked the speech esp. his insistence that we break our dependence on foreign oil and invest in alternative technologies.

It remains to be seen if anything meaningful comes out of this and gets through Congress. Congress has been unwilling to take on the auto industry and gives in to the “environmentalist lobby” every time. We cannot drill for oil, refine oil, explore for oil/gas anywhere without running into these forks at the Federal, state or local level. How, pray tell, are we going to get an agreement on safe nuclear power? Without which by the way “hydrogen” powered vehicles make no sense at all.

The ball is in the court of the Congress. Lets see what they do with it.

I agreed with all Bush foreign policy statements.

I guess it’s time for an instant replay. I made two points in my last response. Since I didn’t separate them you have combined them. Your first assertion was that you could not remember a time when one party was ignored.

1. Before 1994 the Democrats were mainly the majority for about 50 years (especially in the house). During this time the Republicans were closed out of committees and largely ignored.

2. As for your next assertion, “Clinton and Newt Gingrich were buddies and got along". I will just let the subjectivity of that statement speak for itself. However, I will make the very unpopular argument that neither one of these men were decisive. The extremes on both sides that will never be happy are fueling the air with their vitriol.

So... how serious do you think he is about that after reading this? The article in general is worth reading but this is the icing on the cake:


Surely if Bush was serious about his promises during that speech then these people wouldn't be getting laid off, we'd be hearing about increased funding. What is he going to do allow everyone to be fired and then re-hire them? Let's not forget that he also promised to "invest in alternative energy" during the last SOTU and again I point to the people in charge of researching this getting laid off due to funding cuts.

Political kabuki, plain and simple.

The part that slays me though was the "hybird animal human experiments"

I can't wait next week until we hear his position on death rays, mind control and superman and time travel. He may flip flop I have heard on superman and time travel.....

I guess my quandry is not how we can have such a blantant lying and manipulating president, but how we can have an alternative party that absolutely gets ZERO mileage out of it.

The republicans have an ad about Kerry being a flip-flopper. Why in the world didn't the democrats do a similar ad? Bush is the biggest liar we've ever had as president and it's about important stuff, not BJs. He said he wasn't for nation building, etc. etc. he said the wiretaps were all done with warrants which was actually a blatant lie.

Just two things amaze me, one that the opposition party is so lame and two that there are enough Americans that believe this president and would vote for him.

Unbelievable. If Canada were a warm climate, you could call me Mountie Red.

From the article:

Economically, energy analysts said Mr. Bush's goal of reducing Mideast oil imports would have little practical benefit because oil was traded in world markets and its price was determined by global supply and demand, rather than bought from one country by another.
"If the United States was zero-dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but the rest of our allies among consuming nations were just as dependent, then a disruption anywhere is a price increase everywhere


Ya ok but the current high price has much to do with the demand and if the worlds largest user sharply reduces its demand the price would drop.

And - Mr. Bush's main departure from many Democrats and another source of resistance to his energy plan is his opposition to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars. Mr. Bush has also opposed any effort to impose a higher gasoline tax.
Dems can say all they want but we saw no push by Clinton to go after better mileage OR raise taxes. The tax would be highly regressive and VERY unpopular. Bush has good ideas but history shows us that the Congress rarely follows through. Our only hope is that as new technologies become mature we will move to them because they save consumers money.

Despite an increasingly energy-efficient economy, the U.S. remains hooked on foreign oil for two reasons. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries-especially Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf neighbors-manages oil prices in a way that maintains America's dependence. And the U.S. lacks the political will to do what's necessary to weaken OPEC or reduce the American appetite for oil.
With another military conflict raging in the Persian Gulf-a region that dominates oil exports and holds two-thirds of the world's oil reserves-the implications of America's oil dependency are starker than ever. The U.S. relies on some of the world's most volatile countries to supply a raw material that is critical to its economy and lifestyle. Of the 19.5 million barrels of oil Americans consume every day, about 11.5 million are imported. Roughly half the oil consumed in the U.S. goes for cars and trucks.
The primary issue is price. OPEC-a cartel composed of 11 oil-producing countries-carefully manages its production levels to try to keep prices higher than they would be if they were set in a free market, but low enough to make alternative fuels and technologies uncompetitive.
Thus as other technologies emerge the Cartel will have to lower prices or lose its market.
http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/archive...ay/ECON_oil.htm

Actually we have reduced the oil used for our increased level of economic output but much more remains to be done.