PDA

View Full Version : State of the Union



ZippyTheChimp
February 1st, 2006, 07:58 AM
Lowered Expectations Reflect Political and Fiscal Realities

By Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 1, 2006

Coming off his most difficult year in office, President Bush used his State of the Union address last night to try to give his embattled administration a new start, speaking expansively about his aspirations for the final years of his presidency -- but offering a scaled-down blueprint for governing.

Bush begins this election year far weaker than he was a year ago. The most telling evidence came on domestic policy. Last year, he used his State of the Union address to launch an ambitious plan to restructure Social Security. This year, with that plan not even coming to a vote in the House or Senate, he called simply for a new commission to examine the impact of baby-boom retirees on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Instead, Bush put his domestic focus on the economy, health care and energy, problems of far more immediate concern to voters than the future of the government's retirement insurance program. If he hoped in 2005 to show he was grappling with issues of the future, last night he sought to reassure Americans that he understands why so many of them are unhappy with the direction of the country.

The president has never lacked for big ambitions, particularly in foreign policy, and he restated many of them last night. But his address lacked the rhetorical lift of some of his best efforts of the past, and the domestic policy agenda, although lengthy, included initiatives that have been around for some time.

In that sense, the speech was a reminder of how much the war in Iraq has drained the administration's energy and creativity, and how much it continues to define the Bush presidency. Before even turning to domestic issues, the president restated his determination to stay the course in Iraq, defended his controversial program of warrantless surveillance at home and issued another warning to Iran over its nuclear program.

Beyond Iraq, Bush's agenda is constrained by political and fiscal realities. Deep partisanship in Washington and the prospect of Democratic gains in the midterm elections lessen the likelihood of cooperation between the two parties on any issue of significance. Fiscally, the deep federal deficit and pressure from Republicans to cut spending restrain the president's ability to spend as significantly on domestic initiatives as he might like.

Down in the polls, Bush sought to frame the coming year as a time of potentially decisive choices on national and economic security, and he provided a vigorous defense of his policies at home and abroad, suggesting that his opponents would lead the country toward isolationism and protectionism. "We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom, or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life," he said. "We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy, or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity."

He also pointed to two of his recent bright spots: the two newest members of the Supreme Court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who were visible in the front rows of the House chamber last night. Alito was sworn in earlier in the day after the Senate voted 58 to 42 -- largely along party lines -- to confirm him.

The humbling of Bush came in many forms last year. Slow progress toward stabilization in Iraq, Palestinian elections in which the radical Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, emerged victorious, and a growing threat from an Iran developing nuclear weapons have shown the limits of administration policies. Bush said he has "a clear plan for victory," but he offered no strong signal of an early return of most U.S. forces in Iraq.

Domestically, beyond the failure on Social Security legislation, House Republicans rejected Bush's immigration plan and Hurricane Katrina dealt a blow to the administration's claims to competence in the face of crisis -- while punching an additional hole in the budget. Republicans forced White House counsel Harriet Miers to withdraw her nomination to the high court. The tax-reform debate fizzled, and the administration walked away from the recommendations of the commission Bush had appointed.

Those setbacks forced White House officials to reassess a second-term strategy devised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. The chief architect of Bush's reelection, Rove had studied second-term presidencies and determined that Bush should pursue major changes in the first year of the second term, before political pressures eroded his clout. Events proved him wrong.

After Bush's poll numbers plummeted, White House aides started rethinking the fundamental assumptions about second-term possibilities. Bush was forced to scrap his agenda and also curtail his ambitions. The president was advised to focus most of his attention on Iraq, the centerpiece of his presidency, and other foreign policy hot spots.

The political environment has changed, too. Instead of talking about a broad political realignment, White House aides are simply trying to help Republicans keep hold of Congress amid a flurry of scandals that include the indictment of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the former House majority leader, and the plea agreement by former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The result was a speech last night written with far more attention to the politics of the moment. On energy, Bush called for reduced consumption of oil from the Middle East by 75 percent over the next two decades with the use of new technologies and alternate energy sources. Notably, he never mentioned his earlier goal of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development, a small concession to the Democrats who have repeatedly frustrated him on the issue.

His health care proposals aim at expanding coverage and portability of health insurance, relative modest proposals at a time about 45 million Americans lack coverage. But he said nothing about the new Medicare prescription drug program, an initiative Republicans once hoped to trumpet but has angered many seniors in its implementation.

On the economy, Bush made another appeal to Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, an issue that his political advisers see as a key contrast with the Democrats. His competitiveness agenda, which the White House said will cost $136 billion over 10 years, includes proposals to train more science and math teachers and to boost investment in science research. He made little mention of Hurricane Katrina.

Republican strategists said that, although Bush hoped to boost his standing with the public, his other primary audience may have been GOP lawmakers calibrating whether to buy into his agenda or go their own way as they prepare for the fall campaign. Tom Rath, the Republican national committeeman from New Hampshire, said the party's elected officials are not interested in grandly ambitious initiatives this year. "Nobody wants to spend time in an election year to make an ideological statement," he said.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff said elected officials would be calibrating whether the Bush agenda will produce the kind of legislative results they can run on in November. "The president is on softer footing than he was a year ago, and he needs to lay out a legislative agenda that deals with issues of day-to-day concern, like health care costs and gasoline prices, and talk about the issues people care about," he said before the speech.

White House officials described Bush's speech as more philosophical than the typical State of the Union address, but at this point the philosophical outlines of his presidency are well known. What will count in the year ahead are the results his policies produce. Legislative achievements may help, but what will be even more useful for Republican candidates is a president who has regained the public's confidence. That will take more than one speech.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


February 1, 2006
News Analysis

Bold Visions Have Given Way to New Reality

By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 — It was an evening for President Bush to confront America's anxieties — and his own.

Only a year after Mr. Bush stood in the House, describing in bold terms how he planned to spend the political capital he had amassed in the 2004 election, the president who addressed the nation on Tuesday evening was far less ambitious, his tone noticeably different.

The Texan who swept onto the national political scene six years ago talking about drilling for new energy supplies and preserving the American way of life vowed on Tuesday night to wean the nation from its reliance on oil. Instead of urging Congress to drill in the Arctic, the president who had waved off the critics who portrayed him and Vice President Dick Cheney as captives of the oil industry asked Congress to finance federal research into alternative fuels and lithium batteries.

A president who has rarely dwelled on the impact of globalization for American workers was suddenly looking over his shoulder at China and India, and committing the federal government to a quest for 70,000 teachers and 30,000 scientists to prepare American students for a new era of competition.

It was, in short, a speech rooted in some harsh global and political realities, and one unlikely to rank among Mr. Bush's most memorable. Instead of evoking the grand ambitions that have suffused his presidency since the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush emphasized the familiar and the modest. At a moment of partisan fervor, he offered an olive branch, reviving a pledge to lower the temperature. "Our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger," he said.

Yet by any measure, Mr. Bush's options are far more limited than they were a year ago. Much of the momentum he boasted about in the days after his re-election is gone, some of it lost on a bold Social Security initiative that never took off, some washed away by the deeply disorganized federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

The budget deficit, rising again despite Mr. Bush's promise to cut it in half by the time he leaves office in 2009, effectively handcuffs him when it comes to new initiatives. The few new ideas he unveiled were largely thematic, not backed by broad programmatic initiatives.

Three years into the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush tried anew to strike a tone of optimism, saying that "we are in this fight, and we are winning." But he also bowed to the country's anxiety about finding a path out of a mission that seems to become harder each day, and he warned anew of the dangers of premature retreat. "In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders," he said.

Mr. Bush's approval ratings, which soared over 90 percent in the days after the terrorist attacks, bounced around in the 30's last fall and now hover anemically in the low 40's. His party, beset by a lobbying scandal and a breakdown in discipline on Capitol Hill, is nervous about the coming midterm elections.

With three years left in his presidency, Mr. Bush is certainly far from that lame-duck moment he used to joke about on his campaign plane — that point in his second term when he said he would "quack like a duck." On Tuesday alone, he won two major victories, the confirmations of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court and Ben S. Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Both appointments promise to leave Mr. Bush's stamp on Washington long after he has retired to his ranch and begun building his presidential library.

But in acknowledging on Tuesday that Americans face "a complex and challenging time," Mr. Bush was doing more than issuing a call for global engagement. He was also acknowledging that five years into his presidency, the citizens of the world's most powerful nation do not feel that their status has brought them security.

"He needs to reassure us on the economy, and reassure people there is a future they can be positive about," said Michael K. Deaver, the image maker who helped make Ronald Reagan — on whom Mr. Bush has tried to model much of his presidency — a master of optimism. "People have been saying no to that question everyone asks — 'Am I going to be better off a year from now than I am today?' — and that has been going on for the past two or three years."

Mr. Bush's prescriptions Tuesday night were largely familiar: making tax cuts permanent, keeping markets open, keeping health care costs down. What was new was his Advanced Energy Initiative, though the increases he proposed in clean-energy research, better batteries for hybrid cars and new ways of making ethanol largely piggyback on programs already under way at General Motors and Ford, Toyota and Honda, rather than charting a new course.

And his proposals to "encourage children to take more math and science" had echoes of President Bill Clinton, whose incessant talk of remaking the work force to meet the challenges of a global economy were often referred to derisively during Mr. Bush's first term as feel-good economics.

"Second-term presidents often gravitate toward foreign policy," said Doug Sosnik, who drafted many of those policies for Mr. Clinton. "What's happened to this president is that there is more pressure to attend to the domestic needs of the country. And it's hard, because he has less room to operate and less money to spend."

Mr. Bush has more leeway in the area of foreign policy, but even here, limits loom larger than they did a year ago.

Facing public hearings in February on his once-secret program to conduct eavesdropping, without the benefit of warrants, on telephone calls between the United States and abroad, Mr. Bush defended his order anew as "a terrorist surveillance program." He also argued, in an expansive reading of existing case law, that he had acted "based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute," an authority that he said the federal courts had approved.

In the face of Iran's defiance of full international inspection of its nuclear program, Mr. Bush declared that "the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." But in contrast to the confrontational tone that suffused his State of the Union speech of January 2003, which made the case for confronting Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Mr. Bush made no threats about what would happen if Iran continued down its current path.

Instead, he struck a decidedly moderate tone, careful not to outstep the European allies with whom he is trying to repair relations. And he seemed to recognize, said Lee Feinstein of the Council on Foreign Relations, that "clearly Iran has more ways of making our lives difficult in Iraq."

It is worth remembering that Mr. Bush has more time left in his presidency than John F. Kennedy served in his. Three years is a lot of time, and as Mr. Bush proved after Sept. 11, it only takes one day to redirect a presidency. But the path he described Tuesday night aimed more toward the middle lanes he talked about so often in the early days after he arrived in the White House, rather than the shifting of tectonic plates that he tried to engineer in the past four years.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

Ninjahedge
February 1st, 2006, 08:53 AM
Will read later, but did you hear? The lady whose son was killed in the war wore a "#### Killed" T-shirt to the SotU (that she was INVITED to) and was arrested.

So much for freedom of speech.

BrooklynRider
February 1st, 2006, 09:53 AM
As for our "addiction to oil from the Middle East":

The largest sources of American petroleum consumption are Mexico and Canada. Imports of oil and refined product from the Middle East make up less than a fifth of all imports and 11% of total consumption, according to US Energy Department statistics.

Also here is a picture of her shirt that got her arrested....

BrooklynRider
February 1st, 2006, 10:12 AM
In 1971, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to arrest a man who wore a "F--- the Draft" T-shirt into the courthouse? (Cohen v. California, you can look it up.) So now Alito's on the court for 45 minutes and your civil liberties are already going down the toilet.

You were warned.

MrSpice
February 1st, 2006, 10:18 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101521.html?nav=rss_nation

It seems like there are rules on the books that prohibit the demonstration in the House gallery. What does it have to do with Alito and democracy? I would think that any display - pro or against the war would not be allowed in that particular place.

Ninjahedge
February 1st, 2006, 10:38 AM
As for our "addiction to oil from the Middle East":

The largest sources of American petroleum consumption are Mexico and Canada. Imports of oil and refined product from the Middle East make up less than a fifth of all imports and 11% of total consumption, according to US Energy Department statistics.



Thing is, if we were to invoke stricter energy policies, our oil consumption from the middle east would be ZERO.

Stricter milage standards, better, more efficient mass transit (such as a decent bullet-train rail line connecting the major cities like Boston, NY, DC, Chicago, SanFran et all) and just better standards overall would make it so it really would not matter at all what they did over there.


But now there is the whole Nuke thing, so whatever.

lofter1
February 1st, 2006, 10:39 AM
I'll bet you anything that members of congress were wearing nice American Flag pins ... Is that not a visual representation covered by "free speech"?

And the Congressional marshalls were bothered that Sheehan was "vocal" while sitting before the SOTU, but they certainly didn't tell the members of Congress to pipe down when they cheered Bush's calls to continue the war duing his SOTU pep rally ...

It's all in one's interpretation of what is allowable speech and what is not.

Ninjahedge
February 1st, 2006, 10:42 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101521.html?nav=rss_nation

It seems like there are rules on the books that prohibit the demonstration in the House gallery. What does it have to do with Alito and democracy? I would think that any display - pro or against the war would not be allowed in that particular place.

I think you are wrong.

I think that if anyone wore a "Bush Cheney" T-Shirt at the address, they would not have been asked to leave.

So long as she was not disrupting anything she should have been allowed to stay. This is just rediculous that they invite someone who is VERY against the policy, and then arrest her for doing what you knew she would.

What is the point of her GOING to the address if she can't passively express her own discontent? If she had not said anything, would that have been a tacit implication to her somehow approving of the president?

I don't know.

Like I said, so long as she was not jumping up and down and shouting over the president I say let her wear the T-Shirt.


PS, Brooklyn, I think you are stretching it with the Alito connection there bubby. I know what you are saying, but try not to dilute your statements by including weak speculative inflamitory comments. It won't help your case... ;)

BrooklynRider
February 1st, 2006, 11:00 AM
It seems like there are rules on the books that prohibit the demonstration in the House gallery. What does it have to do with Alito and democracy? I would think that any display - pro or against the war would not be allowed in that particular place.

Do you even read or watch the news? These statements of yours in a variety of threads here make me wonder what parallel universe you are living in.

Sheehan did not say anything. She wore an article of clothing. On the shirt was written: 2,241 Dead. How many more? She didn't utter a word, so there was NO PROTEST. She was arrested for the clothing she was wearing.

As for your astonishing comments that "any display - pro or against the war would not be allowed in that particular place", then we'd have to arrest the president for seating the alleged parents of an alleged dead soldier in the gallery, pointing them out to the nation and reading a letter he allegedly wrote before being killed.

They served as propaganda and as a proest for this unjust war as much as Sheehan who sat down, took off her coat, said nothing but was arrested. But, it was effective, had she not been arrested, she would've been another face in the crowd. And, although she was arrested on one charge that got her removed from the gallery, that charge was later downgraded once she was removed, further exemplifying the lies and manipulation of this president.

MrSpice
February 1st, 2006, 11:04 AM
BrooklynRider: It would be my preference that she would be allowed to stay. Personally, I am a big fan of total freedom to say whatever you want anywhere. But let's be honest - she knew she would be asked to leave in this case. And the fact that she was thrown out gave her more publicity that she would have gotten with this shirt she was wearing. So now every newspaper comments on it and it's been on TV news. One way or the other, she got her point accross, and that's what is really important, isn't it?

BrooklynRider
February 1st, 2006, 11:12 AM
Thing is, if we were to invoke stricter energy policies, our oil consumption from the middle east would be ZERO.

Stricter milage standards, better, more efficient mass transit (such as a decent bullet-train rail line connecting the major cities like Boston, NY, DC, Chicago, SanFran et all) and just better standards overall would make it so it really would not matter at all what they did over there.


But now there is the whole Nuke thing, so whatever.

You are missing the point, the president is talking about an "addiction to oil."

You don't solve an addiction by eliminating the reliance on one source for 20% of our habit. That is keeping the addiction robust and healthy and diversifyiny the sources of your fix. It was an incorrect and manipulative phrase to use. But, if you are going to use it, you identify the source of the addiction and attack that problem. Addiction to anything is usually just the symptom of a greater problem.

People need to stop letting him get away with these idiot statements that, in effect, say nothing.

First and foremost, George W. Bush is a liar. Second, he is a war criminal and a murderer.

ZippyTheChimp
February 1st, 2006, 11:12 AM
The 1971 Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with the House of Representatives chamber, which is not a courthouse.

House rules prohibit demonstrative acts of protest by either represntatives or visitors. So no, Ninjahedge, a Bush/Cheney t-shirt would not have been permitted.

If Sheehan was not aware of the rule, then the faultlies with the person that gave her a pass. If Sheehan was aware of the rule, then she acted stupidly. Her presence in the gallery would have been more effective.

ZippyTheChimp
February 1st, 2006, 11:16 AM
Brooklyn Rider: I don't agree with much of what Mr Spice says on many topics, but I see no reason to insult him.

BrooklynRider
February 1st, 2006, 11:18 AM
BrooklynRider: It would be my preference that she would be allowed to stay. Personally, I am a big fan of total freedom to say whatever you want anywhere. But let's be honest - she knew she would be asked to leave in this case. And the fact that she was thrown out gave her more publicity that she would have gotten with this shirt she was wearing. So now every newspaper comments on it and it's been on TV news. One way or the other, she got her point accross, and that's what is really important, isn't it?

NO. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S IMPORTANT. WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS TRUTH, RULE OF LAW AND THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.

YOU, MR. SPICE, ARE AN APOLOGIST WHO HAS BOUGHT INTO THE BUSH WORLD'S VIEW OF "GOOD AND EVIL" AND "WITH US AND AGAINST US". THIS IS A COUNTRY OF RIGHTS AND LAWS. IF THEY ARREST HER FOR WEARING A T-SHIRT, THEY CAN ARREST ANY OF US FOR EQUALLY FRIVOLOUS AND ILLEGAL REASONS.

YOUR IGNORANCE AND AMBIVALENCE IN THE FACE OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE IS NO LONGER SURPRISING, BUT STILL APPALLING.

BrooklynRider
February 1st, 2006, 11:21 AM
...House rules prohibit demonstrative acts of protest by either represntatives or visitors. So no, Ninjahedge, a Bush/Cheney t-shirt would not have been permitted...

Wearing a shirt is NOT a demonstrative act. The word there is "act". The shirt was a shirt. The was no "act".

BrooklynRider
February 1st, 2006, 11:26 AM
Brooklyn Rider: I don't agree with much of what Mr Spice says on many topics, but I see no reason to insult him.

I apologize. I felt I was holding back the insults, so many come directly to mind that I did not post. My words were purely of affection- I regret they are being misconstrued. But, I guess it proves that people can say one thing and be totally wrong. I have every respect for people, whatever their level of ignorance or lack of ability to understand basic Constitutional principles.

ZippyTheChimp
February 1st, 2006, 11:34 AM
Wearing a shirt is NOT a demonstrative act. The word there is "act". The shirt was a shirt. The was no "act".Evidently, it is. No one from either party has protested.

MrSpice
February 1st, 2006, 11:41 AM
YOUR IGNORANCE AND AMBIVALENCE IN THE FACE OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE IS NO LONGER SURPRISING, BUT STILL APPALLING.

And unlike me, you're the reasonable one. I think you should lighten up a little. Switch to the decaf. I think you have a lot of negative energy. I wonder what you're going to do and say in 3 years when GW Bush won't be there anymore. What will you say about McCain who strongly supported the war and still does? What do you say about one of our best majors - Ed Koch - who supported Bush in the last election? Do you have the same hate for Rudy Giuliani who transformed the city in so many ways and supported the war and GW?

And what about generals and public officials - many of them democrats - that were actively involved in planning this war and/or preparing for it? John Murtha used to be a very strong supporter of the war. And even now, he just feels we should leave in order to avoid heavier losses. Most democrats say that we should have a time table for withdrawal, but they still feel we should finish the job. Are they all murderers?

Ninjahedge
February 1st, 2006, 12:05 PM
Spice, you have to be careful who you site in support for the war and against.


there are different reasons for different people.

McCain and Murtha supported the war on the highly publicised reasons presented them shortly after 9-11 to the tumultuous cacophony of a 97% approval rating of Bush and Co. in a typical post traumatic xenophobic reaction.

When they were given the chance to look it over, they realized how poorly planned it was.

Murtha, with strong connections to the military, came out on the side of the military and it's general opinion that this was not a good idea with the resources that we had available. It was, and is, poorly planend and was a genreally inadvisable action.

McCain had his share of contrivances as well. If you watch him in the early interviews once the truth was slowly leaking out about things like the Uranium and whatnot, you can see him pausing more and more before responding to any questions in the war. He also thinks that it is a poor act of judgement and was not well planned, but cannot say much without being ostracised by his already striated party.

I trust McCain more than Bush, but I still see he is under the heel of his parties directives in many issues. If you want to see the true McCain, you have to look to the congressional questioning of officials on things like "Vehement Coersion Techniques" used at Abu Grade (spelling) and other issues similar to that that do not have such a hard line partisan position.

It's a shame though. We really need to get these parties to work together more rather than fight (or seem to fight) with us being the net losers of it all.

BrooklynRider
February 1st, 2006, 12:07 PM
... I wonder what you're going to do and say in 3 years when GW Bush won't be there anymore.

You're being optimistic, my goal is to see him gone by June. Paging John Hinckley! Paging John Hinckley!



...What will you say about McCain who strongly supported the war and still does?

I think he is wrong about the war. I think he is a dangerous neocon. I agree with his criticism of Bush and his view that torture is illegal and immoral. I agree with his view that campaign finance reform is needed or we face peril. I also think he is ill-tempered and unfit for the presidency.


...What do you say about one of our best majors - Ed Koch - who supported Bush in the last election?

I didn't know Ed Koch was a major, let alone one of the best ones. The fact that one believes that Ed Koch is one of the best "anythings" means nothing, because it is based on nothing. The fact that he supported Bush in the last election really means nothing to me. I read candidates stands on issues, research their statements and votes on issues in the past and make up my own mind. Ed Koch was last elected to public office in 1985. He has no constituency and he couldn't get elected anywhere in New York State in 2006.


...Do you have the same hate for Rudy Giuliani who transformed the city in so many ways and supported the war and GW?

Rudy Giuliani transformed the city in his first term, during which he was very popular. His approval ratings prior to 9/11 were similar to George W.Bush's current approval ratings, somewhere in the high 30 percentile. He was a mean-spirited guy and hateful politican. I'm not surprised when Giuliani supports any war. He declared war on the homeless, the poor, immigrants, nightlife, black people and the arts in his term as mayor alone.


...And what about generals and public officials - many of them democrats - that were actively involved in planning this war and/or preparing for it?

You need to clarify. Do you mean the generals and public officials who first cooked the intelligence to support the prearranged plan to tie Saddam to 9/11 and go to war with Iraq, or do you mean the generals and public officials who decided to go to war based on false intelligence? I'm not a Democrat and loathe them almost as much as Republicans, so I'm not following your distinction there.


...John Murtha used to be a very strong supporter of the war. And even now, he just feels we should leave in order to avoid heavier losses.

What's your point? Do you also want to now put in writing why he is no longer a supporter of this war and why he believes there will be heavier losses?



...Most democrats say that we should have a time table for withdrawal, but they still feel we should finish the job. Are they all murderers?

Bush is a murderer because he had failed to stay the execution or commute the death sentences of over 125 people on death row, while he Governor of Texas. You can't be pro-life and pro-death penalty. That is one reason he is a liar. Most Democrats, like all Republicans, are beholden to corporate and special interests that have a vested interest in seeing the war continue. Again, you are distinguishing Democrats as if they are of another ilk. They are not. We are in a one-party system made us of arrogant assholes (Republicans) and spineless pussies (Democrats).

Any other questions?

MrSpice
February 1st, 2006, 12:18 PM
BrooklynRider: Basically, you hate most people in power and those that have a real chance of being in power in the next few years for a variety of reasons. This is 2-party is system is all we have. And you will have to live with it somehow. You also feel that most politicians that support the war do so because they are beholden to corporate interests. I think this is great oversimplification of the situation. I think there are many great and intelligent Americans that support this war because they feel it will make the situation better in the long term, and many who feel that even if this war was a mistake in the first place, now all we can is finish the course, stabilize the situation as good as we can, try to help Iraqies build the democracy and train their forces. Regaring the death row statements - one would assume that most if not all people on the death row in Texas were murderers themselves. Governor's role is limited in any state. If people of the state feel that death penalty is the right punishment for the capital crime and legislate so, the governor should not intervene. NY State has death penalty as well as many other states in this country. You may not agree that this is the right policy, but you can be a bit more respectful to those who feel that anyone who kills innocent people should share the same destiny. It was not Bush who decided that Texas needs death penalty and he was not the one who convicted these people - juries of their peers did.

lofter1
February 1st, 2006, 01:10 PM
You're being optimistic, my goal is to see him gone by June. Paging John Hinckley! Paging John Hinckley!

JH has been a bit freer in his travels lately. Is 90 minutes sufficient?

Hinckley Can Leave D.C. Area for First Time

Judge Allows Va. Visits For Reagan Assailant

By Karlyn Barker and Susan Levine
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 31, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001159.html

A federal judge yesterday granted presidential assailant John W. Hinckley Jr.'s request to leave a psychiatric hospital in the District to make several overnight visits to his parents at their home near Williamsburg.

The visits will be the most freedom Hinckley has had since his arrest in 1981 for shooting President Ronald Reagan, press secretary James S. Brady and two law enforcement officers. He has been held at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Southeast Washington since 1982, when he was found not guilty by reason of insanity...

"He is not permitted to leave one or both parents' supervision at any time during the course of the conditional release" except when the hospital allows him short trips in the community, Friedman ruled. The time spent away from his parents' supervision will be limited to 90 minutes.

Azazello
February 1st, 2006, 02:19 PM
Hot off the presses, the political bias against t-shirts grows more balanced...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060201/ap_on_go_co/state_of_union_sheehan_8


Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom."

"Because she had on a shirt that someone didn't like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery," Young said on the House floor Wednesday morning, holding up the gray shirt.
"Shame, shame," he scolded.

Mrs. Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.
"They said I was protesting," she told the St. Petersburg Times. "I said, "Read my shirt, it is not a protest.' They said, 'We consider that a protest.' I said, 'Then you are an idiot.'"

The sophistication of debate in our country these days.

But before Bush apologists use this as proof that things are "fair", it should be noted that Mrs. Young, who was sitting in a more prominent seat in the gallery, was removed only after someone complained about Sheehan. Otherwise, I imagine we would have seen the message on Young's mantle proudly displayed on many a newspaper and website.

I suppose that as long as the t-shirt message supports the policies of the current administration (be it Republican, Democrat or Green Party), it is not considered a "protest".

BrooklynRider
February 1st, 2006, 04:02 PM
Cindy Sheehan reports on what happened to her (from dailykos.com)

Dear Friends,

As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight.

I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.

There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened:

This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh, Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2245 Dead. How many more?

After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the undergroud tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.

My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said: "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."

I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2245, huh? I just got back from there."

I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shrit that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.

There have already been many wild stories out there.

I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred of protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people.

Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.

Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too.

Love and peace soon,
Cindy

NYatKNIGHT
February 1st, 2006, 04:48 PM
They couldn't ask her to put her jacket back on? No, they had to get the Thought Police to to use excessive force and abruptly arrest her like she was brandishing a weapon.

But the Republican was just asked to leave. Which in itself is excessive.

Better watch out everybody.

Ninjahedge
February 1st, 2006, 04:53 PM
That shirt was armed and dangerous.

ZippyTheChimp
February 1st, 2006, 05:51 PM
I'm glad they got her out of there before the speech. SOTU addresses are always worth a bump up in the polls. Any disruption would have magnified it.

Jasonik
February 1st, 2006, 06:09 PM
An upcoming book with two First Amendment Center colleagues among the co-authors (Oxford University Press - First Freedoms: A Documentary History of First Amendment Rights in America) notes that restrictions on demonstrations in and around the Capitol are nothing new. An 1882 law – not overturned until 1972 – was adopted to preserve “the quiet and dignity of the Capitol of the United States.” It prohibited “any harangue or oration” and banned any display of “any flag, banner or devices designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization or movement” anywhere on the Capitol grounds. Some restrictions of that type remain in effect.

Complete article: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=16410

TLOZ Link5
February 1st, 2006, 06:17 PM
As for our "addiction to oil from the Middle East":

The largest sources of American petroleum consumption are Mexico and Canada. Imports of oil and refined product from the Middle East make up less than a fifth of all imports and 11% of total consumption, according to US Energy Department statistics.



I caught that right as he said it, and the Times did too the next day.

lofter1
February 2nd, 2006, 12:08 AM
Arrest now, apologize later ...

Charges against Sheehan dropped

Antiwar mom, representative’s wife removed from State of the Union

Feb. 1, 2006

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/

WASHINGTON - Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman’s wife from President Bush’s State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush’s arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

“Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts,” Gainer’s statement said.

Apology to the Youngs

Gainer added that he was asking the U.S. attorney’s office to drop the charge against Sheehan. The statement also said he apologized to the Youngs and “share the department’s plans for avoiding this in the future.”

“A similar message has been left with Mrs. Sheehan,” Gainer said.

For his part, Bill Young said he was not necessarily satisfied.

“My wife was humiliated,” he told reporters. He suggested that “sensitivity training” may be in order for Capitol Police.

A foreign-born American citizen who was the guest of Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., also was taken by police from the gallery just above the House floor, Hastings said Wednesday.

The congressman met with Gainer and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., about the incident.

“I’d like to find out more information,” Hastings said in an interview, identifying the man only as being from Broward County in Florida. “He is a constituent of mine. I invited him proudly.”

Different messages expressed

Sheehan’s T-shirt alluded to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq: “2245 Dead. How many more?” Capitol Police charged her with a misdemeanor for violating the District of Columbia’s code against unlawful or disruptive conduct on any part of the Capitol grounds, a law enforcement official said. She was released from custody and flew home Wednesday to Los Angeles.

Young’s shirt had a message with a different tone: “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”

“They said I was protesting,” Young told the St. Petersburg Times. “I said, ‘Read my shirt, it is not a protest.’ They said, ‘We consider that a protest.’ I said, ‘Then you are an idiot.”’

The two women appeared to have offended tradition if not the law, according to several law enforcement and congressional officials. By custom, the annual address is to be a dignified affair in which the president reports on the state of the nation. Guests in the gallery who wear shirts deemed political in nature have, in past years, been asked to change or cover them up.

Rules dealing mainly with what people can bring and telling them to refrain from reading, writing, smoking, eating, drinking, applauding or taking photographs are outlined on the back of gallery passes given to tourists every day.

However, State of the Union guests don’t receive any guidelines, according to Deputy House Sergeant at Arms Kerri Hanley. “You would assume that if you were coming to an event like the State of the Union address you would be dressed in appropriate attire,” she said.


© 2006 The Associated Press.

BrooklynRider
February 2nd, 2006, 12:51 AM
BrooklynRider: Basically, you hate most people in power and those that have a real chance of being in power in the next few years for a variety of reasons.

Giving credit where it is due, you, Mr. Spice, got that statement 100% correct.


This is 2-party is system is all we have. And you will have to live with it somehow.

Actually, I believe the country is being hijacked by a group of people who are building a fascist regime before our eyes. It is beyond me how anyone can say we have a "two-party" system, when the "opposition" votes with the majority and fails to utilize the tool they have to effectively oppose legislation and nominees they disagree with. I believe we have a one-party dictatorial state that is pretending to be a democratic two-party state until all mechanisms for reprieve are shut down. I also totally disagree that one has to live with it somehow. Surrender is what they hope for and are depending on. The offenses committed by this administration are staggering. I think the public is in a stupor. But, I, personally, am heading to Washington DC on Saturday to let my voice be heard and to fight back, while we still can.



You also feel that most politicians that support the war do so because they are beholden to corporate interests.

Sounds like a long-winded fortune cookie. It's a failing argument when you start telling other people what they are feeling. You don't even know me.


I think this is great oversimplification of the situation. I think there are many great and intelligent Americans that support this war because they feel it will make the situation better in the long term, and many who feel that even if this war was a mistake in the first place, now all we can is finish the course, stabilize the situation as good as we can, try to help Iraqies build the democracy and train their forces.

Actually, you can review ANY poll taken in the last 60 days and find the majority of people in the country do not support our continued involvement in Iraq and 57% belive that Bush should be impeached if he misled the country into war. You kind of using Bush's argument that, heck, we're there already, so let's just keep on keeping on. Ever notice how few Iraqi vets you see on talk show or at Bush rallies? That's because the vets coming back think the war was wrong, unjust and pointless. Which would make it a political advantage for the Bush administration to keep inacting stop-loss measures to prevent these people from coming home and speaking out before the 2006 elections. You also see how complicit the media is as they have failed to give airtime to the veterans, who can tell us EXACTLY what is happening over there, good and bad.


Regaring the death row statements - one would assume that most if not all people on the death row in Texas were murderers themselves. Governor's role is limited in any state. If people of the state feel that death penalty is the right punishment for the capital crime and legislate so, the governor should not intervene.

Convicted death row inmates have been found to be completely innocent in some cases. But, you are ignoring the issue. George Bush claims to be pro-life. As a governor with the power to save a life by commuting a sentence to life-in-prison, he has chosen to kill these men instead. I am pointing to his hypocrisy. And, because people in a state feel something is "right", it does not make it so. Slavery was legal in 11 states and the citizens there thought it was right. It wasn't. In New England, they persecuted people sa witches, tortured them and killed them. People thought it was right. It wasn't. People think it is right to call the country "christian", lead prayer in public schools, and cite bible quotes in passing judicial sentences. It isn't.


NY State has death penalty as well as many other states in this country. You may not agree that this is the right policy, but you can be a bit more respectful to those who feel that anyone who kills innocent people should share the same destiny. It was not Bush who decided that Texas needs death penalty and he was not the one who convicted these people - juries of their peers did.

Bush has stated categorically and repeatedly that he believes in and supports "a culture of life." As governor in the state of Texas, he was in a unique position to legally intervene and stay or commute the sentences. He did not. I am not arguing whether the law provides for the death penalty in any given state, only that THIS man - this pathological LIAR - says one thing and does another. This is just one very clear, inarguable example.

ZippyTheChimp
February 2nd, 2006, 01:50 AM
I read through the SOTUA, and one passage struck me:

Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal: We seek the end of tyranny in our world.

Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it.

On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country.

Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction.
What state was Bush talking about, and why didn't he mention it by name?
Was this an attempt to blur the distinction between the countries of origin of the 09/11 terrorists (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) and their base in Afghanistan, and the country many people thought was their origin (Iraq)?

He was right about feeding resentment and radicalism, only we are the ones doing it. A culture that gets all twisted over cartoons in Scandinavia isn't going to welcome foreign troops.

lofter1
February 2nd, 2006, 10:44 AM
What state was Bush talking about, and why didn't he mention it by name?
Was this an attempt to blur the distinction between the countries of origin of the 09/11 terrorists (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) and their base in Afghanistan, and the country many people thought was their origin (Iraq)?
We can all be assured that nothing appears in the SOTU speech without first being vetted 10-20 times.

The blurring is undoubtedly what is intended -- keeping the populace a bit confused always works to the advantage of those in power.

lofter1
February 2nd, 2006, 01:07 PM
And then this comes along to prove me wrong.

The President said it ... but he didn't really MEAN it:

Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports

By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Feb. 1, 2006

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13767738.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

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

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction."

Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Not exactly, though, it turns out.

"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said...

MrSpice
February 2nd, 2006, 01:41 PM
Potentially, the next president making a face: http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060201/ids_photos_ts/r469963390.jpg/print;_ylt=Andp51UuthzEmp1Z3TUk7a3mWMcF;_ylu=X3oDM TA3bXNtMmJ2BHNlYwNzc3M-

lofter1
February 2nd, 2006, 01:56 PM
If anyone saw Jon Stewart last night, he said (about some of Hillary's sour looks during the SOTU):
"That look ... is where boners go to die"
(the quote is found during the last 30 seconds of Jon's comments): http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/headlines/index.jhtml


On that page click this icon:

http://www.comedycentral.com/images/shows/tds/videos/headlines/tds_11017_headline_m1.jpg

Ninjahedge
February 2nd, 2006, 01:57 PM
Potentially, the next president making a face: http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060201/ids_photos_ts/r469963390.jpg/print;_ylt=Andp51UuthzEmp1Z3TUk7a3mWMcF;_ylu=X3oDM TA3bXNtMmJ2BHNlYwNzc3M-

Um, that has a reason for being here?

If you are going to satyrize a political candidate/officer, please try to do it on something that has something to do with them.

An odd shot of Hillary during some off moment has nothing to do with the SotU. A more appropriate pic would have been the face she made when Bush likened himself to Bill.

TLOZ Link5
February 2nd, 2006, 02:05 PM
I couldn't understand for the life of me why Bush used the State of the Union address to propose banning, of all things, animal hybridization. God knows that the centaur rights organizations are going to take real offense to that.

Ninjahedge
February 2nd, 2006, 02:07 PM
Of course, we only receive something like 16 percent of our imported oil from the Middle East. Since half of our oil is imported, that means only eight percent of our oil comes from the Middle East. A reduction of 75% would mean that we'd only be 6% less dependent on oil. Whee.

I couldn't understand for the life of me why Bush mentioned animal hybridization. God knows that the centaur rights organizations are going to take real offense to that.


The Neighs have it.

TLOZ Link5
February 2nd, 2006, 02:09 PM
The Neighs have it.

Poor Senator Tumnus. I also feel sorry for Congresswoman Ariel.

lofter1
February 3rd, 2006, 01:18 AM
http://current.cf.huffingtonpost.com/title.jpg

http://current.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/alqaedacaller.jpg

BrooklynRider
February 3rd, 2006, 10:10 AM
size=4]Make Industries' Tax Breaks Permanent, President Urges[/size]

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: February 3, 2006
MAPLEWOOD, Minn., Feb. 2 — President Bush went Thursday to a center of American innovation, the 3M Company, which invented Scotch Tape and Post-it notes, to call for permanent tax breaks for industries that invest in research and development and to improve Republican chances in a pivotal state in a midterm election year.

Mr. Bush also renewed his promise from the State of the Union address to reduce oil imports from the Mideast, even as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries objected and after Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said Mr. Bush's words should not be taken literally.

In a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Bodman said the goal of replacing 75 percent of Middle East oil imports to the United States with ethanol and other energy sources by 2025, a headline from the State of the Union address, was "purely an example" of what might be done.

On Thursday, Mr. Bush went even further in calling for independence from Middle East oil in a speech on scientific innovation and research.

"I'm confident that we'll be able to say to the American people when this research is complete that the United States is on our way to no dependence on oil from the Middle East," Mr. Bush said to applause from several hundred employees and Republican supporters at 3M headquarters here.

Mr. Bush's trip to this St. Paul suburb was part of his annual post-State of the Union travels to try to pound home the major themes of the address in the big news media markets and competitive political races. This year, Republicans have their sights on Minnesota, where there is an open Senate seat and Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, faces a tough challenge from Democrats.

Mr. Bush will spend much of this year on similar trips as he tries to help his party hang on to its slim majority in Congress. Mr. Pawlenty was in the audience at 3M, and Mr. Bush singled him out by telling the crowd that the governor had offered him lutefisk, a smelly local Scandinavian specialty. Mr. Bush said he had told Mr. Pawlenty, "No, I think I'll eat on Air Force One."

The theme of the speech was the "American Competitiveness Initiative," a White House slogan for proposals in the State of the Union address to try to improve the teaching of mathematics and science, train workers, aid universities and increase federal support for research and development.

The initiative, aimed at quelling voters' fears that America is losing an edge to economic powerhouses like China and India, would cost $5.9 billion next year and $136 billion over 10 years. Of the 10-year cost, the White House has said $86 billion would help make permanent the tax breaks for industries when they invest in research and development. The breaks expired Dec. 31.