Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
12:05 AM
 SOTU? So how would you grade the President's performance in his final State of the Union? MKH called it boring. Fred Barnes said it was not one of his most memorable. Both could possibly be true... But I will say this. For his final chance, for the challenges we face, and for the future of our nation, I think the President took a hard swing at those who oppose the most important agendas for the nation. He threatened three vetoes in the first few minutes. He identified earmark abuse and threw the line down in the sand. He decried the further use of any additional embryonic stem cells. And he documented for all that missed it - the proven success of the new strategy in Iraq. He hit the majority party hard on taxes and put firmly into the minds of all watching WHO delivered tax reductions, and who will be left holding the bag if the reductions aren't made permanent and in 2010 we all get a bill from the federal government that demands on average $1800 out of our pockets... And while the pundits all yawned through it... bottom line was the Frank Luntz focus group on FoxNews had only 5 people who supported Bush going into the evening, but nearly 100% of those in the room thought the speech was powerful. And the biggest home run - to END wasteful spending... Biggest home run for GOP voters? MAKING TAX RELIEF permanent! The SAME TAX CUTS THAT JOHN McCAIN opposed...
|
Bush did not veto a single earmark the entire four years that he had a Republican Congress. He only started whining about earmark abuse when the Congress turned Democratic. I doubt that Bush can spell "disingenuous" but some of us can. |
|
|
and I only nodded off like Bill Clinton at the MLK preach-a-thon twice. My wife however was gone by half-time. |
|
I really, really liked the speech.
I liked the "inverted" structure (ending with "the state of the Union is strong"), the opening jokes, the initiatives, the challenges, and the honors.
A+
|
|
You got that right! Six years as the enabler to GOP spendaholics, and suddenly when the opposition gains controll, he gets religion.
Sort of like Gov. Mitt 'Offshore Tax Haven' Romney deciding to close tax loopholes AFTER he enriched his coffers through those same loopholes for years.
Or, Mitt excoriating Kennedy in '94 for the questionable investments in his blind trust, which he described as 'an age old ruse'. Well suprise, when news came out recently that in 2006 Mitt earned 200k in profits from blind trust with investments in Iran and Sudan what was Mitt's excuse, that they were in a blind trust!
Politicians are such w***es. |
|
|
to say the word, "empower?" My husband and I think it was said at least 15-20 times. Other than that the speech was fairly good. We were distracted by Nancy Pelosi's vacant stare (and questioning what plastic surgery work she has had done.) Although we agreed with much of what President Bush had to say we were irritated with his sudden change on immigration, frequent calls for the federal government to come to the rescue of those in need, and one comment about "for the children and future grandchildren." The last two are typical Democrat responses, but fit right in with President Bush's compassionate conservatism baloney. We turned it off when he began pushing for NAFTA and the meeting of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. We don't want an EU here! |
|
That's what I thought. Bush is still pushing his globalist crap upon the nation. While there is alot to criticize, this is what stood out most to me.
"On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. I have submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel. Many of these nominees are being unfairly delayed. They are worthy of confirmation, and the Senate should give each of them a prompt up-or-down vote."
Right, and while we're at it let's apply this thinking to the executive branch as well. No more signing statements that Bush and his successor will use to subvert the Constitution. When it comes to being a lying hypocrite Clinton has nothing on Bush. A rotten speech by a rotten person. |
|
Thank God we'll never have to sit through THAT again.
Just typical W blather: zero net result.
Time to move on from this looser: no matter who wins in November, it can't possibly be any worse! |
|
will you ever get any good sense? I doubt it.
check the statistics of earmark "patronage" during the first five years of this administration when Congress was "controlled" by the GOP and you'll find that some 58% (on avg) went to Republicans and the rest (42%) went to Democrats. Now that the Dems have the control the trend is reversed.
Earmark allocation, if you must, is pretty much aligned along party strength lines just like committee asignments, duh.
the blood of the taxpayers exacted for earmark patronage by Congressional Washington is on the hands of both politcal parties, but my God, lily, from the 1960s on, the overwhelming bulk of earmark patronage is in the favor of the Democrats who have controlled one, or for most of those years both, houses of Congress!
the end of earmark patronage will only come when the practice is totally outlawed via legislation. |
|
Pledges on earmarks are meaningless, as he has signed the budgets for this year, and those for the coming year will simply be delayed until a new President is installed. As for the rest, his own historic actions undermine his credibility. He cannot credibly claim to be in the last year what he was not in the first 7. And, in any case, earmarks are only a small part of the problem. Those identified by other columnists indicate that some $16 billion were spent on earmarks this year. Compare that to the $250 billion current deficit, the $130 billion borrowed from social security to keep that deficit down to $250 B, and the $150 b stimulus package which will swell this years deficit to $400 B. Add in the money from social security, and the actual end of 2008 deficit in the general fund will be over $500 B, or some 20% of the total federal budget. $16 B is a drop in the bucket. Indeed,in the first six years of this administration, the deficit grew by $3.95 trillion, and in 2007 in grew by another $250 B to $4.2 trillion. Add in the $400 B mentioned above, and it will be $4.6 trillion for Bush's full 8 year term. The total of all previous post WWII budgets was $5.5 trillion - which is what Bush started with. And now, we face the fact that entitlement costs are beginning to rise, which will increasingly reduce the money available for the general fund from Social Security. Deficits will only grow.
If the government had cut out all the earmarks over this period of time - the affect would have been negligible.
It's a DC shell game delivered purely for political purposes. Distract the voters with the minor issue while ignoring the real ones. |
|
|
Im really over GWB hope he moves to Mexico after his term,since he loves them so much that he sides with them over his fellow Americans!!! QUIT BEING A COWARD AND PARDON THE BORDER AGENTS RAMOS AND COMPEAN!!! |
|
Bush : vetos earmarks :: Kevin : reports facts
Bush : fiscal responsibility :: Kevin : journalistic integrity
I'm sorry, has Bush vetoed one earmark to date? Passed on a single spending bill? Hesitated in any way to spend more taxpayer money? I hardly think hs lame duck year will any more effective than his previous seven. All I heard was a lot of quacking. |
|
|