BREAKING: Video of SOTU!

43 Comments

1. 

   Street Kid on February 1, 2006 at 12:15 am

   Not saving it–don’t want my computer to crash! LOL

   • 

     shermanesqe on February 1, 2006 at 12:19 am

     No kidding!  I’m not wasting one byte on that, never mind how much tracking code is probably embedded in it!  🙂

   • 

     Dean Pajevic on February 1, 2006 at 11:50 am

     OMG…. I’ll have to try less subtle humor next time

     • 

       Street Kid on February 1, 2006 at 5:33 pm

       Just giving a sample of my sense of humor.

2. 

   Man Eegee on February 1, 2006 at 12:18 am

   more than enough.  🙂

   • 

     Street Kid on February 1, 2006 at 12:24 am

     Really!  Wish more voters, er, I mean Diebold felt that way!  🙂

   • 

     shermanesqe on February 1, 2006 at 12:26 am

     Nonce was one more than enough for me.

     • 

       Street Kid on February 1, 2006 at 12:32 am

       Same here–just reading about it was agonizing.  Sympathies to those who watched it–you are braver than I am!

       • 

         shermanesqe on February 1, 2006 at 12:37 am

         Same here.  I was reading about it, but had Sex and the City and then Seinfeld on in the background.  I just can’t stomach that stuff anymore… I prefer to read about it and others’ analysis of it instead, that I can devour.

3. 

   supersoling on February 1, 2006 at 12:25 am

   Excuse me but why does he look like he just took a bunker buster up the ass?

   • 

     DuctapeFatwa on February 1, 2006 at 12:53 am

     The suppositories should clear it up in a few weeks, as usual. They may be a bit uncomfortable but at no time has the President been in danger.

4. 

   Man Eegee on February 1, 2006 at 12:27 am

   The Democratic Daily Blog has John Kerry’s response and some fact checks.

   A snippet:

   “President Bush tonight described a very different state of our union than the one most Americans live with every day. In fact, he described a fantasyland. In Republican Washington, the rhetoric continues to mislead and the promises continue to be broken. It’s going to take more than poll-tested lines in a speech to strengthen our union. It’s going to take change in Washington to make America stronger.

   • 

     Man Eegee on February 1, 2006 at 12:29 am

     I failed to give the hat tip to DEM Bloggers for the info.  (sorry Cedwyn!)

     • 

       on February 1, 2006 at 12:42 am

       Heh. That flip comment I made about the flip-flops in the other thread, Manny, may actually have some punch.

       Check this out:

       Remember the “athletes” (as opposed to anti-war mom) who “raised eyebrows” this summer (as opposed to getting arrested) for a fashion faux pas as opposed to a protest.

       Here’s a pretty good summary for the differences between the “flip-flops” and the “t-shirt”:

       Athletes raise eyebrows after wearing flip-flops to White House

       Might be a good talking point to get out there–I’d diary or blog about it, but am just too “rusty” and just not into it at the moment.

       Probably a good idea to remind folks of the flip-flop incident tho, if they aren’t making that comparison already.

       Last report I saw, they’d downgraded the misdemeanor to “unlawful conduct”–still, my question is why flip-flops are a violation of fashion and t-shirts a violation of the law.

       Was it a designer T-shirt? 😉

   • 

     maryb2004 on February 1, 2006 at 12:32 am

     Just checked my e-mail and I have a letter from John Kerry.  Very nice letter.  About the filibuster.  With a big CONTRIBUTE at the bottom to click.  

     (Sigh)

5. 

   Man Eegee on February 1, 2006 at 12:33 am

   Washington Post here

   NYTimes here

   LA Times here

   Chicago Tribune here

   • 

     maryb2004 on February 1, 2006 at 12:34 am

     I feel like I’m at Sardi’s after the opening of a show.  Thanks!

     • 

       Man Eegee on February 1, 2006 at 12:35 am

       The spin is more important than the speech.  Just trying to monitor the spread of the propaganda.

       • 

         Street Kid on February 1, 2006 at 12:43 am

         AP here

     • 

       DuctapeFatwa on February 1, 2006 at 12:49 am

       From the bits I saw, the costumes were boring, the speech didn’t rhyme, and I couldn’t even tell Mr. Danger was singing at all. Maybe if they just had Mr. D. work his jaw and dub Michael Crawford’s voice in…

6. 

   maryb2004 on February 1, 2006 at 12:47 am

   Washington Post:

   Clearly written before the speech, they just needed to see the actual event to add color. And to give them their first few paragraphs.  

   But the key to the whole piece is near the end:

   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.

   The article doesn’t paint a particularly pretty picture for Bush.

   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.

   oooh it gets better:

   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.

   and more

   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

   Looks like they are going with the spin of a humbler Bush — they list all the failures of the last year. (That’s good).

   Then

   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.

   Heh.

   After going through all his failures, including Katrina they get back to the speech:

   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 foreign oil 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.

   Oh and they end on a good note (for us)

   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.

7. 

   Gooserock on February 1, 2006 at 12:50 am

   

   

   Did I skip anything?

8. 

   Man Eegee on February 1, 2006 at 12:51 am

   I’m obviously a glutton for punishment and clicked the link.  I should’ve known, Susan, I should’ve known  😀

   • 

     Dean Pajevic on February 1, 2006 at 11:52 am

     FINALLY!  SOMEBODY BIT!  THANK GOD!

     Do all of you really — come on — really think I’d put up the video to his real speech?

     (I thought it was pretty hilarious.)

9. 

   maryb2004 on February 1, 2006 at 12:57 am

   NYtimes:

   Much more substantive reporting on the actual speech itself.  

   Bush had to acknowledge that his social security plans had failed, and they portray him as caving to the Democrats:

   and proposed what many Democrats had insisted was the only way to deal with the long-term financial problems of Social Security and Medicare: a bipartisan commission.
    

   Points out the obvious (well, for us):

   With federal spending now tightly constrained, some of the plans Mr. Bush presented on Tuesday could prove difficult to enact despite broad support.

   They then spend four paragraphs summarizing the education / training proposals he made.

   Mr. Bush’s proposals were based on a report issued in October by the National Academy of Sciences and embraced by industry groups and others. The report warned that without such measures, the United States would lose its competitive edge in technology to China and India, countries with educated workforces and lower wage structures.

   But Bush didn’t adopt that proposal completely:

   The president also called for 30,000 math and science professionals to take jobs as teachers, apparently as an alternative to what could have been a costly recommendation in the National Academies report. It had encouraged the government to provide four-year scholarships of up to $20,000 annually for 10,000 students each year who would major in math or science and who would agree to teach in public schools for five years after graduating.

   yeah right — 30,000 math and science professionals can become highschool teachers tomorrow.  Wonder what the cut in pay on that would be?

   Then it summarizes the basics of his health proposals.  

   Ends with a vague but important statement:

   Mr. Bush said his 2007 budget, to be submitted to Congress next week, would “reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities.”

   • 

     Street Kid on February 1, 2006 at 2:00 pm

     That last bit is scary!  Thanks maryb…yet another thing to look out for re:  Medicare D/Medicare as a whole….

10. 

    maryb2004 on February 1, 2006 at 1:10 am

    How did it play in sunny (rainy?) california:

    LA Times:

    Oh, we’re going with the humble theme again:

    Chastened. Deferential. Modest.

    These are not words that have typically described President Bush’s agenda or his approach to advancing his ideas, at home or abroad.

    But they capture the distinctive elements of the State of the Union address Bush delivered Tuesday after a grueling 2005 that sent his public approval rating plummeting to the lowest levels of his presidency.

    He still was firmly a war president but

    But on domestic policy, the president, while still forceful, struck the tone of a man searching for a fresh start. With his own job performance numbers and approval ratings for the Republican-controlled Congress sagging, only 10 months before the 2006 election, Bush mostly advanced a cautious agenda that seemed to aim less at transforming the political debate than at helping the GOP survive a hostile political environment.

    It then compares how he was, with how he is now and concludes:

    It spoke volumes that he now proposed not to remake Social Security but to restudy it, with the appointment of a bipartisan commission to examine the structure of all federal entitlement programs for the aged. Nor did Bush say a word about fundamental restructuring of the tax code, which the administration once envisioned as its next great reform after Social Security.

    But … can it last?  Let’s talk to a senior GOP strategist who will remain anonymous because he doesn’t want to be named:

    As this election year takes shape, one critical question may be how long the generally conciliatory tone Bush struck will drive the White House political message.

    Many observers believe a better predictor may be the recent speech in which Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political adviser, called for a campaign strategy built around defining sharp-edged contrasts with Democrats on domestic security, Iraq and taxes.

    One senior GOP strategist familiar with White House planning said Tuesday’s speech was not expressly intended to alter Bush’s relationship with Democrats this year.

    “The president is making his case on a series of issues he believes in,” said the strategist, who requested anonymity when discussing internal White House deliberations. “Some of them are going to lend themselves, because of the nature of the issue, to more bipartisan agreement. And some of them are going to lend themselves to sharper contrasts between the two parties.”

    Yet in other respects, the strategist said, the speech represented a midcourse correction for the president on domestic issues.

    The absence of sweeping new proposals, the strategist said, acknowledged that after the failure of the Social Security plan, “people on (Capitol) Hill have sent the message that they are not interested in large scale reforms this year.”

    And the focus on concerns like health care, the strategist continued, was a recognition “that sometimes the country has things on its mind — and the smart thing is for a president to talk about what’s on the country’s mind … “

    So the spin is ..the president understands what’s on people’s minds.

    Then they go through an analysis as to which of the proposals will garner bipartisan support (oh, there are only two): guest worker programs and competitiveness concerns (whatever that means, I think they just needed to come up with more than one)

    But many more will lead to more divisions with Democrats :
    warrantles wire tapping, Iraq, Patriot Act, making the tax cuts permanent, health care proposals.  Yep.

    And energy — the LA Times clearly has no idea how that will play out.

11. 

    maryb2004 on February 1, 2006 at 1:21 am

    And finally, from the land of Patrick Fitzgerald, the Chicago Tribune:

    Under the headline:  Alito’s Seating on Court Bigger than Speech.     Hmmmm  I’m guessing they weren’t impressed.

    And oh boy the Trib gets it — right up at the top of the article.  Bush doesn’t need to set any big agenda items, he achieved that when he got Alito on the court.

    The small-bore nature of his State of the Union address spoke to an era of scaled-down ambition. But the more sweeping goals of the conservative movement that brought President Bush to office might well have been met hours earlier when Justice Samuel Alito was sworn in as the newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

    The many issues that the political process cannot seem to solve–abortion, the right to die, the scope of presidential power–could well be determined by the court that Bush has reshaped decidedly rightward with the nominations of Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.

    The president’s legacy almost certainly won’t be drawn from his words to the nation Tuesday evening, but could well be fashioned by the words those judges craft in opinions that could prevail on the court for the next quarter century.

    Goes on to summarize Bush’s weakness right now.  And they get Mike Huckabee to go on record.  He’s obviously tired of baseball analogies so he heads toward basketball:

    “I think the strength was taking on a host of domestic issues such as health care, energy and economic competitiveness,” Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas said, reviewing the speech in an interview. “He approached it more from the perspective of hitting a series of layups rather than trying to shoot from the three-point line, taking more practical steps rather than launching a bold and visionary agenda.”

    Trib gets spin from WH that all these repetitive speeches are “comforting”  but Trib admits that to those who aren’t a Bush supporter it can be grating.

    And perhaps because they are in the land of Patrick Fitzgerald THEY end with a baseball analogie:

    Of all the appeals he made, the one perhaps least likely to succeed is his call to change the bitterly divisive partisan tone in Washington, a central theme of his campaign for the White House in 2000. The way in which he did so, however, might make that task all the more difficult. Rather than offering compromise, particularly on the war and on contentious social issues, the president called for his opponents to come his way.

    In a midterm election year, with Democrats lusting for a return to power in Congress, compromise won’t be a welcome visitor to the capital. That fact was made vivid by the nearly unanimous Democratic vote against Alito, who was confirmed by the Senate Tuesday 58 to 42.

    For now, though, Bush still has the votes in Congress to largely get his way, with or without the loyal opposition, with or without a home run speech.

    • 

      on February 1, 2006 at 1:29 am

      Now, I’m starting to wonder….where the fuck is Patrick Fitzgerald?

12. 

    on February 1, 2006 at 1:26 am

    Because when he said about making us safe so that we can be free. But maybe it was when he said about Laura. She gives me boners too becuase she helps others who have less fortune. She is very pretty with her face that uses medicine  to make her feel smile feel happy.

    President Bush wants to help other people and that’s good. Sadaam wanted to spy on his own people and spray them with stuff and that’s bad.

    President Bush is good. Sadaam is bad.

    America is a safe place because the terrorists don’t have networks like ABC and CON to spread messages.

    President Bush is the leader of the Free World where the free people live outside of Iron Curtains.

    President Bush is good.

    • 

      shermanesqe on February 1, 2006 at 1:42 am

      You must have been playing that drinking game SP…  🙂

13. 

    jimstaro on February 1, 2006 at 5:54 am

    Now This Is Advertising!!

    

    Velvet Revolution’s rolling billboards rolled out tonight.

    Please help the effort to keep rolling, and with more banners, by donating here…

    To see what was on the other side of the billboard,
    click here…

    We can report that the truck was pulled over by Capitol Police at least 3 times in the first hour it was rolling. Turns out, they’ve got no good reason to ticket it however. Freedom of speech wins…for a few hours anyway…

    Blogged by BradBlog on 1/31/2006 @ 8:12pm PT…

14. 

    sybil on February 1, 2006 at 8:08 am

    Bush Paints Democrats As Defeatist on Iraq
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Published: February 1, 2006

    Figures on the sidelines gave a look at the nation’s sharp divide over Iraq. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier whose summertime vigil near Bush’s Texas ranch reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was arrested and escorted from the visitors section of the House gallery after causing a disruption just before the president spoke.

    This misrepresentation should be corrected. According to Cindy Sheehan’s own description, as she sat down, she unzipped her jacket revealing a T-shirt with the number of Iraq war dead on it. She was then roughly arrested and taken away. The T-shirt was a passive demonstration, the distruption was caused by the Capitol police.

    This happened 30 minutes before GWB’s SOTU lies and platitudes began not “just before.”

15. 

    sybil on February 1, 2006 at 8:16 am

    SOTU and the punditry afterwards, like Gergen on CNN talking about Bush sweeping the Democrats off their feet etc.

    From Gore Vidal’s SOTU:
    “We the people of the United States,” and all sovereignty rests in us, not in the board rooms of the Republicans.

16. 

    supersoling on February 1, 2006 at 8:17 am

    I just can’t bear to look at that picture of Bush anymore because the guilt is killing me after yesterday’s attempt at a discussion of the best way forward, third parties or retaking the democratic party, got hijacked once again by people who continue to scapegoat me and others who voted Green in 2000. Not only that but to have my intelligence and motives insulted by suggesting I might as well have written in Mickey Mouse on the ballot. I thought the discussion was about the future. Not another opportunity for ignorant rants by people who still have their eyes firmly shut after five years as to the real reasons that Bush occupies the White House.
    I am seriously questioning my ability to remain a member of this community after yesterday. I’ve held my tongue in the past about this but yesterday was so ridiculous that I can’t do it anymore.

    • 

      Kamakhya on February 1, 2006 at 10:29 am

      If it makes you feel any better, I checked out the link to the Green Party yesterday thanks to your comments.  While I am still making up my mind about what I want to do in the future, I, for one, am listening to the Greens on this board and considering making a switch in Party affiliation.  Thank you SS.  

    • 

      Man Eegee on February 1, 2006 at 11:14 am

      I hope you don’t leave.

      • 

        Family Man on February 1, 2006 at 11:21 am

        supersoling that’s ditto for me too.

    • 

      on February 1, 2006 at 11:55 am

      You better not leave, dammit. And yeah, I’m sick and fucking tired of being vilified for voting LaDuke/Nader, too, and having people insist that it’s our fault that Gore “lost” when he didn’t even LOSE despite the illegal activities involved in that election.

      I think some folks still just don’t want to face up to the fact that a) GWB was “installed” by his brother and his buddies on the SCOTUS (and the whole country just sat back and let that happen); and b) that, since the passage of “HAVA BushCo”, “votes” and “voters” are irrelevant in this country (and most of the country remains comfortably ensconced in denial over that). Smoke and mirrors.  

      In that sense, yes, after “HAVA BushCo” (2002?), it really doesn’t matter who you “vote” for–may as well write in Mickey Mouse, but that’s not why B*sh was installed: the will of the people was de facto overturned/overrun in 2000 and the s.o.b. was INSTALLED by SCOTUS.

    • 

      Street Kid on February 1, 2006 at 2:36 pm

      Also voted Green in 2000.  And, what people are overlooking is the appointment of gwb as president by the SCOTUS, instead, those who voted 3rd party are being blamed, which is not appreciated!!!

      And here’s another one for everyone who buys into that “blame-the-Greens” nonsense:  I think those who are most at fault for the mess that this country is in are the so-called dem supporters who voted for ray-gun!
      If they had voted dem instead of being suckered by his crap, the country would be in different shape today!

      So, yeah, if anyone fits the above description and is blaming the Green supporters:  LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!

      On that note, I feel that 3rd parties are definitely an alternative!  IMO, the current dems are too complacent, and a change is needed. I’m a history nut (as you can tell by my sig), so it seems to me that the best way to get things changed is to support a 3rd party which is advocates actual change of the more of the present bullshit.  And, if the current crop of dems get hurt because they do not listen and represent their constituents, too damn bad!

      Obviously, supersoling, I don’t want you to leave either!  

    • 

      Dean Pajevic on February 1, 2006 at 2:45 pm

      I don’t know who attacked you, Super Soling.  But it’d never be me….

      now I posted my contempt for how Nader screwed things up in 2000, but that was not a personal slam on YOU!

      I can SEE why people felt compelled to make that vote then and in 2004.

      I just wish, especially in 2000, it hadn’t been so.  But that’s ONLY my opinion — and I fully realize that the PROBLEMS with the 2000 election outcome are infinitely more complex than blaming Nader.

      We love you here.  You may catch some heat sometimes.  But I’ll especially always defend you because you’re going to root for the Seahawks on Sunday and — hell — I’m already besotted with your handsome visage — this only helps!  (Trying to be humorous here, dammit!)

17. 

    Duke1676 on February 1, 2006 at 9:56 am

    I watch last night, but upon watching THIS video I must admit … that’s  the most coherent Bush has ever sounded.  😀

18. 

    sybil on February 1, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    I tried it once and it was awful.