State of the Union 2007

[Back]

What did you think?

[Jenisi]

I like that he's been wearing a lot of blue ties lately... Since around... oh early November. And we have to stay the course (duh)

[Back]

I like that he's been wearing a lot of blue ties lately... Since around... oh early November. And we have to stay the course (duh)

Ok, politically and fashionably aware... what did you think of Pelosi’s out fit? First Madam Speaker.

[TheEschaton]

Didn't see it. House meeting where I was getting chewed a new asshole for being in law school and not "being present" to my roommates.

Living with women, geez...

-TheE-

[Back]

The PETA State of the Union Undress was pulled from this topic. Though I am not sure why. The link had an age confirmation.

Interesting new strategy on PETA’s part.

[Jenisi]

I pulled it myself on personal choice. If you want to repost it, go ahead.

[Back]

I pulled it myself on personal choice. If you want to repost it, go ahead.

There is enough information for people to find it themselves.

Thanks for the heads up.

[ElanthianSiren]

It looked like a good amount of posturing to me (on both Congress and the President's part) and Bush rehashing things he's already tried to sell to Congress before. :shrug:

It's either going to be a very interesting two years or very boring two years in gridlock.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Only Backlash and Jenisi could take the State of the Union topic into PETA and fashion sense within the first 3 posts.

I think it was one of his better speeches, although I think he's trying too hard to get Congress together.. especially with his piss poor attempt at immigration "reform".

[Gan]

Watched it on C-SPAN. It was nice being able to sit through it without all the commentary.

I forsee some real challenges ahead between Congress and the White House.

[Back]

The democratic party response delivered by Jim Webb.


The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable — and predicted — disarray that has followed.

The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves “as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.” And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally the democratic party is telling it like it is.

[Gan]

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves “as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.” And he did something about it.

LOL @ the old rhetoric firing up the 'poor' people in America. And how does this relate specifically to the SOU address? Is this the Democrat response to balancing the budget? Is this the Democrat response to Bush's proposed Healthcare plans? Or was this just rhetoric filler?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Jesuit]

And that's all they ever do is talk.


The five-day workweek, an idea alien to congressional culture in recent years, is about to make a comeback. "We are going to work longer hours, we are going to work full weeks, we are going to have votes on Mondays and Fridays," new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., advised his colleagues at the opening of the new session on Jan. 4.

Other Americans, from teachers to police officers to factory workers, put in five days a week on the job, Reid said. "Shouldn't we here in Washington, where we do our business in this laboratory we call the Senate, do the same?"

Old habits, of course, are not that easy to kick. The Senate was off the next day, a Friday.

The House under new Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., also is committed to working longer hours. But the chamber was not in session last Monday, when some members attended the national college football championship game in Arizona. This Monday, Congress is closed for the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

There also are the occasional interruptions, such as the Republican retreat that will shut down the House on a Thursday and Friday later this month. House Democrats hold their retreat the following week, making two three-day work weeks in a row.

First votes following a weekend are being scheduled late in the afternoon or evening, effectively making the first day of the work week a travel day for many lawmakers.

Nonetheless, the burst of activity is reminiscent of when House Republicans took over in 1995 after the GOP had spent 40 years in the minority. It is a radical break from the recent practice of convening a new session in early January and then immediately taking off until the president's State of the Union address at the end of the month.

Under GOP leadership, the House fell into a pattern where no votes were scheduled until 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday and the last votes were on Thursday afternoon. That way, lawmakers could leave the Capitol on Thursday evening and not return until the following Tuesday.

Republicans argued that their new breed of citizen legislators should spend more time with their families and constituents back home. The abbreviated schedule also made life easier for lawmakers living in California and Hawaii and gave lawmakers more time for fundraising.

The Senate has tended to work somewhat longer hours. But both chambers grew accustomed to lengthy "district work periods," when Congress is in recess.

In 2006, besides being off in January, lawmakers were off a week or more for President's Day in February, St. Patrick's Day in March, Easter in April, Memorial Day in May and Independence Day in July. Then they took off six weeks in August and a month off before the November elections.

According to the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md, the House was in session 102 days last year, fewer than the 110 days of the "do-nothing" Congress when Harry S. Truman was president in 1948.

Congress under Democratic-control still will not be punching the clock for a 9-to-5 schedule.

Hoyer said his plan for most weeks was to hold first votes at 6:30 p.m. on Mondays and work until about 2 p.m. on Fridays. Long holiday recesses may be shortened, he added, although "there is great value to House members being in their districts and talking to their people."

Former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., who retired at the end of the last session after 28 years in the House, said five-day workweeks could be particularly tough on West Coast lawmakers.

Democrats, he predicted, might have to come up with a more structured approach, such as two weeks or three weeks of work in Washington and then a week back in the district.

"I'm anxious to see if it can work," he said of the Democratic plan, noting that he had at times been frustrated by workweeks in which he had "36 hours to get things done."

Fred Beuttler, deputy House historian, said today's lawmakers still put in a lot more time on Capitol Hill than did their predecessors. Until the 1930s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt needed Congress around to enact his New Deal legislation, a Congress elected in November frequently did not convene until December of the following year, 13 months after the election.

Abraham Lincoln had to call Congress into a special session in July 1861 to deal with the secession of the South and witness the routing of the Union Army at the first Battle of Bull Run.

[Gan]

Here's the actual response...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ht8sS91wVo

(no its not a parody, its the response in whole, not abbreviated snippets that others would limit you to see)

[Stanley Burrell]

I haven't watched a State of the Union address since a year or two after "no distinguishment from terrorists and countries that harbor them" and about one thousand recycled "9-11"s and "Nuke-u-lar"s at the podium.

As long as GWB is in an occupational field that allows him to deliver the State of the Union address, I disagree. Period.

This man, for all I care, but especially for all that I don't, can sit in the Oval Office and do 360s on his billion dollar office throne.

[Back]

Here's the actual response...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ht8sS91wVo

(no its not a parody, its the response in whole, not abbreviated snippets that others would limit you to see)

Gan’s right. I thought it was the full transcript but it has been condensed. My bad.

Full transcript here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/23/politics/main2391890.shtml)

[mgoddess]

I haven't watched a State of the Union address since a year or two after "no distinguishment from terrorists and countries that harbor them" and about one thousand recycled "9-11"s and "Nuke-u-lar"s at the podium.

As long as GWB is in an occupational field that allows him to deliver the State of the Union address, I disagree. Period.

This man, for all I care, but especially for all that I don't, can sit in the Oval Office and do 360s on his billion dollar office throne.

I agree with Stan. I haven't watched any of GWB's SOU's since his first one.

BTW, the poll needs to have the additional option of "I didn't watch."

[TheEschaton]

I couldn't watch it last night, and YouTube has seriously disappointed me in posting the whole thing.

-TheE-

[Xaerve]

I think it should have focused more on his plan to do something about the 8 trillion dollar, and growing daily, deficit.

I'm a conservative, but I'm looking forward to a fresh start with anything new in 2008. Its been rough for Bush since 2002. I thought the other day how different his presidency might have been if the neo-conservatives weren't able to rally behind something like 9/11 and control most of it.

[TheEschaton]

It would of been a 4 year vacation for him at Crawford, before he would have been booted for his laziness for anyone else.

-TheE-

[Artha]

We'd probably be taking North Korea a lot more seriously, since there wouldn't be much attention on the Middle East.

[Gan]

I think it should have focused more on his plan to do something about the 8 trillion dollar, and growing daily, deficit.

I'm a conservative, but I'm looking forward to a fresh start with anything new in 2008. Its been rough for Bush since 2002. I thought the other day how different his presidency might have been if the neo-conservatives weren't able to rally behind something like 9/11 and control most of it.

Did you hear this part of the address?




"America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. So next week I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009."

"My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: a taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all."

[Back]

Did you hear this part of the address?

Proposing to clean up the budget after the mess it was left in by the last congress. That would be a novel idea, if the democrats hadn’t already run on that platform and won.

[Gan]

And yet it still made it into the SOU address, which was the question as pointed out by Xaerve.

And the budget is a bone of contention of more than just the democrats. Thats like claiming credit for inventing the internet...

[Sean of the Thread]

Proposing to clean up the budget after the mess it was left in by the last congress. That would be a novel idea, if the democrats hadn’t already run on that platform and won.

My lord you're stupid. You should count to 10 and read your posts a couple times before hitting submit.

[Back]

My lord you're stupid. You should count to 10 and read your posts a couple times before hitting submit.

That helps me how? Explain, oh wise one, where my post went astray.

[Artha]

Didn't the republicans pledge to clean up spending too when they took over congress?

REAL NOVEL IDEA DEMOCRATS GOOD JOB.


edit: My point is that it doesn't matter whose idea it was as long as it GETS DONE.

[Back]

Didn't the republicans pledge to clean up spending too when they took over congress?

REAL NOVEL IDEA DEMOCRATS GOOD JOB.


edit: My point is that it doesn't matter whose idea it was as long as it GETS DONE.

Yep. (A fine job they did BTW)

[Sean of the Thread]

Yep. (A fine job they did BTW)

Yeah the whole national security thing costs money ya know.

[TheEschaton]

National Security = the New Star Wars.

-TheE-

[Rathain]

Yeah the whole national security thing costs money ya know.

... semi-efficaciously spent.

[Artha]

I hope the prequels don't suck.

[DeV]

Didn't watch it. When I want to be spoonfed even more bullshit I might do the honors, but until then, what Stan said.