The Associated Press

President Bush addressed Congress for the final time.

Featured Topic | Posted 42 weeks 4 days ago

The State of the Union is ... over. (The speech, we mean.)

The State of the Union is strong, President Bush said in his speech Monday. He refrained from offering up major new initiatives, but praised progress in Iraq -- and offered a hopeful assessment of the economy.

Is the union as strong as Bush suggested? And will he be able to get anything done during his remaining year in office?

Read More

BEN LIKES: Final thoughts on the final Bush State of the Union

Ed Morrissey/Captain's Quarters

It didn't move me much. He had his moments; his slam on earmarks was much appreciated, even if he didn't take the action we wanted. It's a huge improvement over where we were at just two years ago on the subject. His promise to veto any new taxes also satisfied me. The recitation of the success in Iraq was, I thought, particularly effective. However, most of the rest of the speech seemed boilerplate and rote.

Read More

JOEL LIKES: The sorry State of the Union

John Nichols/The Nation

Even in the face of the humiliation that is a 31 percent approval rating, the president could not muster the humility that might have engendered sympathy.

Instead, he steadfastly stuck by a failed agenda. Yes, there were minor bows to reality, highlighted by his recent recognition that some redistribution of the wealth will be required to slow the arrival of a scorching recession until after this year's elections.

But even as he promoted the economic stimulus package that his aides and congressional leaders had cobbled together, Bush refused to make the most basic connections with regard to the crisis he has created.

Read More

Where do you stand on this issue?

Click on the graph to cast your vote.
average
vote
your vote
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Thoughts

Why they call him "King George"

Submitted on January 29th, 2008 by Monkey RobbL

I don't think I could criticize the speech more effectively than this blog entry from the Ron Paul campaign:

I think the only thing I can say to sum-up Bush’s last State of the Union address is that it shows that Bush’s philosophy of government is the inverse opposite of the Constitution. According to the Constitution, power and authority flow from the people and the State to the federal government. But Bush’s key word of the night, repeated ad nauseam, was “empower” — as in, the federal government will empower the people. But the federal government has no authority to empower the people (or the states). The power is supposed to be in the people to begin with.

To Bush, power and authority flow down from the central government, and dispensing such power, the act of “empowerment,” is a gift given by Washington, D.C. Terrible! But you couldn’t ask for a better illustration of why we need Ron Paul right now. We need to return to the Constitution, not this anti-Constitution theory of central power.

A speech divided?

Submitted on January 29th, 2008 by Ben

Scott Johnson was disappointed with the speech, too. "In year seven of the war against the United States, however, President Bush did not even name the enemy."

Johnson is right. Go back and look at the speech. You will find mentions of "the enemy" and references, however vague, to the enemy's goals. But few if any specifics.

Johnson's most devastating critique comes with his reading of Bush on Iran. "To borrow the formulation of the first President Bush: 'Message: I have thrown in the towel.'"

I just hearing any resolute talk from this president on the war. Some of the candidates seeking his office can barely manage that much.

I like Richardson as a Clinton VP

Submitted on January 29th, 2008 by Joel

He's got his problems, but he's got foreign policy bona fides -- and, politics aside, he's somebody I would feel comfortable being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Hillary's running mate?

Submitted on January 29th, 2008 by Jim Lakely

As I posted previously:

... Hillary needs a quiet, lazy hound to nap under the White House porch while she and Bill run the country. Cuddly Bill Richardson fits the bill nicely (and helps secure the more swingy Hispanic vote).

For more pithy insight, read the whole thing. I'd be interested in your comments.

Good call, Jim. I would have

Submitted on January 29th, 2008 by bcsfamily

Good call, Jim. I would have thought Warner or Bayh would be obvious VP targets, but if Obama gets the nod, a Hoosier like Bayh probably won't be tapped by a neighbor from Illinois.

But Obama is not likely to get the nomination. He's run a spectacular campaign against long odds, but we've seen in recent weeks that the Clintons will do anything (conjure tears and shamelessly tag Obama as a Jesse Jackson retread as a code to white voters) to get elected.

So who do you see Hillary turning to (assuming a Clinton-Obama ticket is now unlikely)?

Kanas rumbles after the speech

Submitted on January 28th, 2008 by Jim Lakely

I didn't watch tonight. Will catch up later. But here's a nugget from NRO's The Corner, which should interest Joel and other Kansans:

Meet the Veep [Mark R. Levin]

Russert on NBC promoting one of his apparent friends, governor of Kansas, as possible vice presidential candidate. Oy.

Oy, indeed. It will be Mark Warner (if Obama gets the nod). Mark my words.

Join the Debate

Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!

User login

login

Ads by Google