"The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." - Article II, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution
There is actually a proud history of these annual messages that began with President George Washington in 1790. President Bush delivered his State of the Union address tonight. The President's annual address gives the President an opportunity to reflect on the past while presenting his hopes for the future to Congress, the American people and the world. One of the more interesting as
pects of the evening is the roster of folks invited to sit with the First Lady in the upper balcony.
Bush talked for a little over 50 minutes and shared about a dozen or so initiatives on things such as the budget, compassion, economy, education, energy, free trade, health care, immigration, Iraq war and our veterans.
Here is full text of his speech given tonight. Did you watch it? If so, what did you find the most memorable point of the evening?
There is actually a proud history of these annual messages that began with President George Washington in 1790. President Bush delivered his State of the Union address tonight. The President's annual address gives the President an opportunity to reflect on the past while presenting his hopes for the future to Congress, the American people and the world. One of the more interesting as
pects of the evening is the roster of folks invited to sit with the First Lady in the upper balcony.Bush talked for a little over 50 minutes and shared about a dozen or so initiatives on things such as the budget, compassion, economy, education, energy, free trade, health care, immigration, Iraq war and our veterans.
Here is full text of his speech given tonight. Did you watch it? If so, what did you find the most memorable point of the evening?
12 comments:
Check out People Power Granny and see my take on the State of the Union Address tonight. You can also vote in my poll.
It is so hard to listen to Elmer speak which is why I rather read the transcripts.
Based upon what I tried to listen to, it was more like watching a Political Tantrum scream "I AM STILL RELEVANT!". If you watched the body language, people were looking at their watches, yawning, eyes were dropping.... it was a mess.
LAME and DUCK all the way.
The most memorable part? Easy... when it was over and that it was his last State of the Union address.
Granny - I'll try to find your poll this morning. You didn't leave an URL or other directions to it.
Shazza Nakim - I agree with your assessment of the SOTU speech. It was much ado about nothing. Mostly just repeats of old news and stale ideas. However, I did think that the idea of allowing the GI Bill (educational benefits for veterans) to be passed along to their spouse or children was a good idea. I hope that one finds it way into law.
Kat - Yes, 356 more days of Prez Bush before we move on to more exciting leadership ... perhaps leadership that we can be proud of again.
I’m wondering why so many senators and congressmen were asking for his autograph as he walked down the aisle; don’t they have access to the president occasionally?
Ed - I noticed that as well. I thought it was odd at first. However, this is going to be the last SOTU with George Bush. Perhaps there is some sentimental value associated with getting his autograph on this particular speech as compared to the other 7 that Bush made...
It should of been subtitled the most challenging 55 minutes of prime time viewing!
He just is not an interesting speaker at all
What is most memorable is the expressions and actions of the listening audience.
Pelosi had an expression on her face during his first attack on the Dems that was priceless! It came across as oh hell no, you did not go there! Then she realized the camera was on her and she started smiling like a Colgate model.
Republicans up and the Democrats down was another moment.
Obama's fingers pressed to his lips while Bush discussed how he wanted universal health care.
Someone was caught yawning.
Someone else was caught looking like they were asleep. But I suspect that he was reading. Maybe..
Overall the SOTU was basically a speech filled with the rhetoric that has come to be known as the Bush Administration.
I noticed that he was threatening to veto quite a bit. That is nothing new. He has done this quite a bit. Yes would be a nice change.
The war wages on while New Orleans lies in shambles. Even though there is going to be a conference there~what about the displaced people of the city? Is sponsoring a big meeting there supposed to override that aspect of reality?
Universal Health Care would be nice~hopefully the bipartisan group will be able to override the veto on SCHIP and pass it.
Now the feddies have to tighten up their belts. Please! This was truly an insult to all people. The money is being used to make money for the war machine and its suppliers.
And now that there is a huge national deficit in the budget, the feddies need to stop spending. Shouldn't that have happened first? Isn't this the man who was ranting about government spending? How much has been spent waging war? And why does the United States Government owe billions of dollars to China?
I am not an econ major but, the rebate check idea is really not that great. In capitalist theory money is supposed to make money. I feel like he is handing dollars to taxpayers to help make money for business and that is it. He politely removed himself from blame on this subject. But the economy has been bad for awhile.
Overall it received a C-. And that may be too generous.
Lady D - Were you a Poli-Sci major? You gave an excellent review of the SOTU-2008! I agree with your assessment of the rhetoric.
Did you see him signing autographs at the end? What was that all about?
You know I watched it.
Pelosi and Reid had spoken to Bush prior to the SOTU and urged him to speak on unity which he did in three sentences and then turned around and bashed the Democrats by bringing up proposals that they are fighting against. Such as FISA, more WAR funding, school vouchers, and the like.
I cannot stand his smirks, they say volumes. I found it most troubling when he mentioned Darfur he gave the worst smirk, a wink and a head nod.
You know I'm the "radical" so I was disappointed when my man opted not to file an impeachment resolution for the dishonorable President. The Center for Public Integrity released a report detailing that this administration lied over 900 times in the lead up to the Iraq War.
Politicans are throwing around rebuilding America's moral authority in the world, if we are going to rebuild anything we need accountability.
How much more are we to endure with warrantless wiretapping, billions of dollars awol, signing statements that devalue the laws that are past, Katrina, Iraq, the Taliban buildup in Pakistan because we went into Iraq, phony bin laden tapes according to the FBI itself, and God only knows what else.
Impeachment is not only about getting public servants out of office, it is about accountability first and foremost. Only in impeachment trials the executive privilege cannot be used. Bush is notorious for abusing that privilege.
I saw the email from the New York branch of NOW, I was bashed alongside Ted Kennedy regarding his endorsement of Obama. I guess for NOW it's all about SEX.
One more note on the SOTU, what was with the HOORAH and the ridiculous clapping of the Republicans.
The autographs are on the program of the State of the Union address. A historical memento collected by many members.
Much Love
Danielle - thanx for sharing your insights. I know you are disappointed about the fact that we won't have an impeachment. However, I imagine that the lame duck status of Bush is part of the equation. Along with the fact it would take more than the 350 days that Bush still has in office.
Anyhow, I'm glad to see that you are back in the blogging mix!
My dear friend,
I must correct you. The impeachment process doesn't take that long.
It took 21 days to impeach Clinton.
The Senate most likely would acquit Bush as they did Clinton but it's the truth I want.
I looked up the term lame duck and this is what I got:
"Lame duck officials are in the peculiar position of not facing the consequences of their actions in the next election, meaning they are generally considered not accountable for their actions.
They also tend to have less political power as other elected officials see less advantage in cooperating with them.
On the other hand, lame duck executives, particularly Presidents of the United States, are notorious for issuing a series of executive orders or making appointments during their last days that they would not otherwise have made if it would have influenced the vote against them." from wikipedia
The problem with dismissing Bush as a lame duck is the Congress continues to compromise and promises more bipartisian dealings which means he is still "the decider".
His power is not lessened one iota, unfortunately.
Danielle - Thanks for the insights on 'lame duck'.
re: impeachment. The actual trial may only take 21 days. However, the entire process leading up to the trial (selection of defense and prosecution; detailing of the articles of impeachment) would likely take much longer. Not to mention the effort necessary to get public awareness and support of such an effort.
In any case, I agree with you that going after the truth ... especially one that lied to us 900+ times in the months leading up to the declaration of war in Iraq ... is direction we should all seek.
Post a Comment