Comments on: State of the Union Coming Up

By: CStanley

CStanley — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:13:25 +0000

The state of the union is a bitter divide. It occurs to me that if Bush can strike the right chord, he might try acknowledging that and also acknowledging his own part in it. If done properly, it might actually boost the morale of the country and begin the healing process.

By: jjc

jjc — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:00:33 +0000

Grognard, I think you’ve hit on a suggestion W might actually consider, in view of how the ’06 elections went and how W reacted.

Firing Rove would at least make a splash.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:53:10 +0000

Who the hell cares what windbag Noonan says any more? Could anyone be as consistently wrong while sucking up to the biggest crooks around? She lauds the “not fully recognized triumph of the U.S. economy, a jobs-making, wealth-making dynamo.”

Right, if you’re in her income bracket and don’t care about your kids. The credit card Republicans and their “haves and have mores” base don’t care at all that we’ll be paying for decades for this faux prosperity, if in fact we ever recover.

Just for perspective, if you start counting out $100 bills as fast as you can 24/7, you’ll have the national debt paid off in 3,000 years !

By: Ryan H

Ryan H — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:39:58 +0000

Bush should use the State of the Union to bring the country together… as much as possible that is.

I think it’s way past the point where Bush has the credibility to bring the country together. As others have stated, despite his words about bi-partisanship there has been little (if any) action to back up those words. Instead, bi-partisanship at the moment seems to involve both sides pretending that the President isn’t there and then coming to their own decisions.

As examples of current bi-partisanship, look at the fact that numerous Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats on their 100 hour agenda. Similarly, Democrats have thus far mostly avoided polarizing issues such as abortion, gun control, etc. There are of course individuals on both sides that continue to demonize each other, but at least for the moment it seems that the majorities within each party are making efforts to find common ground and work from there. Given that development, whether Bush calls for bi-partisanship or hurls insults at his opponents during the State of the Union address becomes irrelevant; the majority of people just aren’t listening to him anymore.

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:31:15 +0000

Michael,

Any article that calls the economy under Bush an amazing wealth making dynamo and doesn’t understand why the majority of the population doesn’t care since they’re not seeing the wealth isn’t really worth paying attention to. In addition for the majority of the time this Administration has been in office she has been one of its cheerleaders.

By: BeYourGuest

BeYourGuest — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:47:40 +0000

Itâ€™s been an era of soft thinking and hard words.

Peggy Noonan slips into the passive grammatical voice to blame society for her own offenses.

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:27:31 +0000

Grognard- To Bush, bipartisanship has always meant Democrats coming around to his way of thinking, not the other way around. That’s why he always trots out Joe Lieberman, when he wants to show that his foreign policies have bipartisan support.

By: grognard

grognard — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:19:07 +0000

With Rove still around any attempt at bi-partisanship will be viewed with a great degree of sceptisism, If he truly would want to show a political correction firing Rove would go a long way to show he means it in action as well as words.

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:51:07 +0000

Tax cuts for the investor class that built their fortunes on them. The rest of us should just stop whining about their hero.

By: James Gary

James Gary — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:42:07 +0000

“What the left should try to remember, firstly, is that Bush has not been a complete and utter failure. Some of his policies went horribly wrong, obviously, such as the Iraq war, but there were also successes…”

Name ONE.

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:35:07 +0000

Gee didn’t the last SOTU promise to end America’s addiction to foreign oil? Two days later the administration met with the Saudis to reassure them that we’d still be their best customer. For most Americans it will be a big yawn, not an opportunity to unite the country in our common goals. We will have to wait until ’08 to try for that.

By: CharlesJordan

CharlesJordan — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:40:56 +0000

Amen Gray, I didn’t read the article and I sure ain’t gonna listen to the State of the Union Adrress. It’s all going to be a bunch of baloney anyway. What he says he’s going to do and what he actually does just don’t match up.

By: Gray

Gray — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:03:07 +0000

“State of the Union Coming Up”

No, I didn’t read this lengthy article, Michael. Because nobody cares about the sotu anymore, so why should I? The importance of these presidential speeches was nicely rounded up by a reporter who reported that at the last sotu he didn’t dare to ask the folks in the bar for switching from a baseball play to the live transmission from the WH. He chose to watch it as streaming video on the computer in the bar’s office instead. So, for ordinary people Bush’s rants aren’t worth the effort of switching the channel. Only hardcore followers and people reporting about the speech go to the length of exposing themselves to that right wing propaganda series anymore.