President Bush impressed me the most with his strong comments on protecting the country from terrorism. I was most surprised by his rather extensive comments on oil independence. And, I wasn’t satisfied with his plans for dealing with illegal immigration and health care, two areas that really concern me. His delivery was very good however.

I think the Democrats were smart in their choice of a relative unknown and low-key Democrat to deliver their response. Better that than their usual spokespersons. I doubt most people will remember him or what he said a few weeks from now…actually a pretty good strategy for a party that has imprinted the rants of their “stars” on our brains.

Cindy Sheehan is a wreck. You’d think she’d at least wash her hair for such an event.

Left by dianne on February 1st, 2006 at 8:31 am

full article | source | login or register to post comments | read more

Left by austinsnews.net | Calibrating for hype on February 1st, 2006 at 8:39 am

Just curious, why on earth are you linking to Michael Crook? Have you taken up the ‘Forsake the Troops’ banner recently?

Left by Preston on February 1st, 2006 at 11:20 am

Damn. I wasn’t paying attention for shit when I linked that post. My only defense is idiocy.

I must go bathe now. I feel dirty.

Left by Robbie on February 1st, 2006 at 12:30 pm

It looks like you’re in the minority among conservatives getting excited about this speech….

Left by Preston on February 1st, 2006 at 4:34 pm

I enjoyed the speech. Quite a bit. But then again, I always enjoy listening to the President of the United States address the nation — I always enjoyed President Clinton’s speeches too.

Did I agree with everything that President Bush said last night? No. Not strong enough on border security, not strong enough on lobby reform to root out and prevent corruption; all that money that he wants to save us on the tax breaks? Wants to give it all back in other social programs.

But all in all, I liked the tone…especially on the war in Iraq, and his message to Iran. Those are two of the issues most important to me, and I heard what I hoped to hear.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your info as far as most conservatives not being excited, though…

According to this gallup poll, 78 percent of Americans thought the President’s SOTU was positive.

Left by Robbie on February 1st, 2006 at 8:29 pm

What the hell? He didn’t ‘mean’ the pledge to reduce Mid East petroleum imports? How long did that last- 8 hours?

Add that to the security admiting it screwed up by forcing Sheehan and the other woman with a ’support the troops’ t-shirt to leave.

Left by Preston on February 1st, 2006 at 9:43 pm

Preston…at least security made a bi-partisan screw-up.

Regarding energy independence, what would you suggest the President do? Tell everybody to start chopping wood and buy bicycles? Surely this is one issue that can be worked out on a bipartisan basis and that’s what he called for.

Last night I met some friends I hadn’t seen for a long time .. some pretty hard line democrats and equally hard line republicans and I can tell you we are all fed up with the whole damn bunch of our “representatives” in D.C. They better start listening to the people or they will ALL be looking for new jobs.

Left by dianne on February 2nd, 2006 at 7:57 am

I just had to share this story on one immigrant’s plight to become a citizen. If you have a little time to burn, read it. I wish our political leaders would. We allow millions of people to run across our borders and do nothing about it, while people like this guy who could make a real contribution to our country cannot become a citizen because he does not meet the requirements of our “wonderful” broken system.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=101905B

Left by dianne on February 2nd, 2006 at 9:07 am

Dianne- just so we’re on the same page my comment was about Bush’s reversal of his SOTU pledge to reduce Mid-East petroleum imports.
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18022721%255E912,00.html

What would I do? Well, on about September 14, 2001, or so, I would have put some serious money into exploring energy independence. Coming 4 years late this proposal seems to be about as monumental as his proposal to go to Mars several years ago.

Surely this is one issue that can be worked out on a bipartisan basis and that’s what he called for.
Dianne…. there is no bi-partisanship in Washington. In Congress, the GOP has restructured the legislative process to keep Democrats off of the conferences reconciling Senate and House bills. The resulting bill is voted up or down with no amendments.

Of course this could have been worked out in a bipartisan manner but the President made it clear from his first inaugural address that wasn’t the way he works.

If the President had come out after September 11 and said we need to reduce oil imports- let’s raise CAFE standards, invest in energy independence, and drill more oil domestically- including the Arctic Wildlife Refuge- people on both sides of the aisle would have recognized the need for sacrifice.

But to start the conversation with just attacking the environment revealed a lack of seriousness on the issue.

Left by Preston on February 2nd, 2006 at 9:50 am

Dianne- it seems to me that the easy way to reduce illegal immigration is to increase legal immigration.

Left by Preston on February 2nd, 2006 at 9:51 am

Dang- it just keeps coming.

From the New York Times:
The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

The budget for the laboratory, which is just west of Denver, was cut by nearly 15 percent, to $174 million from $202 million, requiring the layoff of about 40 staff members out of a total of 930, said a spokesman, George Douglas. The cut is for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1.

Left by Preston on February 2nd, 2006 at 9:57 am

Give me a break Preston. Energy has been a concern as long as I remember. In fact, I bought a solar house during the Carter administration when huge credits were being given to solar house builders. Problem was, it was a freaking disaster because it didn’t work and the builders threw something together so they could get their government incentives. I could go on and on about what happened, but suffice it to say millions of dollars all over the country went down the drain because of the way this was handled and the government actually had a program of millions (maybe billions) more dollars to refit (or whatever they call it) these houses back to natural gas, oil or whatever was available for the homeowner. I know because mine was one of them. Tax dollars paid to rip out the solar panels and replace the roof, install a gas line, properly insulate the house, etc. I can only imagine what that cost. This is neither a Bush nor Republican problem. It’s a failure of government on both sides of the aisle.

Left by dianne on February 2nd, 2006 at 7:48 pm

I would argue with that description of the solar panel tax credits.

Tax credits can be a good tool to push nascent industries but there is also the danger that those industries use the credits as a crutch and collapse when the crutch is removed.

People stopped building solar heated houses- not because they didn’t work- but because the cost of oil fell by 2/3 and the tax credit ended.

Solar panels, indeed, were not particularly efficient in the 1970’s but the tax credits pushed the industry to advance.

In any case, are you seriously arguing that we’ve had an energy policy since 1980 that has focused on reducing US energy imports? I find it incredible that you might think so. Gas taxes and BTU taxes that could encourage conservation are political poison. Alternative energy tax credits ended in the Reagan administration for the most part.

Face it, our government would rather spend money for the US military to protect petroleum supply lines than to foster independence. Perhaps that’s a valid choice in some people’s minds- but you have to recognize that has been our choice.

Left by Preston on February 3rd, 2006 at 11:46 am

Preston..
I’m not arguing that we’ve had an energy policy. I am simply saying that the attempts that have been made have been poorly handled, costly and they didn’t work no matter which side of the aisle was in power. Solar was the big push in the 70’s and it failed, not just due to the price of oil becoming so cheap but because the government did not set up a good program for solar, nor did they have oversight of the program at the grass root level (the builder/house). They dished out the money and did no follow-up. After there were failures all over the country, the government acknowledged the problem and this time they dished out money to the homeowners who were stuck with homes that were practically uninhabitable. I remember getting electric billls of $500-700 per month and we were cold. This was in Kansas, not Alaska. I contacted one of our Congressmen who had some fantastic connection in D.C. and within days Boeing was sent to our house, spent hours assessing it and declared it a disaster on the spot. Boeing told us this was happening all over the country. It didn’t matter what type of system, hot water or river rock, it didn’t work. That was 30 years ago. I’m not saying it couldn’t work now if properly handled.

I’d be crazy if I didn’t want a REAL energy policy in this country. Of course I do, but it looks to me like we’re going to have to be brought to our knees before our great representatives in Congress can be civil to each other long enough to come up with one! And that means both sides of the aisle.

Left by dianne on February 4th, 2006 at 9:41 am