Quick impressions on the State of the Union Address

[greybeta]

As always, I am fascinated by the pomp and circumstance that is given to the President of the United States. Even if that office is occupied by the village idiot.

wldntulk2knwwho observed that starting off honoring Coretta Scott King was an ingenious move. If there were any thoughts of protest at the beginning of Bush's speech, they were quickly nixed by the acknowledgement.

I thought there was an early Bushism when he talked about "isolationism and protectionism", but feanor16 pointed out that Bush actually used protectionism correctly. I'd like to meet Bush's brilliant speechwriting team someday.

Bush kind of implied that the war on terror was a war on tyranny. Does that mean we have to fight ourselves now?

Oh, and Mr. President, I hear ethanol is not exactly the best alternative fuel source. Besides, you're a big oil man. What real incentive do you have for getting America off oil?

And apparently, we should start wars in Iran and North Korea. I mean, over half the world's population lives in a democracy. Although, one sixth of the world's population lives in a certain Asian country that is now threatening our hold on oil.

Nix stem cell research because life is precious, sanctified by our Creator. Is that so? I wonder what Bush would say about capital punishment in his home state of Texas.

And now we're going to try to spy on international calls? Wow, we're giving up a lot of freedoms to ensure our security. I'd have to say it's almost like we're not free at all. I guess that's they meant when they said America is a land of limited liberties.

A nod to Roberts and Alito. The Supreme Court shall remain conservative for at least another decade, though it remains to be seen if Roe v. Wade will be overturned. The gay marriage issue will probably come up as well.

Overall, Bush played it safe. With midterm elections coming up in a few months, he hit on what he thought he would be able to push through for his Congress buddies.

I found it fascinating that the Democrats chose the Governor of Virginia to give the Democratic Response. I fully expected Reid or Pelosi to give it, but I suppose even they want to avoid saying too much with midterm elections on the horizon. So the Dems played it safe, too.

Funny, why is it when Washington starts to play it safe, I feel unsafe?

Comments

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

Bush kind of implied that the war on terror was a war on tyranny. Does that mean we have to fight ourselves now?


I'm guessing this statement was made with tongue firmly implanted in cheek ;)

Or do you honestly think that the government of the United States is a tyranny?

And apparently, we should start wars in Iran and North Korea.

Well, they are part of the Axis of Evil :)

I haven't heard anyone in the administration recommend military action in either of these cases. They seem to want to give diplomacy a chance, which is a very wise move. Or perhaps we are waiting for Israel to strike Iran for us...

Nix stem cell research because life is precious, sanctified by our Creator.

I missed the speech - did he actually call for outlawing stem cell research?

See, the thing I don't get about the stem cell research debate is that Bush has cut government funding. It isn't illegal. The government just won't provide money for research. If stem cell research is the Holy Grail it is made out to be, then private investors can pump as much money as they'd like into research.

I found it fascinating that the Democrats chose the Governor of Virginia to give the Democratic Response

I, too, was surprised that they chose the new governor of the Commonwealth. If they wanted a governor from the Commonwealth, they should have chosen his predecessor, who supposedly has aspirations to become President.

They probably stayed away from polarizing figures like Pelosi, Reid, or Clinton because they wanted a more moderate response to the address.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Or do you honestly think that the government of the United States is a tyranny?
Ask Hamas.

I missed the speech - did he actually call for outlawing stem cell research?
And I quote, "A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale."

They probably stayed away from polarizing figures like Pelosi, Reid, or Clinton because they wanted a more moderate response to the address.
I dunno, I found the response rather weak for some reason.

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

Ask Hamas.

Honestly, I could care less what a terrorist organization thinks about the United States. I'm sure Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, and any number of other terrorist organizations would consider us evil and tyrranical.

But I wasn't asking Hamas. I was asking you ;)

human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale

This would seem open to interpretation. He isn't explicitly calling for the outlaw of stem cell research. And one could argue that embryos at fertility centers wouldn't fall into this category because they weren't created or implanted for experiments.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

But I wasn't asking Hamas. I was asking you.
My answer is this: Ask President Bush. Then ask Hamas. My answer lies somewhere in between those two answers.

This would seem open to interpretation. He isn't explicitly calling for the outlaw of stem cell research. And one could argue that embryos at fertility centers wouldn't fall into this category because they weren't created or implanted for experiments.
I guess it does give Bush wiggle room against the Far Right. And yet I can't shake the feeling he will not support stem cell research.

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

A tyrant is a "cruel despot who places their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population of the state over which they govern."

Bush is a cruel despot? Places his own interest over the general population? I really think that is reaching.

And yet I can't shake the feeling he will not support stem cell research.

What would give you that idea? That he has repeatedly - and emphatically - stated he will veto any legislation funding embryonic stem cell research? ;)

Like I said earlier, there is a misconception here: restricting federal funding != outlawing the research. If embryonic stem cell research will find cures for all of the world's ills, then they should be awash in money from venture capitalists and other private funding. That is not the case, so obviously the private sector also questions the viability of the claims of Nancy Reagan, Michael J. Fox, and supporters of the research.

Not speaking as opposition or advocate here - just thinking from an impartial point of view.