This State of the Union Address
(The Rules of Engagement.)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in The White House — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The State of the Union. Do you remember this one? In 1986, things were not all wine and roses, and the loss of the crew of The Challenger springs to mind, but we were given this:
I have come to review with you the progress of our nation, to speak of unfinished work, and to set our sights on the future. I am pleased to report the state of our Union is stronger than a year ago and growing stronger each day. Tonight we look out on a rising America, firm of heart, united in spirit, powerful in pride and patriotism. America is on the move! But it wasn't long ago that we looked out on a different land: locked factory gates, long gasoline lines, intolerable prices, and interest rates turning the greatest country on Earth into a land of broken dreams. Government growing beyond our consent had become a lumbering giant, slamming shut the gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom.
Twenty-one years later, by all accounts, this Republican President will promise us a government growing beyond our consent and becoming a lumbering giant, slamming gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom. Why? Is it Karl Rove who thinks that the President should tell us about his version of socialized medicine? We're at war, Karl. You are not in control.
Abroad, we could lose the only war which matters right now: the war on terror. Iraq is a part of that war, in manifold ways, and we could lose that and all that connects with it. Tell me about this, Mr. President. Be dramatic, not apologetic or seemingly caught in the glare of the enemy's spotlight. What are the stakes?
Read More...
Domestically, Congress is controlled by those who would spit on President Reagan's grave, who would fashion a lumbering monster which would make both Mary Shelley and Boris Karloff blush. The gates of opportunity would be slammed shut, the very roots of our freedom saturated with the pesticides of power. Tell me about this, Mr. President.
The state of the nation is good. The Democrats and their allies in the media are spreading the message of malaise, like Jimmy Carter except without the actual sick feeling of unease. This one is a broadcast malaise, the product on media conditioning. Is is one with no basis in fact. Tell me about this, Mr. President.
Or don't. It is your Presidency to lose. It will take more than a speech to cause us to win or lose the rest, of course, and tell us about this, Mr. President.
The situation calls for a defiance of the doctrines of "prevailing wisdom" and "known facts." It calls for a no nonsense paradigm, which can begin here. We are the United States, Mr. President. You are the President of the United States. You can change the rules of engagement for our troops in Iraq to let them do their jobs. Change your own rules of engagement, Mr. President, and do yours.
Do you get it? I want a President who can look at the political forces arrayed against him in this country and in the world and with resolution say: "As of now, and for the next two years, I am in control here in the White House." Teddy Kennedy and Chuck Hagel are United States Senators and they should act like what they are, not like what they wish they could be. As important as these ladies and gentlemen are, this President has a war to conduct and a nation to lead through its prosperity and to defend.
Tell us about that, Mr. President. Digging up the second President Roosevelt can only distract. This speech had better be about the state of our nation.
« McClellan Originally Wanted to Attack Media, Defend Bush — Comments (5) | The State of the Bush Administration — Comments (0) »
This State of the Union Address 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Except for desiring victory in the war on terror, George W. Bush is beginning to oppose everything Reagan stood for.
How in the world did we get here?
as did the Republican majority in the Clinton years, of being an "aginner," countering the Democrat "big government" agenda. Once GWB was in office and we had both bodies, we had neither the ideas nor political capital to reduce the government and instead just substituted Republican "big government." There is relentless pressure from the media and interest groups for the government to "do something," and when it does, government gets bigger and spending goes up. We Republicans/Conservatives have never been successful in articulating a specific message that government just should not do some things and people should look first to themselves and their state and local governments before seeking a federal solution to everything.
In Vino Veritas
To do everything you have described, but he has to do a better job of explaining why. Iraq may be a lost cause, but the war on terror does not need to be. First we need to fund the war in Afghanistan and really take out the Taliban. Second, we need to adopt pay go as we did during the more reasoned times of American history. Finally,we need to ask all Americans to make a sacrifice for programs we believe in and to end this travesty where the only ones actually sacrificing are our Ameircan troops. We need to increase the size and equipment for the military. The war on terron is a long term project, we cannot pay for it by pushing the costs on future generations and hope the rest of the world picks up the tab.
Nonsense. All that term means is the government doesn't have the gumption to refund what is rightfully ours. It is a conditioned response that tax cuts are evil when in reality they do a lot better work at keeping money that would otherwise be sheltered thrust back into the economy to create more wealth.
Besides, since when did that amount to not spending more money on further failed social programs? The budget has continued to rise forever despite "paygo" and other nonsensical budget restraint programs (Gramm Rudman anyone?).
never has never will. I lived in TX from 1990 to 2002 and GWB did a fine job as Gov. As I feel he is doing on many issues as POTUS. But he NEVER defended himself or his policies to his critics, NEVER. There is nothing that makes me feel he will tonight. But he should.
It is just not him or his administration that takes it on the chin, it is all of us that get hit. We are the ones that have to fight many of the battles he should have already have taken care of. Does he not relize that although we do not always agree with him that we want to fight for him.
It is just hard to fight for someone who woll not stand up and fight for himself
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
But right now, he doesn't look much better than either Gore or that teasonous sob Kerry.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
From what has been leakning out Bush is going to again attempt to concentrate on Domestic issues and worse attempt to meet the Dems in the middle. (yeah the same dems that have been savaging him for 6yrs not on principle with contrary ideas but on the pure goal of destroying Bush). The WOT is what people are worried about not thier HMO's, the WOT is what is important and unless we finish it ALL THE WAY everything before now was just a waste of time effort blood and money.
This link is to Liz Cheney not sure if that is Cheney's wife or daughter but either way she lays it out in very clear Points in LAYMANS terms and in the process hits hard at the pansies and thier idiocey at best or outright Sedtion at worste.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR200701...
Its worth the read well said by her. I just wish Bush had adequate speeking rallying skills we would be a sight better and the pansies would still be like right after 9-11 to scared to say to much.
...not that this President doesn't have grand dreams for our country, but that he cannot articulate them in a manner that can sway the American public.