Last night, President Bush delivered the State of the Union, and Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) offered the Democratic Party’s response. President Bush and Senator Webb had the opportunity with these speeches to usher in real change to Washington and to set the tone for the next two years. Last night’s speeches are a kind of litmus test for the upcoming two years in Washington. Based on the tone and content of last night’s speeches, do you think President Bush and the Republicans are as committed to bipartisanship as the president’s State of the Union presented? Do you think the Democrats will make a concerted effort to reach across the aisle?
- U08 Web Team's blog
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
Blogs
SubscribeRecent blog posts
- It's getting crazy out there!!!
- Why We're Doing This -- Today's News (10/11)
- Why We're Doing This -- Today's News (10/10)
- Your ideas make a difference
- Why We're Doing This -- Today's News (10/9)
- Help Unity08 get on the ballot in Maryland!
- Let’s Turn One Small Step for Oklahoma into a Giant Leap for Ballot Access Reform!
- Bobbie's Story: What we can all do for Unity08
- Want to help? Want a job? Here's How...
- Doug Bailey to be on XM Radio's "P.O.T.U.S. '08"
I noticed that the theme of bi-partisanship and co-operation fell flat with an audience of representatives that lived through six years of compassionate conservatism. This is how politicians lose their support. They hide their true intentions with language and spin instead of telling people what they are doing and why they are doing it.
I say this not to bash Bush. That is to easy to do these days. I point this out because I believe a successful Unity 08 candidate will need to be candid in order to meet the objectives of this party.Bush is not in effective because he has done the wrong thing. There are many people that believe the way he does. He is ineffective because he misrepresented himself in order to accomplish his objectives.
People may not like everything you say, but they will respect you for being honest.
With the demanding stance that Bush has taken, stating that he will proceed no matter what congress or the public opinion is, I find it hard to believe that Bush, his party or the Democrats intend to truly work towards bipartisanship. His demeanor during the speech means nothing, because cooperation between the party lines would require some willingness on both sides to find an equitable solution. Clearly, in this case, both sides will stand without giving in. A Bipartisan Government? No, we will continue to have the same us vs. them politics until January 09.
Bob W. Hargis
www.hargis.info
bob@hargis.info
Both sides are "positioning" themselves now but we are still early in this game. To me it is in both sides interest to eventually compromise and get something in place to settle and implement. The American people are tired of blame games and it will be a pox on both their houses if they can't get it together. Maybe I have to much confidence in the magic of Splitski" Government but my hunch is that(based on the ever-present "Law of Unintended Consequences" and the "Law of direct Opposites" that periodically asserts itself in Washington Politics) a Democratic Congress just might be the thing that saves Bush's political ass. The prospect of not doing so forthe Demos and letting the country founder for 2 more years might adversely affect their political prospects in'08 and beyond. Bush and Congress both are in a leaky boat!
John, to your last post we certainly do agree on one thing: Bush and Congress both are in a leaky boat!
Bob W. Hargis
www.hargis.info
bob@hargis.info
And the country is in a leaky boat due to mass benign neglect on the core mega-issues bearing down on this country Bob. Those are 1)Comprehensive Entitlement Reform and 2) delineating a clear and consistent US Grand Strategy in the World that based on our true national interests. Those are the REAL nation-buster leaks that MUST be addressed for the Republic to survive into the next century. More of us are in leaky boats than you and we think!!
To BobWHargis
I agree with you 100%, Both Bush and GOP and the Democrats are turn our country into their outhouse. The 2024 State of the Union is nothing but a A'Hole Convention or call it American A'hole Idol. Another 2 years of Partisan bickering is a recipt for disater in it's tearing this country apart to the point of a Second Civil War. Godforbid if America has a second Civil War, it will be more worst and both partisan Republicans and Democrats shall take the blame for this.
One way to stop this to call for a Independent Moderate/Centrist Thrid Party for 08, it would put the heat on GOP and Democrats and send the message to partisan Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives/Greens that those in the"Middle" are not going to take it anymore. By 2024 both Republcians and Democrats are going to be the ture minority.
Republcians and Democrats= Party of A'Holeism
Republicans and Democrats= Party of Milosevic and Bin Laden
The partisan reactions to the state of union speech are embarrassing from both sides. From what I can see, every branch of government is too involved in things constitutionally assigned to another branch and too little concerned about the areas where the constitution does give them the authority. A blame game for the failngs of others to take the heat off for their own failings.
What a mess, they all need to be replaced. For putting up with this we citizens must look like idiots to the rest of the world and may well look like real dumbies to future generations of Americans.
Bush's speech left me completely flat: He warns of the consequences of failure in Iraq as if someone else had chosen this war. He proposes 20K troops (a number that would still bring us to lower than the inadequate number of troops we had at the beginning of the war). But, and I truly think worst of all: His energy plan amounts to: Give more money to my corporate corn farming cronies!
First corn based ethanol is an energy looser. Even if we were able to make his ethanol production targets with fiber base ethanol, oil consumption will RISE due to increased numbers of cars -- he's just proposing slowing down the increase ... and his proposal is dubious as the tech for fiber based ethanol is not there yet. Really, does Bush not understand this? Or is this yet another cynical kickback to his cronies??
What I want to see is:
(1) We could really double the energy efficiency of cars, that technology is already here.
(2) A large, multi-pronged federal financed research program for energy!! Like our lives, nation and civilization depend on it (umm, they do!).
Fer crying out loud, you know when the war on terror will be over? When oil revenue stops propping up the worst regimes of the world who prop up the worst sorts of people and institutions. Finding and shifting to new sources of energy is of top importance for our national security, for the environment, for our economic and even civilizational survival.
Krauthammer in today's Post had a nice analysis that laid out a framework for a solution I thought. He mentioned there are main immediate serious things we can do now - tax gas. And longer term drill in the Arctic and go nuclear. The president ostentatiously rolled out his 20-in-10 plan: reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years. This with Rube Goldberg regulation -- fuel-efficiency standards, artificially mandated levels of "renewable and alternative fuels in 2024" and various bribes (er, incentives) for government-favored technologies -- of the kind we have been trying for three decades.
Tax gas to $4 a gallon. With oil prices having fallen to $55 a barrel, now is the time. The effect of a gas-tax hike will be seen in less than two years, and you don't even have to go back to the 1970s and the subsequent radical reduction in consumption to see how. Just look at last summer. Gas prices spike to $3 -- with the premium going to Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chávez and assorted sheiks rather than the U.S. Treasury -- and, presto, SUV sales plunge, the Prius is cool and car ads once again begin featuring miles-per-gallon ratings.
No regulator, no fuel-efficiency standards, no presidential exhortations, no grand experiments with switch grass. Raise the price, and people change their habits. It's the essence of capitalism. The only thing I would add would be to mandate 55MPH again. A little shared sacrifice by us here on the home front for and with the troops infar ramparts would go along way in my estimation and contribute a bit to a less schizoid longer-term Grand Strategy.
I feel we need another manhattan project similar to the one when we were faced with another danger. This time it is a different kind of danger, but one which could threaten our national security at any time. Suppose we tick the Saudis off, they boycott us. Where would we be? The national government needs to lead and fund a massive two pronged research effort to develop a clean energy for our cars, and fine tune current coal gasification technology to fuel our power plants. In my mind nuclear is not an option, we cannot agree now on what to do with the nuclear waste we have now, let alone what numerous new nuclear power plants would create. Our current shotgun approach to solving the energy problems of this country is too sporadic and it needs to be narrowed to a specific solution and all resources poured into that one effort. Like we did when we developed the atomic bomb. Unfortunately we do not have a leader with any vision for the future, instead we have an old oil baron who thinks ethanol is the way to the future. Has anyone told him it takes more energy to produce ethanol than we would save?
A Mo South Independent
The best way to put it to the Facist dictators that we fund thru our oil largesse would be to slap a 50 cent to 1 dollar gas tax accreoss the board and a 55 MPH speed limit. Might not be popular for sure but would be effective. the money could be plowed into research on Alt fuels, clean drilling, nuke development.etc. Energy policy should be multi-pronged. That would be the best strategy that would give us a leg up in delineating a Grand Foreign Policy Strategy for the 21st Century.
If this GWOT and dimishing the petro-facist resurgence extant in the World today is so important (and it is), then the sacrfice must be shared by ALL Americans and not just a select few troops and their families. Men should not be asked to fight and die inthese far ramparts because we were not able and willing to make the tough choices and share some sacfrices here at home!!
I could buy your gas tax proposal, if the money were channeled into the Manhattan type project I favor. I am against more drilling for oil, we need to bid that source of energy a polite goodbye as soon as possible. I like your 55 mph limit too. Am against more nuke energy because of the waste problem. And I wouldn't live close to one. I still feel coal gasification which we have the technology to do now is the best bet for power generation. And we need to marshall all our resouces and focus on developing one clean source of fuel for our vehicles. But this requires a bold step requiring a statesman not a politican. I don't know of any out there who would step up or not.
A Mo South Independent
To be realistic and for the medium term I think we will need to keepdrilling to recover oil that is under U.S. control - Arctic and on the outer continental shelf. No one pretends that this fixes everything. But a million barrels a day from the ANWR is 5 percent of our total consumption. In tight markets, that makes a crucial difference and couldbe used to fill the SPR. We will always need some oil for a long time. And the more of it that is ours, the better. Nothing more directly and asuredly reduces dependence (in the short-medium term) on foreign oil than substituting domestic for foreign production.
And nuclear waste? Well, coal produces toxic pollutants, as does oil. Both produce carbon dioxide that we are told is going to end civilization as we know it. These wastes are widely dispersed and almost impossible to recover once they get thrown into the atmosphere.
Nukes produce waste as well, but it comes out very concentrated -- very toxic and lasting nearly forever. But because it is packed into a small, manageable volume, it is more controllable. It is a more political decision (will) than an engineering obstacle. And Nukes doesn't pollute the atmosphere. At all. There is no free lunch. Producing energy is going to produce waste. You pick your poison, and you find a way to manage it.
John: I saw an interesting program on the history channel yesterday about coal gasification. The program pointed out that the newest technology removed most all of the coal's pollutants, and they were going to sequester the carbon into the earth somehow. You're absolutely right, there is no easy solution. But from my perspective I would rather have carbon sequestered deep underground than radioactive waste which in the event of an earthquake could be released into the atmosphere. Look at all the trouble they are having over the Yucca Mt project in Nevada. The use of oil will have to continue for awhile longer until a new fuel replaces it. It will probably be left to a new President to hopefully lead our country towards the development of such a fuel. Who knows?
A Mo South Independent
These comments are based on the president's State of the Union message in the order in which they appeared.
The practice of budget earmarks needs to be stopped. President Bush said that in 2024, there were over 13,000 earmarks which totaled nearly $18 billion, and that over 90% of earmarks don't make it to the floor of Congress or to the president's desk for signature, yet are treated as law because they are in committee reports. I agree.
The president noted that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not financially sound, and said that the problem must be addressed, but gave no indication of how to address the problem. Since the financial problems must be solved either by increasing taxes or reducing benefits, the president should have stated how his administration wanted to proceed.
Next the president addressed education reform. He tacitly recognized that the nation's schools do not all provide adequate education when he advocated "giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose someplace better." But the United States should not have any failing schools. All schools should meet minimum standards of excellence. Therefore in addition to a school choice program the president should have advocated a feasible plan to raise failing schools to passing standards.
The president proposed a plan of tax benefits for those purchasing health insurance. One effect of this plan would be to provide a tax benefit for Americans who presently have health insurance, either through their jobs or privately purchased. In addition, the president claimed that the administration's plan would encourage the uninsured to purchase health insurance, but that result is not certain.
America spends more on health care per capita than other nations; the shame is that the lowest economic class only gets emergency care. The debate seems to be whether insurance for this lowest class should be run by the government or by private health insurance carriers.
Americans like to cherish the dream that each individual can get all the health care he or she wants; but that dream will never become reality. A health care program must also remember that the rich will of necessity get better care than the poor; the public obligation is to see that the care given the poor is of good quality and timely.
Next the president spoke of immigration problems. It is worth noting that the problems along the Mexican border are due in part to the extreme economic inequality between the United States and Mexico. There are no such severe problems along the long U.S. - Canada border nor along most of the borders between other nations. The U. S. has a strategic interest in seeing Mexico become a prosperous country, but we have been ignoring that interest for decades -- more than a century, in fact. Any program to solve immigration must be coupled with a diplomatic program to help Mexico's ordinary citizens become more prosperous. A carefully structured long-term program of financial aid coupled with diplomatic pressure on the Mexican government to aid us in relieving pressure at the border should be part of any solution. The prospect of a heavily armed border bristling with walls, fences, and thousands of Border Patrol agents is a national shame.
In response to the U. S. energy problem, the president proposed reducing dependence on foreign oil by (a) developing alternative energy sources; (b) reducing gasoline usage; (c) improving vehicular fuel efficiency; and (d) increasing domestic oil production. My feeling is that we must gradually increase our gasoline taxes, using the revenues to improve public transportation alternatives. Further, I believe that increasing domestic oil production is simply giving our grandchildren a more severe energy problem, so I would disagree with that proposal.
The president asked for prompt action on his nominees for federal judgeships. I agree; we should not allow partisan politics to disrupt the process of our courts.
The president insisted that "to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy." This is unobjectionable as stated, but who is the enemy? A state is not an enemy unless it fosters and encourages, trains, supplies and finances terrorists. The president incorrectly assumes without proof that the invaion of Iraq was needed to "stop terrorism." In fact, there have been relatively few terrorist incidents (and a certain number of terrorist acts are in fact unpreventible.)
The president asserts that an offensive posture is needed for the "war on terrorism." But this is not proved. A great deal of anti-terrorism activity is preventive and defensive. The president says America has always taken the offense in its wars; but our previous wars were between nation states, and not against terrorists. Indeed, there is merit in the position that anti-terrorism should not be dignified by calling it a war at all, but a police action. Using the language of war has enabled this president to bypass the ordinary rules of civilian justice in apprehending and punishing alleged terrorists, and indeed, he has bypassed many of the ordinary rules of military behavior as well.
A particular question relating to the war on terrorism is whether or not we can accurately identify the "enemy." If we cannot, then the military analogy is not valid. At best our present situation in Iraq finds us embroiled in a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, and our continued presence there is extremely harmful to whatever respect and influence we may retain throughout the Islamic world.
Perhaps the most disappointing part of this (major) part of the president's State of the Union message is that, in the runup to 23 January, the president has had significant indications that a large part of the American people and American politicians disagree with his approach. A president must always realize that he or she is acting on behalf of the entire nation in foreign affairs, and that America's foreign policies must follow its strategic interests, as guided by public opinion. President Bush has failed to educate the American public that his approach to fighting terrorism is the best, and he has repeatedly expressed his foreign policy positions from a personal point of view, rather than representing the people of the United States. When President Bush declares, "In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance for success," he shows his lack of understanding of ethical political behavior for the president of a modern democracy.
The president asked for continued support to fight HIV/AIDS, but the amount requested (an average of $240M a year for five years) is woefully inadequate to do the job. He gives mere lip service to this fundamental world problem.
The president concluded his address by citing individual examples of courage and compassion. Would that our political leaders personally showed even a fraction of that courage and compassion.
Interesting synopsis of the speech ... but wasn't the question. The question is basically, will they work in a bipartisan fashion? -- and you didn't answer that.
My take is that you feel they will not work in a bipartisan fashion. I agree, but for different reasons. My reason is because the partisan bickering is what keeps both parties in control by splitting the electorate and giving us two bad choices for any given office -- candidates beholden to the party, not the people.
They aren't representing their constituents or the best interests of the American people, they are representing their party's power brokers and funding sources.
Until Our Congress Is Made Up Of Elected Representatives "BOUND BY CONTRACT" TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF AN APPROPRIATELY QUALIFIED PUBLIC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ..
WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE SEDUCED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF INTERCOURSE BY A CADRE OF SLICK POLITICIANS & THEIR "IN HOUSE LAWYERS" !!
I've offered the only practical and realistic solution - repeatedly to UNITY08 Founders and Members AND America at Large On My Blog www.popopete.com : NO ONE SEEMS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN HELPING ME FIGHT THE FIGHT WE COULD WIN !!
popo
You can Email me at popopete@hotmail.com
or Mail Me At Box 212 9770 S.Military Trail Suite 3-7
Boynton Beach, Fla. 33436
I enjoyed reading your analysis of the President's speech. I generally agree with you with the exception of a couple of points.First, can we afford to give aid to Mexico with a 9 trillion deficit? Second I don't seen anything wrong with a border bristling with border patrol agents. I do not want the wall though. We are literally faced with a tsunami of illegal immigration, if we do not slow it to a trickle it will eventually overwhelm our country. Mexico could do much more to help but they do not want to. They still resent the fact we took the entire Southwest from them in 1848 and they are going to do nothing to help us. Any aid would wind up in some corrupt Mexican politicans pocket.
A Mo South Independent
If ever, all this shows the weakness of the system in the USA versus the parlementary system. If the leader of a democracy ignores the will of the people, even after the legislative body is changed against him, he should be forced to listen to the will of the people represented by this legislative body. If he ignores that, that legislative body forces him and the legislation to resign, new elections follow and we start fresh, ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and not according the will of some dictator, called the president.
Born and raised in Europe, Jack van Dijk
What about a system in which the Senate is appointed by the state legislatures and senators serve a 6 year term and in which the President and House of Representatives both serve up to 4 year terms, both are elected independently of each other and both the President and the House have the power to call for new presidential and House elections? The Presidency is the only federal office that has any chance of showing national leadership; so why should the localized interests, represented by the House, be allowed to override what the President wants to do for the benefit of the entire nation as a whole?
I am convinced we need to go the parlimentary system England uses. President Bush is thumbing his nose at the Congress, this is unacceptable. I have no reservations about calling for a new Constituional Convention and starting over. Presidents have become too powerful and too often ignore the will of the people as I think you may have been implying, if I misintrepreted your comment please correct me. Nonetheless I believe our system is out of sync. We simply need to rewrite the Constitution, and please I already disagree with anyone who says, but we can amend the Constitution, right, it would take 50 years to pass the amendments we need, and we need them now. I fear for the government of this country, it is in deep trouble and I don't think we are facing it like we should. one opinion from the wilderness.
A Mo South Independent
A parliamentary system is no panacea. The system we have now is fine as long as all parties are accountable and hold themselves to a level of accountability esp tothe voter. The best way to hold them to account is Splitski Government where one branch is Rep/Demo/Indie and the other is not. Then you get better accountability, transparency and better policy/implementation. Recent History bears me out on this. It is NOT the System so much as the individuals and parties that have distorted and misused the system. That would not change under a Parliamentary one and may be makeit worse. I would hate to see bothybranches the same always as would occur under a Parliamentary System. Constitutionally the Presidency is a weak office. But lack of a Congress pushing back and worring about the special interests and their election and not the overall National Interest is the big problem and not the present Constitutional setup. Splitski Govt keeps the special interests hedging their bets a bit and off balance so the Nationalinterest can maybe assert it self a little bit more and we can get better policy/implementation. So let'sput a kibosh on the Parliamentary pipe dream. I am reminded of TR's quote - "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are!"
John: I respect your right to your views, I have to disagree but that is what a democracy is all about. Have a nice day.
A Mo South Independent
Body language spoke volumes. They are incapable of bipartisanship, that is why on real issues, they have to appoint a bipartisan commission, they cannot work together for the good of the country. I have lost faith in the entire process. I think we should have a grassroots movement to rewrite the Constituion and start over, this system is broke and getting broker day by day.
An Independent
I love Americans! Rewrite the constitution! Haha... War is hell my civilian friends and we are stacking the last of their heads as we speak... We are wrapping up and without identification we can stack them as high as we want with no record! Now they can't get out and we are hunting the last of the slimeballs down. Then we will tag and bag the women and children that are left with a social security number and a card for food and leave this bloody ground. And if any nation dares interfere our Airforce will fry them as we own the skies... - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Now you can elect a sissy as we have set them back 25 years! - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I don't think it is Unity08's goal to back a "sissy candidate". I suppose you are referring to the Democrats not backing Bush. Could you clarify your point for me?
Bob W. Hargis
www.hargis.info
bob@hargis.info
Retired but Active
Earn Snyder is a frequent poster and his posts seldom make any sense at all. He lives in his own world and speaks to angels but seldom is able to communicate with the rest of us. If you notice, he is most often simply ignored.
Well its State of the Union plus 7 days, has there been any change in our bipartisan bickering? Of course not. Why they must be getting something out of it. I wonder what that is, could it be their jobs? It's a mess of self-interest and perception over reality.
Since when did it become AOK in America to lie and mislead?
Retired but Active
There were so many holes in the Bush State of the Union address that few if any Americans put much credence in it. It appeared to be more of a begging job than anything else. Bush is so desparate for some type of positive legacy that he is now promising the moon and stars instead of just the moon. But he has lied to us so manny times in the past that he make the boy who cried Wolf look like Mother Theresa.
I would hope that people around the world simply dismissed the speech as just more ranting by a wholly discredited president and will contine to ignore him as much as possible during his final death throes.
Since George Washington, our president's have reported to the Congress and the American people, the state of our union. President Bush gave his last week. From the outset it was somber, laid back, to the point of almost depressing. I have watched State of the Union speeches since Richard Nixon, and this speech given by President Bush certainly set the tone of the country. A sour tone.
The nation is in a sour mood, it is somber, it is depressed. For months we have heard how well the economy has been doing. The numbers have looked good, but numbers relating to the real economy, are not people; they are just numbers. We have been debating this now since 2024. The proof came on Election Day 2024... the economy did not help the Republicans or President Bush.. Why? Because middle class America, has been squeezed out now for several years, and nothing the Bush adminisrtation or the Republican leadership in Congress for the last 12 years has done, has helped to stop that squeeze and that decline of middle class America. The voters made that clear last November.
Our nation is also down because we had a continued chorus of how well all was in Iraq, how democracy was on the march in that country. Today, the American people see civil war, with our finest and our bravest in the crossfire of that war. As Americans we believe this to be deplorable, and totally unacceptable! Why should one more brave American die in the middle of an Arab civil war?
The American people, those with common sense, know that democracy will never survive in Iraq, that the people that President Bush is trying to democratize, are not a rational populace. They certainly are not the Germans after World War II, or the Japanese. They are not even the Russians after the fall of Communism. We are dealing with people who don't know, or understand democracy, nor do they truley want it.
Our leaders have failed us by not learning from history. Democracies build and grow from within, not by forced interference from a foreign occupying power. We must come to understand that Iraq can, will, and must choose its own form of government, and we have got to accept it, not matter what THEY choose.
Our men and women have done an honorable, fantastic job. Now it is time to turn all of this over to the Iraqi's, and let our armed forces leave Iraq with their honor intact. They have accomplished much. The warnings and the lessons from history are clear: when the civil war ends in Iraq, and it will in time, the Iraqi's, these Arabs will turn against their common enemies; the United States and Israel.
The American people are not fools, we are always a step or two ahead of our leaders. The coffee houses, the diners, and the local pubs of America really is where the common sense, and the no nonsense ideas come from. America needs leaders who will listen, who will hear the people, who said long ago that they are struggling economically, and that it is now time to come home from Iraq.
Perhaps Election Day 2024, was just the begining of the listening.
Kirk Polizzi
Chillicothe, Illinois
Best evaluation of The State Of The Nation ..
Kirk, if you're up to seeing things laid out as they exist today Jan 31 2024 .. Click on www.popopete.com - and let me hear from you.
popo
I want to thank you personally for your kind words. I have been around politics for a long time, a student of history, political as well as U.S. and world history.
Because I love history, it breaks my heart as an American to see our leaders from both political parties blow it time and time again. I look at our country and see the wealthiest reap more and more, while the rest of us poor souls, the working class, the ones who made this country what it is, fall behind year after year. Those who have enough, have plenty, look for a free ticket, and those who are dead beats, also look for a free ride.
That leaves you and I, to pick up the bill. Like you, I am tired of them both: those who have it all and want more, and those who have nothing because they will not take personal responsibility and do something about it. Many of these people of course, do not have to do anything about it, as long as you, and I are paying their way. But we are also paying the way for the well to do too, in many other ways.
I see world history right before the eyes of our leaders, but I see them once again ignoring it. Their blindness to the past, their total ignorance of history, has now cost us $6 billion dollars a month in Iraq, over 3,000 dead, and another 20,000 wounded and scared for life.
There is something very bad, very wrong, very un-American, in seeing our brave
st and our finest die in the middle of an Arab civil war. This is an American outrage!!
Do I have faith in America and the American people? You bet I do, and I know one day, all of us will rise up and say we have had enough of this politics which puts parties first, and America second or even lower on the scale of importance. This is our country, we are all Americans we all care about right from wrong, and basic freedoms and fairness. It all begins with people like you and I.
Thank you again
Poliz 61
It is nice to see another student of history on the blog. I taught history for 30 years and like you I am amazed our national leaders do not pay any attention to its lessons. The President should lean more on historians for advice when dealing with a particular area of the world.
A Mo South Independent
In my view, in order to learn from history, one must first know history, and this is where I believe the problem begins for the United States. Of the industrialized nations, it seemsa to me that American's are perhaps the most ignorant regarding their history and historical knowledge.
This profound lack of historical knowledge, places the United States in a vulnerable position in terms of self governance. Without some sense as to where you have been, (in a historical sense) allows you to be easily misled as a voting electorate and easily misguided by politicians and government taking advantage of the voting public’s lack of sense of balance.
As I survey the political landscape of today it appears that the United States has totally forgotten some of the important lessons of past history. One example is the current war in Iraq. In the era of the 1970’s the United States committed a colossal military blunder by becoming involved in Vietnam. For the United States, this era marked the beginning of the Vietnam war. In the end the United States lost this war with a terrible cost in Vietnamese and American lives and vowed never to make the same mistake again.
However, individuals ignorant of history are condemned to repeat history and in proving this, in just thirty short years, an ignorant electorate put an ignorant president into office who followed in history’s foot-steps of the Vietnam conflict, and committed another colossal military blunder called Iraq. If history indeed repeats itself then the Iraq war will end just like the Vietnam war ended with the United States losing the self imposed conflict.
I fear that the United States is walking down the same Roman road to decline. Like Rome, I believe that America’s citizens have forgotten what it means to be Americans , the American empire can no longer finance its imperial overreach, and as the rest of the world politically matures, America will simply became irrelevant and financially bankrupt,
In my view, the USA does not have a lot of time left to continue blundering along in this globalized world. We desperately need some sharp people from both parties working together to insue the USA survives.
Great summary. What was it Lincoln said " You can fool some of the people......etc etc etc. Democracy is slow and cumbersom but eventually seems to come around. When it does not come around, its seldom from an outside threat...its from within. Let's hope we continue to "come around"
Maybe Unity08 can be part of that response that keeps us strong internally.
Well I read more partisan nonsense as comments from members. What use is that? We fall right into divide and conquor that way. It's pretty plain that the positions on the issues are split nearly 50/50 in America, do you think that is an accident? Is it an accident that the two parties maintain about a 50% vote? Of course it's not an accident.
Wouldn't it make more sense for one party to adopt some of the positions of the other side to pull together a mandate to get things done? Of course it would if it was about doing the people's business, but its not. It's about keeping the populace arguing so we can't throw all the bums out. I believe that our unity is about uniting against the two parties, not choosing one of the two sets of scoundrels.
Bush I / Clinton I / Bush II / Clinton II is a like a headstone on the grave of democracy. It's bound to show how we "turn of the millenium citizens" dropped the ball on freedom.
Watch the 2024 State of the Union made me want to barf. It was nothing but a A'Hole Convention or Jerry Springer Show more like it. I hate to tell you Neither Bush or Jim Webb didn't give good speachs. Bottom line we are going to have 2 more years of this BS partisanship to the point that they are tearing our contry apart and embolding Osman bin Laden and the (late)Slobodan Milosevic along with Terrorist and Genocidal Maniacs.
It's time for Unity08 to spearhead a camping for a independent Moderate/Centrist Thrid Party. With this it would put on notice that extermists and partisan idots both of GOP and Democrats that the people of "The Middle" are fedup and not going to take it anymore. when the smoke is clear on 2024 would be the year that both power of the GOP and the Democrats are shattered and both are going to be in the minority
Republicans and Democrats= Party of A'Holeism
Republicans and Democrats= Party of Milosevic and Bin Laden
I say the harder we charge their lines the better... we already know we will be shredded to bits so lets give 'em the old Rebel Yell in the first battle in 2024! You wanna give 'em hell call on me! I wanna put them in a tiny box! - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I can sum up the state of our Union in one word: DISASTER
That whole "Two Americas" thing bothers me too.
The only person on this website who is dumber than Jim Cook is this Earn Snyder idiot.
Retired but Active
A lot of people preach "compromise" without really knowing what comproimis is. When we compromise we are, in effect, giving up something that we truly feel is right and proper and giving in to someone else that we disagree with in our heart of hearts. In a compromise, NO ONE wins. In many cases this may not make much difference. Minor disagreements that do not have any serious consequenses if a mistake is made, for example. But, when the subject is serious and has serious consequences, to compromise is to simply cave in to incorrect actions or dangerous conduct. In the case of compromise with George Bush we can all see the consequences every day: Our one sided economy, the war in Iraq, the monumental increase in the national debt, and the almost daily practice of more and bigger lies and misinformation. This is simply silly. The only way to deal with someone that is almost totally untrustworthy is to question every action they take or word they speak. This is done only after we have observed the lies and misdeeds over a sufficient period of time to make an informed judgment. Any "compromise" in these circumstances is simply foolish.
"Wouldn't it make more sense for one party to adopt some of the positions of the other side to pull together a mandate to get things done?" Answer: No, absolutely NO when there are positions on the other side that would only make the situation worse and when the advocates of the other side are clearly untrustworthy. This is the type of "compromise" that is foolish, dangerous, and which will accomplish nothing but a further decline in our already fragile democracy. A mandate that is wrong is much more harmful than no mandate at all.
I guess that you must not be for Unity unless Unity supports all of your causes then.
See that is exactly where the system gets you stuck in supporting it. The system likes and even encourages partisan squabbling so that the elite maintain control.
Retired but Active
Yes, I am for nearly all of the stated goals of Unity 8 although I do not think they are all practical. I think that we can effect some beneficial changes in our political processes but ONLY if we are, in fact, united in our basic goals. This means that we shold not begin to compromise our basic beliefs. When we do, we are only caving in to the two major political parties and making our efforts moot. The right or correct position may not always gain the most votes but to back off the moral correctness of an issue is to admit defeat even before the vote is taken.
I hope Unity 8 can accomplish something. I believe that a ticket with one Republican and one Democrat will go far in this effort. It would demonstrate the viability of cooperation (not compromise) to the American population and help to bring about long overdue change in Washington DC. However, the minute we start to compromise our beliefs simply to get elected we have doomed the movement and will have wasted a lot of time and money.
I'm a little more open I think Darryl. I see that other peop[le have strong feelings on certain positions, and they are differnt than mine. What makes me right and themwrong? Only my viewpoint, and I don't think my viewpoint should be foisted upon them.
I am a strictly majority rule kind of guy, and I will support whatever the majority says, even if I disagree with it personally. We need to get out country going again, stop this endless gridlock where one small section of the populace can effectively stop progress. Its all too politically correct -- in trying to make everyone happy, no one is happy because nothing gets done.
I can still have the basic beliefs I have and compromise.
Retired but Active
Of course the "majority" said that George Bush was "right" in his invasion of Iraq. A majority said that he was "right" as he continued to chip away at our basic freedoms of privacy, speech, and others that our founders said was essential to democracy.
We see political "stars" that the majority initially supports but who later turn out to be little more than out and out crooks and liars. This support, I believe, is usually the result of voters not learning the basic beliefs and backgrounds of these candidates and simply following the crowd. I could go on for hours with examples of when we, the people, have made big mistakes simply because we were willing to compromise our basic beliefs for the expediency of the moment.
Again, I do not believe that ALL compromise is bad, even in a political context. But, unless we are willng to take the time and put forth the effort to determine what the basic belief systems are of those running for office, we will continue to compromise many of our own basic beliefs, often to our detriment.
With professional politicians spending MILLIONS of dollars to get elected to even a local or state office, if we do not stick to or guns we will continue to see these pawns of the rich and powerful lead us around by the nose. An interesting article from the Associated Press appeared in the paper today. It talked about the MILLIONS of dollars in the political war chests of many politicians. As striking example is Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, a small (electorally speaking) state with relatively inexpensive television advertising when compared to other states. Shelby has nearly $12 MILLION stockpiled even though he ran unopposed in his last race and will not run for re-election until 2024. This is obscene and obviously the result of big money and powerful lobbist contributions from all across the nation. In these circumstances any compromise is simply foolish.
I appreciate your thoughts..but just as often the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Seeking THAT truth is what unity08 seems to me to be trying to accomplish. I remember Kennedys book "Profiles in Courage" Some Heroes put aside their view to vote the peoples will and were called courageous. Others stuck to their views inspite of public pressure and were called courageous. Today we might view one of those as a "sell out" and the other as "stubborn". I think Kennedy is right, both positions can be honest, partriotic and also very courageous. The Truth, as I find it of most often a lot bigger than I am. A little hubris for us all might go a long way to bringing about unity.
State of the union eh?
Well i'll tell you one thing, we need to get control of the media one way or another. What i see is people operating and forming opinions without having access to all of the facts or in many cases, none of the facts that are relevant.
That's what I reccomend as a primary issue to address.