I know that politics are not discussed that much here on CD but what were your reactions to the speech if you watched it?
My $0.02 worth is that the Speech was much better then last years, He only stumbled on one word during the whole speech and it was very nice to see The President talk about specific people and events during the speech that has not been done by the past few Presidents.
The plan to decrees oil/ gas usage by 20% over the next 10 years seems like it could be doable but will be an up hill battle. President Bush now wants to give billions of dollars to companys that will develop new alternitive fuel and energny sources this could be a great new opperinuity for engeneers and future ones to jump on that bandwagon and invent.
The No Child Left Behind law that President Clinton started is planned to be renewed, This program has had an effect on all of us throught High school.
The rest of the speech had to do with better health care system on a federal level and also on a state and local level with tax discounts for the uninsured and poorly insured.
The President also called for huge tax cuts, normal for a state of the union address, and also that the National Dept could be payed off within the next 5-10 years.
I am upset that the President did not bring up anything about Math and Science like he did last year and also talked nothing about education other then the No Child Left Behind law.
What dose everyone else think?
This is not a thread to bash political views or anything like that so please if that is what you want to do go to www.cnn.com and do it there.
I… disagree with many of his views. Especially on the No Child Left Behind act. It is a nice sentiment and has some redeeming features, but frankly, firing teachers and closing schools for poor performance on standardized tests is quite possibly worse than useless.
I think it was shorter this year than it was last. Largely, I think the president was more conceded, and started to give in to some of the congress’ demands. He didn’t push for large tax cuts and stuff this time. Overall I think it’s a step towards cooperation between the President and his newly elected Democratic congress.
I think it is very important that we all take the time out to listen to the State of the Union address, whether or not we like or dislike the President or his policies. Somehow it always makes me proud to be an American.
It was especially interesting for our household to watch this year as we have a German Foreign exchange student living with us and we got to focus on the traditions surrounding the speech as well as the content. (Isabelle is quite the channel surfer and about two minutes into the preliminary introductions she had switched to a movie and we had to get her to switch it back… :yikes: ) The clapping and standing ovations got to her - why don’t they let him talk, it would be much quicker!
I really liked the way the president acknowledged Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House). And I was surprised to hear that the speech had been distributed before he spoke. Do they always do that?
I also do not love the no child left behind act but it did have some uses, helping students from low income families, who are statistically less educated and have less access to a good education, further them selves in school.
I love your statement of " quite possibly worse then useless" that is something that I will have to use in a conversation sometime.
It wasn’t that much shorter then before speech wise but it was shorter due to less pausing for clapping.
Parts of the speech are usually given out a few hours prior to the speech so the media can have something to play with to keep busy before the big event.
I do not think that the President was trying to step closer to the Democratic majority but was more likely taking a more liberal stance on somethings so the next Democratic candidates can’t use things such as tax cuts, No Child Left Behind Act, National Dept and the new fuel techonoligies can not be used on their platforms for the 2008 elections. That is common for a State of The Union address from a last term President to do near election year.
I believe that it is always very simple to critique speeches like this - after all, many of us would like to think that if we were Presidents we would fix all of the world’s problems immediately.
I was happy about the acknowledgement of Nancy Pelosi, as well as the commitment to renewable energy. Perhaps I am not in agreement with every statement, but this was an optimistic experience for me, a hope that the new Congress can work together with the current cabinet to make good things happen in 2007 and 2008.
I think that many people here are mature enough to handle a political debate. After all, debate != fight.
We don’t need to be talking robots, especially in this forum, which is designed to be for off-topic discussion anyhow.
As far as the speech goes, I too was pleasantly surprised by the acknowledgment of Pelosi, but I’m somewhat jaded about the government and the path that the country is on. I’ll leave it at that.
Personally, I think Bush is going to have a hard time for his last 2 years in office. The unified government of the past few years had allowed alot of legislation to flow through and very few vetoes to be issued (1 if I remember correctly). However, this Democratic Congress will propose alot of legislation that Bush will not agree with. However, as many Republicans jump off the Bush bandwagon, there will probably be enough swing voters who side with the Democrats to override Bush’s veto on many bills. Alot of Republicans are already jumping off the bandwagon due to how Bush is handing the war in Iraq. As for what else Bush said in his speech…does he honestly expect the Democrats to go down his agenda and hit everything? I think that the Democrats are gonna be more focused on their own agenda, especially with the likely hood of seeing a Democratic President in 2008.
I agree with 90% of what Bush says, but disagree with 90% of what he does. He could quite possibly be the worst president in the history of our nation.
I am of the opinion that his ‘tax break’ for health care is going to benefit the most those who need it the least. I am of the opinion that an expansion of Medicaid would be a much more efficient way to increase health coverage for those who need it.
No Child Left Behind? Virginia is debating forgoing federal funding because it might both cost more to comply with the NCLB demands than the fed gives us and also because it is thought that we could give a better education without it.
It was interesting that while several members were reading their copy of his speech they looked like they were asleep.
Anyone know who the designated survivor was this year?
Oh, the things you can learn on Chief Delphi! I had no idea what you were talking about, so I Googled it!
Good old wikipedia… :yikes:
A designated survivor is a member of the United States Cabinet who stays at a physically distant, secure, undisclosed location when the country’s top leaders, including the President are gathered at a single location such as during State of the Union Addresses and presidential inaugurations, in order to maintain continuity of government with regard to presidential succession in the remote possibility of a catastrophic event which could wipe out large portions of the United States’ federal government. The practice originated in the darkest days of the Cold War amid fears of a nuclear attack.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, one Representative and one Senator of each political party have also served as designated survivors concurrently with the Cabinet member, so they can ascend to the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives or President Pro Tempore of the Senate (the offices which are first and second in the line of succession to the Presidency, respectively, after the Vice President).
Now I’ll be waiting to hear who they were!
President pro tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd because I did not hear his name mentioned during the news cast and the others above him were all their.
