Rick's Cafe Americain

As I watched Bush’s State of the Union address, I realized that, if what Bush said was true, we would be living in a nearly utopian society with a visionary President.  But, of course, this is not the case.  Many of the statements/promises/goals and agendas set forth by Bush would look a lot different if full information were known about what Bush was actually proposing, rather than a one or two sentence, rosy sounding, blurb.

I thought to myself that I wished that there was a comprehensive response to Bush’s State of the Union.  Not a simple, Bush is wrong or exagerrating and here’s why, but something with sources, citations, etc.  Something that the casual political observer would never read, but that, if it existed, would have a power, it would be a source and it might change some things.

Then I thought to myself.  Why not?  Why can’t we have this.  I don’t have the knowledge or information (or time) to research and point out Bush’s inacuracies, but there are those in the internet universe who have this information on specific issues, policies, proposals and laws.  Why can’t we work together and get something like this formed? 

What you propose is interesting and it would be fascinating to see what information is found.  However, I’m more interested in your opinion on the proposed tax reductions, education and healthcare initiatives as well as (or more imporantly to me) his definiation of marriage.

DOMA was appalling when passed by Clinton and a disgusting wedge issue when presented as a possible constitutional amendment in the SOTU.

I thought for a flickering second that Bush was going to recognize the dignity and humanity of gays - he gave all the cues that he was about to - but then he stopped and changed the subject.  He should be ashamed.

Maybe it’s apparent, but Ferrari’s project is suspect from the start if based on the premise that Bush’s SOTU speech was an effort to paint the country as a nearly utopian society, and thus must be “debunked”. True, Bush attempted to highlight what he perceived to be positive aspects in the SOTU, but it simply isn’t reasonable to think that Bush tried to portray the U.S. as a “nearly utopian society”.

I would suggest starting such a project with an objective methodology.

Step one: analysis. Take the SOTU apart into the constituent pieces; e.g., (A) Bush’s portrayal of the current status of U.S. foreign & domestic condition, divided as needed into various subcategories; (B) his statements supporting his administration’s policies and views of above portrayals; and (C) his proposals for the future, including policy additions, modifications, etc. You could also include things which were once part of Bush’s policy formula, but which have since disappeared (social security reform, etc).

Step 2: detailed reading of Bush’s statements, i.e., an objective assessment what Bush intend to convey, supported with extraneous info such as WH press statements, briefings, speeches, policy papers, etc. This would include his criticisms of opposing views, which he sort of scattered throughout the SOTU.

Step 3: point by point critical analysis of each statement, with the goal of objectively assessing the validity of each statement as supported (or not) by facts “on the ground” as it were.

Step 4: your opinion.

Frankly, I wouldn’t worry about “setting the record straight” on any SOTU. It’s a big, diverse, moving, everchanging world. No SOTU will ever be factual. If you don’t like what a president says in a SOTU speech, don’t worry. Nothing lasts forever.

While the anti-Bush bias on this site is apparent, the post was not meant to suggest that Bush is alone amongst presidents in putting forth a State of the Union address that does not present the entire picture.  That’s politics.

But it is also, I believe, important to have direct and frank discussions of the actual meaning and substances about policies.  What Bush claims many of his programs are doing and what they actually do are far from being the same thing.

Unfortunately, I find that the politics of rhetoric from both sides and from those outside the political parties often does not contain much more substance than SOTU addresses.

We can be cynical and discount SOTU addresses as being of no real importance, but I don’t think that is accurate.  Bush did paint a very rosy picture of many things last night and put himself forward as the watchdog and defender of disadvantaged children’s education and senior’s drug costs, he represented that he wants to make major moves related to energy sources and procurements and he presented an oversimplified view of international politics.

There were elements of truth in much of what Bush said, there were also exaggerations and misleading analogies.

Danny, for the most part, however, I agree with everything you say.  The goal of this is to be objective.  I thought my last paragraph made that clear, but I say it again here.  Certainly, some of what Bush said will stand up.  Some of it will not.  Much of it will represent differing approaches to problems and issues.

But it should be done and it will help the political discourse in this country.

And yes, I realize that I am now the one being utopian.  But there is no reason, with the number of people with knowledge and information on these subjects on the internet for it not to happen.

I think it’s important that we talk about the facial expressions made by Kennedy, Hillary and Pelosi. For a second there,Pelosi kinda looked like Bilbo freaking out when Frodo won’t let him hold the ring.

Pelosi is SCARY.  I was thinking more the mother in Brazil ... the actress who also played the grandmother on that Tony Danza show where he played the “maid.”

Nevertheless, after a slow start, her commentary on why Bush’s foreign policy decisions have been, shall we say, a little short sighted, shoot from the hip and isolating, was dead on.

Firstly, why would anyone want a sincere analysis of what is little more than a pep rally?

(funny, i typo’d “perp rally” and it seemed, so...

Secondly, don’t you just hate being lectured on “dignity” by people who confuse the act of procreation with that of defecation?

I know i do