I’m not in the mood to analyze the intracies of Bush’s speech except to say that his descent into more liberal, grand, and utopian ideas gets worse by the day, e.g., “America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the Nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed, and move this world toward peace.” Of course, we did those things after being attacked and ultimately in defense of our own national interest. It was a defensive war unlike our proposed continued interventions in places like Iran or Taiwan.
At the same time, he continues to flee the historic, inherited America in favor of abstractions like “the growing economy.” He says, “Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. Others say that the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy ââ¬â even though this economy could not function without them. All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction ââ¬â toward a stagnant and second-rate economy. ” Bush insults his audience by suggesting our only concerns should be economic and that all restricts on immigration are one stepped removed from socialism. It’s no more a Berlin Wall to have protected one’s borders and limited entry than are the walls around one’s home. Remember, the Berlin Wall kept people from leaving; we want to keep people from coming in. A jail is not a home, though both have walls.
There is little conservative about this man or his administration.
Subscribe To This Feed

…and the Berlin Wall didn’t just keep people from leaving, it divided a unified cultural and ethinc people for the sake of ideology.
…and the Berlin Wall didn’t just keep people from leaving, it divided a unified cultural and ethinc people for the sake of ideology.
Well, Iran hasn’t attacked us in earnest in quite some time, so their supplying the people we are fighing in Iraq and Afghanistan (openly and admittedly in the case of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar)will be ignored for the sake of this argument. Still and all, do we want a world where Ahmenijjaad and his loathesome ilk has deliverable nukes? Sometimes aggressive wars are necessary Chris. Sorry, but it is so. Empire, or what passes for it nowadays, is even less our choice than it was the choice of the British outside their isles, but the alternatives are worse.
I was encouraged that Bush asked for the line-item veto. Since the joke of the last line-item effort, I believe this is the first time a President has asked for that power again. If the Republicans and Democrats are honest in their want for a stonger, leaner economy, we should pass a Constitutional amendment to give the President line-item powers. Especially in this time of financial scandles, such a move would go a long way for all involved. I see no downside to doing so other than the demise of the million dollar ketchup studies and the end of bridges to nowhere.
Re: line item veto, the President has asked for it every year he’s been in office; I just don’t think he did it in the state of the union address.
Re: line item veto, the President has asked for it every year he’s been in office; I just don’t think he did it in the state of the union address.
Fine, but the State of the Union is the President’s time to bring issues to the forefront of public attention. We haven’t heard about the Line Item Veto in a while at the SOTU. It’s a big step forward, was my point.