Comment On President Bush’s State Of The Union Speech…
by Bill Simon
I don’t think I can stand to watch President Bush’s speech tonight, so, please, comment here on your impressions, and I will become educated vicariously on it. 😉
Technorati Tags: President Bush, speech
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
what if they gave a State of the Union and nobody came?
ho-hum.
January 25th, 2007 at 12:36 am
I sense a trend here . . .
January 25th, 2007 at 12:56 am
I just saw a part of it, but I thought from what I saw that GW will not lower taxes for americans which is one of the redeeming features of a “true” republican, and he will go ahead with a form of amnesty that really puts him on a low list in my book…
January 25th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
I’ll get blasted here, but I thought it was one of Bush’s best speeches. I’m not saying anything about content, but he was relaxed, confident, and looked like a leader.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Josh, you sound like one of those people who goes on “emotion” and “feeling” rather than logic and substance.
Apparently, you watch Greta Van Sustern religiously. 😉
January 26th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Sorry never watched Greta, I more of a go by the gut type..
January 27th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Richard Viguerie Blasts Bush’s Speech
Conservative pioneer and Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com Richard Viguerie has done a great job of identifying the disappointments in President Bush’s State of the Union address.
The Hotline: The underlying message in this State of the Union Address was directed toward the Democrats: In effect, we can work together–let’s make a deal. The underlying message directed toward the conservatives was: You have no place else to go. Among the other omissions in the President’s speech:
? He did not acknowledge any mistake in pursuing the liberal, big government policies that have driven the Republican Party from power on Capitol Hill.
? He did not announce any changes in personnel in a conservative direction.
? He did not announce that he will veto any increase in discretionary spending.
? He did not call for the downsizing or elimination of any government programs.
? He did not call for eliminating the corporate welfare shelled out to big business.
? He did not announce that he will veto any legislation that contains ‘earmarks.’
? He did not launch a serious war on the institutionalized government corruption between big business, their lobbies, Congress, and the Administration.
? He did not announce any significant initiatives to protect traditional moral values.
Accordingly, conservatives must continue to declare their independence from the Republican Party. We must act as a Third Force in American politics, seeking to draw both major political parties to the Right. Conservative principles and goals take precedence over partisanship. We will support Democrats and Republicans alike when they do the right thing, and oppose Democrats and Republicans alike when they do the wrong thing.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Well, the silver lining in all this is that John Konop is declaring his independence from the Republican Party. Don’t let the door hit you in the backside on the way out.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:12 am
Funny that you take the name of a true conservative as your own, Adam. Yet, you stubbornly believe the people in charge of the Republican Party today ARE real “conservatives.”
John Konop is closer to the Adam Smith of the Federalist Papers than anyone in the White House or in Congress today.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:26 am
Adam
If the Party does not have room to support real conservatives like Richard Viguerie then you are right, I am in the wrong party.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
“John Konop is closer to the Adam Smith of the Federalist Papers than anyone in the White House or in Congress today.”
Sorry, Bill, but Adam Smith had nothing to do with the Federalist Papers. Perhaps you’re thinking of Hamilton, Madison and Jay?
Smith was also not a “conservative” – he was actually rather radical for his day, much like John Locke or Thomas Jefferson.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Adam
If you support the GOP you are in conflict with the real Adam Smith.
Hey you just know the name not any real facts above talking points.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:44 pm
LOL. That’s pretty funny coming from a Lou Dobbs fan.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Adam
Do you understand his theory of the invisible hand? If you did you would know how Lou Dobbs fits in. Unless labor has the justice and rights to negotiate freely according to Adam Smith you do not have a free market system.
Do you think in Countries like China, Oman… has a real legal system that people have human rights?
I know this is outside of RNC talking points for you. But if you pit American workers against people with limited rights you have a system of feudalism.
This is why real conservatives like Richard Viguerie are calling out people like you who do not support our Country. For many of us the Constitution is not just a piece of paper.
If you use the name it would help if you understood the facts.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I think Adam went back to school!
February 1st, 2007 at 5:45 pm
“But if you pit American workers against people with limited rights you have a system of feudalism.”
Really? Wow. Who is the nobleman to whose manor I am bound? What role did China and Oman play in my newfound servitude?
That’s about the most ridiculous statement I’ve seen from you – and the bar was already set high.
“people like you who do not support our Country”
I wouldn’t be so crass and juvenile as to cast aspersions on your patriotism as you did mine, but if you knew anything about economics, you’d know that the protectionism you Dobbsian populists clamor for only harms consumers – for nothing more than the temporary profit of producers. Economic nationalism is the very thing Adam Smith was arguing against.
“I think Adam went back to school!”
I think it’s time Konop stopped assuming he knows what he’s talking about.
February 1st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Adam
The real Adam Smith called you “ignorant”?
The 18th century economist Adam Smith noted the imbalance in the rights of workers in regards to owners (or “masters”). In The Wealth of Nations, Book I, chapter 8, Smith wrote:
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate…
[When workers combine,] masters… never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen.