SOTU Text; Dem Response; Condensed Versions for Rep. Charles Rangel and All Other Sleepy Americans

Nick Gillespie | January 20, 2004

Here's the text of the State of the Union Address.

The super-condensed version:

Things are good, though terrorism is a threat to America and so are kids who take steroids and gays who want to marry each other. The housing market's never been better. I have a 10 year-old pen pal named Ashley who's swell.

Here's the Democrat's response by Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Tom Daschle.

The super-condensed version:

Pelosi: The nation is strong, though not as strong as if a Democrat were in the White House. I remember John Kennedy's first inaugural address and I'm no John Kennedy.

Daschle: We need to become what Republican Newt Gingrich used to call an "opportunity society"--the sort of place of where even Democrats can be elected president. The job market sucks and even illegal drugs are too expensive.

Comments

|1.20.04 @ 11:22AM|#

"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives."

I would like to hear "states' rights conservatives" explain how exactly the Mass Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is George Bush's business.

|1.20.04 @ 11:40AM|#

Also, I'm getting really sick of hearing about "redefining marriage". Whose marriage, exactly, has been involuntarily "redefined"?

Thise activist judges have commited a serious crime against a word in W's moral dictionary.

|1.21.04 @ 1:02AM|#

BetterSafe writes: "Millions did get hurt, alma, and who knows how many more would have. Well, I'd rather be in the position where know-nothings like you can laugh than one where thousands get killed on our soil again and everyone asks why didn't we do more?"

Just think how safe we'd be if, instead of taking out Iraq's defunct programs, we'd instead done something about Pakistan's sales of nuclear weapons technology to our buddies like Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

|1.21.04 @ 1:03AM|#

Not to mention the five hundred dead American soldiers. But at least we no longer have to fear Iraq's nonexistent WMD.

Kevin Carson|1.21.04 @ 1:03AM|#

So what happened to Mars? Obviously a trial balloon that didn't fly. But does that speech just vanish down the memory hole, like with Muhammad and the satanic verses?

|1.21.04 @ 1:13AM|#

"There was only one way to keep Saddam Hussein from having WMD - get rid of Saddam. There was only one way to get rid of Saddam - invasion." Well, I guess we'll never know. Given the human, economic, diplomatic, and strategic (to the actual War on Terrorism) costs, I'd say it would have been worth it to give it the ol' college try before rushing straight to invasion.

But it seems to me that you're saying that Clinton and Bush (pre-9/11) were doing everything they could, short of invasion, to bring about regime change. I'd have to disagree. Or are you saying that post Afghanistan, Bush used America's enhanced position to bring about regime change through means short of war? Again, I'd have to disagree.

But you may be right about the ineffectiveness of other options. Another few months or years of trying other options, and enlisting other countries to help put on the pressure, might have resulted in zero political change in Iraq. But even if that had been the case, and invasion had proved to be necessary, more time and a competant, realistic policty would have provided us with the ability to carry it out in a manner that didn't leave us holding the bag alone (the Coalition of the Billing seems more eager to sign a petition in exchange for free stuff than to make militarily and economically significant contributions, the way they did in the first Gulf War), didn't damage our international credibility, allowed us to sign on internal opposition and incorporate them into the war plan (so we would be seen by Iraqis as supporters of domestic freedom fighters instead of foreign occupiers), and allowed us to formulate a reasonable plan for the post-war order. All of those things would have been preferable to the way the runup, the invasion, and the post-invasion were carried out. The only possible reason to neglect those important goals would be a level of imminence that made immediate action necessary, whatever the consequences. And as Shrub well knew, there was no such imminence. Even pro-war types like The New Republic are disgusted by the way this was handled.

|1.21.04 @ 1:49AM|#

So Bush wants to defend marriage. Fine. But here's a question:

Why is the President making a Constitutional amendment part of his agenda? Last I checked Congress can propose amendments, and amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, but nowhere in this process does the President have a role.

Don't get me wrong, he's a US citizen who has the same right to speak out on it as anybody else. He might want to write a letter to Texas's 2 Senators and whichever member of the House represents his district in Texas, and also to the state legislators representing him in TX (in case such an amendment is sent to the TX legislature for ratification) but the office of President plays no part in this process. Why does he act like it's part of his agenda?

|1.21.04 @ 1:56AM|#

thoreau, the same reason he made "No Child Left Behind," the Prescription-Drug benefit, etc. part of his agenda; he can't propose a bill to Congress, but he will instead advocate and push for the bill once one of his followers does propose it.

|1.21.04 @ 2:32AM|#

alma,

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed. Do they count?

|1.21.04 @ 2:38AM|#

How come nobody's giving props to Nick Gillespie for being funny as hell? Isn't anyone else at least a little drunk (if not from a SOTU drinking game, from trying to forget this politics induced dispair)?

|1.21.04 @ 2:44AM|#

Some of you may remember these State of the Union gems from last year:

http://www.campchaos.com/othershows/video/02.html

http://www.afsoapbox.com/downloads-file-12.html

I'm sure someone's already on it for this year's. Please post if you find them.

|1.21.04 @ 2:47AM|#

Funny that Pelosi would mention JFK. If he were alive today he wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting the democratic nomination. His speeches sound more republican than democrat but then again that was before the democratic party was taken over by the left.

|1.21.04 @ 2:54AM|#

If you wait for a smoking gun, the bullet is already on its way.

And if you wait for anything bad to happen, it's already happened. So go be proactive. Start with your next-door neighbor. He must be hiding something.

|1.21.04 @ 3:46AM|#

Bush is doubtless the most limited president America has had since the end of WW II. The only other president to compare with him in inadequacy and general mediocrity is Truman.

And yet, both Bush and Truman coincidentally landed on great intersections in our nation's history...and thank God they had the good fortune to allow themselves to be "used" by policy advisors who gave them excellent advice!

Truman can be forgiven for a thousand things, because he got perhaps a half-dozen supremely important ones right. Much the same will be said of Bush.

|1.21.04 @ 4:03AM|#

I would like to hear "states' rights conservatives" explain how exactly the Mass Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is George Bush's business.

Well, I'm not a "states' rights conservative", but I can answer that question: the courts have previously held that states must recognize marriages and divorces performed in other states. That's why people used to fly to Vegas for a quickie marriage or quickie divorce -- because even though the divorce or marriage requirements were much tougher in, say, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania was required to recognize the quick-n-easy Nevada marriage or divorce.

So the fear of anti-gay "states' rights conservatives" is that legalized gay marriage in ONE state effectively legalizes it for all fifty states, because the federal government has already stripped the states of much of their "right" to set restrictions on marriage. If gay marriage becomes legal in Boston, it becomes legal in Houston -- with the caveat that the actually marriage license for the Houston couple needs to be issued in Boston.

Now, an honest States' Rights Conservative would, in response to this, support a Constitutional Amendment explicitly stating that states are not required to recognize the marriages or divorces of any of their residents, if those marriages/divorces are performed in another state. That's a simple, straightforward, truly states-rights solution.

The fact that the actual amendment being pushed is vastly more "anti-gay" than that is a pretty good indication that most of the people crying "states' rights!" are using the states-rights issue as a smokescreen to mask their real motives.

|1.21.04 @ 4:04AM|#

I for one was dissappointed in Bush's speech. He came out four square against steroids in athletics. What I want to know is when is he going to go after the two biggest problems in Professional sports, Instant Replay and the Designated hitter. I fear Republican critics are right, Bush lacks gravitas.

|1.21.04 @ 4:05AM|#

I for one was dissappointed in Bush's speech. He came out four square against steroids in athletics. What I want to know is when is he going to go after the two biggest problems in Professional sports, Instant Replay and the Designated hitter. I fear Republican critics are right, Bush lacks gravitas.

|1.21.04 @ 4:11AM|#

I'm left with a distinct question.

Why this SOTU now?

I'm a registered republican. Consider myself to be libertarian. After last week I had decided that I was not going to just "throw my vote away" and vote libertarian but that I would vote for one of the democrats, hopefully whichever one has the best chance of getting Dubya out of office. It has nothing to do with the "war for oil" or halliburton or any of the crap the left is pissed off about. I am simply angry that Bush is no conservative. I spent an entire summer semester defending Bush in a Poli Sci special interests class as sort of the conservative whipping boy for the class. I enjoyed it immensely (good debate) but I am frustrated that I was defending someone who is definitely not conservative.

I guess the thing is, if conservatives are his base, this wasn't a speech for conservatives. It was for centrists, and I understand that is largely what it is for. But really, steroids, gays? When the fuck has that been on the agenda as a serious major issue?

|1.21.04 @ 4:13AM|#

R.C. wrote: "One more thing - for a regime that has demonstrated its willingness to make and use WMD, there is no practical difference between having the ability to manufacture WMD and having barrels of the stuff already sitting around. Both are an equal threat."

So the rest of the world would be justified in allying to take down the US (atomic weapons - WWII), Britain and France (chemical weapons - WWI)? Afterall, those three countries possess both the knowledge of how to make the weapons, stockpiles of them, have used them in the past, and (at least in the case of the US) have made public statements about their willingness to use them again. Ooops, sorry, I forgot R.C.'s "Mud people don't have the same rights Whites do" rule of national defense.

|1.21.04 @ 4:18AM|#

Just about every single allegation the administartion made before the war about Iraq's WMD has turned out to be false, and to claim vindication from Kay's report is outrageous.

One allegation that has not been refuted, and which is strongly supported by Kay's interim report, is that Hussein maintained both the intent and the capacity to rebuild his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.

Which left us with two choices:
(a): Maintain sanctions and surveillance on him for, at a bare minimum, decades to come, while giving Hussein a massive PR victory from the economic fallout of the sanctions.
(b): Give up and let him develop WMDs.
(c): Take him out.

I supported option "c", and events since have convinced me I made the right call. Option "a" wouldn't have worked anyway -- as much as certain people would now like to pretend otherwise, we all remember that the same people who screamed "give (a) a chance" had, prior to the USA announcing its intention to take option (c), been loudly demanding an END to (a).

WMD aside -- and any honest and informed person must concede WMD were never given as the sole reason for the invasion -- we got quite a few additional benefits out of this. Things like "toppling a totalitarian fascist regime", "having a friendly, non-dictatorial Arab nation to base our troops in, which borders all the major terrorist-sponsoring nations", "having one less place for al Qaeda to train in", and "scaring the shit out of the local terror-sponsoring dictators". Oh, and "weakening the United Nations", which I personally think is a major plus for America and most of the rest of the world. :)

But let's ignore all of that. Let's pretend that, in the end, the United States received no personal benefit for taking out Hussein. We thought he had WMDs, we were wrong, etc etc.

Given that hypothetical scenario, my question is: so?

|1.21.04 @ 4:20AM|#

Which left us with two choices

Er, three -- I added in "let him develop WMDs" and forgot to increment the count. :)

|1.21.04 @ 5:23AM|#

Joe Bob

Whatever other problems Bush may face in getting re-elected, his base isn't one of them. 95% of Americans who describe themselves as Republicans, and a similar percentage of Americans who describe themselves as Conservatives, give Bush the strongest approval ratings they have given ANY president since such polls have been conducted-- this has been true for more than two years, held up during the worst days of August/September of last year, and appears to be largely independent of how other Americans feel about him.

Any conservative pundits and activists who try to lead a march out of the Bush camp, are going to look over their shoulders to discover no one is following them. Bush's TASK is to win over the Swing Vote (he WILL), and there is little that conservative activists can do to either help or hinder him...so they may as well quit snivelling.

|1.21.04 @ 5:31AM|#

if you wait for anything bad to happen, it's already happened. So go be proactive. Start with your next-door neighbor. He must be hiding something.

See, there's this thing called the "middle ground". I know it's a tough concept, so bear with me. You don't have to start with your next-door neighbor. You look all around the world. You find Iraq, a country whose leader broke the cease-fire in 1991. He continued to engage no-fly zone patrols, hide his WMD material, etc., you know the story. He had a terrorist training camp with a 747 where his troops learned how to take over planes without the use of weapons. The man publicly declared himself the enemy of the U.S. To ignore the possibility of him acting on that declaration is a folly best left to the left.

No need to invade Canada. Hussein explicitly asked for what he got.

|1.21.04 @ 6:39AM|#

T-Bone,

I'm with you. Nick is in fine form this week. At least the election will provide us with good entertainment, even if it comes up very short on leadership.

|1.21.04 @ 7:08AM|#

Dan wrote:

The fact that the actual amendment being pushed is vastly more "anti-gay" than that is a pretty good indication that most of the people crying "states' rights!" are using the states-rights issue as a smokescreen to mask their real motives.

Gee, that way of thinking has been used in the not-so-recent past *cough cough slavery cough*. Instead of wrapping themselves in the flag, scoundrels hide behind the banner of "states' rights" to defend a questionable at best, odious at worst position.

But of course, this administration picks and chooses when to respect states' rights. Prop 215, anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Mark S.|1.21.04 @ 7:15AM|#

Last night, I hid out in my room while my uber-Republican father watched the SotU. I had to close the door to dampen the shouts of "You tell 'em George" and "In your face, Hilliary, you bitch." There is no point in arguing with him. He really believes that Bush II is the Second Coming of his father (whom he believes was the greatest President of all time and was unjustly rejected for an "immoral, draft-dodging, drug addict.") and he can literally do no wrong.

To him, PATRIOT will ferret out the terrorist that are hiding in the thickets that Red Scare communists once used, gays should be thrown in the same jail cells as the drug users (except Rush Limbaugh of course), and any nation where the natives looks at an American wrong should be literally nuked.

Now he's ranting about the Democrat's response. Sigh... Dad, it's TV, they can't hear you.

|1.21.04 @ 7:19AM|#

Joe Bob: I'm with you and will follow you out of the room on this one. I plan to vote for a Democrat for President in the hopes that we can end up with a split of the Executive and Legislative branches which will (hopefully) grid-lock the law making mechanism.

Bush has done a wonderful job on the war/terrorism issue but his approach to social and fiscal policy is appalling.

Kerry/Edwards or Edwards/Kerry in 2004!!!

|1.21.04 @ 7:26AM|#

"gays should be thrown in...jail cells..."

How exactly do you get from opposing redefining marriage to include same sex relationships to imprsoning gays? Talk about a rant.

|1.21.04 @ 8:02AM|#

thoreau,

Your President has the right via his Article II powers to recommend legislation; presumably that could include constitutional amendments.

|1.21.04 @ 8:03AM|#

Andrew,

Ahh, yes, a not very well hidden argument from popularity; you are one for the use of logical fallacies.

tomwright|1.21.04 @ 9:54AM|#

>>Not to mention the five hundred dead American soldiers.

|1.21.04 @ 10:14AM|#

Joe Bob, I don't follow your logic. You say that you're unhappy with Bush because he's not conservative. Your solution is to vote for a democrat. How do you think this will help? If a large portion of the voting public, particularly former republican voters, votes for a democrat do you expect Bush to become more conservative? Wouldn't the proper response of a vote-mongering politician be to move further to the left?

|1.21.04 @ 10:19AM|#

Backing the Federal Marriage Amendment may well win Bush the next election, but history is going to remember him as the anti-gay verson of Strom Thurmond, and this speech as his answer to Thurmond's fillibuster.

|1.21.04 @ 10:23AM|#

Opening shot of Democratic Response:

"Hello, I'm Senator Tom Daschle, and I'm sitting like a little girly boy."

"And I'm Representative Nancy Pelosi, and I would never sleep with Tom Daschle."

It's all about the body language, folks.

That said, I think Nancy Pelosi looked more presidential than anyone else on TV last night.

|1.21.04 @ 10:39AM|#

Drew wrote - "Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed. Do they count?"

If you're talking about from WMD, I'm not sure where you get that number- the infamous gassing of Halabja was said to kill about 5000. Still a very large number, but fewer than the number killed in the American invasion. At any rate, according to David Kay "Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991." Iraq's prior use of chemical weapons is an ugly episode of history -one when America actually helped (against Iran) or stood by (Reagan vetoed sanctions on Iraq following Halabja.) I don't see what that has to do with Iraq's current WMD programs, which have killed nobody, since they don' exist.

Dan wrote - "any honest and informed person must concede WMD were never given as the sole reason for the invasion"

These honest and informed people presumably do not include the President, who said in November 2002 "Well, my expectation is, is that we can do this peacefully, if Saddam Hussein disarms. That's my expectation. This is -- Saddam Hussein has got a decision to make: Will he uphold the agreement that he has made. And if he chooses to do so by disarming peacefully, the world will be better off for it." Notice he explicitlyy said that if not for WMD (that's whAt the agreement to disarm refers to) the world would be better off w/o the war.

|1.21.04 @ 10:39AM|#

That said, I think Nancy Pelosi looked more presidential than anyone else on TV last night.

I had no idea that botox induced facial paralysis was the same thing as looking presidential.

|1.21.04 @ 10:45AM|#

One more thing - for a regime that has demonstrated its willingness to make and use WMD, there is no practical difference between having the ability to manufacture WMD and having barrels of the stuff already sitting around. Both are an equal threat.

Its like saying that you shouldn't worry about someone with a history of homicide because they are keeping their bullets and their gun in different drawers - hey, the gun isn't loaded, so it isn't a threat to anyone, right?

|1.21.04 @ 10:54AM|#

Drew:

"Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed. Do they count?"

Are these the same victims that Albright said their death was worth the price of containing the threat of Saddam?

|1.21.04 @ 10:58AM|#

Everyone was "worried," RC. Outside a radical fringe, no one was advising that we do nothing. The question was whether the threat was large enough and imminent enough to compel us to sacrifice hundreds of America's soldiers, and billions of our dollars, instead of working on the problem via other means.

"We can't afford to wait" was the rallying cry last winter. Well, bullshit, we absolutely could have afforded to wait. But Shrub wanted his war, he always wanted this war, and was not going to let the golden opportunity of Sept. 11 pass without getting his ideological project on.

|1.21.04 @ 11:25AM|#

"Throwing" your Libertarian vote "away" and voting for a Democrat who opposes what you stand for?!

You don't "throw away" or "waste" your vote. You vote your conscience. Voting any way other than what your conscience dictates is like "throwing away" or "wasting" your conscience.

Don't sign on to an endorsement of someone you'd just as soon see rot in hell, folks. Have some integrity already.

|1.21.04 @ 11:34AM|#

"I had no idea that botox induced facial paralysis was the same thing as looking presidential."

Yep, with this crew that is about as good as it gets.

|1.21.04 @ 12:14PM|#

And don't miss this gem:

"already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities..."

Boy, I'm sure glad we find those weapons of mass destruction-related program activities before someone really got hurt.

|1.21.04 @ 12:19PM|#

Well, joe, it all depends on whether you wanted the problem solved or not.

The "other" means you refer to were demonstrably ineffective; indeed, check out Belmont Club for a run-down on just how ineffective Euro/UN style agreements/inspections/sanctions are in containing WMD.

There was only one way to keep Saddam Hussein from having WMD - get rid of Saddam. There was only one way to get rid of Saddam - invasion. I don't see how anyone can argue with either of those two propositions after the dismal performance of agreements/inspections/sanctions from 1991-2003. That approach left Saddam in power, with the ability to reconstruct a WMD program on short notice.

Where I think reasonable minds can differ is the degree to which Saddam's possession of WMD (or their equivalent - the means to produce WMD) was a threat to the US. Some don't see the nexus of rogue WMD states with Islamist terrorism to be much of a threat to the US; others see it as an intolerable risk that justifies preemptive war.

|1.21.04 @ 12:22PM|#

Speedwell, since when do presidential politics have anything to do with integrity? It's about compromise and sometimes that involves comrpomising your integrity for the most good (which often isn't a whole lot).

|1.21.04 @ 12:25PM|#

The Policy was PRE-emptive!
He always said so - That was the whole point.
If you wait for a smoking gun, the bullet is already on its way.

|1.21.04 @ 12:27PM|#

Millions did get hurt, alma, and who knows how many more would have. Well, I'd rather be in the position where know-nothings like you can laugh than one where thousands get killed on our soil again and everyone asks why didn't we do more?

|1.21.04 @ 12:28PM|#

Heavens to Betsy, can't we at least wait until those programs are functional. I hear ya, selma hayek.

I can't wait until we have a president who will admit that allah is an incompetent pussy who enjoys seeing the majority of his followers stumbling over their own shit throughout their lives. Why bother.

Atheus is god. Ahora neoismus.

|1.21.04 @ 12:49PM|#

Oh, another cat fight between the two religious fundamentalists. :)

|1.21.04 @ 12:53PM|#

"Millions did get hurt, alma, and who knows how many more would have. Well, I'd rather be in the position where know-nothings like you can laugh than one where thousands get killed on our soil again and everyone asks why didn't we do more?"

Exactly zero people got hurt by the things David Kay has found so far, the most substantial of which appears to be a vial of botulinim left in someone's refrigerator for the last decade (read the report, it's not very long.)

Just about every single allegation the administartion made before the war about Iraq's WMD has turned out to be false, and to claim vindication from Kay's report is outrageous.

I don't see what this has to do with millions of people getting hurt, and I have no idea which people you are referring to.

The Associated Press did, however, find thousand of Iraqi civilians who were killed by this noble adventure.

|1.22.04 @ 10:29AM|#

Good job making the case that Iraq was the best target for our aggression.

Now, why are you so determined to "look all around the world" for someone to blow up?

|1.22.04 @ 11:39AM|#

Is anyone else turned on by Nancy Pelosi?
What a body!
And smart, too!
EEEEEEEEE-YAAAAAAAAH!