Inaugural Address

[chucK]

Wow! What a speech. And don't forget, I'm an avowed Bush hater. Bush is one area where I preach hate and intolerance to my children.

 

But, boy, nice speech!

 

This basically sums up the meat of the speech:

 

"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppress, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

 

Can't argue with that!

 

Sure, the devil is in the details. And of course, who knows if this is total lip service, which will be used to justify bombing Iran and Syria while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are conveniently ignored. But you gotta give someone the benefit of doubt don't you. It is a positive sentiment.

 

How about this one?

 

"In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character — on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self."

 

Does this signal he's dropping the federally mandated anti-gay stuff? Interesting.

 

If one of those pollsters called me right now, I might actually have to think for a few minutes to answer the presidential approval question!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Wow! What a speech. And don't forget, I'm an avowed Bush hater. Bush is one area where I preach hate and intolerance to my children.

 

But, boy, nice speech!

 

You actually watched that extravaganza? I can't stand these types of events - no matter who gives it. I hate politicians and political posturing - even more than this shitty winter.

[chucK]

Listened on the radio. You can read the text or listen to it here, among other places probably. The liar did a great job with the presentation too.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Listened on the radio. You can read the text or listen to it here, among other places probably. The liar did a great job with the presentation too.

 

I like watching vintage speeches from 30 or more years ago - back when presidents spoke without dumbing down their rhetoric to the lowest common denominator and nodding to every special interest group. Some of them even wrote their own speeches.

[Ricardo_Montalban]

"In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character — on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self."

 

who thinks GW comes close to personifying this ideal?

 

this is bullshit lip service. i like what he said, but it makes me sick hearing it from his mouth.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

who thinks GW comes close to personifying this ideal?

 

this is bullshit lip service. i like what he said, but it makes me sick hearing it from his mouth.

 

that's what is so wrong with the political discourse today. too much cynicism - too much hatred for the "other" side just because of partisan affiliation and perceived "bogeymen".

 

I don't see it getting any better in the future...

[chucK]

"In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character — on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self."

 

who thinks GW comes close to personifying this ideal?

 

this is bullshit lip service. i like what he said, but it makes me sick hearing it from his mouth.

 

I agree that it is not credible coming from his mouth. But it is a positive statement, and I applaud it.

 

It does no harm to agree with this sentiment. And perhaps he will follow through.

 

Remember, he is a lame duck now. He doesn't need to toady to the GOP to get re-elected. Perhaps, just maybe, he will embark on an effort to actually help and strengthen the USA. If he does attempt to do so, he'll need the help of the public (us) to fight the politics as usual.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Remember, he is a lame duck now. He doesn't need to toady to the GOP to get re-elected. Perhaps, just maybe, he will embark on an effort to actually help and strengthen the USA. If he does attempt to do so, he'll need the help of the public (us) to fight the politics as usual.

 

What specific things on his agenda would you like to see done? I'm very wary of overhauling the tax code and privatizing social security. I'm against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I'm against government sponsored health care. What is left? I'd like to see tort reform, some semblance of fiscal responsibility and spending curtailed, resolution of the war in Iraq, diplomatic solutions to the crises in N. Korea and Iran. And you?

[Ricardo_Montalban]

who thinks GW comes close to personifying this ideal?

 

this is bullshit lip service. i like what he said, but it makes me sick hearing it from his mouth.

 

that's what is so wrong with the political discourse today. too much cynicism - too much hatred for the "other" side just because of partisan affiliation and perceived "bogeymen".

 

no, i just have yet to see GW display any integrity or tolerance towards others. this has nothing to do with party affiliation (i have none)...this has everything to do with bush

 

I don't see it getting any better in the future...

 

unless ideals start talking instead of big money, i agree

[Ricardo_Montalban]

Perhaps, just maybe, he will embark on an effort to actually help and strengthen the USA. If he does attempt to do so, he'll need the help of the public (us) to fight the politics as usual.

 

i surely hope so

 

[Norman_Clyde]

Perhaps, just maybe, he will embark on an effort to actually help and strengthen the USA.

 

ChucK, your optimism is an inspiration. I'm sure the Bush administration will seek to bring people like you on board for its more controversial policies, just before stabbing you in the back.

 

Did I say that? Sorry, I meant: the Bush administration will seek bipartisan support of its policies, as long as this suits its own ends. It will reach across the partisan aisle as long as it perceives the potential for increasing and consolidating its own power thereby. I would love to believe otherwise, but this administration's actions speak so much louder than its words, it's hard to take its words at face value. I too found parts of Bush's inaugural speech inspirational, and part of me wants to believe that Bush truly wants to do good rather than to simply rule. But time and again Bush has proven that he believes the truth is subservient to power, not the other way around.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

no, i just have yet to see GW display any integrity or tolerance towards others. this has nothing to do with party affiliation (i have none)...this has everything to do with bush

 

OK, here is a glaring counterexample to your unqualified statement: Bush went out of his way to reach out towards American Muslims immediately following 9/11 - irrespective of their political affiliation, and appealed to the American people not to make the mistake of demonizing these fellow Americans.

 

That is integrity and tolerance exemplified.

[griz]

"In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character — on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives.."

 

who thinks GW comes close to personifying this ideal?

 

this is bullshit lip service. i like what he said, but it makes me sick hearing it from his mouth.

 

to the idea it's lip service. I think it's funny he mentions tolerance of others when any protesters of Bush today were kept far from the eyes of the world in out of the way,special areas behind barricades and police.

 

i also like the fact that only the bush supporting rich,pretty and elite got to line the streets today too.

 

oh and.... Mr. Bush

Edited January 20, 2005 by griz

[Ricardo_Montalban]

OK, here is a glaring counterexample to your unqualified statement: Bush went out of his way to reach out towards American Muslims immediately following 9/11 - irrespective of their political affiliation, and appealed to the American people not to make the mistake of demonizing these fellow Americans.

 

That is integrity and tolerance exemplified.

 

touche

that's one example. yet his actions over the last 4 years has the scale tipped far to the other side.

[Norman_Clyde]

no, i just have yet to see GW display any integrity or tolerance towards others. this has nothing to do with party affiliation (i have none)...this has everything to do with bush

 

OK, here is a glaring counterexample to your unqualified statement: Bush went out of his way to reach out towards American Muslims immediately following 9/11 - irrespective of their political affiliation, and appealed to the American people not to make the mistake of demonizing these fellow Americans.

 

That is integrity and tolerance exemplified.

 

For a brief period after 9/11, this country showed unity, compassion and moral tolerance, while not losing its focus on the need to pursue and destroy the primary perpetrator of the terrorist attacks. I remember those days. I had real hope that Bush would show moral leadership that would inspire the entire world. Our nation had that chance, and we lost it. Boy, did we lose it. Does the current moral standing of the nation today seem even remotely similar to what it was after 9/11? Why not? What changed, and why?

 

How did America get from that moment of true integrity and tolerance to this moment, which sees our president enshrining as morally superior such phenomena as pre-emptive war, indefinite detention of US citizens without trial, and state-sanctioned torture? Is this the integrity and tolerance you are talking about?

[chucK]

What specific things on his agenda would you like to see done? I'm very wary of overhauling the tax code and privatizing social security. I'm against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I'm against government sponsored health care. What is left? I'd like to see tort reform, some semblance of fiscal responsibility and spending curtailed, resolution of the war in Iraq, diplomatic solutions to the crises in N. Korea and Iran. And you?

 

A bold attempt to expand the topic of this thread to infinity!

 

Agreed on your wariness of tax, SS and gay marriage stuff. Bush's justification for his SS fix stinks of his justifications for the Iraq War. Just say anything 'cause people are too dumb to realize that it's illogical (fix the SS crisis by removing money from it? ), then once that starts to stink too bad, it'll be replaced by another palatable "reason".

 

Healthcare

Government-sponsored health care I'm not sure about, but I do think our system is broken. Healthcare is a necessary service similar to a utility. I'm unsure of whether I like the idea of privatized utilities or not, but they certainly need a watchdog (that answers to the people).

 

Tort "reform"

Currently the only popular watchdog we have over big business, the medical industry, and the other assorted monied interests are the civil courts. Removing non-rich invidividuals' access to legal counsel by limiting judgements (and thus removing the lawyers' profit incentive for taking on a difficult case on contingency) will further consolidate the power of the rich over the poor. I don't like the frivolous lawsuits any more than you, but at the moment, I consider them a necessary evil. Until a better system of accountability for civil wrongs exists, I don't think our current system should be removed.

 

Environment

Speaking of govt. watchdogs, I think more effort should be paid to environmental concerns.

 

Snake-oil Companies

I think more oversight should be done over drug manufacturers. Their advertising should be banned on TV. And their literature to doctors should be more carefully scrutinized. I fully support one congressman's call to have all drug company sponsored trials be registered before the trial begins, so results the company finds problematic cannot be hidden as easily.

 

Fiscal Responsibility

I totally agree with more fiscal responsibility for the government. Note that the social security crisis is not a problem of social security going bankrupt. The problem is, is that social security will no longer be running in the black. This will necessitate social security calling in its loans to the US government. The "crisis" is that this will cause havoc to our government because it is perpetually running in the red.

 

How about this proposal. It would require an ammendment to the constitution, I think.

 

Allow the president line-item veto powers, only on designated appropriations bills. Also, this line-item veto (as opposed to a regular veto) could be overturned by a simple majority of the House.

 

This might give the president sorta scary powers (when the House is controlled by the same party), but it would reduce at least half the pork!

 

It would also add to accountability as any item the president did not veto would be implicitly endorsed by him/her. Also, any item for which the veto was overturned would have been voted on specifically, by people who need to be re-elected every two years.

 

There's my platform

 

Thank you and God Bless America

[KaskadskyjKozak]

A bold attempt to expand the topic of this thread to infinity!

...

 

I'll refrain from expanding the thread to infinity and just say although I don't agree with everything on your agenda (at least the details), there is common ground. Too bad our politicians can't seem to find any. It seems they all (both sides) have a knee-jerk response to attack any good idea from the other side, bicker over the details, and invoke ridiculous hyperbole... and if they don't have a substantive basis for the attack, they attack the motives or character of their opponents...

[Norman_Clyde]

There's my platform

 

Thank you and God Bless America

 

If you run on that platform, I'll vote for you.

[ScottP]

no, i just have yet to see GW display any integrity or tolerance towards others. this has nothing to do with party affiliation (i have none)...this has everything to do with bush

 

OK, here is a glaring counterexample to your unqualified statement: Bush went out of his way to reach out towards American Muslims immediately following 9/11 - irrespective of their political affiliation, and appealed to the American people not to make the mistake of demonizing these fellow Americans.

 

That is integrity and tolerance exemplified.

 

A token visit to the Islamic Center in DC and a declaration of Islam as a "religion of peace" was hardly "going out of his way" in my opinion.

Subsequent "reaching out" included surveillance, search, seizure, and incarceration of Muslims and Arabs in America without notification, evidence or an opportunity for the victims to access legal advice (see PATRIOT Act).

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Subsequent "reaching out" included surveillance, search, seizure, and incarceration of Muslims and Arabs in America without notification, evidence or an opportunity for the victims to access legal advice (see PATRIOT Act).

 

more hyperbole from an overwrought Bush hater...

[ScottP]

Subsequent "reaching out" included surveillance, search, seizure, and incarceration of Muslims and Arabs in America without notification, evidence or an opportunity for the victims to access legal advice (see PATRIOT Act).

 

more hyperbole from an overwrought Bush hater...

 

You claim "Bush went out of his way to reach out towards American Muslims immediately following 9/11" which really seems an opinion touted as fact. I merely provided a counter example to your unqualified statement. There was nothing overwrought or hyperbolic in what I said.

I initially searched for anything I could find on Bush reaching out to the Muslim world and the only info that presented itself from several queries using a variety of search terms was the one visit to the Islamic Center and the religion of peace quote.

Please, provide me with the info I sought. I would really like to know the extent to which Bush reached out to the Muslim and Arab populations in America after 9/11.

[chucK]

There's his well-documented reaching out to the Bin Laden family members. He helped them so they could fly out of our country when flights were otherwise grounded.

[murraysovereign]

I would really like to know the extent to which Bush reached out to the Muslim and Arab populations in America after 9/11.

 

Well, for starters, he didn't round them all up and gas them...

[chucK]

I'll refrain from expanding the thread to infinity and just say although I don't agree with everything on your agenda (at least the details), there is common ground. Too bad our politicians can't seem to find any. It seems they all (both sides) have a knee-jerk response to attack any good idea from the other side, bicker over the details, and invoke ridiculous hyperbole... and if they don't have a substantive basis for the attack, they attack the motives or character of their opponents...

 

If Bush really is interested in the good of the country (which may not be mutually exclusive of the good of his party) he can break the log jam by doing what he did as governor of Texas. He found some democratic issue that was not totally repugnant to his side (probably because it was something that was good for Texas), and worked with them to get their issue done.

 

His own side does not have the knee-jerk response to trash their own guy, so if he picked the right issue, he could get it done AND promote some goodwill with the dem's, This might help break the logjam of constant knee-jerk fighting.

 

It took a reactionary conservative like Nixon to open up China, because liberals would too easily have been labeled commie sympathizers. Perhaps Bush could break the logjam by getting something good for the country done like universal healthcare.

[Peter_Puget]

ChucK don’t be duped…see the groundwork being set right now …

 

Soon, there will be an elected Iraqi parliament. The elected parliament members will find themselves in the security accountability hotseat very quickly. There will be pressure for *Iraqi* action against any perceived Syrian involvement in the insurgency. The US will not let that action happen without its help. Whether US would prefer to act in Syria or not Iraq will “force” the issue….

 

 

..and then there is Iran....

 

GWB=LBJ?