The Blue State

Comment on the President's speech

If you feel like venting, do it here.  Whatever is on your mind -- whether it be about Bush's speech, the Democratic response, how the media is spinning all of it or your take on the REAL state of the union -- let's hear it.

In a few hours

Just a reminder that President Bush's State of the Union speech, followed by the Democratic Response, kicks off at 9 PM ET/6 PM PT on just about every network and cable news channel. 

I will give my own response, and I want to hear everyone else's take on the speech.

Video: Why Tim Kaine was chosen to give the Democratic Response

On the syndicated weekend program "The Chris Matthews Show", the panel of journalists explained that by newly-elected Virginia Governor Tim Kaine being chosen to give the Democratic Response to Bush's State of the Union address, the party is sending the message that they are looking for some new faces.  More importantly, think about the fact that Tim Kaine was Mark Warner's successor.  Warner is a presidential candidate for 2008.  So by Kaine being the one to give the address, and not Hillary, many of the Democrats might be sending a signal that Warner would be welcomed in the 2008 presidential field:

Click to watch clip >>> (Windows Media Player)

I must admit, although I have been very critical of the Democrats over the last two weeks, they made the right move by choosing Kaine to give the address.  He is not a polarizing figure like Bush.  Centrist voters need to see the distinction between the two.  Also, the Democrats picked a great mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, to give the Spanish language version of the Democratic response.  Party insiders have told me that Villaraigosa will focus some of his speech on the lack of support that urban areas all over the country have been getting from the federal government.  Educational programs are being slashed left and right, leaving more than a large share of children behind.  Villaraigosa is expected to drill Bush on that issue.

To Bush, Iran not as much of a threat as Iraq was

The GOP are getting a little ticked off, as they should, because the President is not taking the same tough stance on Iran as he did with Iraq.  Almost every single Middle East expert in this country in 2003 through that Iran presented more of a threat to U.S. security through its ties to terrorism than Iraq.  There are two obvious reasons for Bush's soft stance on Iran:

• The invasion of Iraq was planned out by the neo-conservatives years prior to the invasion.  Iran was never a target, but rather a rhetorical toy to put into the 'Axis of Evil' speech.
• Both George W. Bush and Karl Rove know that they do not have the political capital to approach Iran with the same aggressive policy.

As of now, threatening military action against Iran would be useless because they know that our armed forces are over-extended.  The best we can do is go to the UN and threaten sanctions.

Video: Carville says Democrats need a narrative

Before I show this clip, I would like to mention that when I was younger my idols consisted almost completely of sports players.  Now that I study political science and history at the University of Washington, I "admire", not idolize, a number of influential political individuals past and present -- ranging from Martin Luther King to the 36th and 42nd Presidents of the United States (I'll let you find who those were!).  I don't really idolize more than a small handful of people these days, mainly due to the fact that I'm not a child anymore.  But two of the four that I do idolize are James Carville and Paul Begala.

Last night, Democratic strategist James Carville was on MSNBC's "The Situation", hosted by his former CNN conservative buddy Tucker Carlson.  As usual, Carville had advice for the Democrats on how to take back Congress this November.  When Carville, the former Clinton strategist, speaks, you listen!:

Click to watch clip >>> (Windows Media Player)

If you can't view the clip, here is a small portion of the transcript:

CARLSON: "Give me two things the Democrats need to do in order to win."

CARVILLE: "The Democrats need to produce a narrative -- and I've said this time and time again.  I've said it to you and to audiences and everyone else is Democrats tend to get up and they speak like Roman Senators -- 'And I stand for' -- and they do a checklist of the interest groups in the Democratic Party, as opposed to a story, a narrative, definitive things to which you are for or against.  I hope over the course of this year, coming into the Congressionals, that we can do a little bit better than that and I really hope we can do better in '08."

CARLSON: "What is the narrative."

CARVILLE: "I think the narrative is we've got to solve our addiction to foreign oil.  We've got to move very decisively in this area...It's not just a couple of bag eggs in Washington, it's a bad barrel..of eggs."

When Carville said the word 'narrative' it made me automatically think of Bill Clinton and John Edwards.  The two candidates were able to tell a story in a way that attracted middle-American voters to their candidacies.  If you've heard Virginia Governor Mark Warner speak, it's easy to get the same feeling when listening to him.  So you get the idea why, as of now, I support Mark Warner for the 2008 nomination.  If not him, then John Edwards.

Bush and his new energy proposals are meaningless

The New York Times is reporting this morning that a significant portion of President Bush's speech will be devoted to claiming that he will reform the U.S.'s energy policy. 

It's tough to take the President at his word, especially when the oil and gas industries have donated a total of $1,517,622 to the GOP for the 2006 election cycle.  That same sector donated $2,596,725 to the Bush-Cheney Campaign in 2004.  The GOP also backed subsidies for the oil industry, amounting to a total of $14.5 billion in 2005.  This comes as Exxon Mobile recorded record profits in 2005, making it the greatest in the 86-year history of the company.  Bush is locked into promoting our status-quo energy policy.  So when he says otherwise, why should we believe him?

Video: On 'Hardball', DeLay made himself out to be both a victim and a humanitarian

Since MSNBC would probably get angry if I showed the entire interview, I won't.  But here is part of it.  Chris Matthews questioned Tom DeLay -- in my view, Matthews more or less helped him plead his case -- about accusations of ethics violations during his experience as Congressman.  DeLay did a wonderful job of trying to paint himself as both a victim and a democracy-promoting diplomat that stands up for the powerless.  Oh please!:

Click to watch clip >>> (Windows Media Player)

MATTHEWS: "Are you worried that the Democrats will be able to use pictures, like golfing in Scotland, to bring you down?"

DELAY: "Oh, sure, they'll try all that.  I mean, they want to lie about what's going on.  I am very involved in the international affairs against religious persecution in China, or getting persecuted Jews out of Russia.  I've been involved in a lot of foreign affairs."

Actually, now that I think of it, DeLay is right -- he was "involved in a lot of foreign affairs."  In 1997, lobbyist Jack Abramoff worked with the Saipan government by lobbying Republican members of Congress to not enforce ethical labor requirements on the American territory.  CNN's Mark Shields described the horrifying humanitarian scandal that DeLay was involved in:

Among the manufacturers that had profited from the un-free labormarket on the island were Tommy Hilfiger USA, Gap, Calvin Klein and LizClaiborne.

Moved by the sworn testimony of U.S. officials andhuman-rights advocates that the 91 percent of the workforce who wereimmigrants -- from China, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh --were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage and wereforced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks minus plumbing,work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, without any of the legalprotections U.S. workers are guaranteed, Murkowski wrote a bill toextend the protection of U.S. labor and minimum-wage laws to theworkers in the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas.

Socompelling was the case for change the Alaska Republican marshaled thatin early 2000, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Murkowski workerreform bill.

But one man primarily stopped the U.S. House fromeven considering that worker-reform bill: then-House Republican WhipTom DeLay.

According to law firm records recently made public,lobbyist Jack Abramoff, paid millions to stop reform and keep thestatus quo, met personally at least two dozen times with DeLay on thesubject in one two-year period. The DeLay staff was often in dailycontact with Abramoff.

DeLay traveled with his family and staffover New Year's of 1997 on an Abramoff scholarship endowed by hisclient, the government of the territory, to the Marianas, where golfand snorkeling were enjoyed.

DeLay fully approved of theworking and living conditions. The Texan's salute to the owners andAbramoff's government clients was recorded by ABC-TV News: "You are ashining light for what is happening to the Republican Party, and yourepresent everything that is good about what we are trying to do inAmerica and leading the world in the free-market system."

Is that sick, or what?  This guy is as ethically-challenged as they come.  Worst of all, the GOP wants to elect DeLay's right-hand man, Roy Blunt, as the new House Majority Leader.  Things just don't change with that party.

And why are we subsidizing them?

(Courtesy of Tab, Cagle Cartoons)

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee goes on the offense

It just a matter of hours before the State of the Union speech and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee just launched an ad challenging the GOP Congress to distance themselves from a President that has sold out our health care and energy policies, and almost succeeded last year in selling out our Social Security system to his high-stakes donors on Wall Street.

Click to watch ad

This certainly represents an effort by Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC to get between the President and many of the GOP that are up for reelection this year.  The legislators that rubber stamp the President consistently, even as a majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, will find themselves having a hard time explaining themselves to voters.

 

Getting ready for the speech

Tomorrow I will have complete coverage before and after President Bush's State of the Union Address (even though the speech will be intended to portray nothing more than a reiteration of how Bush is a freedom-loving compassionate man that can do no wrong).  So come on over to this site tomorrow.  I'd like some responses to the speech, the Democratic response, and how the media portrayed the whole thing.

Also, I'll have a fresh batch of political video clips for tomorrow as well.