Gay Patriot Header Image

State of the Union — The LiveBlog!

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:00 pm - January 31, 2006.
Filed under: National Politics

**UPDATE** SOTU is being webcast at the White House homepage.

**POST-SOTU UPDATE** — Welcome Instapundit & Tammy Bruce readers! Please check out this SOTU preview from yesterday by my co-blogger Dan, GayPatriotWest.

Okay, I’m the guy that never walks out on the worst movie. But I couldn’t bear American Idol tonight anymore. Horrible. So I’ve switched to the Fox News Channel to live blog the SOTU.

Laura Bush just walked in to take her seat. Love her pink dress! :-) Looks like she may have a woman from Iraq sitting with her.

9:01 PM. The Supreme Court is entering. Hey, Teddy…. that is Chief Justice ROBERTS and Associate Justice ALITO walking by you with lifetime appointments. House Clerk, ready the CPR machine!

9:02 PM. Jim Nicholson, Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, is the guy from the Cabinet who was picked to stay behind. That means if Tom Clancy’s fiction ever became reality, we’d have President Nicholson. Oh boy, whoopie.

9:04 PM. FOX is reporting that Cindy Sheehan was taken out of the House gallery in handcuffs for trying to unfurl a banner. Hahahahaha!

9:05 PM. Who are these people coming down the aisle? And it looks like pink dresses are in vogue tonight! (I am wearing a blue robe in case anyone cares.)

9:06 PM. Brit Hume was just saying that there was talk of impeaching the President which reflected the tenor of Congress right now. He also said they didn’t have much political momentum and that rallies to impeach the President this week in Washington, DC have been (his words) “sparsely attended.”

9:08 PM. President Bush has been announced and he’s walking into the House chamber now. Looks like Nancy Pelosi, Bill Frist and Roy Blunt are immediately behind. I’d laugh if Pelosi broke a heel and took a tumble.

9:10 PM. Bush just shook Condi’s hand and bounded up to the podium. Now we wait for the endless applause to end. I’m glad to be out of Washington. These sucker-uppers really give me the creeps.

9:12 PM. Hahahahaha. The cameras showed JF Kerry after Bush was introduced as “the President of the United States.” Thank God the American people chose correctly.

Bush is now honoring the passing of Coretta Scott King.

9:13 PM. “Even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone.” (Hear that, Democrats??) “Tonight the State of the Union is strong, and we will make it stronger.”

9:14 PM. I had to switch to CNN (eeeek), because the FNC feed was breaking up.

“The only way to control our destiny is by our leadership, so the United States of America will continue to lead.”

9:17 PM. “At the start of 2006, more than half the people of the world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half. ”

9:18 PM. “The terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the earth. But they have miscalculated. We love our freedom and we will fight to keep it.” (Well, unless you are a SurrenderCrat.)

9:20 PM. “If we were to leave these vicious attacker alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battle to our shores…. by leaving an assaulted world to itself, we would signal to the world that we no longer believe in our own ideals. We will never surrender to evil.”

BRAVO! Even John Kerry stood up and gave a small golf clap.

9:21 PM. Bush is laying out the strategy and successes in the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. “Iraqis are showing courage everyday, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom.”

At this line, the cameras show NO Democrats applauding that line at all. Does that mean they support the insurgency? One would think so, wouldn’t one?

9:23 PM. “Fellow citizens we are in this fight to win, and we are winning.” Only Republicans are standing. I suppose Democrats still “support the troops”, right? Yeah, right.

9:25 PM. “Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom and second-guessing is not a strategy.” BAM!

9:26 PM. “Our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind our American military in this vital mission.”

Now the Democrats stupidly stand, unknowingly supporting the MISSION in Iraq through Bush’s last words. What idiots.

9:28 PM. Bush spends some time honoring our all-volunteer armed forces and the sacrifices of their families.

Sidenote…. live blogging is harder than I thought! Thank God for typing class!! :-)

9:29 PM. Why do they keep showing Harold Ford and Joe Lieberman constantly on CNN?

9:31 PM. President is spending quite a lot of time on the nuclear threat from Iran. He tells the Iranian people we want to become the best of friends and hopes we will. (But not when a former hostage taker is their lunatic President!)

9:32 PM. Bush is making an interesting thread by tying the spread of democracy, defeating Islamists, and withdrawal from the world to the health and well-being of the entire globe.

9:34 PM. Bush reminds some Members of Congress of the hard work that the first responders and law enforcement in protecting us

9:35 PM. Bush is making a very strong defense of the NSA international phone call spying effort. He points out that two of the 9/11 hijackers made calls to their leaders and such an effort by the NSA would have picked up on that. (Hillary shakes her head and makes her I-need-to-chew-some-twigs-beaver-face.) I now observe she is chewing gum. What a class act from Hope, Arkansas.

9:37 PM. “Our own generation is in a long war against a determine enemy. A war that will be fought by Presidents of both parties. Tonight I need your support.”

9:39 PM. Bush has begun the economic/domestic portion of his speech. The theme seems to be victory versus defeat (both in the War on Terror and economic policies). Interesting thread, I’d say!

9:40 PM. Sorry, my eyes are glazing over on this economic stuff. When the economy is this good (sans the deficit), just stay out of the way! And no gas tax, Mr. Sullivan!

9:41 PM. Does anyone outside the beltway really understand what “earmark reform” is? Or the “line-item veto” for that matter. I care, but do my neighbors here in Charlotte? I doubt it.

9:42 PM. Good crack about the baby boomers turning 60 this year, including two of Bush 41′s favorite people: “me and President Clinton.” (Hillary smirks annoyingly trying to stifle a laugh that most of the other humans in the room gave into.)

9:43 PM. “Congress did not act on my proposal to save Social Security.” Democrats applaud. Does that mean they support destroying Social Security???? Those normal people outside the beltway would be led to believe so based on that reaction.

I’m pretty convinced no one in that room has the interest of America ahead of their own re-election. Boy, I’ve become cynical, eh?

9:45 PM. “We need stronger immigration reform and stronger border control.” Amen, Mr. President. You should have mentioned this first! (Why does Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security chieftain, remind me of a character from the Addams Family?)

9:47 PM. I see the Gay Lefty Moonbats are in full force in the GP Comments (the “Joes”). Too funny and too typical, thereby too sad.

9:48 PM. “America is addicted to oil.” Yup, and most of it comes from enemies or weak allies abroad. But our SurrenderCrats will not allow American oil exploration. They would sacrifice our economic freedom and national security to kowtow to their radical environazi fundraisers.

9:50 PM. Technology, blah, blah, energy, blah, blah. Eyes glazing over.

9:51 PM. The American Competitiveness Initiative is announced. Focus to teach kids math and science. And double Fed commitment to basic research like nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy. Sounds like a great idea. Now let’s make sure our kids can read.

9:53 PM. Saxby (PatriotPooch) and I are anxious to watch this week’s episode of “24″ (via TiVO) so I hope this wraps up soon.

9:54 PM. Did he say “drug use is down among you” or “youth.”? Heh heh.

9:55 PM. Bush seems to be closing on the theme of personal responsibility. Yeah folks, the Bill of Rights isn’t free. Responsibility is its cost.

9:56 PM. “Americans are worried about activist courts wanting to redefine marriage.” Was that the only mention of marriage all night?

The moment I was waiting for. Because Democrats delayed the confirmation process, Bush was able to introduce Justice Alito this evening for the first time. Priceless.

Bush honors the legacy and service of Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired today upon Alito’s swearing-in.

9:58 PM. Bush asks for Congress to prohibit the practice of cloning, selling or trading embryos. “Human life is precious and must not be up for sale.” I’m shocked, but even most Democrats applauded. I guess they won’t be getting money from the Kos-wing this year!

10:00 PM. As Bush talks about progress in the Gulf, the camera shows Governor Blanco. LOL. Would she know progress if it bit her on the tush?

10:01 PM. Bush asks Congress to renew and refund the Ryan White (AIDS) Act. That’s good, considering Clinton zeroed out AIDS funding in his term.

10:02 PM. John Kerry shown again. Does he really think people would want him as our President? Denial.

10:03 PM. “Today having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: will we turn back or finish well? Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage. Like American before us, we will show that courage and we will finish well. We will lead freedom’s advance. We will compete and excel in the global economy. We will renew the defining moral commitments of this land. And so we move forward, optimistic about our country, faithful to its cause, and confident in the victories to come. May God Bless America.”

For you liberals following along, God is the Creator that a majority of Americans believe and worship in. (Snarky, eh?)

10:05 PM. Switched back to Fox News Channel. But honestly, I can’t stomach liveblogging Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine’s Democratic Response. I’d shove a poker in my eye.

It is time for me to catch up on “24.” Thanks to all of you who hung in here. I’ll leave this post up for your continued comments. Be nice. A posting about Mother Sheehan will be coming up later this evening.

-Bruce (GayPatriot…..out!)

UPDATE (from GPW): I thought it was a good speech, with some truly great parts, particularly at the end (which I heard in the car on the radio on the way to hear Victor Davis Hanson). The president seemed a bit sedated at the outset. I often find that even in his greatest speeches, he often has trouble getting warmed up.

Hugh Hewitt offers a more enthusiastic assessment and offered the best evaluation (that I have read so far) of the Democrats’ applause for their own obstructionism:

The Democrats were enthusiastic and on their feet alone only over the president’s acknowledgement of their successful obstruction of Social Security reform. It was a very interesting moment: They celebrated the failure to fix a growing problem. It was a revealing moment.

Share

129 Comments

  1. Man, is John Roberts a golden boy or what? He just LOOKS like he’s a better person than I am.

    And I’m an arrogant sumb*tch, so my saying that is really saying something…

    Comment by RFTR — January 31, 2006 @ 9:02 pm - January 31, 2006

  2. “All work and no play makes the President a dull boy.”

    Comment by RFTR — January 31, 2006 @ 9:04 pm - January 31, 2006

  3. NBC just reported that Cindy Sheehan was arrested at the Capitol Building, she was a guest of someone in Congress.

    Comment by republic of m — January 31, 2006 @ 9:12 pm - January 31, 2006

  4. Fox news reports that ms. sheehan has been detained as she attempted to unfurl a banner in the house chamber which is against the rules.

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:16 pm - January 31, 2006

  5. Who does she think she is? She bugs me.

    Comment by republic of m — January 31, 2006 @ 9:17 pm - January 31, 2006

  6. She has really become completely unhinged!

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:21 pm - January 31, 2006

  7. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of the world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half.

    I think he listed the nations as next on his list of trouble spots (though Iran should be at the top) :-)

    Comment by Wendy — January 31, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - January 31, 2006

  8. Joe, you act like she was once fully-hinged…

    Comment by RFTR — January 31, 2006 @ 9:24 pm - January 31, 2006

  9. [...] Andy at World Wide Rant is live-blogging. Gaypatriot is, too, as is Stephen Green. [...]

    Pingback by Swanky Conservative » Blog Archive » State of the Union blogging — January 31, 2006 @ 9:24 pm - January 31, 2006

  10. Alito looks like he just fell off the back of turnip truck.

    Comment by Jake — January 31, 2006 @ 9:25 pm - January 31, 2006

  11. “Iraqis are showing courage everyday, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom.”

    At this line, the cameras show NO Democrats applauding that line at all. Does that mean they support the insurgency?

    I take it as: (1) the Dems AREN’T proud to be Iraq’s allies in the cause of freedom; and/or, (2) the Dems don’t think the Iraqi people’s cause is in the cause of freedom.

    Either way, yeah, the Dems sure suck.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 9:26 pm - January 31, 2006

  12. let’s make that “suck ass”

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 9:28 pm - January 31, 2006

  13. RFTR…i try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Its scary to see pictures of her and her followers…its almost like a cult and she is their leader they will follow to the kool aid pitcher!

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:29 pm - January 31, 2006

  14. he is hitting hard on IRAN….standing ovation but i wish i could see a wide shot here.

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:31 pm - January 31, 2006

  15. Ya, Hamas certaily represents the tradition of its people, alright…

    Comment by Jake — January 31, 2006 @ 9:31 pm - January 31, 2006

  16. Good stuff so far………..but could the man PLEASE learn how to pronounce nuclear?

    Comment by McFudge — January 31, 2006 @ 9:32 pm - January 31, 2006

  17. Harold Ford and Joe Lieberman are what CNN want you to believe Democrats are, as opposed to John Kerry and Ted Kennedy

    Comment by Wendy — January 31, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - January 31, 2006

  18. of course CNN is going to show liberman who is at least one democrat who has not completely lost his mind.

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - January 31, 2006

  19. 9:32pm What bullshit. This guy goes on about the dignity and rights of people in foriegn lands, yet he supports the denial of rights for citizens in this country? I wish someone would slap that fucking smirk off his face.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - January 31, 2006

  20. I noticed it too. They are probably showing Ford with Lieberman to make him seem moderate to the conservative Tennessee electorate.

    Comment by Patrick — January 31, 2006 @ 9:35 pm - January 31, 2006

  21. Not sure how one squares democracy being such a great thing in the Middle East with Hamas being democratically elected. Lets face it; Democracy is overrated.

    Comment by bengoshi — January 31, 2006 @ 9:36 pm - January 31, 2006

  22. I wonder how the MSM is going to spin that wiretapping sentence!

    Comment by Jake — January 31, 2006 @ 9:36 pm - January 31, 2006

  23. #19 – “Supports the denial of rights for citizens in this country?” – Joe, please get a clue…

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - January 31, 2006

  24. 9:36: Well, why doesn’t he, Cheney and Condi go march freedom into Baghdad and get their asses blown up?

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - January 31, 2006

  25. “We will not sit back and wait to be hit again,” Joe.

    Comment by Juliette — January 31, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - January 31, 2006

  26. Nice shot of hardly any democrats applauding when the president spoke of the monitoring of al queda phone calls from the us…we will not be hit again he said…democrats sat on their hands…

    I guess democrats would rather us get attacked than connect the dots…btw just saw tight shots of Milkawski of MERRYLAND and Hilary of NY.

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - January 31, 2006

  27. Well, *this* girl from India says, “Stay the fuck away from us!”

    Comment by NT — January 31, 2006 @ 9:39 pm - January 31, 2006

  28. #21 – And don’t forget Hitler was democratically elected.

    Here’s how you square it: Democracy is better than all the alternatives. A 90% batting average is still better than the 0% of general dictatorship, socialism or communism. Don’t let ridiculous expectations for endless perfection become the enemy of what’s good.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 9:39 pm - January 31, 2006

  29. (What bullshit. This guy goes on about the dignity and rights of people in foriegn lands, yet he supports the denial of rights for citizens in this country? )

    yeah sure….what an oppressive dictatorship we live in.

    Please stop coming at this from an intellectually dishonest place!

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:40 pm - January 31, 2006

  30. 9:40 – How many standing ovations is that? Heil-fucking-Hitler.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:41 pm - January 31, 2006

  31. 29: Fuck you. he’s full of bullshit and all the priviliged, moneyed gays and lesbians on this board don’t give a shit about other gays and lesbians, long as your bank accounts are flowing.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:42 pm - January 31, 2006

  32. (Heil-fucking-Hitler.)

    please spare me!

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:42 pm - January 31, 2006

  33. joe, if the federal amendment to “protect marriage” is passed and ratified, the interpretations could include a ban even on hospital visitation rights. I’d say that is a denial of rights.

    I don’t even know why this had to be in the State of the Union address. Is this one of America’s most pressing problems?

    Since Republicans now have most of the power in Washington, I was hoping they would eventually be able to stop using gay issues for political gain.

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 9:43 pm - January 31, 2006

  34. Oh yeah…let’s put social security in the hands of people like his pal Kenny Boy at Enron. what a fucking fascist.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:44 pm - January 31, 2006

  35. Joe must have just gone off his meds. On to better people & things.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 9:44 pm - January 31, 2006

  36. #33 – And you’re typing that from jail as we speak – Right Carl? right?

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 9:45 pm - January 31, 2006

  37. 9:42 It all comes back to trade, doesn’t it?

    Comment by NT — January 31, 2006 @ 9:45 pm - January 31, 2006

  38. It would have been nice if civility had lasted at least through the end of the speech……….the Democrats standing after he said Congress failed to act on his Social Security proposals last year made them look like the infants they are…no offense to infants intended.

    Comment by McFudge — January 31, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - January 31, 2006

  39. 35: Who the hell would come to this country for a better paying job “temporarily”? Jesus, these people must be getting tired from standing and sitting so much.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - January 31, 2006

  40. well it took 5 posts before you went the “fuck you” route. Argurment over…you want to have a discussion and disagree fine…but because i am not a left wing socialist like yourself and because i refuse to follow the line as you believet it dissolves into this????

    back to charm school for you dear!

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:47 pm - January 31, 2006

  41. sorry dude….I’m a moderate capitalist. this guy is the worst thing that ever happened to this country.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:48 pm - January 31, 2006

  42. 9:48: Funny, he killed the energy initiatives left from the Clinton era and *now* he says we’re too dependent on oil? Whew….never would have known it if that great moron hadn’t discovered it.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:49 pm - January 31, 2006

  43. Poor Joe’s panties are in a bind apparently.

    Comment by Felix — January 31, 2006 @ 9:49 pm - January 31, 2006

  44. Finally, he is given up on ANWR, but it sounds like the farm subsidies will stay

    Comment by ralph — January 31, 2006 @ 9:50 pm - January 31, 2006

  45. at least something they can agree on…less oil

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:50 pm - January 31, 2006

  46. -#33 – And you’re typing that from jail as we speak – Right Carl? right?-

    That’s a strange way to defend policies. “At least you aren’t in jail”.

    If someone was told that a new law says they can’t make medical decisions for their partner, would you tell them they should be happy they aren’t in prison?

    Clinton never put you in jail – does that mean you supported all his policies?

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 9:50 pm - January 31, 2006

  47. What kind of a country is this where the worst thing you can be is a “left wing socialist?” What in the world is wrong with your heads?! An entire *country* of utter morons, dear lord.

    Comment by NT — January 31, 2006 @ 9:51 pm - January 31, 2006

  48. Joe,

    Bob Dole said there are two things you find in the middle-of-the-road, moderates and road-kill. So what is your moderation with respect to capitalism ?

    Comment by Wendy — January 31, 2006 @ 9:51 pm - January 31, 2006

  49. 46: Heh heh…good point.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:52 pm - January 31, 2006

  50. Well, the “great moron” is president. What the hell are you, besides a guy who gives hum jobs at the Greyhound washroom?

    Comment by Felix — January 31, 2006 @ 9:53 pm - January 31, 2006

  51. “What kind of a country is this where the worst thing you can be is a “left wing socialist”

    nothing wrong with it….but you must come with a charm school diploma….no cussinng at the opposition…no terms like Nazi…hitler…etc etc.

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:53 pm - January 31, 2006

  52. #46 – “way of defending policies?” No Carl. Then you missed the point. It’s more a way of deflating the pompous.

    If we were actually so deprived of rights in this country, you’d be in jail right now. Just to keep things in perspective.

    Have to get back to the speech.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 9:54 pm - January 31, 2006

  53. So the man who can’t even complete a sentence when off the script is talking about leading in education. I know his plan now: He’s going to kill anyone who’s not a neo-fascist from choking on the bile rising in our throats from his idiocy.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:54 pm - January 31, 2006

  54. Calarato: I agree democracy is the best of a bad bunch, but while I’m not among the Bush haters here, I remain wary of Bush’s view that democracy will save the ME.

    I would hope that would be true, but I doubt it. Like H.L. Menken, I’m a skeptic.

    Now if everyone else on this chat would chill out.

    Comment by bengoshi — January 31, 2006 @ 9:54 pm - January 31, 2006

  55. ah yes…rising conciousness in the US while he and his rich buddies steal everyone blind.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - January 31, 2006

  56. I can’t watch Assface tonight… my Xanax script is running low…. has Katrina been mentioned yet?

    Comment by Come On! — January 31, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - January 31, 2006

  57. What kind of a country is this where the worst thing you can be is a “left wing socialist?”

    NT,

    We are a nation that started from near scratch and got to where we are in less than 300 years. We also believe We Can Do It, not maybe the government can do it for us, for we cannot

    Comment by Wendy — January 31, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - January 31, 2006

  58. I am a transgender lesbian who admires this President. He is doing a hell of a job. He is touching on all the right issues and is showing the Dumocrats as the fools they are. Hey, Fat Boy Teddy how does it feel to know your whole life is a failure.

    Comment by Marian — January 31, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - January 31, 2006

  59. and there you have it. Attacks on courts for trying to give gays the equal protection of law we actually deserve (with every other citizen in the country) may he rot in hell.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - January 31, 2006

  60. its getting messy in here….im heading for althouse!

    Comment by joewxman — January 31, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - January 31, 2006

  61. Did the Dems stand when GW introduced Roberts and Alito? Couldn’t tell on FOX’s shot.

    Comment by McFudge — January 31, 2006 @ 9:57 pm - January 31, 2006

  62. why is it drug education and abstinence programs; we know just say no did not work; we also know that people that take the abstinence pledge go back on their commitment, it should be sex education

    Comment by ralph — January 31, 2006 @ 9:57 pm - January 31, 2006

  63. Embryos should be put up for sale. Lots of Dems seem to disagree.

    Comment by McFudge — January 31, 2006 @ 9:58 pm - January 31, 2006

  64. This “not just corn” ethanol thing is HUGE!! Fortune magazine had an amazing story about it….

    Comment by rrsafety — January 31, 2006 @ 9:58 pm - January 31, 2006

  65. If we prohibit cloning, like GWB wants, how are there going to be any more Democrats ?

    Comment by Wendy — January 31, 2006 @ 9:58 pm - January 31, 2006

  66. (Well, the “great moron” is president. What the hell are you, besides a guy who gives hum jobs at the Greyhound washroom?)

    Very clever. Say that is actually what I did. Still makes all of you morons and everyone in the history of mankind who ever worked to make things better for the people of the world, is still turning in their graves.

    Comment by NT — January 31, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - January 31, 2006

  67. i’d love to see the affordable housing program that makes home ownership for the SF Bay Area middle class possible

    Comment by ralph — January 31, 2006 @ 10:02 pm - January 31, 2006

  68. Bruce, great comments! :-)

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 10:02 pm - January 31, 2006

  69. this really was a weak address;

    Comment by ralph — January 31, 2006 @ 10:03 pm - January 31, 2006

  70. Well, if I was an idiot with a family with millions of dollars and energy interests, I could probably be in the same place. This man had absolutely no achievements (personal, distinguished or otherwise) until “handlers” took control of him.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 10:03 pm - January 31, 2006

  71. I wonder who’s bright idea it was for the standing ovations? More of what you see at fascist rallies…

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 10:04 pm - January 31, 2006

  72. #69 … in moonbat land.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 10:04 pm - January 31, 2006

  73. Blogging Special: The State of The Union

    6:04 PST: The chamber is filling up…
    Networks are standing by. Bloggers are, too.
    Michelle Malkin has a round-up of those liveblogging from the Capitol.
    6:08PM PST: President Bush enters…
    6:11PM PST: Introduction. Applause…
    6:1…

    Trackback by California Conservative — January 31, 2006 @ 10:04 pm - January 31, 2006

  74. #70

    Well, if I was an idiot with a family with millions of dollars and energy interests, I could probably be in the same place. This man had absolutely no achievements (personal, distinguished or otherwise) until “handlers” took control of him.

    Joe … does this make his victory even harder to bear because you were defeated by an idiot (your word, not mine) ?

    Comment by Wendy — January 31, 2006 @ 10:08 pm - January 31, 2006

  75. I think the social security shows how we’re drifting into a nation where no one really cares and our leaders are more than happy that people get distracted by American Idol.

    When he brought up his proposals, they were rejected by both Republicans and Democrats alike, not to mention an overwhelming majority of the country, but boy they had to stand up when he brought it up again.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 10:08 pm - January 31, 2006

  76. Well, when Hitler took the Reichstag, that was labelled a victory for him too, wasn’t it?

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 10:09 pm - January 31, 2006

  77. -If we were actually so deprived of rights in this country, you’d be in jail right now. Just to keep things in perspective.-

    There are many different denials of rights. For many years women could not own property or vote. If these women had just stopped complaining because at least they weren’t in jail, America would be a far worse place now.

    If gays just tolerate having hospital visitation rights taken away because at least we aren’t going to jail, then what would the next step be? Keep in mind that there are a lot of people who would love to bring sodomy laws back. People from all parties. The Texas Republican Party’s platform says sodomy laws should be revived.

    If there ever were a push to revive sodomy laws, I hope at least then you would want us to speak up.

    On another subject, we keep giving all this money to abstinence programs when we have no evidence that they actually help anything. The last I read sex rates among teens were increasing. Yet we’re supposed to believe that if we throw enough money at “wait for marriage” programs, teens will keep their hormones in check.

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - January 31, 2006

  78. #75 – You are referring to the lack of reform of Social Security, right?

    Because the existing system is headed down the toilet.

    And privatization would empower millions of low-income wage earners with their own 401(k) (in effect), that they can’t / won’t tap until retirement, and that they can leave to their heirs if they don’t make it.

    A privatized system is the only MORAL system. Moral for the little guy. Get back on those meds and Peace out! :-)

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - January 31, 2006

  79. Brian Williams on NBC just confused Harold Ford Jr. with Barak Obama. I don’t think they look anything alike, but I guess Brian thinks “they” all do.

    Comment by PatriotPal — January 31, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - January 31, 2006

  80. Liked the opening, but I am a skeptic; this fool has proven that he is not to be trusted when it comes to unifying (sp) and bipartisanship. dumbo was passionate about defense but when it came down to the homefront he could have focused it a bit more.

    Comment by ralph — January 31, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - January 31, 2006

  81. Joe: Thanks, man. I mean it. Without proud, outspoken people like you, making sure your voices are heard and your opinions recognized… we might never have won BIG Republican victories in 2000, ’02, ’04, and soon (with your help) , a filibuster-proof majority in 06. I know it’s a thankless job, making sure the majority of the voters know exactly what the liberal mainstream is really thinking, but you do it well.

    Keep it up!

    PS-Are you SURE you couldn’t work in one more ‘Bush=Hitler” riff? We could use the extra thousand popular votes for President Cheney!

    Comment by DaveP. — January 31, 2006 @ 10:15 pm - January 31, 2006

  82. #76,

    Well, when Hitler took the Reichstag, that was labelled a victory for him too, wasn’t it?

    For him it was a victory, for the rest of the world, it was a major defeat. Therefore, Joe, I ask about how it feels to have lost an election to an idiot ? From a theraputic point of view, you are being evasive.

    Comment by Wendy — January 31, 2006 @ 10:15 pm - January 31, 2006

  83. 77: Amen

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 10:16 pm - January 31, 2006

  84. 81: Fuck you too dave.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 10:17 pm - January 31, 2006

  85. Tim Kaine:

    What IS that eyebrow raise???

    He’s certainly dull, but I’m glad I don’t have to see Pelosi. She is one of the biggest reasons Democrats don’t win elections.

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 10:18 pm - January 31, 2006

  86. 81: I hit enter too quickly…..it’s this bullshit, the “sore winner” horseshit you so smarmingly approve and support that is dividing this country even further.

    Comment by Joe — January 31, 2006 @ 10:19 pm - January 31, 2006

  87. this fool has proven that he is not to be trusted when it comes to unifying (sp) and bipartisanship.

    Yeah. We’ve seen the liberals clamoring for 6 years now to be unified and bipartisan.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - January 31, 2006

  88. “81: Fuck you too dave. ”

    Joe, Joe, Joe! That’s JUST what I’mn talking about, JUST what we need! No rebuttals based on reason or fact, not a vestige of respect or common sense, just an elegant, witty “fuck you” ! If you listen closely, you can almost HEAR the minds change!

    Wow. I’m gonna ask Karl if we can get you a raise…

    Comment by DaveP. — January 31, 2006 @ 10:29 pm - January 31, 2006

  89. Amen, TGC!

    Comment by McFudge — January 31, 2006 @ 10:30 pm - January 31, 2006

  90. He who drops the F-bomb first reveals lack of merit to his argument and intellectual bankruptcy. (And maybe other short-comings)

    Joe delivers!

    Comment by California Conservative — January 31, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - January 31, 2006

  91. 87: You’re kidding, right? This has been going on since Republicans took control of the Senate way back in 95. They bitch and moan about Democrats using procedures to stop judicial nominees, but hell, Republicans wouldn’t even let nominees out of committee when Clinton was president. 86 is right, since Bust took the White House, the Republicans (not all, but as a whole) have no interest in bi-partisanship.

    This speech tonight was a lot of mea-culpas for the mistakes he’s made and has sneered at people on for years: Energy, Education, Government response to disasters, etc. All of these are missteps and the Republicans know they’re starting to see big trouble on the horizon.

    Comment by Kevin — January 31, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - January 31, 2006

  92. PS – How about another post about Brokeback Mountain? I love to see people from all kinds of backgrounds agreeing on something…

    Comment by Kevin — January 31, 2006 @ 10:36 pm - January 31, 2006

  93. –FOX is reporting that Cindy Sheehan was taken out of the House gallery in handcuffs for trying to unfurl a banner. Hahahahaha–

    Actually, other news outlets are now reporting that a senior House official gave incorrect information and she did not unfurl a flag. Seems she was wearing an anti-war shirt.

    Comment by Kevin — January 31, 2006 @ 10:43 pm - January 31, 2006

  94. January–A Very Good Month

    [I liked] the President’s bold and unapologetic justification for NSA warrantless wiretaps, as captured by Gay Patriot. [Still,] my defense of warrantless wiretapping was equally bold, but added embedded hyperlinks!

    Trackback by No Oil for Pacifists — January 31, 2006 @ 11:08 pm - January 31, 2006

  95. On and off subject….

    I just read this in the comments section of my other favorite blog and had to share:

    List of Anti-War Categories:
    1. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on moral grounds.
    2. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on legal grounds.
    3. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on religious grounds.
    4. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on political grounds.
    5. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on military grounds.
    6. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, because it was Bush’s idea.
    7. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, because it distracts us from the real War on Terror.
    8. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, because it distracts us from saving the environment, feeding the poor, rescuing hurrican victims, fixing Social Security, etc.
    9. People who oppose the Iraq war specifically, on a combination of the previous grounds.
    10. People who oppose any war that the Republicans are involved in because of something or other to do with Big Oil or the Military Industrial Complex.
    11. People who oppose any war the United States is involved in on any of the previous grounds.
    12. People who oppose any war the United States is involved in because the United States is Bad.
    13. People who oppose any war the United States is involve in because the United States is Good.
    14. People who oppose any war white people are involved in because Western Civilization is Bad.
    15. People who oppose any war anyone is involved in because War Doesn’t Solve Anything.
    16. People who oppose any sort of definite move anyone’s part because actions have unpredictable consequences and it’s safer to have endless discussions about the nature of problems rather than taking actual steps to solve them.
    17. Wussies.

    Did I miss any?

    OK, now any anti-war people who show up can simply refer to themselves by these handy numbers and we’ll immediately know pretty much where they’re coming from.

    Next step: A similarly organized list of pro-war counter-arguments. That will really save some disk space.

    It will also keep all of us from having to listen to the same freaking discussions over and over and over that we’ve been enduring since 2003 – evidently without anyone becoming any better or wiser for it.

    Sounds good to me.

    Comment by John — January 31, 2006 @ 11:14 pm - January 31, 2006

  96. They bitch and moan about Democrats using procedures to stop judicial nominees, but hell, Republicans wouldn’t even let nominees out of committee when Clinton was president.

    Really, Kev? Which ones?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 31, 2006 @ 11:16 pm - January 31, 2006

  97. http://mediamatters.org/items/200505160003 (that’s actually an article about blocking votes).

    would you like more? a search on “republicans judicial nominees clinton committee” brought up over 1 million hits. I could get major news organization, bloggers, official govt sights, etc. Let me know which you’d prefer.

    I can recall news stories (esp in the last 4 years of the Clinton presidency) about how there were more vacancies in judicial positions than any other time in US history and the blame was placed squarely on Republicans for blocking Clinton’s nominees.

    Comment by Kevin — January 31, 2006 @ 11:40 pm - January 31, 2006

  98. #13…No no Ms Sheehan is the face of the new Democrat party. Cindy, Teddy, Nancy, Mr Kerry Mr Reid. Mr Dean…all winners. Opps the haven’t won much lately have they? On their present course they may need to change the name of their party within 4 years. Whigs is available. I said on an earlier post…they are the most misrable people, always finding the worst in any situation. And they find fault with America whenever they can.

    Comment by Gene — January 31, 2006 @ 11:56 pm - January 31, 2006

  99. hey Gay Patriot…you a Tom Clancey fan too? When i watch these SOTU at first I always get a little antsey…knowing all the powerful are in one place. Tom Clancey did that to me! btw have you tried any Vince Flynn novels? Same quick pace with tons of details…terrorisms the main thread.

    Comment by Gene — February 1, 2006 @ 12:01 am - February 1, 2006

  100. Nice job Kevin. I may have missed it previously, but this is the first post from you that I can remember that hasn’t been some sort of rant. Keep up the good work, resist going over to the Dark Side, and I’m sure that many like myself will start taking you seriously.

    Comment by Bobo — February 1, 2006 @ 12:06 am - February 1, 2006

  101. Just an observation – but I found no one that watched the state of the union on CSPAN. No – liberal and conservative bloggers alike watched it on cnn or fox or whatever and commented on biased camera angles or biased comments made by the network …

    sad … i watched it on CSPAN and was able to form an opinion based on the content of the presidents speech and not what biased newshow (cnn or fox or …) wanted to show me. Disappointed in gaypatriots choice of the method to view the speech…

    Comment by tim — February 1, 2006 @ 12:08 am - February 1, 2006

  102. One tip though Kevin, linking to Media Matters is not a good bet. It’s about as unbiased as Free Republic or Democratic Underground, but at least you’re trying.

    Comment by Bobo — February 1, 2006 @ 12:11 am - February 1, 2006

  103. To the libs….since 2000 we’ve been waiting. All we need is one more of our fascists on the Supreme court then there is no holding us Republicans back. We finally can impliment our agenda of positive changes. Close most all libraries, no more student loans, no free student lunches, old people—no more SS or medicare, african americans back to the plantations, all hispanics back to the lettuce fields, women back to the back alleys, gays back to, umm back to the closet, what I leftout? Oh yeah everything must close on sundays again so we can all go to church for like 5 hours. This is the hidden agenda of the Nazi Republican party as imagined by the new Democrat kooks. It’s all gonna happen unless good peple send in money to the DNC right away.

    Comment by Gene — February 1, 2006 @ 12:11 am - February 1, 2006

  104. would you like more? a search on “republicans judicial nominees clinton committee” brought up over 1 million hits. I could get major news organization, bloggers, official govt sights, etc. Let me know which you’d prefer.

    Of course. I told you to provide specifics. Exact names, please.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 1, 2006 @ 12:12 am - February 1, 2006

  105. BTW I didn’t see one shot of Mr Kennedy in the chamber. Was happy hour early? The liberal icon, lion of the Senate absent from the SOTU during war time. Curious. Where are the intrepid reporters?

    Comment by Gene — February 1, 2006 @ 12:14 am - February 1, 2006

  106. time after time, i see here and in other places – Rep Pelosi classified as some wacko. can someone please explain to me the problem w/ Rep. Pelosi. She comes from good stock and my home state. We are good hardworking, blue collar peeps. Why is she branded a far left wacko.

    Comment by ralph — February 1, 2006 @ 12:35 am - February 1, 2006

  107. #91

    I stand corrected. We’ve seen liberals clamoring since ’95 for unification & bi-partisanship.

    Gimme a freakin’ break, Kevin.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 12:47 am - February 1, 2006

  108. #104
    NDT -

    The problem with Republicans they tend to have selective memory. Just because you were not offer proof, does not change the facts. During the Clinton Administration, the Republican Congress cockblocked a number of nominees, just because they wanted to. Of course, this did not make the mainstream news so those dolts out in the hinterland had no idea. All they know now is they think this is new scheme concocted by Democrats. Fact is, it has been a strategy used for a number of years without knowledge and those punkass Republican bitches in Congress during the Clinton administration were famous for pullin the very crap that they claim to detest today. This is my inside the beltway living rant.

    You want proof turn on the NPR conversation with 3 of the cockblocked nominees. Republicans are many things – rulechangers, masters of the hyperbole, bitches to the Christian right, immporal, and unethical. Truth and honesty is not something they are known to possess. Now, this doesn’t go for all republicans just those punk ass elected officals.

    You want f-in proof here:

    Each Judicial Nominee Deserves a Real Verdict
    By Charlie Cook
    © National Journal
    December 18, 2004

    “…

    During the current administration, Democrats have filibustered 10 judicial nominations. Meanwhile, the Senate has confirmed 204 nominees; 15 other nominations either were withdrawn or are still pending, according to figures compiled by The Washington Post.

    Republicans are quick to express outrage that President Bush’s judicial picks do not always get up-or-down votes on their merits on the Senate floor. But it’s worth recalling that the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee refused to even hold hearings on 62 of President Clinton’s judicial nominees. Indeed, some of the same Republicans who now decry Democratic tactics led the effort to block consideration of Clinton’s nominees.

    It was wrong when Republicans blocked votes on Clinton’s judicial nominees a decade ago, and it is wrong that Democrats are returning the favor today. Senators should base the decision on the use of the nuclear option not on whom it will benefit today but on what is best for the Senate. Putting the Senate’s interests first would mean expediting and ensuring a vote on each nominee, at least in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Nominees approved by the committee should get a vote on the floor. Today, this approach would help Bush and his party. A decade from now, it might very well benefit Democrats.

    …”

    Comment by ralph — February 1, 2006 @ 12:52 am - February 1, 2006

  109. #101
    No – liberal and conservative bloggers alike watched it on cnn or fox or whatever and commented on biased camera angles

    Pardon me, but don’t they all get the feed from the same cameras? I watched Fox. Nobody talked over the President, so I saw the same thing you saw.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 12:52 am - February 1, 2006

  110. #106

    -She likes being called a liberal, unlike the other liberals who run away from it.

    -She calls Republicans a “culture of corruption” the same day her PAC was fined for corruption.

    -She opposed wellfare reform.

    -She opposed the USS Missouri from docking in San Francisco because it was carrying nuclear weapons.

    -Consider the fact that she claims to be an envirnmental champion, do a Google of “Corde Valle Golf Club”.

    -She owns stock in Sun Microsystems, Cisco, Apogee Networks, Netclerk etc. All outsource.

    -She proudly claims status as a champion of the workers and gets accolades from the former AFL-CIO and even the Cesar Chavez award, but doesn’t let the folks who work for her and her husband organize. None of the farms that pick grapes in their vineyard contract with UFW, for example.

    -With this in mind, consider how she told the AFL-CIO in 2004, as keynote speaker, “Thank you all for fighting for America’s working families. And thank you for fighting to end the union-busting, family-hurting, exportng jobs presidency of George W. Bush”. Of course she’s gotten over $700,000 in donations to her PAC from organized labor.

    Shall I go on?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 1:14 am - February 1, 2006

  111. Well, Ralph in #108, let’s not forget that the GOP had a majority in the Senate from 1995-2001. From 1993-5 when they did not, they didn’t try to block President Clinton’s judicial picks as Democrats did from 2003-05 when the GOP had a Senate majority.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 1, 2006 @ 1:42 am - February 1, 2006

  112. #108

    Myth: Democrats Treatment Of Bush’s Nominees Is Analogous To Republicans Treatment Of Clinton’s Nominees.

    Fact: President Clinton’s Judicial Nominees Were Not Filibustered And Never Before Has A Judicial Nominee With Clear Majority Support Been Denied An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Senate Floor By A Filibuster.

    “[Harry] Reid And Company Have Used The Senate Filibuster Rule To Permanently Deny Votes To Nominees With Clear Majority Support. That’s Never Been Done Before.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibustered,” The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

    In 1994, When The Democrats Controlled Both The Senate And The Executive Branch, President Clinton Confirmed A Record Number Of Federal Judges. “President Clinton has gotten 129 federal judges confirmed by the Senate, more than any previous president during the first two years in office… 101 of his 129 judges were confirmed in 1994. That was the highest one-year total since Jimmy Carter won approval of 135 in 1979.” (Michael J. Sniffen, “Clinton Outdoes Predecessors In Filing Judicial Vacancies,” The Associated Press, 10/12/94)

    During The 108th Congress (2003-2004), The Senate Voted On 20 Motions To Invoke Cloture And End Debate On 10 Different Judicial Nominees. The Average Vote To End Debate Was 53-43 – Enough Support To Confirm Each Nominee But Fewer Than The 60 Votes Required To End Debate.

    (CQ Vote #40: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/6/03; CQ Vote #53: Motion Rejected 55-42: R 51-0; D 4-41; I 0-1, 3/13/03; CQ Vote #56: Motion Rejected 55-45: R 51-0; D 4-44; I 0-1, 3/18/03; CQ Vote #114: Motion Rejected 55-44: R 51-0; D 4-43; I 0-1, 4/2/03; CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 52-44: R 50-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 5/1/03; CQ Vote #140: Motion Rejected 52-39: R 49-0; D 3-38; I 0-1, 5/5/03; CQ Vote #143: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 50-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 5/8/03; CQ Vote #144: Motion Rejected 52-45: R 50-0; D 2-44; I 0-1, 5/8/03; CQ Vote #308: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 7/29/03; CQ Vote #312: Motion Rejected 55-43: R 51-0; D 4-42; I 0-1, 7/30/03; CQ Vote #316: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-44; I 0-0, 7/31/03; CQ Vote #419: Motion Rejected 54-43: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 1-0, 10/30/03; CQ Vote #441: Motion Rejected 51-43: R 49-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/6/03; CQ Vote #450: Motion Rejected 53-42: R 51-0; D 2-41; I 0-1, 11/14/03; CQ Vote #451: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03; CQ Vote #452: Motion Rejected 53-43: R 51-0; D 2-42; I 0-1, 11/14/03; CQ Vote #158: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 51-0; D 2-43; I 0-1, 7/20/04; CQ Vote #160: Motion Rejected 52-46: R 51-0; D 1-45; I 0-1, 7/22/04; CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 51-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04; CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-44: R 50-0; D 3-43; I 0-1, 7/22/04)

    Numerous Clinton Nominees That Were Confirmed Received Less Than 60 Votes, And Partisan Filibusters Kept None Of These Nominations Off The Bench. (E.G., Judge Richard Paez, With 59-Vote Support; Judge William Fletcher, With 57-Vote Support; And Judge Susan Mollway, With 56-Vote Support).
    (Sen. John Cornyn, “President’s Nominees Deserve Up-Or-Down Vote, Sen. Cornyn Says,” Press Release, 2/14/05; CQ Vote #40, Confirmed 59-39; R 14-39; D 45-0, 3/9/00; CQ Vote #309, Confirmed 57-41; R 14-41; D 43-0, 10/8/98; CQ Vote #166, Confirmed 56-34; R 14-34; D 42-0, 6/22/98)

    Myth: The Senate Has Confirmed An Overwhelming Percentage Of President Bush’s Judicial Nominees; Therefore It Is Not Problematic That A Democratic Minority Has Blocked 10 Nominations From Receiving A Floor Vote.

    Fact: President Bush Has The Lowest Appellate Confirmation Percentage Of Any President.

    While Democrats Claim They Have Confirmed More Than 200 Of President Bush’s Judicial Nominees, 10 of The 52 Nominees To The Circuit Court Of Appeals Were Filibustered. (Jesse J. Holland, “Senate Confirms First Judge Of Bush’s Second Term,” The Associated Press, 4/11/05)

    President Bush’s Confirmation Rate For Appellate Judges Is The “Lowest” Of Any Modern President. “A better figure would compare Bush’s four-year appellate confirmation rate to recent presidents. According to the American Enterprise Institute’s John Lott Jr., Bush’s four-year rate was 69 percent, the lowest of any modern president. Bill Clinton’s rate was 74 percent.” (David Reinhard, Op-Ed, “Judge Not Lest Ye Be … Filibuster,” The Oregonian, 3/17/05)

    UporDownVote.com

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 1:46 am - February 1, 2006

  113. #110 on Pelosi

    getting late and tonight is a school night, my first in over 6 weeks so i need to get my beauty rest

    - being called liberal doesn’t equate to wacko

    - not unionizing is not necessarily a problem. I am that odd duck MBA, who sees the value in organized but wouldn’t propose it in all businesses where organized labor has traditionally operated. Case by case

    - outsourcing is not a problem, most democrats I know have no problem with it, it benefits everyone including the workers whose jobs were just outsourced

    still not sure how this makes her a wacko – Now if your last name is Dean and your momma calls you Howard, I can see the term wacko

    Comment by ralph — February 1, 2006 @ 2:21 am - February 1, 2006

  114. 9:50 PM. Technology, blah, blah, energy, blah, blah. Eyes glazing over.

    No wonder GP thinks Bush is God incarnate. He never actually listens to anything he says. People who hate Bush probably payed more attention. I’m just not impressed.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 1, 2006 @ 3:47 am - February 1, 2006

  115. #114, Grampa Gryph you hit the nail on the head with that last one: “I’m just not impressed”. I don’t think the President or anyone on the Right-side of the issues ever intended to impress you… even a little. Your singularly obsessive hate and anger remove you from thoughtful debate, serious consideration and certainly do NOT warrant attention from anyone in power.

    Gramps, you have a little mind trapped in the partisan excesses of HowieDean and TeddyK and NancyP. No one expects you to be impressed by anything anyone says who is part of the majority.

    Get a clue, shrinking violet. Say it with conviction, “Radical gays are passe; Hey ho, Hey ho”.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 1, 2006 @ 7:31 am - February 1, 2006

  116. 51. “What kind of a country is this where the worst thing you can be is a “left wing socialist”

    It’s not the worst thing. But, by the same token, getting two broken legs isn’t the worst thing that can happen to a person. Adopting socialist policies moves the country backward, not forward. Look at the unemployment rates of Socialist countries in Europe and compare them to ours. Look at socialized education (which we already have in the US unfortunately) and see how poorly our students do. Eliminating competition results in mediocrity. Socialism? You can have it – don’t bring it to me!

    Comment by Dave — February 1, 2006 @ 9:13 am - February 1, 2006

  117. If gays just tolerate having hospital visitation rights taken away because at least we aren’t going to jail, then what would the next step be? Keep in mind that there are a lot of people who would love to bring sodomy laws back. People from all parties. The Texas Republican Party’s platform says sodomy laws should be revived.

    If there ever were a push to revive sodomy laws, I hope at least then you would want us to speak up.

    On another subject, we keep giving all this money to abstinence programs when we have no evidence that they actually help anything. The last I read sex rates among teens were increasing. Yet we’re supposed to believe that if we throw enough money at “wait for marriage” programs, teens will keep their hormones in check

    Carl – Good comments: Most of the un-wanted prenancies and births are from – hmmm…the RED states…..Im amazed how the Repubs, especially them are SO OBSESSED WITH SODOMY….when it seems like alot of them are closet mental cases….why does the gov’t care where people stick thier cocks? Them straight boys love to boink thier girlfriends and wives in the ass. UN-FUCKIN- BELIVEABLE PEOPLE BACK THIS IDIOT……OH YEA….and MORE / PERMANENT TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHIEST OF AMERICANS??? WAAA? PA- LEEEEZ …….AMERICA SPIRALS DOWNWARD FASTER AND FASTER EVERYDAY. Just wait till China decides to call in it’s Treasury Notes, and decides to change thier main source on money to Euros…..CAN WE SAY “FUCKED”

    Comment by MODERATE — February 1, 2006 @ 9:19 am - February 1, 2006

  118. #117

    That has to be the most asinine post ever on GP, KEVIN.

    Just wait till China decides to call in it’s Treasury Notes, and decides to change thier main source on money to Euros…..CAN WE SAY “FUCKED”

    Yes you are if you think for one second that wouldn’t fuck THEM over, perhaps more than it would us.

    A liberal by any other name is still a dumbass.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 9:51 am - February 1, 2006

  119. #117. Mr. MODERATE, you seem a bit obsessed with sodomy my little friend. I don’t want anti-sodomy laws to pass either. I suggest you contact gay friendly Republicans (yes, they do exist) and express your concerns to help insure that such legislation does now pass. It will be far more effective than screaming in all caps at this blog.

    Anyway, China won’t call in it’s notes anymore than we will stop buying there inexpensive exports. We both have great leverage in these regards.

    Comment by Dave — February 1, 2006 @ 9:55 am - February 1, 2006

  120. #117

    why does the gov’t care where people stick thier cocks?

    Absolutely. You should be able to fuck that little 4 y/o down the street, right?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 10:21 am - February 1, 2006

  121. Well, after all the name-calling here, I’ll pass along what I that was a good sign about America;

    After work, I had to go to my local Barnes & Noble at 900pm to pickup a birthday gift for today. I was surprised how “empty” the store was for a mid-week. Usually on a Tuesday they get a good crowd of college students from nearby Princeton Univ., high-school kids, and residents from the surounding suburbs. There was basically no-one there, other than the staff…and a few customers that from their appearance may not have been US citizens. It appears that the bulk of the citizenry actually stayed-home and watched the SOTU…sober or otherwise. At times like the SOTU, I’m just glad that the People are paying attention…liberal or conservative…rather than responding in their usually apathetic-way to “politics”.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 1, 2006 @ 12:44 pm - February 1, 2006

  122. Gramps, you have a little mind trapped in the partisan excesses of HowieDean and TeddyK and NancyP. No one expects you to be impressed by anything anyone says who is part of the majority.

    Get a clue, shrinking violet. Say it with conviction, “Radical gays are passe; Hey ho, Hey ho”.

    Actually I was talking about GP not being impressive, not PB. At least get right whom I’m actually insulting. Actually, I have found some of President Bush’s speeches quite impressive. This one doesn’t really stick out, but thats fine, most Presidents SOTU addresses are not particularly memorable.

    It’s odd though, “Michigan-Matt”, that you have had such a violently emotional response to my post. I’m glad you care so much. Is this your way of asking for a date?

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 1, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - February 1, 2006

  123. Liveblogging the SOTU: an experiment in minimalism

    [post-liveblog update, exclusive to Max Zawicky readers: the more astute of you will recognize in this liveblog a general tone of cheekiness mixed into the actual "coverage"; others of you, however, will pretend -- as Max has &#45…

    Trackback by protein wisdom — February 1, 2006 @ 2:26 pm - February 1, 2006

  124. Hey GP and GPW:
    >
    Just wanted to add my kudos to what I’m sure is your long list of appreciative thanks. I was kind of surprised by the president’s call for a line-item veto, since SCOTUS ruled it as unconstitutional in Clinton’s term of office. Does GWB think that now that Alito is on the bench, the SCOTUS can revisit this issue? Comments?

    Random musings:

    1. Laura looked great last night, as always. There’s a touch of Jackie Kennedy about her in terms of simple elegance.
    2. By contrast, Hillary looked like “Nanny McPhee” with that arrogant smirk of hers.
    3. Is Harold Ford the new face of the demoncRATS? He sure got enough air time.
    4. Someone needs to give Sheila Jackson-Lee a b***h slap for trying to get a photo-op of a president she keeps dissing. Same goes for Crybaby Mary Landrieu.
    5. Where was Teddy “Happy Hour” Kennedy? Oh, wait…never mind.
    6. John Kerry had this “if I had the votes, it would be me up there” look.
    Disgusting.
    7. VA Gov. Kaine is a pathetic speaker, especially his refrain of “a better way.” What, did he watch “The Candidate” before his response? Notice too that his ad nauseum refrain and his “plan” from the opposition was never revealed. Typical.
    8. Speaking of #7 above – is that the best the dems could do? An Old Dominion Cro-Magnon man with a unibrow? Sheesh. At least Jim Wright had a hint of personality about him.
    9. I give the speech a B+ based upon style, delivery and content. Sure got some mixed messages from it, that’s for sure.
    10. Someone needs to write up Rep. Woolsey for sedition and conduct unbecoming a member of the HR for giving Mother Sheehan unfettered access to the gallery. And where is Bela Pulosi and her demand for accountability? Oh, wait – that only applies to the GOP. My bad.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — February 1, 2006 @ 9:45 pm - February 1, 2006

  125. #115
    Get a clue, shrinking violet

    Is it shrinking or shirking? I’ve read it both ways and am curious. Dictionary.com agrees with shrinking but I’ve seen others complain about it. Any experts here?

    Comment by John — February 1, 2006 @ 9:45 pm - February 1, 2006

  126. 102: Well, that’s the problem with relying on the internet for information….that’s why I offiered to get the stories from the variety of sources.

    Comment by Kevin — February 1, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - February 1, 2006

  127. #124

    Lee should be bitch slapped for everything she’s ever done or said (which is damn little really).

    Did anybody else hear that Cynthia McKinney was booted to the back of the room after bogarting Harry Reid’s seat? Somebody’s going to turn up missing after that.

    Speaking of missing, has anybody actually seen Sen. Byrd (D, KKK) after he supported Alito the other day?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 2, 2006 @ 2:23 am - February 2, 2006

  128. Best Online.

    Comment by Best Online Casino-Best Online Casinos — July 26, 2006 @ 10:46 am - July 26, 2006

  129. How To Breast Enlargement In Only Breast Enhancement Starting From Scratch

    Comment by Breast Enlargement Cream — November 12, 2006 @ 11:57 pm - November 12, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.