State of the Union…

The President did his State of the Union address, here’s a quick recap of my views on the subject.

The President started with honoring Coretta Scott King, both her and her husbands contributions. I really think this President has done a lot by having the most diverse cabinet, ever, with many qualified minorities in key positions (not just paying lip service to it). The Democrats instead imply how they are more caring towards minorities. But I prefer the republicans attitude towards minorities; helping everyone up with opportunity, instead of racist micromanagement and quotas, and using racism as a blungeon (while ignoring their own shortcomings).

The President made statements about calling for civility and bipartisanism. The Democrats have attacked mercilessly that this President as unilateral and ignores their interests. The truth is, he has often extended more olive branches and been more moderate than the democrats for the last 6+ years. Who’s been filibustering, attacking, obstructing again? I don’t mind dissent, just keep it civil, fair, and based on reality — and offer alternatives. While Bush could certainly do more, the truth is the Democrats have been acting like pissed off little children over the 2000 election, and most refuse to behave like professionals. Howard Dean and pals have done 1,000 times more to harm to bipartisanism and national cooperation than Bush. Who was it that let that fanatic Sheehan in to the “State of Union” address to disrupt things, on one of their tickets? This was the Presidents chance to tell us his message — not a place for a protest. Thus I may think the republicans should do more or are wrong, but what they do is still a lot more moderate and better than the democrats right now. I hope the Democrats change that, soon.

The President reiterated that we’re at war. We are. We shouldn’t be isolationist, and he’s right, we shouldn’t. He offered a vision statement for what we did in Iraq/Afghanistan/Terror and why — and what the results have been. He reiterated the positives as well as the risks. He stated that we must have principles, and stand behind them. Yeah it is nationalistic tripe, but that’s what Presidents should do — restate why we do things, and not cave to America haters just because they hate us. They hated us long before Iraq and 9/11. So we should ignore the irrational and emotional tantrums; when they act rationally, we can start paying attention again. Either way, we’ll continue to look out for our national interests (like all countries do), and try to make the world a better place (which most other countries won’t do if there’s any risk/cost).

The truth is the republicans and President have a far better policy/view of the world than the Democrats right now, because there is no Democratic vision/plan other than attack everything Bush does. Every time the Democrats mock/attack that position, without any better vision/solution of their own, they weaken themselves and the nation. The Democrats have been all over the board. Supporting the war, but blaming Bush for it. Claiming we should go in, signing off on the plans, then claiming there were never any plans and we should get out IMMEDIATELY, and then voting against withdrawal. They want Bush to lay out our plans for the enemy to thwart, while rooting for them because it hurts Bush. They blame the President for acting in the exact way most of them called for, on the same intelligence. You can’t respect the truth/honesty and support the Democrats position on Iraq right now. If they can get a rational, unified message (or even two), and offer a unified alternative, I would certainly consider it. For now, Democrats are just proving they hate the republicans more than they care about our interests. Hecklers don’t deserve respect or votes.

Bush talked about Iran quite well; he can like the people/culture, but not the leadership. The U.N., EU, and world has known of these problems for 25 years — and done nothing. Maybe they are starting to wake up. Maybe by the time they do, they’ll have the bomb. We have to wait and see. But so far, appeasement has only been empowering the fanatical mullahs. You may not like Bush, but he’s saying exactly what a strong President should say about Iran. At least the Democrats have been reasonable and not been attacking him for it.

The President talked about the Patriot act, and why he allowed the NSA to investigate calls to/from Al Qaeda. Frankly, you and I may disagree in degrees with both — but the Democrats are acting like spoiled obstructionist little children. This wasn’t a criminal act — it is a real legal grey area (that they were informed about). The Patriot act said we should give our law enforcement officers going after terrorists the same powers we gave our them in going drug dealers. I personally think we went too far on both — but there’s more justification for doing it against terrorists than drug dealers. And most of those criticizing are so far passed reasonable, that they need to learn the wisdom of shutting up. Democrats need to muzzle, or out-shout the fanatics that seem to be ruling their party and making a mockery of common-sense. Thus I dislike some of the Presidents positions, but I dislike the Democrats positions on those same issues even more.

The President talked about the economy. He’s right. He cut taxes, and the fed cut interest rates, it did stimulate our economy, which is the envy of the world. He should have done more, and spent less — but the Democrats are wrong — they want to “stimulate” the economy, by strangling it under new taxes (or not letting the tax cuts helping us right now, stay permanent). They say ignorant and childish things like the tax cuts only help the rich, and so on. They start protectionistic or classist hate mongering. Democrats show what they stand for, and it is the opposite of what I stand for; truth, opportunity, liberty. The tax cuts are good for the country and people, the Democrats opposing it is bad, and blaming it all on the rich is a childish lie.

The President is talking about cutting poor performing programs — I agree. I might not agree with which programs, or how much/little they cut, but it is a good thing to get government into thinking about trimming fat and increasing efficiency. It is hard for politicians to cut things, it makes them unpopular. But it is good for the nation. The republicans are doing what is right, the Democrats obstructing that, or scaring the nation on what those cuts will mean, is doing what is wrong.

Look at Social Security reform; the President offered a plan — far from perfect, but a step in the right direction. (More choice, more control, and giving everyone the same plan/program that the Congress has). It was similar to a plan that FDR proposed in the first place. The Democrats obstructed it, and took pride in doing so. They didn’t offer a better plan. Their criticisms of the plan were lies and disinformation. The Democrats applauding obstructing it shows their childish extremism right now. That’s not something I’d be proud of. If they’d found ways to compromise and get things they wanted, for giving up other things, and making real progress, then I could support what the Democrats did. Instead I’m embarassed that they claim to be Americans.

The President mentioned the line item veto. Something we’ve needed since the 70s and when it was basically pulled. It says that the President has the ability to line-out pork items — and is RESPONSIBLE for NOT doing so. The congress is against it, because they like pork and want to make deals with pork. At least the republicans have half-heartedly supported the line-item veto, the Democrats do not. You can’t support fiscal responsibility and support the democrats position on this. The Veto is good, and we should throw out all congressmen/senators that don’t support it — republican or democrat — while that would thin the republicans it would obliterate the democrats.

Bush has the right views on immigrants. Let more come — legally. We need them. But stop rewarding illegal behavior. Protect the border, add in controls, open up more immigration. The Democrats view is two-faced — call for tougher restrictions on immigration (to appease the Unions/protectionists), then block all efforts to enforce it and support semi-regular amnesty programs (to appease the minorities and look compassionate). The Democrats are wrong. You can’t support rational immigration policy and national security and support their position on this.

The President does offer a few really important and needed things in healthcare, like tort reform and tax-sheltered health-savings-plans. Both will help with skyrocketing costs and are the right things to do — so of course the democrats are against them. But in general the President was weak on healthcare, that’s only a small step, and not a comprehensive policy — however, the Democrats aren’t offering a better alternatives, and are blocking the things that would help, so are worse.

Bush talked about energy. He’s mostly right. He’s probably spending too much money to appease his critics (giving out pork), but that’s politics. In the end, he’s supporting ethanol, nuclear efforts, and alternatives. I think he’s wrong to give up on ANWAR and drilling off Florida — which could provide 10-20% of our total needs for at least a decade (which could achieve his objectives on their own). But in the end, it was the Democrats that blocked Nuclear, ANWAR, and have been the biggest obstacles to energy independence and real environmentalism. They ran California into its crisis, and want the nation to follow. So I see the President as doing mediocre at best, but the democrats position is far worse.

The President talked about research. I’m not an enthusiast of just throwing more money at the problem — but if it means more cuts elsewhere to make up for it, it isn’t all bad. Still the R&D tax credit does make us more competitive, employ more people, and helps people — so he’s right. Most of our breakthroughs come from private sector, so reduce barriers to doing that research. Democrats want to spend more on only centralized government controlled programs, micromanage money/power more, and reduce incentives to private industry (er, evil rich, fat cats — and all the people employed by them or who have pensions/retirement plans that might invest in them). Thus Bush might offer modest improvements at best, with tradeoffs, and the democrats position is worse.

Bush mentioned that NCLB is working. It is. Test scores are up. Some teachers may be teaching to the tests, but that’s what the rest of the world does — at least now we have metrics to measure quantitative results. The Democrats have been against NCLB and metrics to test kids or rewarding districts/teachers based on results — because the teachers Unions are against accountability and metrics as well (and they sponsor democratic party). Thus I can see NCLB and the Presidents solutions as flawed, but still better than the Democratic alternative — and the Democrats are once again puppets to special interests and big business. (Just the business of Unions that work against our kids).

The President talked about how crime is down. I remember why. Those of you old enough to remember, will remember the Democrats were soft on crime in the 70’s and early 80’s. Compassion and caring was their way. Light sentences, more reform, no mandatory punishments, against 3 strikes, and so on. Crime went through the roof. In the late 80’s and early 90’s, the much harsher Republican view of mandatory sentences and “tough on crime” policies took over. The Democrats predicted the decay of civilization, race warfare, and so on — it was going to be awful. The results, crime plummeted. Again, I can see many flaws in the republicans solutions, and see a need in balance — but still see more flaws in the Democrats.

Bush mentioned Roberts and Alito. The facts are that the Democrats were wrong. They postured, obstructed, used hate speech and fear mongering, and put politics over reason and doing what was right. They almost forced us into changing or constitution to stop their obstructionism. That was horrid — they weren’t protecting us, they were mad because they had to live under the same law as everyone else. Now we’ll see how moderate Roberts/Alito turn out to be, I have some hope. But I believe they are not activist judges (like the Democrats put up), and instead far better conservative literalists (meaning they don’t try to legislate from the bench based on their political agendas — but instead try to just interpret what the law meant). Again, while I might not agree with the Republicans, or the conservative judges rulings — they are still better than the alternative.

The President tries to deal with ethical questions that are coming up because of medical technology like cloning. I don’t always agree with his positions, but do agree that he tries to address the issues. Clinton hid from them. Other democrats use the opportunity to polarize the nation when the president is actually trying to put some moderate morality in our laws. Again, which is the better choice?

There’s the whole scandals in Washington over ethics, bribes (campaign contributions), and so on. Republicans got caught with their hands in the cookie jar this time. 8 years ago it was the Democrats, and this time the Democrats got caught too — just not in quite as far. The Republicans made a little effort last time to have campaign finance reform, the Democrats have done what? The Democrats put the liar Dean on TV proclaiming their innocence. What crap. If the Democrats propose real reform in lobbying and campaign finance, I’ll support them. For now, they are the bigger liars/hypocrites — and that says a lot since the Republicans were caught being the scummy politicians that they are.

New Orleans was mentioned — and was a failure of the mostly Democratic Citizens, the Democratic Mayor, the Democratic Governor, the Republican FEMA, an Republican President (in that order). With far more responsibility because of a corrupt local and state government. The Democrats left a bitter taste in my mouth with their finger pointing and politicking over that whole event. I can think the Republican Fed/FEMA/President didn’t do nearly as well as they should have — and still think that the Democrats were bigger liars, and far bigger contributors to the problem.

AIDS/HIV is a political thing. There are far bigger diseases killing people and far greater risks. Democrats and Hollywood liberals made AIDS this ultra-important disease because their gay friends were dying of it. And I have nothing against gays or going after a disease like AIDS — I just wish people kept perspective, on which are the greater risks/impacts to life-expectancy, and which problems were easiest to solve. While AIDS is significant, it isn’t nearly as significant as people make it out to be — it is an example of political correctness gone awry. It is like “Breast Cancer” — um, heart disease kills far more Women each year, yet gets far less attention/money. Let’s put reason and science above emotion and PC-stupidity.

In the end, I thought it was a good speech. The President addressed many issues I cared about, and at least has some modest plans to improve them. We’ll see if they can actually do anything, or do it effectively. I really wish the Democrats would rent or borrow a clue. Feel free to criticize — RATIONALLY, but not take it to the extremes and lie/exaggerate to the point that turns people off. Offer real alternatives, instead of cheering because you blocked Social Security reform and hurt out nation. Don’t be two-faced. Start offering visions and solutions. You want to attack corrupt congressmen — fine, I support that. Don’t play innocent, and offer real reforms like the Republicans did when they were the minority — and push them. That would get me to support them on that cause, and if there are enough of them, they could get me, and hopefully most rational/moderate people, voting for them. But for now, it should be blindingly obvious that the Democrats aren’t being reasonable/rational — and their rebuts and attack-dog vitriolic responses for the last 6 years have been an embarrassment to our political system.