State of the Union Comments Here...

[Babel-17]

BILL SCHNEIDER: Usually, a president can count on the fact that a majority of viewers will have a "very positive" reaction to a State of the Union speech. That didn't happen this year.

"Very Positive" reaction to speech:

Bush 2004 45%

2003 50%
2002 74%
2001 66%
1999 56%

An obviously biased yet useful site for democratic partisans has this annotated SOTU speech.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/lookup.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=22982

 

[hjs]

With the elections later this year my geuss is there will be a lot of terror warnings this summer.

Keep the people scared !!

 

[epicstruggle]

With the elections later this year my geuss is there will be a lot of terror warnings this summer.

Keep the people scared !!

I guess the republicans learned from all the years of democratic scare tatics.

later,
epic

 

[epicstruggle]

BILL SCHNEIDER: Usually, a president can count on the fact that a majority of viewers will have a "very positive" reaction to a State of the Union speech. That didn't happen this year.

"Very Positive" reaction to speech:

Bush 2004 45%

2003 50%
2002 74%
2001 66%
1999 56%

An obviously biased yet useful site for democratic partisans has this annotated SOTU speech.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/lookup.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=22982

I would imagine that since the country has become more 50/50 youll see this sort of thing crop up. BTW if you just do a positive experience, it goes up to like 70+%.

later,
epic

 

[StefanS]

"Very Positive" reaction to speech:

Bush 2004 45%

2003 50%
2002 74%
2001 66%
1999 56%

I don't know, but could it be that the approval rate is always lower in a presidential election year since there are other candidates touring the country offering different points of view?

 

[John Reynolds]

I'm amazed that people can be so partisan when it comes to their politics that they'll support even a blatantly poor candidate (or incumbent). I wonder how many Americans feel like I do, that neither party represents them?

 

[Natoma]

I'm amazed that people can be so partisan when it comes to their politics that they'll support even a blatantly poor candidate (or incumbent). I wonder how many Americans feel like I do, that neither party represents them?

I almost left the Democratic party around January 2003, and became an independent. For the past two years I've felt the Democrats have become "Republican-lite" rather than a true opposition party that truly represents an alternative to Republicanism. That's the primary reason the democrats got slaughtered in November 2002. If given a choice, people will choose the all-out thing, not the "lite" version.

The only reason I'm even heavily involved in this year's political campaigns is because my distaste for Bush's policies, both foreign and domestic, far exceeds my distaste for the democrats in general.

Howard Dean had my support for a while, mainly because he gave a voice back to the Democrats that they had seemed to have lost. Unfortunately he never moved past that anger, and into palpable policy. That's why he's faltered and Edwards and Kerry have risen.

 

[epicstruggle]

I'm amazed that people can be so partisan when it comes to their politics that they'll support even a blatantly poor candidate (or incumbent). I wonder how many Americans feel like I do, that neither party represents them?

In the last 2 or 3 presidential elections, only a very few have really excited me.
Ross Perot, before he went nuts
Alan Keys, really great speaker and great policies
John Mccain, a great american with impacable values

later,
epic

 

[Joe DeFuria]

For the past two years I've felt the Democrats have become "Republican-lite" rather than a true opposition party that truly represents an alternative to Republicanism.

Agree and Disagree. Democrats in general don't seem to know what they stand for. They seem to be deeply split. You seem to want to define the democrat party as "whatever opposes republicans", and that's exactly what the problem is for democrats, IMO.

No platform of your own, per se, just whatever's "opposive of republicans."

That's the primary reason the democrats got slaughtered in November 2002. If given a choice, people will choose the all-out thing, not the "lite" version.

I disagree. They got slaughtered because all they were doing was republican and Bush Administration bashing. This has a certain emotional appeal...but the democrats have lately not given a reason to vote FOR them...the only try to give reasons to vote AGAINST "the other guy." Doesn't work too well.

 

[Natoma]

"Alternative" doesn't mean "Oppose Everything".

 

[Joe DeFuria]

"Alternative" doesn't mean "Oppose Everything".

Well, you seem to define "true alternative" as "true opposition."

For the past two years I've felt the Democrats have become "Republican-lite" rather than a true opposition party that truly represents an alternative to Republicanism.

If that's not what you think, then say so.

 

[Natoma]

Erm,

For the past two years I've felt the Democrats have become "Republican-lite" rather than a true opposition party that truly represents an alternative to Republicanism.

You miss those last 4 words eh? A true opposition party represents a true alternative. As I said before. "Alternative" does not mean "Oppose Everything".

An Oppsition Party not only opposes, but also proposes. The Democrats did neither in the fall of 2002, especially when it came to Iraq. Howard Dean has opposed in this presidential campaign, but didn't propose. Edwards and Kerry have opposed and proposed in this presidential campaign.

Clarified?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, I didn't miss any words, I repeated them twice.

A true "opposition" party is pretty self-explanatory to me, or do we need to break out whatever dictionary of your choice is at the moment? You equated "true opposition" with "true alternative" in your original stateent.

A true alternative to Republicans obviously doesn't have to oppose everything. Your choice of words made it clear that the alternative of YOUR choice, was in fact "truly opposing."

Or does "truly opposing" not mean opposing everything, or opposing almost everything?

What is "truly opposing", vs. "opposing" then?

"Republican Lite", to use your words, doesn't seem to meet your definition of "truly opposing" or "true alternative". um...why? Not opposite enough I presume?

In short, you've certainly made the obvious clear: that an (true) alternative doesn't have to oppose everything. Thanks....I think....I'm juse wondering why you seem to be backing away from your assertion that being opposite of Repblicans to a large degree, is what the Democrats need to be then, in order to be a "true alternative"?

 

[Natoma]

Oh good god. :?

I'm not getting into another one of these Joe. I don't know how much clearer I can be. If for whatever reason you don't understand what I'm saying now, you certainly won't 10 pages from now, or whatever.

I'll say it one last time. A true opposition party represents not only a difference of opinion, but a concise plan on how to implement their own ideas and agendas, i.e., an alternative. That does not mean that everything has to be in contention, nor did I ever allude to any such requirement. I have no clue how I can be more direct than that. :?

 

[DemoCoder]

The best opposition to Bush has been from the Republicans, believe it or not. Think I'm kidding? Think Howard Dean and the Democrats have been critical of Bush? Read Pat Buchanan's articles on Bush recently.

Why are the Democrats so weak? Consider the response to the state of the union from the Democrats.

 

[Natoma]

Call me out of step with Republican politics, , but isn't Buchanan seen as more of an extreme in Republican circles, sort of how Kucinich is seen in Democratic circles?

But regardless, you're absolutely correct regarding the Democrat response. Is it any surprise that the people who gave the Democratic response also "led the fight" against the republicans in 2002? Incompetance I tell you.

 

[Sxotty]

I'm amazed that people can be so partisan when it comes to their politics that they'll support even a blatantly poor candidate (or incumbent). I wonder how many Americans feel like I do, that neither party represents them?

In the last 2 or 3 presidential elections, only a very few have really excited me.
Ross Perot, before he went nuts
Alan Keys, really great speaker and great policies
John Mccain, a great american with impacable values

later,
epic

Well I wouldn't have voted for perot, but I liked mccain and I would have voted for him. I am an "independent" in that I don't affiliate myself with a party, but I really think I am a contradictory mix of liberal and libertarian, if that strange mix is ok with you. And yes neither party represents me, but in our system they don't have too. I think we should start having a run off in the presedential race that way we can all vote for who we like even if it is like Mr. Jones who no one has heard of and then we won't fear throwing our votes away. BTW I didn't vote for bush or gore last time, I disliked both, and living in Texas I made no difference anyway so I did not feel obligated to pick the "lesser of two evils" which is basically how I see our system.

 

[DemoCoder]

Yes, Natoma, Buchanan is out of step, but I think he represents a good chunk of the "base". He runs American Conservative magazine, you know, pro-Christian, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-biotech-messing-with-gods-work, anti-free-trade (Made in American first) etc.

That said, he has been extremely critical of Bush's spending and of the Iraq War. I dare say, his criticism of Bush's fiscal and foreign policy has been far better than any Democrat's.

 

[Clashman]

Howard Dean had my support for a while, mainly because he gave a voice back to the Democrats that they had seemed to have lost. Unfortunately he never moved past that anger, and into palpable policy. That's why he's faltered and Edwards and Kerry have risen.

You know, I've actually been really turned off by this whole election year. I haven't felt that any of the major candidates have offered anything tangible that would make me want to vote for them. Dean in particular I've distrusted as a neoliberal opportunist posing as a liberal/progressive.

Until I read this yesterday:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040121/ap_on_el_pr/dean_15

If he goes through with this he may just get my vote, as this would be huge step in the way of campaign finance reform. Which would mean, above all, that it might be possible for to take a real step towards grass-roots democracy and that candidates without oodles of money to throw at an election would actually have a chance to win. Meaning that I would never have to vote for another namby-pamby political opportunist just because "at least they're not Republicans". We'll see if he sticks to this, though. If he does, his campaign has more substance than Kerry and Edwards put together, in my eyes.

 

[Vince]

I'm amazed that people can be so partisan when it comes to their politics that they'll support even a blatantly poor candidate (or incumbent). I wonder how many Americans feel like I do, that neither party represents them?

I'd first question if the common American ponders if we live in a theocracy because a president states that he believes in something greater than himself. I, myself, am not a man of religion but I can respect the man for his beliefs without criticizing him and his ability to lead our republic just because of a humble belief he holds. If anything you're comment was more partisan than many.

Also, why must you assume that people are only led on their path due to 'partisan' reasons because they endorse someone you dislike? Are you that shallow to not atleast acknowldge that others may hold views that differ from yours and are motivated by a true liking and support of said candidates - be him George W. Bush or Howard Dean.