Bush gave an incredibly effective speech last night. Dare I say...Reaganesque? The DNC response was so tepid and uninspired that the leftists who run the DNC better get their arses in motion on you can kiss 2006 AND 2008 good-bye. I need Howard Dean back in my life. Beating Democrats is becoming as boring as rooting against Notre Dame. When they beat themselves, there is no fun in it.

I'm no Bush fan, but I've gotta admit, it was a great speech. Even though I knew the part with the soldier's parents and the Iraqi woman was political theater, I started to choke up - in spite of myself. Yes, the moment was genuine, but they were being used.

Bush has certainly gained in confidence and delivery and I even liked some of what he had to say - at least as far as broad themes and national vision. Although I'm sure when the time for implementing the vision comes around, I'll have issues with it. "The devil's in the details." For instance, he did threaten Syria. I know Syria's gov't is awful, but I'm uncomfortable with one country threatening another. Isn't this how Iraq got started?

Speaking of Iraq. I'm having a bit of an internal struggle. I'm thrilled their election went well, however I still disagree with the war. BUT, I realize that without the war, this election would not have happened. Yet I wonder, "Do the ends justify the means?" Back and forth, back and forth, etc. ad nauseum.

I gotta say, the Democratic response was PATHETIC. I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. If I wasn't already on their side, that response alone would have pushed me over to George Bush. I was thinking, if this is how America sees us, no wonder we're losing elections. Milquetoast, bland, pathetic, whiny all these things rolled into one.

Oh and a note to RLC: I very much appreciated your attempt to find a compromise in an earlier post on this thread by suggesting that the salary cap be raised. I know you're a committed Republican, so the fact that you'd be willing to do this as a compromise gave me a bit of hope. Maybe this thing can be worked out after all.

Thanks for the reply. I think compromise is needed and it seems awfully unfair to me that most of America pays the social security tax (that is what it is make no mistake about it) on 100% of their income while the rich (both rich liberals and rich conservatives) pay this tax on only a fraction of their income. It does not make any sense, but I hardly hear anyone talking about seriously raising the cap (or simply doing away with the cap). I would not call it a tax increase but a tax fairness adjustment.

__________________
"If you have the courage to begin, you have the courage to succeed." -- David Viscott

Steve,

I also opposed going into Iraq. I believe in Lincoln's old axiom "one war at a time". Do the ends justify the means? If Iraq becomes a potent friend to us in the years to come, then I would answer that question in the affirmative.

If anyone did not believe that Dubya gained 'political capital' in November, this speech should at least prove that he believes it did.

I second Steve's compliment to our conservative brother - I agree with Rob's argument that the cap should be removed on SS. And I meant to get back earlier to compliment him. Better late than never.

And I agree that the speech was basically quite impressive. It was by far the best speech I have heard President Bush give. It seemed to be a conscious effort to backpeddle from the Inaugural Address.

I was pleased to hear him complain about Saudi Arabia and Egypt . . . and worried by his sabre-rattling over Syria. I also worried about his claim that he would back the Iranian disidents - its the sort of gratuitous backing that we can't cover if we are called on it.

And I'm especially pleased that he has decided to back the bipartisan efforts by liberals and conservatives to improve the death benefits for military personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. That, and the issue of health care for families of reservists and guard personnel is quite sad.

I disagree with much of his agenda, from making permanent the tax cuts to social security.

But, perhaps we can be hopeful that this is a new start.

And the the Democratic response - it drove me back to the computer for a quick round of Doom.

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs

Same here... and I'm no Bush fan, but I was pleased with the speech overall.

The folks on ABC were right, it was like a sitcom.

Again, was the response typical of an opposing party or was this the first time a formal response was issued? :what_is_:

__________________
CafeParents.com

Disingenuously playing with numbers. And this idea has been thoroughly debunked for years. Black men do have an average life expectancy of about 64 years, but that's only when you average in the early deaths of those that die violently in their teens and early 20s (and of course the poor access to health care). Those men are NOT paying into a system their whole lives and getting nothing in return.

Also, since Social Security benefits are highly progressive, those earning low wages during their working years get a very high rate of return compared to those earning more. Taking this into account, blacks do nearly as well as whites as far as Soc Sec benefits. Just so you know, Hispanics do better than both groups.

In any case, Bush's use of this false statement about black male life expectancy is a total sham. His "plan" will only (allegedly) bear fruit in 40 to 50 years, so he is, in effect, saying that even two generations from now, he expects black men to still be dying young in large numbers. Wouldn't it be better to work reduce violence and improve access to health care? Oh wait, gun control and cheap medicine? Imagine far-Right Republicans supporting such socialistic garbage!

Thank you, Thunda. I had wanted to get back and bash poor Rob.

He can't help himself - he's a convert. :lol:

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs

If you die at 20 or 35 or 45 you are still paying into the system and not receiving anything in return. That is just simple logic. I don't particularly believe we need anymore wealth creation systems for white people, but I do see how certain ethnic minorites are getting the short end of the stick due to the problems with urban public education. I think that allowing personal accounts to be voluntary and have these accounts transfer to a loved one or relative upon a man's death will help with wealth creation. There is nothing disengenious about it. I also think that more lower wage workers should have 401K plans instead of pensions because I know that certain pensions are not paid out until one reaches a certain age, but with 401K plans they can be transferred. That is a separate argument.

__________________
"If you have the courage to begin, you have the courage to succeed." -- David Viscott

Rob - much of the difference lies in higher infant mortality rates along with higher death rates among teens. Some do, as you say, pay in for a short time, although the higher unemployment rate among young black male workers probably makes this somewhat less significant.

But Thunda is right. President Bush and his minions are being most disengenious using this as a justification for pilloring the Social Security System.

Oh wow, the Bushies are looking out for African Americans. :roll:

__________________
“Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” - Jane Jacobs