Monday, January 28, 2008

State of the Union

As I write this blog post, president Bush is wrapping up his State of the Union address. At the outset of his address, Bush was clear in admitting the actual state of our Union: Shaky. He admits that the economic condition of the US is worrying Americans sitting at their dinner tables all across the nation. Thus said, Bush's address can be seen as a pep talk, so to speak.

I doubt that anybody, myself included, could ever agree with 100% of what Bush had to say, or any president for that matter. I think anyone placed in leadership should be careful about publicly espousing their views, so as the director of a non-profit organization, I'll try to practice what I preach, and reserve my opinions for private conversation, lest I offend anyone who labors beside me.

I do feel this was a unique address (Bush's last before the next president is chosen), and am VERY curious as to how you, reader, reacted. Did president Bush inspire you? What did you think about the pending tax rebate? No child left behind? Foriegn policy? Was Bush looking forward? Backward? Let me know!

If you are liberated from constraints I feel, post a comment. Otherwise, email me your thoughts!

5 comments:

Raymond said...

I thought he did well. I'm usually not very enthused with his speeches because of his tedious bumbling way of speech. But he seem very relaxed and casual tonight. He touched base on the topics everyone wants to hear about, particularly the war. I'm not sure what the progress is like in Iraq, but whether its progress or regress, its nice to hear that some troops are to begin coming home without replacements being sent in.
My roommate commented though on the almost complete absence of any by moral guidance. I guess this isn't just a problem with Bush as it is with most politicians, but they never seem to encourage Americans to do the right thing in their own individual lives. The only time they ever bring up ethics is when it willwork against their opponents. I guess it would be nice to hear one of our leaders at least comment on the importance of not asking what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country (to quote a president of the past).

Overall it was a nice union address. I think maybe Bush is ├╝ber relieved to be getting out of the hot seat.

Nate Watson said...

Thanks for the comment Raymond. I did notice that this was the most concise speech Bush has given yet. It felt like a Dad trying to soothe his frightened children..."everythings going to be okay."

Uber relieved...you probably hit it on the head. My wife commented that he has aged so much since he took office. Is gray hair a sign of wisdom? Stress? Both?

Rob said...

The Libertarian party had this in response. I couldn't agree more.

"Tonight's State of the Union address went much as expected. Instead of calling for a more limited role of the federal government in American society, the President laid out plans that would only increase the government's intervention into the realm of economics, health care, education and foreign policy. It is unfortunate to see that after seven years of increasing the size of government and increasing the government's presence in the day to day lives of all Americans, the President refuses to limit the scope of the federal government, a once championed virtue of the President's party. The President's last State of the Union address encapsulated his legacy of an abandonment of the principles of limited government and individual freedom."

This is actually just the intro. If you would like the full text, email me.

robdubinski@gmail.com

Addison said...

amen to rob dubinski. i voted for this guy TWICE... im sorry for that. if i commented about each topic, i may get carpal tunnel. i must give you kudos as well though nate... you held your comments for a private conversation. great job.

Nate Watson said...

Thanks for the comments and insight Rob and Addison! Rob I would love the full text. Addison, thanks for the affirmation.

Rob, you made an interesting point...how parties shift over time. Here is a quote from David Houle (http://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2006/05/31/the-political-party-in-the-united-states-a-candidate-for-disintermediation/):

What do we hear today about the two parties regarding what they stand for? Republicans who joined the party because of it’s commitment to fiscal restraint and smaller government say things like “What happened to the Republican Party that I joined years ago?” Democrats look around and say “Where is the leadership of the Democratic Party?” In other words, whatever happened to the political parties? Republicans are fighting wars of intervention and spending for big government, and Democrats don’t have any idea as to what they stand for.

Sounds like the two American political parties no longer serve any real purpose. They aren’t really needed to provide the electorate with candidates. They don’t really stand for anything. Polls show that the electorate feels that the country, led by the two parties at least in all aspects of government, is going in the wrong direction, so they aren’t providing leadershp either. The political party, as currently defined in America, feels like an out of date, anachronistic apparatus whose value is in the past, not the present and certainly not something aligned with the future. If it is to survive, it must reconstitute iself or crumble under its own historical dead weight.