matclone

Early in his Presidency, Bush was such a stumbling, bumbling speaker. Now, he delivers a speech pretty much without error. I can't figure out how he does it. It didn't look like he was reading from anything. Yet it seems improbable that he had the whole thing memorized.

Just one comment (for now) on the content of the speech. I had to groan when he was talking about (and I paraphrase) "Health care decisions are between you and your doctor. Don't let the gov't make those decisions for you"--completely ignoring the 800 pound gorilla who really makes those decisions.

Finally, he has been absolutely consistent from day one in supporting the interests of big business, and those were expressed again throughout his speech.

Big

Bush never lets the government interfere when he makes decisions with his doctor. That is where he got the idea.

matclone

Yeah, when it comes to medical care, Bush doesn't have any middleman to deal with. How efficient.

skipster

I certainly don't think the current health insurance racket is the best way to go. But, it certainly is better than any form of government healthcare -- and has better doctor-patient relationship. My mother-in-law's brother in Canada coudln't get in to see the doctor when he had chest pains because his portion of the alphabet wasn't allowed to see the doctor for another 8 months. Or, if you like American examples, check out Walter Reed Medical Center, which is totally government-run. The conditions there are less than ideal.

Ignoring the 800-pound in the room? Not hardly.

matclone

Skipster, you would lie to a dog, just so you could pontificate (and have someone listen), so to give yourself that grandiose feeling that you alone understand the secret to all universal truths.

Completely missed the point of my gorilla analogy, eh?

Big

Canadian system must be different from Soviet system. In Soviet Union I remember you could walk in and see a doctor any time. I came with my parents to the hospital in Leningrad when I was 12 because I was having sharp stomach pains and 3 hours later I was in surgery for appendicitis.

PS Nobody asked me what kind of insurance I had!

zappacy

300 million for school vouchers. just 300 million less for public schools. He would rather "put the country at risk" then hold telecom companies responsible for warrantless wiretapping.

UGLY

I didn't get to see the whole speech, but what I did see I didn't think was half bad. He sounded like a lame duck president trying to secure a legacy other that being the worst pres. in history.

I particularly liked his stance on earmark or pork barrel spending. If he can stick to his word and veto the bills that have this waste of government funds then he will move up a notch in my book. I still don't understand why a law cant be passed to eliminate pork by mandating all bills are presented three day's in advance of a vote and that all bills must be read before a representative can vote on it. Also give the president a line item veto so he can scrap any pork that gets through.

He touted the party line when it came to the economy, small government and empower the people ( big business). It was the same on illegal immigration and he talked a good game but yet he has failed to get anything done in eight years about the issue. He said nothing about the double border fence or any real solutions to slow the flow of illegal immigration. He did say they would double the border patrol but when you are monitoring broken border boundaries it wont make a difference.

I liked his line when he said he wanted judges who rule by the law and not the gavel and that interpret the constitution as it is written. Then to imply that the dems are unfairly holding up his nominations because they don't want judges to interpret the constitution and rule by the law. It is obvious that the dems will keep the justices waiting until they see if they take the white house and can push there own judges through.

Either way it was clear he enjoyed touting the success of McCains surge plan in Iraq more than anything else. I thought it was a joke when he was bragging about no (all) child left behind.

He did have a funny lie when he said to those who wish to pay more tax's the IRS accepts checks and money orders.

matclone

That's pretty much what the panelists on Charlie Rose said.

I still don't understand why a law cant be passed to eliminate pork by mandating all bills are presented three day's in advance of a vote and that all bills must be read before a representative can vote on it. Also give the president a line item veto so he can scrap any pork that gets through.

As to your first point, Congress doesn't have the will. It's fine to speak, as Bush does, about saving money (even as he asks to spend more on Iraq) but those Congressmen are bringing home the bacon with those earmarks.

As to the item-line veto, it's unconstitutional, and I believe the Supreme Ct has ruled on this. So, change the constitution.

He touted the party line when it came to the economy, small government and empower the people ( big business). It was the same on illegal immigration and he talked a good game but yet he has failed to get anything done in eight years about the issue. He said nothing about the double border fence or any real solutions to slow the flow of illegal immigration. He did say they would double the border patrol but when you are monitoring broken border boundaries it wont make a difference.

He tried to do something, which is more than those in Congress who merely opposed any reform.

I liked his line when he said he wanted judges who rule by the law and not the gavel and that interpret the constitution as it is written. Then to imply that the dems are unfairly holding up his nominations because they don't want judges to interpret the constitution and rule by the law.

Bullshit rhetoric. You think judges don't want to uphold the Constitution--that which they've sworn to do? What he's really saying is he wants judges to think like him and if they don't then they're not upholding the constitution. An example of one of those things that if you repeat it long enough, people will believe you.

It is obvious that the dems will keep the justices waiting until they see if they take the white house and can push there own judges through.

Probably so.

Either way it was clear he enjoyed touting the success of McCains surge plan in Iraq more than anything else. I thought it was a joke when he was bragging about no (all) child left behind.

He did have a funny lie when he said to those who wish to pay more tax's the IRS accepts checks and money orders.

I thought the joke was all too predictable. But he made a point that evidently resonates with a lot of people.

UGLY

liked his line when he said he wanted judges who rule by the law and not the gavel and that interpret the constitution as it is written. Then to imply that the dems are unfairly holding up his nominations because they don't want judges to interpret the constitution and rule by the law.

Bullshit rhetoric. You think judges don't want to uphold the Constitution--that which they've sworn to do? What he's really saying is he wants judges to think like him and if they don't then they're not upholding the constitution. An example of one of those things that if you repeat it long enough, people will believe you.

Clone we agree on this. Maybe I said it in a confusing way.

As for the line item veto, its not unconstitutional for state governors so why would it be for the pres. If it is then lets amend the constitution.