1.28.2008

OK, Maybe I'm Confused

I had the State of the Union on in the background but wasn't listening. But at the end, I heard Katie Couric tell me that Bush had just delivered his "seventh" State of the Union speech. Am I losing my mind, or isn't this the eighth speech? If you give a speech from 2001 to 2008, isn't that eight?

I googled her comment to see if anyone was jumping on her, but all I came up was the above where she put it in writing.

Somebody tell me what I'm missing.

55 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not sure, but I think that 2001 only had an Inaugural speech, not a State of the Union.

wordkyle said...

I think that Bush's 2001 speech was not considered an official "State of the Union" speech, but a "Budget Message."

gern blansten said...

I heard tonight that it was his ninth speech before Congress, but only the seventh SOTU. He spoke shortly after winning in 2001 and also spoke after 9-11, along with the seven SOTU addresses.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but he didn't give one in '01.

Darrel said...

The president is required by the constitution to report annually on the state of the union. Some president did it in 2001.

Anonymous said...

Who cares? One was too many for him anyway.

Anonymous said...

O my gosh barry get a life! You poor liberal

Anonymous said...

Were the little red bordered books supposed to be like newspapers at a college basketball game?
You know you put them up and rattle'em around while the other person is trying to do something to show your disinterest.

I hate me some politics.

Anonymous said...

What you are missing is a brain if you listen to this dipstick.

Anonymous said...

I dunno....but Katie looks like an evil B**ch in that pic.

Anonymous said...

Barry is right as usual.

RPM said...

Thank the 6 lb baby Jesus this was his last. Or as Craig Ferguson said "the final episode of Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader".

Pseudonym said...

Here are the actual dates which includes the post 9/11 address that some people treat as a SOU.
Feb 21/01
Sept 20/01
Jan 29/02
Jan 28/03
Han 20/04
Feb 2/05
Jan 31/06
Jan 23/07
Jan 28/08

BagOfNothing.com said...

Also, the three most recent presidents (Bush, Clinton, and G.W.Bush) addressed a joint session of Congress shortly after their inaugurations but these messages are actually not considered to be "State of the Union" addresses. Bush's 1989 and Clinton's 1993 messages are called "Administration Goals" speeches, and G.W. Bush's 2001 speech is actually his "Budget Message." For research purposes, it is probably harmless to categorize these as State of the Union messages since the impact of such a speech on public, media, and congressional perceptions of presidential leadership and power should be the same as if the address was an official State of the Union.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php

bigfan said...

what job do ya'll have to 1. no this crap, 2. care about this crap, 3. have time to post about this crap, and 4. insert other like question here.......

Anonymous said...

The exact number doesn't matter, it was his last! It is all so boring.

The governor from Kansas did a good job with the Democratic response. Seems like women are making more sense these days.

She talked about getting work done for the common good! Mmmmm....very refreshing.

Anonymous said...

9:29 is correct. He gave an inaugural speech in 2001. That should have been enough to keep people from voting for him a second time but, alas, how quickly we forget.

Crud Bonemeal said...

Last night was his 8th speech.
What concerns me is that you didn't actually watch or listen to the speech. If you watched, I would wonder how anyone could still align themselves with the democrats. When President Bush was talking about tax relief, rebates, and the need to let the people keep their money in their own pockets, the Republicans and Bush allies would stand and applaud. The democrats sat on their hands. If you take nothing else from that, you should understand that those people want more of your money. They want a bigger piece of your paycheck. The President said that the average American believes that our taxes are already too high. Don't raise taxes, cut pork barrel spending and entitlement spending, and allow the consumer to spend his own money. That will help the economy. The Democrats would not applaud that message. They cannot fathom the concept of getting away from their socialist platforms. They want to coerce more of your money away from you.

Anonymous said...

10:44

COULDNT HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER MYSELF

Anonymous said...

Crud wants to use the ol' applause meter to judge between the Dems and the Pubs? Trust me when I say I have no affiliation with either party ... I'm like another poster when I would vote "none of the above." However, doesn't the deficit currently being run up by gazillions of dollars every minute ensure that our legacy to our children and their children will be higher taxes? So Crud, isn't your argument much like "which came first, the chicken or the egg"? Like Vegas, the government will always find a way to get your money.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone wants to jump on Katie.

M&M said...

10:44 Well said, but unfortunately I think most of the folks on this blog will vote for Hillary of Barack, who have already pledged to increase taxes to help pay for their socialist programs they want to implement.

rex the wonder dog said...

Nice job, Crud.

When will thinking Democrats reject the insults of their party leaders? How can their voters stand to always be identified as the downtrodden masses, starving, unemployed pathics, the trailer trash, ones without voices who suffer from descrimination against browns, blacks and queers.

Those are not the able and concerned voters who want to revive the party, but the ones always labeled as such by democrats running for the highest office.

Their messag is that the USA is into the gravest ruination in history and only they can cure all of it. They expect you to rally to them as your saviors!

They "identify" with you, "feel your pain" and will use the government to bring you up from your savage and unhappy state in life. Oh sure!

Barack Obama - Net Worth $1 - $2.5 million.

Hillary Clinton - New Worth $10 - $50 million.

John Edwards - New Worth $10 - $68 million.

(wondering)

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400305_pf.html

Pseudonym said...

I really enjoyed everyone's comments. Barry they are far superior to the original post (no insult intended).

I'm really interested in people's ideas for fixes. Americans don't want to pay more taxes in fct they want to pay less. But the government is spending more than it is bringing im. When that happens to me I tell my wife to spend less. That isn't so easy to do. How do you get the American government to spend less. I didn't notice any drop in spending under Republican administrations so it isn't a simplistic answer like don't vote for the Dems. What is the answer?

Anonymous said...

When I glanced at the headline I thought it said, "Katie Kourics Cookbook" and thought, "Huh, maybe shes going to share something with us worthwhile for once".

Anonymous said...

Thank God history and President Bush met when they did,thank God.

Anonymous said...

SOTU has historically been delivered annually,constitution calls for "from time to time".

wordkyle said...

pseudo: As someone historical (maybe P.J. O'Rourke) once said: "Democracy only works until the majority realize they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury."

A politician's only job, as far as he's concerned, is to get reelected. Everything else is secondary. That's most easily accomplished by giving away money. Unfortunately, the money is not his own, but yours and mine.

Term limits.

rex the wonder dog said...

Wordkyle -- Term limits, AMEN!!

They bamboozled us once on that issue by passing a law they knew was unconstitutional. Only an amendment would work, so they all remained safe.

But we have the franchise in hand to do it for them without the need for Congress to "vote themselves out of office". Let's throw out veryone who has served two terms of office. That's enough!

(wondering)

ander said...

Rex the wonder dog: Just curious. As long as comparisons are being made, any idea what the net worth of McCain, Guiliani, Romney, et al. might be? That is a rhetorical question, actually. And by the way: Aren't those the fellows who rally the poor Republicans to their cause by instilling the fear of possible reverse "descrimination" (sic) from "browns, blacks and queers?" Very classy use of terms, incidentally.

wordkyle said...

Ander: what is your reference for your description of Republicans' alleged tactics? I've never seen anything of the sort by any reputable major Republican.

Since you were so specific with the quote, including the (sic), I assume you got it from a particular place. Please enlighten us.

Until that time, though, I'll assume it was simply nasty, mindless political rhetoric.

ander said...

Wordkyle: Happy to enlighten you, although I'm a bit surprised that you are not familiar with the Republican appeal to a certain class of voter with the use of terms such as "special rights" for minorities (especially the [shudder] gays!). I rather thought that was straight out of the conservative playbook. The quoted passages of my comment were taken from "Rex the wonder dog's" first comment on this post. That would be the one in which he/she derides the sincerity of those Democrats whose wealth renders them souless, apparently. Still waiting on those net-worth figures for the Republican candidates, by the way.

rex the wonder dog said...

The point I attmpted to make is that the democrat strategy always degrades people into believing they are helpless and hopless, and can only be rescued by candidates who "feel their pain". The irony is that those same candidates are millionaires who want to buy their votes with promises of federal programs to eliminate every kind of discomfort.

For example, the dems could end unemployment by giving everyone a job on the federal payroll. Make sense? If you fall for a millionaire telling you that you are trash, it might get your vote.

That is not the pitch to the voters from the republican side and never has been. I don't fault the wealth of anyone running for office, so long as they do not misrepresent themselves as martyrs of the poor.

If you had taken the time, you would have found the net worth of ALL presidential candidates on the link I provided. I don't think it is necessary for me to give it to you again, is it? Well, I'm not gonna do that. You might be used to federal freebies but I'm not part of the federal system.

(wondering)

wordkyle said...

ander - My apologies, I didn't get the Rex reference.

While I will leave Rex to authoritatively defend his own words, if you read them in context you can see that he was referring to how Democrat leaders have consistently reinforced the "victim" mindset in their constituency.

The "Conservative playbook" that you refer to doesn't exist. Conservatism is a philosophy that believes that the latest fad or bright idea by a politician does not trump hundreds or thousands of years of collected wisdom.

For example, the US Supreme Court recently ruled that the government has the right to take property from one private owner and give it to another private owner. This goes against hundreds of years of property rights in English and American tradition. Therefore I disagree with it.

The Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. Conservatives interpret this to mean that special legal rights should not be granted to any man. ("A nation of laws, not men" ring a bell?)

Liberals want special rights granted to certain groups of people. This would indicate that Liberals think that those people are NOT created equal, and need government's help to measure up. I can't think of a more demeaning or disrespectful philosophy.

That's what I think Rex meant. He can clarify if he wishes.

rex the wonder dog said...

LIBERALS ARE FUN TO WATCH!

The New York chair of NOW (National Organization of Women) accuses Ted Kennedy of BETRAYAL for endorsing Obama and not Clinton. The national chair of NOW says the New York chair is a nutcase! LOL!

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UFRQV01&show_article=1

(wondering)

ander said...

rtwd: I understood your point and in your first comment on this post was the genesis of mine. Namely, that neither party is innocent of appeals to victim hood. You mentioned the Democratic attraction of those who are “black, brown and queer”. The irony, conversely, is that Republicans (McCain and Romney lately) have been scrambling to establish who, between them, is most socially conservative and willing to curtail “special rights”, whatever those might be. The implication being that the granting of equal rights will somehow diminish the established rights of another. This was certainly the primary focus of delegate gathering in Florida rather than issues which might be more germane to most of its citizens. It amuses me when divorced politicians (McCain) invoke “the sanctity of marriage”. It is this sort of perverse, red herring tactic which I find objectionable.

To Wordkyle: I agree. The denying of equal rights to any group of people is a demeaning, disrespectful philosophy.

Anonymous said...

Analog from another familiar TV commercisl: You have chiseled or failed to pay your taxes..."Is the IRS ruining your life?"

You dropped out of a free school system ... "Is the republican party ruining your life?"

wordkyle said...

Ander, don't try to twist what I say. Conveying SPECIAL rights to a group demeans their individual worth.

For example, an assault against a member of a "protected" group is considered a hate crime. An identical assault against a person not a member of a protected group is considered less of a crime. Since you seem lost on what constitutes special rights under the law, this is one example.

Please give examples of the Republican actions you attribute to them. You seem to be in the "everybody knows" mode Liberals use when they don't have a real argument.

rex the wonder dog said...

Ander - Speaking of the sanctity of marriage and perverse remarks from politicians, how about this one: "I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!"

(wondering)

ander said...

Transcript of John McCains pre-recorded message to Florida voters:

“I’m calling with an urgent Mitt Romney [unintelligible]"

"We care deeply about traditional values and protecting families. And we need someone who will not waver in the White House: Ending abortion, preserving the sanctity of marriage, stopping the trash on the airwaves and attempts to ban God from every corner of society. These issues are core to our being.

"Mitt Romney thinks he can fool us. He supported abortion on demand, even allowed a law mandating taxpayer-funding for abortion. He says he changed his mind, but he still hasn’t changed the law. He told gay organizers in Massachusetts he would be a stronger advocate for special rights than even Ted Kennedy. Now, it’s something different.

"Unfortunately, on issue after issue Mitt Romney has treated social issues voters as fools, thinking we won’t catch on. Sorry, Mitt, we know you aren’t trustworthy on the most important issue and you aren’t a conservative

"Paid for by John McCain 2008."

rtwd: What I find more perverse than the fact that Clinton lied about his affair (Duh!) was the fact that several of his chief critics were also guilty of cheating on their spouses.

rex the wonder dog said...

Ander - I happen to think that gay marriage is the height of perversity! Others are certainly entitled to their opinions on it but that is what McCain was pointing out about Romney.

And, referring back to the SOU message, why are the democrats so silent about his feature piece ... to attack hidden pork barrell (ear-marked) spending? Doesn't that have appeal to all taxpayers, regardless of party, who are being ripped off by conniving congressional officials?

Please don't excuse it with the worn out story, "It has always been there." That does not make it OK. If we want improvement and change in government, that has to be a prioritiy.

(wondering)

wordkyle said...

Ander - odd that to prove your point you should choose the one message that has been resoundingly denounced by other Republicans. Not quite indicative of any sort of "playbook."

Re Clinton's affair: while many others may have cheated on their spouses, Clinton was guilty of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Evidence also indicates that he was guilty of abuse of power and perjury in the Paula Jones case (for which he was found in contempt of court.)

All this while in office. He was never found "guilty" for having sex. It wasn't about sex, it was about the law.

ander said...

"Resoundingly denounced by other Republicans?" Are you actually saying that this sort of appeal to social conservatives by both McCain and Romney has been "resoundingly denounced by other Republicans"? Astounding. Draw-dropping-astounding, in fact. Even more astounding than "It wasn't about sex, it was about the law." Or, more precisely, it was about removing him from office with any available means and those means, in that case, happened to be about S-E-X. Personally, I was disgusted by Clintons actions but come on now. Seriously. You don't really believe your own assertions, now do you?

Not a Linguist said...

Ander:
"rtwd: What I find more perverse than the fact that Clinton [lied about his affair] (brackets mine) (Duh!) was the fact that several of his chief critics were also guilty of [cheating on their spouses] (again, brackets mine)."
This statement reflects your bias in at least two ways, Ander. 1)The fact that you find committing an infidelity "more perverse" than committing an infidelity in the workplace with a subordinate and then criminally lying about it under oath; and 2) your choice of words in describing the in-many-ways-similar immoral and reprehensible acts, one is the more aggressive "cheating on their spouses" and emphasizes the fact that there are victimized spouses, while the other is the noticeably softer and victimless "his affair".

rex the wonder dog said...

Attention Bush haters:

President Bush is just now completing a public briefing on another of his SOU points, renewal of trade agreements with S. Korea, Peru and Nicaragua. His emphasis is to create a level playing field for our products and overturn agreements in which we presently charge no tariffs on their goods and they charge as much as 20% on ours. (Agreements negotiated durning the Clinton administration.)

Defeating those barriers will expand our industries and provide more jobs for people who need them.
Ok, so now all you dems jump on that one and kick hell out of it.

(wondering)

ander said...

Not a linguist: Nice try, I must say, but actually, you're projecting just a lot. In reality, I regarded Clinton's AFFAIR (there, is that better? See how I capitalzied it?) as quite a bit more than simply cheating on his spouse. I considered it a monumental betrayal of his legacy and the trust his supporters placed in it. What I did not consider it to be was an impeachable offense. The impeachment itself (and the fact that it was allowed to proceed) I considered to be a sideshow of the lowest order conducted not for the good of the country, but for political gain at any cost.

Not a Linguist said...

Ander:
Once again, as you have done multiple times on this thread and to multiple posters, you responded to me, including demeaning and belittling me, but ignored the points raised in my post, and instead made a statement that starts a whole 'nuther thread. I see no benefit in continuing a discourse with you. You do not engage in dialogue to gain a better understanding, your goal is simply to win an argument, to be "right". As Dr. Phil might say, "How's that working for ya?" You will continue to be frustrated, as you have been, unless you adopt a different mindset. There is no peace, joy, or truth at the end of that path.
God bless you.

wordkyle said...

Ander, nice try at shifting the blame. Clinton was never tried or convicted for sex. He was also not convicted for lying to his wife, his friends or the American people. He was convicted of perjury and obstruction, and later contempt of court for committing perjury in the Paula Jones case. He was disbarred for five years.

All these were preventable by his telling the truth in court and not interfering with the investigation.

Perjury to a grand jury.
Obstruction of justice.
Perjury again.
...by a sitting President.

Only the truly besotted would try to minimize such charges as being "only about sex."

Rin Tin Tin said...

They bite, pull, herd, play Frisbee, fight, and guard,
Canines fill an important niche,
But Curr, Stray, Wonder, Feist, or Pit,
They are either a Son of, or just a plain ol' bitch.
Alpo Forever.

ander said...

Not a linguist: I believe your point was that you perceived me to be "softer" on Bill Clinton than on those Republicans who also engaged in affairs. Was that not your point? You were incorrect in your perception and I indicated that fact. As I mentioned to you, I found his offense to be greater than his accusers. My larger point, however, was that the impeachment of Clinton was a politically motivated effort. It says much, I think, when the impeachment itself is more damaging to the nation than the original offense. That said, I abhore what he did. It was dispicable and damaging to his office. I'm not sure what other points you feel I have ignored. I apologize if you feel belittled and demeaned. But, after all, its not as if I have referred to anyone here as "nasty and mindless".

ander said...

Wordkyle: As I mentioned before, I don't think Clinton was impeached simply because he engaged in an adulterous affair. Nor do I think it was "about the law". I think the agenda (endless investigations, impeachment, etc.) was always to bring down Clinton for political gain and the affair and his denial of it was the opportunity that presented itself.

wordkyle said...

Clinton's Justice Department and Attorney General Janet Reno approved every step of the investigation and gave permission for the direction it took. Were they all involved in the "agenda?"

This is the Liberals' cult of personality in action. Everyone was to blame but Bill Clinton.

I guess if we held him responsible for his action, then it might put pressure on the rest of the Liberals to take responsibility for theirs. And personal responsibility is anathema to Liberals.

ander said...

Do you never tire of making blanket statements and assumptions about everyone you perceive to be a liberal? Your convenient leap that I am or was "besotted" with Bill Clinton was far from the mark. I do, however, believe that from the time that Clinton took office there was an real effort (from Whitewater investigations to insinuations that he was involved in murder!) to destroy his presidency regardless of the larger cost. I could mention again that I abhore what Clinton did, but I assume you'll ignore that as well. I guess its just easier to lump people into a tidy box.

rex the wonder dog said...

Ander - So your argument seems to be that the "great right wing conspiracy" should have ignored the laws of perury and left impeachment off the table. Of course, our patriotic liberals would never think of impeachment if Bush had done likewise.

Clinton's sex scandal was the most visible in all of history. He not only lied to the courts, he looked closeup into the camera and eye-to-eye said, "I did not have sex with that woman." His problem was that he failed to say "those women" and the evidence proved otherwise.

Yes, it was about sex but it could have been about abusing pets, DWI or any range of offenses and you think it should have been ignored?

Like any other citizen, our president is not above the law and that was proved in his case. His example may be the most beneficial thing he did for the country in his two terms as president.

(wondering)

ander said...

"Of course, our patriotic liberals would never think of impeachment if Bush had done likewise."

Er....yes, that's exactly what the patriotic liberals did vow (no impeachment) despite the abuses which have been perpetrated by Bush. Abuses, incidentally, which have had repercussions beyond lying about sex. I'll take a stained dress and "I did not have sex with that woman" over illegal wiretapping, 4000 body bags, etc., etc., etc. and "Mission Accomplished" any day.