A Perfect Contradiction: State of the Union + Commentary

I'd like to add some commentary to the official transcript. I will preface by saying that it was a good State of the Union. Not Bush's best delivery, not his worst. There are some interesting proposals and shifts in policy. There was also some interesting full standing ovations. On to the speech:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. And tonight, I have a high privilege and distinct honor of my own -- as the first President to begin the State of the Union message with these words: Madam Speaker. (Applause.)

In his day, the late Congressman Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. from Baltimore, Maryland, saw Presidents Roosevelt and Truman at this rostrum. But nothing could compare with the sight of his only daughter, Nancy, presiding tonight as Speaker of the House of Representatives. (Applause.) Congratulations, Madam Speaker. (Applause.)

I'm not sure how necessary this kowtowing was. I know the Dems seemed to enjoy it. It is probably more a reflection of Bush's high character and civility than groveling at the new powers that be in the the House and Senate.

Two members of the House and Senate are not with us tonight, and we pray for the recovery and speedy return of Senator Tim Johnson and Congressman Charlie Norwood. (Applause.)

Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

The rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour -- when decisions are hard and courage is needed. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies -- and the wisdom to face them together.

I think this was an important message to the Democrats who have been lambasting the President's war strategy. The president said it pretty well, we are all in this together and we must have the wisdom to face our enemies with a united front.

Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate -- and I congratulate the Democrat majority.

More kowtowing. Unnecessary. While flipping through the channels after the speech to hear the spindoctors at work, I heard some moonbat on Anderson Cooper 360 say that the President repeatedly made reference to the Democrat majority and Democrat Congress, and that this was a an incendiary, inflammatory, and derogatory remark. I don't even know how to begin to respond to that lunatic. Now, at least when President Bush says it, the word Democrat is a pejorative term. Who knew.

(Applause.) Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us. (Applause.)

We're not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on -- as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. (Applause.) Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them to build a future of hope and opportunity -- and this is the business before us tonight.

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy -- and that is what we have. We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move, and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government, but with more enterprise. (Applause.)

Hurray! I will always support a President who calls for less government and more enterprise!

Next week, I'll deliver a full report on the state of our economy. Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.

First, we must balance the federal budget. (Applause.) We can do so without raising taxes. (Applause.)

I was half looking at the TV and half looking at the computer screen during the State of the Union; however, I *think* this received a full standing ovation, implying that the Dem's are on board with the idea of not raising taxes while attempting to balance the budget. This was mind boggling. I don't think for a moment they have any intention whatsoever of NOT raising taxes on the rich. They ran on that platform in '06 and now control the House and Senate. I don't think for one second the Dem's are on board, but it sure looked like they gave a standing ovation when this was said.

What we need is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.) Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (Applause.) I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and we can balance the federal budget. (Applause.)

Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. (Laughter.) In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session. (Applause.)

I laughed so hard when I heard this. I'm not sure if this was meant to be funny, but I thought it was hilarious. The Republicans had full control of Congress, and the President barely vetoed anything during that time. Conservative Republicans were VERY upset with the Republican leadership because the Republicans were proving every bit as bad as the Democrats when it came to spending, increasing the size of the government, and "ear marks." I think it is hilarious that in the preceding 6 years, earmarks were not an important enough issue to bring up, let alone in the State of the Union, but now that the Dems are in control, Bush wants congress to crack down on the process. The message is clear: The Republicans were throwing too much pork onto important legislation, but now that it is the Dem's turn, it is a problem that needs addressing. This is funny because the process is NOT gonna stop, no matter WHO is in control, but now that the Dem's have the ability to decide where the Pork goes, the President thinks he can shed light on the "problem." I love president Bush, I really do, but I think he has really opened himself, and the Republican party, up to criticism on this one.

And, finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet, we're failing in that duty. And this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this chamber knows this to be true -- yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and goodwill, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security. (Applause.)

Same ole, Same ole. "Save social security". They talk every year about doing it, but what do they ever get accomplished?

Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, preserving local control, raising standards, and holding those schools accountable for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.

Now the task is to build on the success, without watering down standards, without taking control from local communities, and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility to turn around failing schools, and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose someplace better. (Applause.) We must increase funds for students who struggle -- and make sure these children get the special help they need. (Applause.) And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future and our country is more competitive by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children -- and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law. (Applause.)

How do you increase funding for "students who struggle" (think reward failure) without "watering down standards" and "holding schools accountable for success". These concepts are at odds with each other.

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care(Applause.) .

This sounds an awful lot like universal health care. Ewwww.

When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children.

Ahhh. Qualified: Government is only OBLIGED to care for elderly, disabled, and poor children. OK. I think we can all agree on that. Better than Universal Entitlement.

And we will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. (Applause.)

Excellent! Put the nail in that coffin of the idea of Universal Entitlement. Shape the debate by expressing alternatives. This is conservatism at it's finest.

But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

And so tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans. (Applause.)

Hallelujah! What conservative isn't gonna live this plan! CUT TAXES to put more money in people's pockets so they can afford to take the initiative to purchase their own health care! YES!!!

My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

This was VERY interesting. I think this too is a brilliant idea (where were all these ideas when the Republicans were in control?). Perhaps motivated by fear of a new Federalized Universal Entitlement: Hillary Care or worse, the President appears to be taking proactive measures to nip a Federal plan in the bud. By rewarding States who attempt Universal Entitlement programs, it encourages the states to give it a try, and in doing so saves the nation from a Federal program. This keeps the federal government small, and leaves it to the States to decide whether they want "health care for all." Another great idea for conservatism. Keep it up to the states to decide, prevent the federal government from expanding, reward states for attempting to deal with the problem instead of allowing the socialists a major victory. Brilliant idea, and I mean it sincerely.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts. (Applause.) We need to help small businesses through Association Health Plans. (Applause.) We need to reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology. (Applause.)

I might be wrong on this, but I *think* the President may be referring to an idea he brought up before, which basically entailed medical databases and more easily accessible information of patients medical histories. I *think*. If so, I am strongly opposed to this. Big brother has enough information, we don't need our medical information in large databases, even if it will cut back on medical errors.

We will encourage price transparency. And to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits, we passing medical liability reform. (Applause.) In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors. (Applause.)

Good luck with medical liability reform. The trial lawyers will never let that come to pass.

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America -- with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we're doubling the size of the Border Patrol, and funding new infrastructure and technology.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border -- and that requires a temporary worker program.

Boooo. Even with low unemployment numbers, we ought to keep jobs open for Americans. Period. Besides, how will this keep the illegals out? We are talking about bringing more in. They will come in on a temporary pass, then stay illegally. All we would do is create a new way for them to come in and stay.

We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won't have to try to sneak in, and that will leave Border Agents free to chase down drug smugglers and criminals and terrorists. (Applause.) We'll enforce our immigration laws at the work site and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers, so there's no excuse left for violating the law. (Applause.)

Good luck with that last part. The ACLU et al will NEVER let businesses prevent illegals from working. I know farmers who have been nearly shut down by lawyers for even daring to ask to see papers. When papers are provided, if they look fake and he so much as says so, again, lawyers to the rescue with threats of law suits. I'd like to see the government fix this problem, but the government is gonna have an uphill battle on this one. Even suggesting that a Latino may be illegal is considered racial discrimination.

We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. (Applause.) We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. (Applause.)

This represents a HUGE change in policy from the White House. All we have heard for the last 6 years is amnesty. Now, it seems, Amnesty is off the table. This is GOOD news for America.

Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law. (Applause.)

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.

It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. (Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and bio diesel fuel. (Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- (applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

I am a fan of government grants for evolving technology. It is good for everyone, so long as we are spending the money responsibly.

We made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies here in Washington and the strong response of the market. And now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. (Applause.) When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

This is a novel idea. 10 years is an eternity in D.C., especially when Bush has so little time left on his watch. If we cut back consumption, though, we could in theory reduce our dependence on foreign oil... but I don't think it will work that way. As long as they are willing to sell it, we are going to buy it. The more suppliers, the cheaper the price. The only way we can really reduce reliance on Middle East oil is to impose tarrifs on middle east oil. If it is more expensive to buy oil from the middle east, American won't buy it form the middle east, but what would likely happen then is that we would be buying middle east oil from "middlemen" set up in countries outside the middle east.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

I like this idea. Congress regulates everything to death, but why not make American car makers designe more fuel efficient vehicles? My favorite vehicle is probably the VW Diesel Jetta. 50MPG. I want one, but they are scarce and expensive. I would love to buy a car from GM that gets 50MPG. If they make it happen, and make it affordable, I will buy one - and I suspect people would line up for them.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it's not going to eliminate it. And so as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. (Applause.) And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. (Applause.)

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change. (Applause.)

It is only one phrase, throw onto a discussion about technology breakthroughs and oil dependence, but it is enough to have the global warming crazies pleased as punch. They see this as recognition (at last) that the Republican leadership finally is getting on board with the problems we all face with global warming. Global warming is a theory. Apparently the vast majority of scientists in Academia have signed onto this theory. A concensus (which is apparently a term of art) has been reached: global warming is real, man is causing (or at least HEAVILY contributing to) it. Here is what I think: as long as Global Warming is believed to be real, the scientists who claim it is real will be distinguished and receive enormous amounts of grants. If Global Warming is proven wrong, the grants dry up and the proponents are exposed as nut jobs. The fact proponents champion is that there is a concensus (meaning "scholarly journals" primarily publish peer reviewed articles in favor of global warming as the cause of climate change). Here is what I think: Peer reviewed scholarly journals are relatively new, in the history of man, but science is very, very old. In the history of man, there were times when all scientists basically agreed on the same concepts. Here are a few: The earth is the center of the universe. The earth is flat. The earth is the center of the solar system. Just because top scientists are in agreement on something, doesn't make it right.

A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of our citizens across our nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. We have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty, as well, to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. (Applause.)

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause. We've had time to take stock of our situation. We've added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them.

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

I think this received a full standing ovation. Odd. I took this to mean this: Hey, it's ok for guys to second guess me publicly in the house and senate, but lest you forget, America is at war. My strategy is take the fight to the enemy, and not let the enemy take the fight to us. We all agreed that Iraq was the next step in the war on terror, so debate it all you want, but I am going to lead our troops, and I am going to decide the course of this war.

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

Translation: So we are not going to pull out, and we are not going to go on defense. I'm sending over more troops to win this war.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them. (Applause.)

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is still a nation at war.

In the mind of the terrorist, this war began well before September the 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

So on the one hand we have Sunni's and Al Qaeda, who want to destroy America. On the other hand we have Shia (and Iran), who want to destroy America. Hmmm...

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people. (Applause.)

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom

-- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they're given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must. (Applause.)

I sure hope Bush is right. On one side we have a bunch of esxtremists who hate us, and on the other side we have a bunch of extremists who hate us. The theory is that the introduction of freedom will eliminate the threat. I really hope democracy and freedom is the solution.

In the last two years, we've seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East -- and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution, they drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections, choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget. (Applause.)

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory. (Applause.)