Thursday, February 02, 2006
Can You Tell Where the Dems were sitting?
Have you ever seen an audience perform 'the wave' at a sporting event where distinct segments of the audience rise to their feet at different times? Well that is certainly reminiscent of the reaction to Bush's State of the Union Address. Though many of Bush’s blatant applause cues drew the entirety of the assembled officials to their feet, many pronouncements sharply divided the house – literally.
When touching on the standard conservative hot-button issues – tax cuts, governmental-program rollbacks, domestic and foreign intelligence – Bush received standing ovations from the Republicans seated to the right of the aisle. The Democrats conspicuously remained in their seats.
Remarkably, however, in one instance the Democrats rose to applaud while the Republicans remained seated. In the midst of a discussion over national security, Bush lamented the defeat of the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Democrats rose to their feet to applaud themselves for defeating the bill.
Perhaps most curious was a group of nine individuals who remained seated even as the entire chamber rose to their feet. Clad in their formal black robes, the nine Supreme Court Justices (including new justices Roberts and Alito) seemed unmoved or at least unmotivated to succumb to the pressure to join a standing ovation.
You may notice that in this particular discussion of the State of the Union I have hardly mentioned anything substantive. I have not discussed how I feel about Bush’s new legislative proposals. Well that’s because there wasn’t much of that in his speech either.
Though he glanced across many of the problems facing out country today – terror, dependence on foreign oil, AIDS/HIV, math and science education – but he outlined no solutions. Apparently today it is enough to declare that we will fix these problems; how we will do it is immaterial.
Don’t get me wrong. I did actually appreciate that Bush’s address resembled a substantive discussion at times. Our energy crisis and dependence on oil are crippling though I was disappointed that Bush only mentioned dependence on foreign oil and not oil in general. I was heartened that Bush seems eager to fund advancements in nuclear, hydrogen and ethanol-based sources of energy.
Similarly, though he discussed the legality of spying on foreign nations, he did not address the legality of domestic spying. He stressed the importance of domestic spying and the legality of foreign espionage, no doubting counting on Americans to get confused and assume he had rationalized domestic spying. Well at least it was a nice try Mr. Bush.
I understand that most Presidential speeches are political rather than substantive because of today’s political and media climates, but Bush is a 2nd term President – he can’t run for another term. Can’t he lose the political façade and say something real for once? I understand the concept of the perpetual campaign, but every now and then I’d like my president to substantively address the issues of today. Is that so wrong?
When touching on the standard conservative hot-button issues – tax cuts, governmental-program rollbacks, domestic and foreign intelligence – Bush received standing ovations from the Republicans seated to the right of the aisle. The Democrats conspicuously remained in their seats.
Remarkably, however, in one instance the Democrats rose to applaud while the Republicans remained seated. In the midst of a discussion over national security, Bush lamented the defeat of the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Democrats rose to their feet to applaud themselves for defeating the bill.
Perhaps most curious was a group of nine individuals who remained seated even as the entire chamber rose to their feet. Clad in their formal black robes, the nine Supreme Court Justices (including new justices Roberts and Alito) seemed unmoved or at least unmotivated to succumb to the pressure to join a standing ovation.
You may notice that in this particular discussion of the State of the Union I have hardly mentioned anything substantive. I have not discussed how I feel about Bush’s new legislative proposals. Well that’s because there wasn’t much of that in his speech either.
Though he glanced across many of the problems facing out country today – terror, dependence on foreign oil, AIDS/HIV, math and science education – but he outlined no solutions. Apparently today it is enough to declare that we will fix these problems; how we will do it is immaterial.
Don’t get me wrong. I did actually appreciate that Bush’s address resembled a substantive discussion at times. Our energy crisis and dependence on oil are crippling though I was disappointed that Bush only mentioned dependence on foreign oil and not oil in general. I was heartened that Bush seems eager to fund advancements in nuclear, hydrogen and ethanol-based sources of energy.
Similarly, though he discussed the legality of spying on foreign nations, he did not address the legality of domestic spying. He stressed the importance of domestic spying and the legality of foreign espionage, no doubting counting on Americans to get confused and assume he had rationalized domestic spying. Well at least it was a nice try Mr. Bush.
I understand that most Presidential speeches are political rather than substantive because of today’s political and media climates, but Bush is a 2nd term President – he can’t run for another term. Can’t he lose the political façade and say something real for once? I understand the concept of the perpetual campaign, but every now and then I’d like my president to substantively address the issues of today. Is that so wrong?
