Reaction to Last Night's SOTU
In honor of having to endure the STOU last night, I thought I’d search the blogosphere and collect some of the reviews from other web sites.This is just a very small sample - please feel free to post others you've found interesting in the comments.
- Yellow Dog Blog comments on the “continue to be afraid, yet trust us” angle the President played last night here. He also shows some proof that we are not winning the global war on terror here, which is a must read for the Republican sheep that trust Bush after his 5-year record of what your faith in him can do.
-Americablog lists 7 observations of the speech here, ending with “what about Mars?”
-Blogging of the President has some thoughts about last’s nights “Scum of the Universe” speech here.
-Bob Cesca talks about the gathering pig-man threat here.
-Blondesense hits on the point I was thinking about last night – Bush mentioning Coretta Scott King was an insult. Read more here.
-Frogsdong describes how people at the SOTU “party” he was at last night would react to each one of Bush’s lies, here.
-Informed Dissent has a recommendation for those who watched the SOTU last night, here.
-Karena’s blog releases Bush’s new hit song, here.
-Swerve Left prints the entire transcript with comment, here.
-Digby has some second thoughts about Cindy Sheehan’s arrest that I found really interesting. Read on here.
-The Cranky Liberal has an idea as to where Bush can start looking to pursue the enemies of freedom, here.
-100 Monkeys Typing urges us all to beware of man-horses here, and has the Republican standing ovation count here.
-One of the most comprehensive analyses of all regarding the Cindy Sheehan incident last night can be read here.
-Huffington has written about how lame the Democratic response was last night here.
-The Hollywood Liberal has some images of protesters outside of Capitol last night, here.
-The Heretik sheds light on Bush’s defense of illegal wiretapping last night, here.
- The Genius of Insanity posts his thoughts on the State of Emergency address here.
-I’m Just Sayin’ hightlights one of the greatest web sites ever quickly uploaded after a speech, here.
-Perhaps my favorite analysis – the Rude Pundit notes that, “Every ‘major’ speech by Bush has at least one ‘What the fuck did he just say?’ moment…” read on here.
posted by Jeremy at 6:34 PM
total visitors
14 Comments:
I just can't stand the "activist judge" line Bush keeps uttering when defending his judge choices and attacking the liberal judges, as he did last night in the SOTU. Who are his constant examples of the "activist judges" and judges who "legislate from the bench"? Of course, the Massachusetts Courts, who “made a new law” that gave gays the right to marry. Remember Cheney in the VP debates, before he refused to answer the gay marriage question, claim his problem was with the Massachusetts "activist judges" who created a new law to allow gays to marry? Only that's not how it happened at all. Not even close. In the Massachusetts case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court looked at the actual Massachusetts Constitution, interpreted it, and came to the conclusion that as it already was written, it'd be unconstitutional for gays to be denied the right to marry. That’s all they did. They didn't "create a new law" or "legislate from the bench" as Cheney and Bush have repeated, ad nauseum. Rather, using the same strict constructionist philosophy touted by Bush / Cheney / Scalia / Thomas / et al., the Court came to a decision based upon the constitution itself. A conclusion that it violated the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gays from marrying. So how does that make the Court “judicial activists” who “legislate from the bench”? It doesn’t. But because Bush didn’t like the outcome (next they’ll want to marry dogs, and then children!), he brought on the republican mantra – lie and repeat (and repeat and repeat). Call them “activist judges” who “legislate from the bench” enough times – in debates, at speeches, on Fox News, talk radio, etc., and low and behold, people start to believe it.
someone needs to look up the word legislate. And needs to do some research on how many judges do that from the bench.
also, Alito already split against the conservative judges last night. What say you myrmidons about that ?
Anon - I'm glad you brought the legislating from the bench part up.
Let's review your question, "someone needs to look up the word legislate. And needs to do some research on how many judges do that from the bench."
Thankfully for you, some research has already been done! Forgive me from quoting from my own blog, but peep this link, if you would.
"Well, I’m here to prove once and for all that this phrase (along with countless others) are baseless marketing ploys, that not only ring untrue when you look at the actual facts – but also prove the exactly opposite of what the phrase itself was intended to convey.
One only needs to look at the rulings of justices on the Supreme Court. Why? Because the very judges who most frequently overrule the legislative bodies of Congress are the ones that are considered to be and appointed by conservatives in the first place.
Here they are, in order of most activist to least activist.
Thomas 65.63%
Kennedy 64.06%
Scalia 56.25%
Rehnquist 46.88%
O’Connor 46.77%
Souter 42.19%
Stevens 39.34%
Ginsburg 39.06%
Breyer 28.13%
And honestly, the whole activist judge thing is so ridiculous anonymous. I’m disappointed you bit on the sound byte (no pun). When the Right calls judges “activist,” it’s because they find laws passed by congress unconstitutional. That doesn’t mean they’re activist, it means they’re doing their job! Judges aren’t there to protect the majority, they’re there to protect the constitutional rights of the minority…even if it’s ONE person.
You’ll also notice, any time a judge rules in favor of a conservative value – they’re NEVER called activist by the right. Instead, they’re praised.
Therefore the term activist is empty. It’s all marketing. It’s basically Karl Rove doing what Karl Rove does to fire up the base. Consider yourself fired up.
Ther are activist Judges from both sides of the spectrum jeremy. It's not solely a Liberal or a conservative action thats taken. It happens all the time. I'll get you an example.
I'm not fired up.I'm not listening to Karl Rove. I guess thats just more of your stereotyping in action.
Haha, so in saying, "someone needs to look up the word legislate. And needs to do some research on how many judges do that from the bench," you weren't implying that liberal judges were activist?
You were simply pointing out the fact that both sides are activist just to be neutral?
Honestly - the activist judge thing is such a ridiculous battle cry. It’s like “liberal media.” It’s a sound byte. A bumper sticker slogan with zero facts behind it.
Look at the Terry Schaivo case for example – another case the conservatives got dead wrong (remember Bill Frist’s video diagnosis and his subsequent lying about it?)
Anyway, some of the judges that the conservatives – both legislators and citizens were threatening – were conservative judges. Something to the effect of 26 different courts, included the Court du Supreme, refused to hear the case.
Furthermore, “activist judge” in this day and age is Right-wing code for, “a judge who strikes down a gay marriage ban.”
Back in the height of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s, judges were called activist by conservatives when they ruled segregation and discrimination laws unconstitutional as well.
In fact, I'm trying to think of any time during our country's history where conservative movements haven't been on the wrong side of a social/cultural issue that didn't fade away into the ugly section of history books decades later.
Your side is playing the same exact card, it’s just a different issue this time. They lost the fight against people of color getting rights back then, and now they’re going after “the gays.”
Same shit, different decade.
ejules i agree with you 100%. nothing that the Mass judiciary did had anything to do with making any law whatsover. they simply said that the existing law cannot prevent same sex couples from marrying. the legistlating from the bench line is totally old.
anon - i hope you see the list of judges up there and realize how ass-backwards the claim from republicans about judicial activism is.
oh, and what kind of father lobbies against judges that declare descrimination against his own daughter illegal. nice work dad.
My Side ? Bwah. You love that don't you, if only you were right.It makes it easier for you to pidgeon hole everyone. I get that. Run with it, again, nothing is going to change your mind.
Both sides do have activist judges. Sorry, thats what I meant . Not much more to it.Now on to your Civil rights mess you spoke of and how partisan and skewed your views are. Take a look at some of these facts. You claim that Republicans, maily conservatives have never been on the right side of history ? Well, military strategy and self defense aside, here are some social issues concerning the Civil rights movement and where democrats have stood through out history. Sorry if this doesn't jive with your stalwart theory that Conservatives are racist scumbags, they hold the sole title of racists, democrats fight for the people, period attitude.
"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.
Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.
How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.
Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.
Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.
Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.
Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.
Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.
Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.
Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.
What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables
You just pasted all of that for nothing. Re-read my statements because I was very careful not to say the word Republican.
Here's what I said:
In fact, I'm trying to think of any time during our country's history where conservative movements haven't been on the wrong side of a social/cultural issue that didn't fade away into the ugly section of history books decades later.
Why did I phrase it that way intentionally? It's because of one simple fact - before the Southern Strategy and after the Civil Rights movement of that time period, racist Southern Democrats were the bad guys and Republicans were actually the progressives.
It all switched over, again due to the Southern Democrats or (dixicrats) getting courted over to the Republican side since the Southern Strategy.
Again, that's why I will never say Republicans are on the wrong side of issues - CONSERVATIVES are, and there is a major, major difference.
That's why, if you look at the election results in Florida - many Democrats voted Republican and have been for many, many years. Why is that? Many Democrats down there have the old conservative pre-1960's Democratic values, and never bothered to register with another part affiliation.
Your point would be 100% valid if I had said Republicans are on the wrong side of the issues. I did not - but my friend, Lincoln's Republican party is 180 degrees different from today's.
Why else would you think guys like Strom Thurmond and Ronald Reagan changed parties?
If you read the very first blog I ever wrote on this site I state clearly - I am against conservative and right-wing values, NOT Republicans.
Republicans of the first part of the 20th Century as well as all of the 19th Century we progressive, for the most part, compared to their Democratic counterparts (not to mention other parties at the time that are no longer around).
did you miss the part about the 64 civil rights vote. Did you miss the part about Nixon and Affirmitive action ?
Are you going to say that the results from that 64 civil rights vote, that the Republicans were actually the liberals and vice versa ?
Don't give me that crap man. Face it, people like Al Gores Dad, Sen. Byrd hold the same attitude as liberals today do.
My Point is , once again. It doesn't come down to Conservatives are racist by definition and liberals are fighting for the black man , and no one else is.
It's not as easy as that. You can't generalize an entire group of people like this. Not everyone is going to fit into these little labels you continue to make.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous - (will you please use your real name for F's sake? Or at least make one up, I feel like I'm talking to a shadowy figure lurking in one of Dick Cheney's private bunkers).
I deleted your last comment - re-post the LINK to whatever you googled on "Conservatives Civil Rights Record..." Hell, I found word for word what you were posting and will put up one of the links myself it you want.
I'll reply in a bit -I'm actually doing some work in the office today :-)
Anonymous said... "Don't give me that crap man. Face it, people like Al Gores Dad, Sen. Byrd hold the same attitude as liberals today do."
First of all, back when Byrd was burning crosses he was part of the old school Democrat/Dixicrat mentality. He was in effect, a conservative Southern Democrat. I am 100% against the values of people like Byrd back then as I am anyone else.
Again,Democrat/Republican/Green/Libertarian – those labels mean nothing if you’re a conservative or a liberal and Byrd is a perfect example of why I say I’m against conservative values and not Republican values per se. It just so happens that ¾ of Republicans today are conservative – most are anti-choice, and anti-gay rights and on the conservative side of most social issues.
Secondly, Nixon is hardly considered the champion of Civil Rights as people would view it today (or even back then), even though he was for affirmative action. Nixon was a total racist and set up the entire movement for the conservative contempt for anything that has to do with Civil Rights. Have you ever heard the Nixon tapes while he was in office, and how many times he called the blacks Niggers and Jigaboos? Ever hear him talk about his feelings regarding blacks being genetically inferior? Nixon as a champion of liberal Civil Rights? Are you fucking kidding me? That’s like saying Rush Limbaugh is a champion of Civil Rights when he tells a black caller to “take the bone out of his nose and call back.”
Third – in the info you posted it continues to support Republicans - not necessarily conservatives - who voted for key civil rights issues. Again, they’re voting progressively – they’re not voting as conservatives, and the further you go back in history the more Republicans you’ll find that are on the progressive side. Two of the more progressive Republicans today happen to come from my state – Snowe and Collins - they are a rare breed these days.
Why do you think it is that you have almost no people of color representing the Republican party of today in Congress? There are a few here and there, sure - there are always exceptions to any rule. But by and large there is a reason Republicans get 7-10% of the black vote for the past several election cycles.
Now for the most rediculous thing you've said...that liberals are the ones that hold racist attitudes just like early Byrd and Gore's dad?
I thought you hated pigeon holing people? Progressive are the absolute leaders of any Civil Rights issues – and if Republicans are voting in favor of Civil Rights and Social Programs, it means they’re voting along with progressives. Are you seriously thinking that when people are marching in the streets for women’s rights, against domestic violence, for racial equality, for gay rights, rights for the disabled, etc, that those are conservatives organizing those marches? That the conservatives in the House and Senate are writing bills to make their lives easier? That living in rural Oklahoma affords the same attitudes and rights to someone living in San Francisco? I stand in awe of your incredibly backwards thinking if that’s the case. I mean, seriously…I can’t even imagine how you could ever think that.
Liberals dedicate their entire lives politically to advancing those agendas - it's the corerstone of liberal politics!
The entire point that you’re missing is this: In the realm of social issues – including Civil Rights for women, gays & lesbians, people of color, and other minorities – in terms of Religious separation from the government – in terms of scientific breakthroughs challenging the Christian Church – in terms of fighting oppression and injustice – in terms of fighting for workers rights against corporations - conservative values – whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat - have always spearheaded the opposition, every time, in every single case, until society as a whole has grown wiser, more educated and more advanced in it’s understanding of the topic. Always. Period.
That’s why I say I’m not a Democrat, although I’m registered as such. I’m a progressive..and if it’s the guy from the Republican party that’s championing my views, then I’m voting for him, period. I just haven’t found one in my lifetime.
Post a Comment
<< Home