Notes About Washington: State of the Union Reaction 1/29

David E.'s Fablog: SOTU Analysis.

Long, but very funny.

You and I serve our country in a time of great consequence. During this session of Congress, we have the duty to reform domestic programs vital to our country,

ie. gut as many social services as possible.

we have the opportunity to save millions of lives abroad from a terrible disease.

ie. sell drugs to the highest bidder.

We will work for a prosperity that is broadly shared,

by the already prosperous.

and we will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people.

with equivication, obfuscation and barefaced lies.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

The Washington Post: Gov. Gary Locke's response.

But the war against terror is not over. Al Qaida still targets Americans. Osama bin Laden is still at large. As we rise to the many challenges around the globe, let us never lose sight of who attacked our people here at home.

Hey, Bush never did mention Osama this year, who he was going to get "dead or alive." He really doesn't talk about him too much, nor does the conservative media.

Last year Congress authorized $2.5 billion in vital new resources to protect our citizens: for equipment for firefighters and police, to protect ports, to guard against bioterrorism, to secure nuclear power plants and more.

It's hard to believe, but President Bush actually refused to release the money. Republicans now say we can't afford it. The Democrats say: ``If we're serious about protecting our homeland, we can and we must.''

I guess we cannot afford homeland security anymore. We have to get Saddam instead. We can spend hundreds of billions to go get Saddam but we cannot give $2.5 billion to protect our citizens.

We believe every American should get a tax cut. That's the way to create broad-based growth. But we shouldn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a plan that helps neither the economy nor the families that need it most, while making it harder to save Social Security and invest in health care and education.

Think about it: Under the president's proposal to eliminate taxes on stock dividends, the top 1 percent--that's people who earn over $300,000 a year--would get more tax relief than the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. That's wrong, it's irresponsible and it won't create jobs.

Let's choose the right course, the successful and fair course, for our economy.

Remember, whenever a Republican uses the word average, he is about to deceive you. If Bill Gates and I are sitting in a room together, on the average our net worth is billions of dollars each. That deosn't mean I have billions of dollars.

Yahoo News: Democrats decry Bush on economy, security.

Just a few quick quotes.

Sen. Edward Kennedy D-Mass., said he would seek a congressional vote requiring Bush to present "convincing evidence of an imminent threat" before initiating military action. "Instead of rushing down the path to war with Iraq, the American people deserve a full debate," he said in a written statement.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina said the president "just doesn't get it. Giving tax cuts to the very wealthiest Americans should not take priority over the real economic, health care, and security concerns facing regular people."

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, another presidential hopeful, said Bush "has too often practiced a blustering unilateralism that is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country."

      your note []