Thanks to George's historical revisionism last night, Anthrax is a great metal band and has no relevancy to the history of the United States.

"There have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11."

What a jackass.

There were no attacks on American soil during the Clinton Presidency after 1993, and he didn't have to shred the Constitution to prevent them.

I liked watching Cheney practically lip-syncing the words to the speech. Making sure his boy didn't step off the reservation I suppose. Pelosi had her usual three-glasses-of-chardonnay glaze on her face.

Bush himself, slurred speech and all... ahhh, who cares?

What ever happened to the administration-sanctioned, Lurita Doan-type spending: "How can we help our friends...?"

Pork, indeed.

His spending priorities the last 7 years are the real reason all spending needs to be reined in. Now he's trying to come across as the prudent policy maker.

What a farce. Struggling to be relevant by trying to sound like a grownup. Life is good in the bubble.

Remember when Bush sold himself in 2000 as the CEO/MBA president?

Now we have Romney using a similar line. That's all we need.

The Dem Reponse:

In this time, normally reserved for the partisan response, I hope to offer you something more: an American response," Sebelius said in excerpts released ahead of her speech from the governor's mansion in Topeka.

"There is a chance, Mr. President, in the next 357 days, to get real results and give the American people renewed optimism that their challenges are the top priority," Sebelius said.

Look this marketed need to end partisan bickering is a waste of time, the country wants strength in leadership not cry babies who want to just get along. WE DONT CARE, you are buying your own marketed need and frankly look like Liberal Pansies swilling in identity politics and 60s grudge grievances and as a Party are blowing your chances in 08, dont delude yourselves, America will not elect a Liberal Left Social Justice Platform in all branches it will not happen...
..........................

That Clinton is not the choice of liberals such as Kenney, Kerry and Clyburn is a plus, but if you keep blooding her with this ridiculous code book of grievances that is central to the Dem Party members the Republicans will win in 08 and maybe they should.

It just reminds America why they hate Dems, and folks while JFK was before my time I even know that Obama is no JFK that is just stupid a return to social jsutice as the end all will not put food on the table, jobs will …

Earmarks are a sick disgrace. The Treasury has been turned into a buffet table.

Any Republican who says his party is fiscally responsible deserves an instant pie-in-the-face.

Nobody believes this crap any more.

He is worried about pork spending now? Well, I seem to remember a time when the Republicans thought our treasury was their personal piggy bank. They seem to be suffering from short term memory loss.

@peep:

Actually I disagree with you pretty strongly. I think Sibelius' speech (based on reading excerpts) tapped into the Zeitgeist, that people are sick of the way that the GOP (mostly) has poisoned civility in US politics. The salient point is, the public at large isn't hoping for the Dems to stick it to the Repubs as much as for the Dems to do a better job of building consensus than the Repubs. The evidence is that these are the same themes that are propelling Obama to within reach of the Presidency.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I certainly agree that the Broder/Bloomberg pablum, bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake without any real stands of principle behind it, is not really what people are looking for. And certainly the audience for the SOTU is not the public at large, but rather a bunch of political junkies who can bear to sit through that nonsense. In short, the SOTU audience is more polarized than the public at large.

Anyway, the key is to talk about reconciliation and really live out the ideal of mutual respect, but at the same time not to compromise and give in to bad and unconstitutional policy. I don't think the Dems have that balance down yet. As policy, giving into the GOP on 50% of everything is terrible. As marketing, moving beyond partisanship is great spin.

People seem to be missing the point. The earmarks issue is not about money. It's about power. Bush doesn't want to spend less money. He just wants to spend it according to his own rules, not those laid out by Congress.

"cut in half the number of earmarks,"

Wow! Senator Stevens must have REALLY pissed off chimpy!

". . . . a return to social jsutice as the end all will not put food on the table, jobs will … . . . ."

Jobs ARE social justice, twit.

Especially when they pay enough to afford a lawyer when in need.

Do people understand what earmarks are? I know right now I am working on an ecosystem restoration project with the Army Corps of Engineers in Washington state. To get funding for this work we will request an earmark, we will request that the $$ needed be specifically allocated out of the Corps ecosystem restoration budget (called 206 funds). These are not additional funds pulled out of the taxpayers pockets, they are specific allocations of money already set out for these types of projects. I would guess that the ability to ask for and receive earmarks is dependent on the Chair of the Committee that oversees the budget of whatever agency will be involved. However, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be made public and be scrutinized. But folks need to realize just what they are. If earmarks were all stopped it would not lower the amount of money in the federal budget, it would just let the administrations priorities be the decision on where the agencies funds are spent. Bet there wouldn't be any favoritism there right?