I wonder if this woman is something like Jumana Hanna, a prostitute, con artist and a role model for Paul Wolfowitz, the Washington Post and assorted senators.
Kinda skinny/balding man? I believe that was Chertoff (new Homeland Security nominee...the one who suppressed evidence of abuse and torture against John Lindh)Originally posted by: arsbanned
I like the arrogant wink and nod to some audience member (probably Ollie North or someone similar) and then straight into a silly subject, AIDS....The man simply has no class. The Republican slogan should be: "We're proud, we're Republicans, and we have no class"
TV viewers were not drawn to President Bush's speech on Wednesday as ratings for the State of the Union address were the lowest in five years.
President Bush's first State of the Union address of his second term attracted 40% of the available primetime audience Wednesday night, making it the least-watched such speech in five years.
According to Nielsen estimates, the seven English-language broadcast and cable nets airing the address live (9-10:03 p.m. ET) combined for 38.32 million viewers, while Spanish-language outlets Telemundo and TeleFutura attracted an additional 1.05 million.
The combined audience of 39.37 million viewers is down nearly 10% from last year's 43.41 million and off sharply from Bush's prior two State of the Union addresses -- 62.06 million in 2003 and 51.78 million in 2002. State of the Union crowd is the smallest since President Clinton's final address in 2000 (31.48 million).
As for the nine minutes of analysis on each of the nets (10:03-10:12 p.m.) prior to the Democratic response, NBC's Brian Williams-led coverage led the way with 8.4 million viewers, according to Nielsen. ABC and Peter Jennings placed second (7.23 million), followed by Fox's broadcast stations (6.37 million, boosted by a huge "American Idol" lead-in), Fox News Channel (6.35m) and the Dan Rather-led CBS coverage (5.7 million).
For its two hours of coverage, Fox News reported an audience of roughly 5 million viewers, crushing CNN (just over 1 million) and MSNBC (716,000). MSNBC edged CNN in adults 25-54 (330,000 to 312,000 viewers), while Fox beat both cablers with 1.6 million.
On the entertainment side Wednesday, "American Idol" dominated from 8 to 9 p.m. (10.9 rating/29 share in adults 18-49, 26.17 million viewers overall). Getting a boost from a lack of entertainment choices at 9 was the WBthe WB's rookie drama "Jack & Bobby" (1.4/3 in 18-49, 3.12m), which added 1.3 million viewers week to week.
Date in print: Fri., Feb. 4, 2005, Los Angeles
Originally posted by: Infohawk
I predict Bush was sound like an idiot.
Originally posted by: daveshel
I won't be watching. There will be no new information dispensed: I've heard it all too many times. I will be busy studying for my next MCP exam, in an attempt to keep my skill sets ahead of the things hiding around the next economic corner.
Originally posted by: Crimson
The best part about the speech will be knowing that Kerry had his speech written, and all the LLL on this board all had his speech written in their heads before the election. They dreamed of this day, KNOWING it would come, that Kerry would get up there and FINALLY take power from that idiot Bush.. They would have bet their lives on it..
Oops.. the 'idiot' won...
4 more years.. 4 more years.. 4 more years..
THINK about that during the speech.. how someone so dumb just bitchslapped your candidate. Imagine is the Republicans put up a 'smart' candidate? You would have lost 75-25.
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Sad, really. An opponent as pathetic as Bush and the Dems picked the WORST of their 4 possible candidates at the Primaries. Absolutely astonishing.
Jason
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Did Benedict Bush mention anything about the state of our economy? You would think a President who saw a net loss of jobs during his four years (while the population of working-aged people increased by, presumably, 6.5 million) and who barely acknowledged it and failed to do anything about it would automatically lose the election. (In the meantime, many of the "jobs" that were not lossed represented lost middle class jobs being replaced by low wage temp jobs. A "job" is not a "job", but the unemployment numbers don't reflect that.) I bet Bush said that, "The econom is good and getting goodah," and that unemployed Americans should retrain (for non-existent jobs), eat cake, and take Prozac.
That's our president--lots of excuses, massive job losses.
If anyone's interested in a "Fire George Bush" shirt or button, you can find them at my CafePress shops:
http://www.cafepress.com/firegeorgebush
I also have a print condemning Ohio for re-electing this bozo:
http://www.cafepress.com/ohioretards
(Believe it or not, I actually sold two of the Ohio shirts, probably to disgruntled Kerry voters.)
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I disagree... I think the Dems picked their best candidate, but they're all terrible, and lost just like all of them would have (even Leiberman would have lost easily because if people were going to vote for him, they might as well keep Bush). The Dems are in the middle of nowhere without a map or a clue.
Originally posted by: cwjeromeGood post! Definately ignore the fact that Bush's first term was Clinton's economic plan and recession. Don't mention 9/11. And definately don't look at our unemployement rate and economic growth during that time, because comparing it to past performance or the performance of other industrialized countries during that time wouldn't make your point. Nope you're learning good... just twist whatever numbers are convenient and ride the wave!
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Instead we will continue on our path towards becoming a third world country.
We'll allow our nation's population to continue to balloon via mass immigration and illegal immigration, which strains the nation's environment and increases the costs for natural resources and land (which decreases quality of life and raises prices), and we'll continue to merge our labor market with the billions of impoverished people in the third world, decreasing the percentage of the value added during the act of production that American laborers get to keep as income (lowering wages faster than any price decreases).
But that's what happens when a nation's populace becomes dumbed down and loses the ability to use reason and logic and to engage in independent thought. You cannot maintain a first world standard of living without the use of the mind.
If immigration and foreign outsourcing were not going to do us in, the American people would find something else--religious theocracy or socialism--whatever--to ruin the economy. In the present case, Americans have decided to merge themselves with the third world, and that will come with an averaging out of standards of living, mostly a decrease.
<Sigh.> What happened to the America I grew up in where economic opportunity abounded and we could expect increasing quality of life?
That's genius! :disgust:Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: Crimson
The best part about the speech will be knowing that Kerry had his speech written, and all the LLL on this board all had his speech written in their heads before the election. They dreamed of this day, KNOWING it would come, that Kerry would get up there and FINALLY take power from that idiot Bush.. They would have bet their lives on it..
Oops.. the 'idiot' won...
4 more years.. 4 more years.. 4 more years..
THINK about that during the speech.. how someone so dumb just bitchslapped your candidate. Imagine is the Republicans put up a 'smart' candidate? You would have lost 75-25.
Isn't Republican and smart a oxymoron ?
I'm waiting for the: Bush, the Propaganda President shirtsOriginally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Did Benedict Bush mention anything about the state of our economy? You would think a President who saw a net loss of jobs during his four years (while the population of working-aged people increased by, presumably, 6.5 million) and who barely acknowledged it and failed to do anything about it would automatically lose the election. (In the meantime, many of the "jobs" that were not lossed represented lost middle class jobs being replaced by low wage temp jobs. A "job" is not a "job", but the unemployment numbers don't reflect that.) I bet Bush said that, "The econom is good and getting goodah," and that unemployed Americans should retrain (for non-existent jobs), eat cake, and take Prozac.
That's our president--lots of excuses, massive job losses.
If anyone's interested in a "Fire George Bush" shirt or button, you can find them at my CafePress shops:
http://www.cafepress.com/firegeorgebush
I also have a print condemning Ohio for re-electing this bozo:
http://www.cafepress.com/ohioretards
(Believe it or not, I actually sold two of the Ohio shirts, probably to disgruntled Kerry voters.)
Originally posted by: Infohawk
How about we unsticky this mofo?
Ah, so, those 150 program cuts amount to a mere $20 billion. It's much better we appropriate $86 billion in additional funds for Bush's 21st century experiment in capitalistic colonialism.WASHINGTON -- Stung by sticker shock, congressional Republicans are struggling to embrace President George W. Bush's ambitious and expensive agenda while avoiding the economic and political pitfalls of massive new debt.
The numbers speak for themselves: Ten-year cost projections are $2.2 trillion to overhaul Social Security, $724 billion for the Medicare drug benefit, $1.1 trillion to make tax cuts permanent, and untold billions to secure Iraq and Afghanistan beyond this year.
Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, are responding with a slew of suggestions, from raising taxes and delaying some of the president's proposals to cutting spending more deeply.
In the Senate, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is proposing an increase in the $90,000 salary cap that is subject to payroll taxes in order to pay for new personal investment accounts as part of a Social Security overhaul. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, wants to delay any move to make Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax reductions permanent.
With their aversion to raising taxes, reluctance to cut popular programs and desire to meet Bush's goals, Republicans may end up unable to contain costs. Even if they trim spending on 150 programs as Bush has proposed, the resulting $20-billion savings would be dwarfed by his big-ticket items.
The deficit -- which the White House projects at $390 billion in fiscal year 2006 -- is making some Republicans think twice about Bush's attempt to overhaul Social Security. The president's plan to allow workers born since 1950 to place some of their payroll taxes in private investment accounts would cost taxpayers about $2.2 trillion in its first 10 years of full operation, according to Social Security's trustees.
Bush's budget doesn't account for the costs of the war in Iraq beyond 2005. It also doesn't factor in any correction to the alternative minimum tax, a provision of the tax code that, left unchanged, will force up to 30 million taxpayers to pay higher taxes by 2010.
Some fear that the long-term financial consequences of future liabilities could damage the political health of the Republican Party.
"Here's the danger for the party: The $43-trillion unfunded liability is going to show up here soon," Graham said. "The party who'll suffer the most ... would be us," because Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, he said.
Graham has proposed covering the costs of overhauling Social Security by raising the cap on payroll taxes while lowering the current 12.4-percent wage-tax rate -- which is split between employers and workers -- on income below $90,000.
Voinovich, a deficit hawk, is ready to oppose any effort to make the tax reductions permanent.
Looking for areas to cut spending will preoccupy Congress for the next few months.
"We're going to have to figure out a way to live within the numbers," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
