State of Union Problem

[EKublai]

I understand why George W. Bush would do this, considering he was speaking to a hostile audience , but did anyone else feel the least bit of disgust when announced all of the "heroes"

This is seriously not about them, what they've done is amazing and definitely deserves recongition. But wasn't having them as honored guests at the state of the union address just another ploy by the Bush Administration to avoid issues. It seemed to me much more that he used heroes to take some of the weight of the moment off his soldiers, which I think is a pretty irresponsible idea. I believe it's pretty obvious seeing as Bush was always one of the last ones to stop clapping, almost delaying in his speech.

I also think having Dikembe Mutumbo at the address, a guy who originally immigrated from The Republic of the Congo, confused his speech on immigration when he said how great it was to see "that some of the people that have left their homeland, and then give back so generously, are American Citizens"

But other than those few moments, I thought he spoke quite eloquently for being among a Democratic Majority, and I also enjoyed the Democratic Response, corny though it may have been, stated the Democratic agenda quite clearly with power and force, yet also with humility.

[Draconias]

At 1/25/07 12:56 PM, EKublai wrote: I understand why George W. Bush would do this, considering he was speaking to a hostile audience , but did anyone else feel the least bit of disgust when announced all of the "heroes"

I think you complete misunderstood the point of that part of his speech because you are filtering through your opinion of Bush. The point of introducing those "heroes" was to create a positive atmosphere and create the feeling that America does have great things-- it was a morale and emotional appeal tactic. There was nothing nefarious about it, as you propose.

I also think having Dikembe Mutumbo at the address, a guy who originally immigrated from The Republic of the Congo, confused his speech on immigration when he said how great it was to see "that some of the people that have left their homeland, and then give back so generously, are American Citizens"

There is absolutely nothing confused about that. Bush proposed a Work Program for legal foreigners and highlighted a positive, legal immigrant. What he refused to accept was illegal immigrants, people who do not benefit our country but instead try to cheat our rules. The point was to contrast his positive view of legal immigrant against his negative view of illegal immigrants.

But other than those few moments, I thought he spoke quite eloquently for being among a Democratic Majority, and I also enjoyed the Democratic Response, corny though it may have been, stated the Democratic agenda quite clearly with power and force, yet also with humility.

*cough* I wonder what your bias is?

[random8982]

At 1/25/07 12:56 PM, EKublai wrote: I understand why George W. Bush would do this, considering he was speaking to a hostile audience , but did anyone else feel the least bit of disgust when announced all of the "heroes"

Not at all. One embodies the spirit of entrpenuership in America. Another is an average man who saved a life because it was merely the right thing to do. Another is an immigrant that left his home in search of a better life, and works to improve the world around him. The last is a soldier who selflessly put himself in harms way to protect his friends in the line of fire. Disgust? No. Pride? You bet.

This is seriously not about them, what they've done is amazing and definitely deserves recongition. But wasn't having them as honored guests at the state of the union address just another ploy by the Bush Administration to avoid issues. It seemed to me much more that he used heroes to take some of the weight of the moment off his soldiers, which I think is a pretty irresponsible idea. I believe it's pretty obvious seeing as Bush was always one of the last ones to stop clapping, almost delaying in his speech.

Delay the speech or not, he still had to deliver it, so let him clap. Is it so bad to be proud of the people in this country? Show a little nationalism. And Bush isn't the first president to do this. Reagan was the first president to invite people to the address and introduce them as 'honored heroes of the American public.'

Also, by having those people there, it shows American soldiers over seas what we're going back home. That there is still something worth fighting for and protecting. It also shows the rest of the world that Americans aren't as bad as other people make us out to be. We're a proud nation and it is only right to give some credit to the people that take some charge and act heroic when they are called to the challenge.

You should also take note that Bush recognized an American soldier, as well as the other three guests.

I also think having Dikembe Mutumbo at the address, a guy who originally immigrated from The Republic of the Congo, confused his speech on immigration when he said how great it was to see "that some of the people that have left their homeland, and then give back so generously, are American Citizens"

Acutally, Dikembe embodies Bush's immigration plan. If you paid any attention to it whatsoever you would have heard that Bush wants immigrants to come here and contribute to American society in a legal way, while economically supporting their families back home. He doesn't want them to be running around, getting paid under the table, etc. Dikembe is an open immigrant and contributes to American society in a proper and legal way.

Even under current immigration laws, if a person comes from another country on a temporary visa, establishes themselves, avoids committing a crime, and pays taxes for three years, they can apply for citizenship because they are contributing to American society and holding their loyalties with American ideologies. While they still may hold a special place for their homeland, as we all do, they become Americans.

[EKublai]

At 1/25/07 01:14 PM, random8982 wrote:
Not at all. One embodies the spirit of entrpenuership in America. Another is an average man who saved a life because it was merely the right thing to do. Another is an immigrant that left his home in search of a better life, and works to improve the world around him. The last is a soldier who selflessly put himself in harms way to protect his friends in the line of fire. Disgust? No. Pride? You bet.

Delay the speech or not, he still had to deliver it, so let him clap. Is it so bad to be proud of the people in this country? Show a little nationalism.

I never said I wasn't proud of them, I'm only saying that Bush tried to tell us how great our country the wrong way. He should not have had to rely on the heriocs of people made heroes by the media. I can tell you right now that Wesley Autry would not have been invited to the State of the Union Address had his story not received the publicity it did. If Mutumbo was not considered by some to be one of the greatest basketball players of all time, he would not have been there, and if John Walsh wasn't a TV celebrity, able to garner enough of herioc figure to get support from Congress and the Judicial Branch, he would not have been there.

What I have found most impressive about this country is the ability for people to do great things and go unnoticed. Whether it be doctors saving the lives of patients, lawyers giving every accused person the right to be defended, or those little things that ordinary people do every day that help keep our world functioning. THe only person I could even closely relate to was Wesley Autry, who did his heriocs before he became nationally renowned, but even then it's as though the president thought it wouldn't be as effective if he didn't spend 15 minutes introducing them.
When a heroe is mentioned in such a public setting like this, it is only right ot keep it as national pride, something known and not spoken of, and not to turn it into the political pride.

And Bush isn't the first president to do this. Reagan was the first president to invite people to the address and introduce them as 'honored heroes of the American public.'

Also, by having those people there, it shows American soldiers over seas what we're going back home. That there is still something worth fighting for and protecting. It also shows the rest of the world that Americans aren't as bad as other people make us out to be. We're a proud nation and it is only right to give some credit to the people that take some charge and act heroic when they are called to the challenge.

You should also take note that Bush recognized an American soldier, as well as the other three guests.

I accept the case of American Soldiers being recognized because what they do something that I could never hope of doing, sacrificing home, life, and sanity for literally nothing but a little money and pride, usually keeping none for themselves.

I might come back and talk about this some more but it's a rather small issue that I just noticed. Thanks for your points tho.

[Demosthenez]

At 1/26/07 01:52 PM, EKublai wrote: If Mutumbo was not considered by some to be one of the greatest basketball players of all time, he would not have been there

1) No one considers him one of the greatest. He has had a super long career as a defensive stopper and rebounder but he has never been a scorer. I mean, he is a great defensive player but I would have a tough time putting him in the top 50 of all time.
2) He was there because his donation helped create the first modern hospital in Congo in like 30 years.

[random8982]

At 1/26/07 01:52 PM, EKublai wrote: I never said I wasn't proud of them...

Not meaning to be rude, but you just said you were disgusted by their presence.

I'm only saying that Bush tried to tell us how great our country the wrong way. He should not have had to rely on the heriocs of people made heroes by the media....

They were the most outstanding people who did things that were out of complete selflessness. Dikembe dontated money out of his pay check to build a modern hospital in the Congo. He wasn't forced to do that. He did it of his own decision.

Wesley Autry jumped in front of a train to save another person, only surviving because he was lucky enough to have two feet of space in that ditch on the side of the tracks. When someone was in mortal danger, he acted, risking his own life when no one else even moved. If he didn't act, that kid probably would have died. He didn't ask for any publicity, and he even said he did it because it was just the right thing to do.

What I have found most impressive about this country is the ability for people to do great things and go unnoticed. Whether it be doctors saving the lives of patients, lawyers giving every accused person the right to be defended, or those little things that ordinary people do every day that help keep our world functioning. THe only person I could even closely relate to was Wesley Autry, who did his heriocs before he became nationally renowned, but even then it's as though the president thought it wouldn't be as effective if he didn't spend 15 minutes introducing them.

Yes, what those lawyers and doctors do are amazing and they deserve praise. But it's their job to do those kinds of things. They are paid to do it. If someone opened a gigantic law firm or a major hospital that gave patients or clients QUALITY services FOR NOTHNG, THAT would be something to be praised nationally. The people that Bush introduced deserved those 15 minutes because what they did, and what they embodied really represented true American values.

When a heroe is mentioned in such a public setting like this, it is only right ot keep it as national pride, something known and not spoken of, and not to turn it into the political pride.

Introducing these people gains Bush nothing other than the fact that he can recognize outstanding people in American Society. Ever since Reagan started this tradition of 'honored guests' any other president would have done the same thing. It's now an accepted practice at the State of the Union, and I doubt that anyone is going to give him 'brownie points' for it.

[Dealy-rizazamatizazz]

Everyone does it, Clinton would play the sax, if Kerry and Edwards won they would have rambled about each others hair and played guitar or something like that. Gore would take time to remind people to recycle aluminum cans. Everyone does it. They used to tell jokes, or stories, some restated old lines from their movies(you know who). Speakers do these things, they also repeat themselves so you'll focus on what they said, MLK, "I had a dream!" JFK did the same thing in his speaches. The silver tongue is a skill.