by Jared Bridges
January 30, 2007
FRC’s own Bethanie Swendsen takes us to the scene of the crime:
FRC’s own Bethanie Swendsen takes us to the scene of the crime:
In case you haven’t yet seen it, here is FRC president Tony Perkins’ video response to President Bush’s State of the Union address:
The Old Gray Lady has a tool that allows you to interactively compare words used in the 2007 State of the Union address to the addresses of previous years. Do a search for, say, “marriage,” and you’ll see that while completely absent in last night’s speech, the word was used nine times in the 2004 address.
2004 was, of course, an election year.
In the past State of the Union speeches President Bush has been consistent in recognizing issues important to families. After the speech last night I would assume his focus is now away from families and includes Nancy Pelosi. Global warming? Amnesty? Redistribution of income (raising taxes on the rich)?
Past speeches mention of culture:
2003: By caring for children who need mentors and for addicted men and women who need treatment, we are building a more welcoming society, a culture that values every life. And in this work, we must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of their birth and end the practice of partial-birth abortion. And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity and pass a law against all human cloning.
2004: To encourage right choices, we must be willing to confront the dangers young people face, even when they’re difficult to talk about. Each year, about 3 million teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases that can harm them or kill them or prevent them from ever becoming parents. In my budget, I propose a grassroots campaign to help inform families about these medical risks. We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
Decisions children now make can affect their health and character for the rest of their lives. All of us, parents and schools and government, must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture and to send the right messages to our children.
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as a union of a man and a woman and declares that one State may not redefine marriage for other States.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God’s sight.
2005: Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life. Medical research can help us reach that goal, by developing treatments and cures that save lives and help people overcome disabilities - and I thank Congress for doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health. To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity. America will continue to lead the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical.
2006: A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: Human cloning in all its forms; creating or implanting embryos for experiments; creating human-animal hybrids; and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator, and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale.
During the State of the Union speech, how many times did President Bush use the word…?
Health insurance 11
Al Qaeda 10
Economy — 7
Baby Einstein 3
Cedar Revolution 2
hybrid vehicles 1
global climate change 1
Osama bin Laden 1
Holy Land 1
nuclear weapons 1
Abstinence — 0
Stem cells — 0
Abortion - 0
Cloning — 0
Values — 0
Marriage — 0
The Associated Press has reported that William Haynes, William Myers, and Terrance Boyle have asked that their names be withdrawn from future consideration as candidates for judicial office. Further consideration would extend the unprecedented long wait these well-qualified candidates have been forced to endure in order to receive a fair up-or-down vote by the U.S. Senate. These distinguished public servants add their names to a growing list of nominees who have withdrawn from the confirmation process, a list which includes Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, Michael Wallace and Charles Pickering.
The AP cites several of the reasons why certain members of the Senate opposed their confirmation yet fails to mention any facts which strongly support the several nominees. Other media outlets have reported this as a concession to the Democrats. While it is deeply unfortunate that the nation will not benefit from their service on the federal bench, one surely cannot blame the nominees from exiting a confirmation process where extreme liberal interest groups rule the day, with decency and fairness being shut out.
“The haters… and negative nabobs…the people who spoke against [Rep. William Jefferson] couldn’t prevail against the people who spoke for him.”
— Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, master of ceremonies for the Congressional Black Caucus’s celebratory event. The FBI is currently conducting an investigation that alleges Jefferson accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman ($90,000 of which was later recovered in the congressman’s freezer). The caucus members—part of the “most ethical congress ever”—gave Jefferson a standing ovation.
Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) says that President Bush’s policy toward Katrina victims represents a policy of “ethnic cleansing by inaction.”
And, what I believe is, at this point youre not talking about [inaudible], but what youre talking about is, I think, a [inaudible], what youre talking about is when you simply, in a calculated way, refuse to do anything for well over a year … [inaudible] … and [stuttering] I, I, the policy I think here is ethnic cleansing by inaction.
Its not ethnic cleansing in the sense that theyre killing people or [driving] people out, but what we need to recognize here is that, theyre in this happy position for them, where the federal government does nothing, as they become richer and richer, because well not only black people needed housing assistance,…”
Transcript by SevenStripes.com.
Related: Michelle Malkin finds that Frank stands by his claim.
I predicted Al D’Amato would beat Chuck Schumer. I predicted George H. W. Bush would beat Bill Clinton. I predicted Hillary Clinton would never become Senator of New York State. I predicted the Republicans would retain both Chambers of Congress. I predicted a ship like the Titanic could never be sunk and the Hindenburg was as safe as a horseless carriage. Finally, I predicted that the Democratic leadership wouldn’t be able to help themselves after winning Congress and would throw a lavish Hollywood type “Inaugural” - the kind normally reserved for Presidential elections. I guess I had to be right one of these times:
Tony Bennett is coming, of course, to croon his trademark “I Left My Heart in San Francisco.”
Carole King and Wyclef Jean will be there. Mayor Gavin Newsom is scheduled to be there, too.
And a big delegation of San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and labor leaders is jetting back East, together no less.
All will converge on Washington in early January to take part in four days of events surrounding the swearing-in of Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who will be elected the new speaker of the House and the first woman and first Californian to occupy the post.
After running through a long list of planned events designed to highlight different phases of 66-year-old Pelosi’s life, her spokesman Brendan Daly said, “Overall this is who Nancy Pelosi is. And this is a chance for people to meet Nancy Pelosi and see who she is.”
Already “historians” are “>trying to rewrite history to say such a party isn’t unusual:
“The communications strategy is simple,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. “Feature those facets of biography that make it harder for people to say ‘San Francisco liberal.’”
That focus on personal history is a marked contrast from the festivities that surrounded the installation of Speaker Newt Gingrich with the Republican revolution of 1994. Then, the GOP limited the formal revelry to two days, and Gingrich concentrated primarily on speeches articulating conservative plans for the country.
“We’re at a different time and a different place right now,” said Jamieson, author of several books on political communication. “Speaker Gingrich wasn’t trying to overcome a lot of stereotypes. He hadn’t been regularly vilified by the other side.”
Newt Gingrich wasn’t vilified by the other side? Apparently the liberal Ms. Jamieson didn’t read the newspapers at the time (or she doesn’t realize which party the mainstream media actually works for.) As the Media Research Center points out it was the Press vilifying Newt Gingrich in 1994.