State of the Union Speech

First of all, I was impressed from the get-go. For the first time in over eight years, there was a sense of dignity, and for the first time in 13 years, there was even a sense of majesty as President George Walker Bush (right) walked down the aisle to deliver his first State of the Union address.

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton (left) didn’t have it; neither did Bush’s father. Bluntly put, Clinton was too busy getting himself serviced while he was on the phone with Yasser Arafat - among others. Papa Bush on the other hand, was seen as (a), too quick to compromise and (b) as I saw it, too easily manipulated and yes, goaded into corners by the opposition. This is what led him to screwing the American people over when he broke his "no new taxes" pledge when he signed the tax increase in 1990, thus sealing his doom when he went up for reelection in 1992.

Unlike Clinton, Bush did not ramble on for an hour and a half with one government program after another to take care of the American people or as Clinton would have preferred to put it - protect them from themselves.

You see - that’s the neatest thing about the current President Bush. Unlike Clinton and some of the others who have occupied the Oval Office in the past, George W. assumes that the American people have a modicum of intelligence and that they are by and large capable of making most decisions for themselves, which they are. In fact, "W" is probably the best President since Ronald Reagan when it comes to respecting the rights of the individual and the rights of the individual states, as per the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Mike Leavitt, R-UT

Remember Executive Order 13083, entitled Federalism? It was one of Clinton’s (no surprise there, folks!) brainchilds that involved the systematic stripping of states’ rights by the Federal Government. Issued in England - off U.S. soil, once word of the EO got out, there was a firestorm of protest, most notably by civil libertarians and the nation’s governors, particularly Mike Leavitt (R-UT, pictured, right). It was largely through Leavitt’s leadership on this issue that Clinton later shelved this measure and it died a quiet and ignominious death.

WTC rubble

When I watched the address, I chose to watch it on FOX News Channel, as did some of my staff. Having watched the President’s address to the nation on September 20th, just days after the attacks on both the WTC (rubble, left) and the Pentagon - and having seen the look on Senator Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) face as the camera panned across the Senate gallery, you could see that she just did not want to be there. Given that the Big Three networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) as well as CNN weren’t likely to do anything to cast either Clinton in an unfavorable light, I went with FOX because of their motto of "We Report, You Decide!"

Hillary Clinton, D-NY

As I watched Bush’s address, the FOX cameras caught the Hildebeast four times. In the first three instances, you could see that she was visibly straining to be outwardly civil; as for polite - sorry, folks, but I just don’t think it’s in her bag of tricks - at all. On the fourth pass of the camera on Hillary - as the President was paying tribute to First Lady Laura Welch Bush, FOX took a look at Hillary (right), and the longing on Hillary’s face to be back in the White House was clear as crystal. More than a mere longing to be back in the White House, it was a blind lust for power, and that is what makes her so dangerous both professionally and politically.

Unlike Bill Clinton, Bush got applause and standing ovations - one after another - not because his address was finished (remember Clinton’s long-winded presentation at the 1988 Democratic National Convention?) Bush had his address interrupted 77 times for this type of recognition. Clinton never enjoyed this because Clinton was more concerned - make that obsessed with being liked than with being respected. And if he hasn’t learned this lesson by now, he’s not likely to ever learn it.

Bush knows better. Like Bush, I learned for myself quite some time ago that being respected is far more important, for once respect is earned, liking someone comes quite easily - and even naturally, for it is easy and quite natural to like someone you respect, but not always the case the other way around.

Lastly, Bush’s address was only 48 minutes long as compared to Clinton’s 90+-minute marathon sessions, and that was quite refreshing in and of itself. Following the Democratic Response by House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO), which was quite impressive in its own right, I immediately changed the channel to something non-related, as I did not want the take of some talking head. At 42, I think I am more than capable of forming my own opinions and not having to have something repeated back to me - after all, that is why I taped the address in the first place.

Well done, President Bush - for sticking to the point in your address to the nation, for respecting the intelligence of our people as well as for offering a brand of leadership that we have not seen in close to twenty years. You have done America and the world proud by returning this great nation to its preeminence on the world stage as both a leader and a light to the world.

While there will be many in the mainstream media while will never be happy with you no matter what, let them whine. You have the love, respect, admiration and support of the American people. In fact, a nationwide FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted November 14-15, 2001 shows that 57 percent of Americans would take a bullet if necessary to protect President George W. Bush from an assassin.

I highly doubt that Dan Rather could command anywhere near that many Americans to protect him from a determined psychopath.

What do you think?