My Thoughts on the State of the Union Address

By Tony Mazur

In his eighth and final State of the Union Address, President Bush came out firing, flared nostrils and all.

I'm not a big fan of the non-stop applause breaks (there were roughly 70 of them). But when you look into the crowd from the overhead camera, you can see the divided room. The Republicans are standing and clapping, while the Democrats sat there, nodding off like Bill Clinton at a Martin Luther King, Jr. Ceremony.

Anyways, onto my thoughts.

President Bush brought up the fact that elementary school students are scoring higher on test scores than ever before. That includes African Americans and Hispanics. Democrats ripped on the president, saying the No Child Left Behind Act was a waste of time and money. It appears to be working now, isn't it?

Another topic was the Patriot Act. Since September 11th, 2001, there hasn't been an attack on American soil. We can thank the Patriot Act for that. There has been attempts to attack Los Angeles and other major cities in the United States, with no success. They tapped the terrorists' phone lines to stop the attack before it even started. They weren't tapping Joe Blow's cell phone in Middleburg Heights, Ohio. And if they were, what do you have to hide?

I'm glad Mr. Bush brought up the fact that we can find stem cells without aborting babies. You can find stem cells anywhere, not just from an unborn fetus. Us conservatives were all about stem cell research. We just didn't want to kill babies to do so, and we also do not want the federal government funding the research.

Can we start drilling for oil in America? Can we?

I only questioned a couple of parts in President Bush's speech. One of them was global warming. Global warming is a non-issue. Unless you can convince China to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released, don't waste your time. Not surprisingly, the Democrats stood up and cheered loudly when the term "global warming" was brought up.

The President brought up an interesting stat. More than half of the World's food aid comes from the United States. I understand that we are global power, but can we stop being the global police? AIDS is running rampant in Africa, and it won't stop no matter how much money you send overseas.

I'm still not completely happy with President Bush's stance on immigration. I'm all about bringing Mexicans into America to give them jobs, but they should go through an extensive process before receiving a green card. Either they take these strides, or build a giant wall on the banks of the Rio Grande.

I personally think the recession is a bit phony. Just throwing that out there. Tell me what you think.

All in all, I think it was a good speech. President Bush has less than a year left in the White House until he hands it over to the next gentleman. His approval rating may be low right now (who regulates the approval ratings, anyway?), but I feel that in the next 10-15 years, George W. Bush will be vindicated as a great president. Wait and see.

Perspectives on MLK Day

By Rick Morris

America's most-scrutinized legal holiday is upon us. Every year, as Martin Luther King Day approaches, pundits everywhere ponder the meaning of the day, King's message, and what both would have meant going forward had the tragic circumstances in April of 1968 in Memphis not occurred.

This column, from the always-interesting Paul Greenberg, is entitled "Martin Luther King: The Radical as Conservative." In it, he argues somewhat persuasively that contrary to the image many now have as King the would-be changer of everything that America stood for, King actually was calling for America to reaffirm and live up to its stated values and for individuals to take the responsibility to better their own lives and those of their loved ones and countrymen. I agree, that does sound like a conservative message. As someone on the right, I can attest that true colorblindness is a conservative principle. What ended up muddying the waters on civil rights, to the long-term detriment of the conservative movement, was the fact that many powerful racist whites were able to tap into the legitimate language of "states' rights" and the resentment that flowed from the federal government asserting complete power over the states ever since FDH tried to unilaterally write the 10th Amendment out of the Constitution.

But ultimately, Greenberg does not account for the economic and foreign policy elements that were creeping into King's message in his final years. He was adopting many stances that were very, very liberal on redistribution of wealth and the rightful role of the United States and its military around the world. Given the fact that America was locked in an existential struggle with the Soviet Union and its satellites at the time and that the statist economic policies of the Great Society were creating incentives that further preyed upon poor communities, it's impossible for me or any other intellectually honest conservative to get behind that part of the message.

Personally, I've never been a huge fan of how exactly the holiday was implemented. Given that King was not so egocentric as to have wanted a personal celebration of himself every year and given that I think something that celebrates America is more appropriate, I'd rather that we have an annual "Equality Day" instead. Celebrate King, but also Nat Turner, Booker T. Washington and a host of others who worked to push America in the right direction. While we castigate ourselves endlessly for the sins of slavery, as we probably should, we also need to remember that no other nation fought a violent tug-of-war for its soul on that subject and came out the right way. Granted, the shameful Jim Crow era is impossible to put any kind of a gloss on, but again, America did respond to pressure to get rid of it. That's the beauty of this country; we screw up just as much as anyone else, but we're uniquely positioned to atone for our errors.

But it seems that we keep coming back to the same place, one that we are fated to repeat every year as a consensus about Martin Luther King fails to gel. His ultimate legacy and this holiday are like a national Rorschach Test as those of us from different points of view perceive what we are likely to see from our own perspectives.

Revisiting the Clintons and race

By Rick Morris

As I previously indicated here, I have been feeling some glee at seeing the Clintons suffer accusations of racism during the presidential campaign, since they have been poisoning the political discourse of our country for decades by lightly accusing political opponents of the same sin. But after discussing this matter on last night's FDH Lounge program, I found myself examining more angles still regarding this controversy.

One of The FDH Lounge Dignitaries, Chris Galloway, pointed out that there is a chance that the Clintons are asking to be thrown into the proverbial briar patch here -- that is, the Clintons know that the racial angle is a short-term loser with the South Carolina primary looming, but it will be a long-term winner in the events to follow. Ultimately, no matter how many black voters turn out, a black vs. white dynamic is a loser for a black candidate even in a Democratic primary. Interesting thought, and you certainly can't disbelieve it on the grounds that the Clintons aren't sufficiently cynical to perpetuate it.

Also, we got a call during the program from Andy from Toledo, one of the most faithful callers to our show during our first year. As a black man who supports Barack Obama and is significantly to the left of the Clintons, Andy had an interesting point to make. Since Bill Clinton was the greatest president ever in the morally dubious category of "Speaking In Words That Must Be Constantly Parsed," he knew exactly what he was saying when he branded Obama's campaign and life story a "fairy tale" -- moreover, black voters know this. With the coordinated points of attack emanating from the good old Clinton War Room (the "fairy tale," Obama and MLK being phony speech-givers, Bob Johnson's not-so-subtle about Obama's past weed and coke habits), black voters see the Clintons turning their "By All Means Necessary" mode of attack on one of their own -- and they don't like it.

There are signs now that the Clintons may be seeking a racial cease-fire with the Obama campaign, and while I would have previously thought it would have been because they were dealing from a position of weakness, I'm now rethinking that. Perhaps Chris is right and they want to move on because they've already accomplished their purpose: planting in the minds of white voters on Super Tuesday that angry black voters are out to take over the party and the country.

All that we can tell for certain right now is that events are going to get much more divisive and interesting before they settle down -- and as an emphatic non-Democrat, I am gleefully enjoying the show.