Greg Krehbiel
The crowhill version of the state of the union speech
by Greg Krehbiel on 31 January 2006
I won’t watch the State of the Union speech because it’s just going to be more nonsense political blather, and I have better things to do, like clip my toe nails and stare at blank walls.
But if I were Bush’s speechwriter (God save us all!), this is what I’d recommend.
My fellow Americans, I am very pleased to report tonight that the state of the union is strong.
On the domestic front, ever since we mercilessly forced the southern states back into the union, nobody has dared try to break away. We face some minor economic challenges, but nothing to keep you up at night. More on that later, if you care to stay tuned.
On the foreign front, we have a few challenges of varying severity, but the Hun is not at the gate, and it’s not likely he will be any time real soon. But again, more on that later.
So if you want the quick overview, there you have it. Things are good. Sleep in peace. The future looks bright.
Now for all you over-achievers who want to hear the gory details, there are some things we could fix.
Domesticaly, we have to quit this pretend game of bi-partisanship. Let me speak candidly to my fellow Republicans for a moment. Here’s what you guys think “bi-partisanship” means. It means when Clinton nominates a liberal to the Supreme Court, you say, “The President has the right to appoint qualified people, and we won’t judge them on their ideology,” in the vain hope that the Democrats will follow suit.
Get a clue, folks. They’re laughing all the way to the judiciary committee. Since when have Democrats ever returned your “let’s be nice” gestures?
It’s time to stand up for our values — which, by the way, the American people overwhelmingly support — and quit playing paddy cake with these bozos.
Also on the domestic front, we really do need to do something about American manufacturing jobs. Here’s why. The reason communism never took hold here is that it was possible to work at the GM factory, live in a nice house, have a boat for the weekends and eat steak on Friday night. The workers didn’t need to unite because they were too busy in
front of their color televisions.
The middle class, working Joe is the guy who sustains the country. Now I’m not going to give you a lot of high-falutin theory about free trade and all that. You guys work something out. But we can’t afford to lose any more of these jobs. Figure out a plan and have it on my desk by March 1st. Please.
To segue from the domestic to the foreign side of the ledger, somebody please tell me what’s the sense of having imigration laws if we don’t enforce them. And how do you expect to stop a terrorist attack if people can just waltz into this country whenever they feel like it? Let’s do something about that before it’s too late.
Now on the foreign front, there are a few things we need to bear in mind.
First, it would be real nice if the idiots in the mainstream media would quit giving aid and comfort to the enemy by implying that our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are about to crumble. Listen, morons — all you’re doing is prolonging their torture and giving them false hopes. We have won every battle and are winning the war, and
we’ll stay the course until Iraq is able to stand on its own two feet as a strong and stable country.
Second, I’m really disappointed that OBL is still breathing. I hereby authorize a $10 billion reward for anybody who brings me his head in a refrigerated box.
Third, we can’t let Iran develop nuclear weapons. Period. That Iranian dude is a top-notch lunatic and allowing him to get the bomb is like letting a drunk teenager drive a Hummer through the Kindergarten playground.
Now I know what you’re thinking. The military is stretched too thin to mop up the idiots in Iraq and Afghanistan and also fight Iran. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you’ve been listening to panzies and girlie-men talk about war. They don’t know diddly. Our armed forces are the most dangerous, efficient, professional killing machine this planet has ever seen. 14th-century barbarians with French fighter planes don’t have a chance.
And remember this. We already have nukes. Lots and lots of them. Big ones, little ones, fat ones too.
Oh yeah. It’s been traditional for years for presidents to talk about education in the state of the union. I’d like to remind everybody that education is a state issue. Or, rather, it’s a family issue that states have chosen to stick their noses into. As long as I’m president, the federal government will be in the business of butting out of education. If you’re worried about education, find a decent private school in your neighborhood and send them a check.
Wrapping up, we face some challenges, but in the grand scheme of things life is pretty good in America. The poor among us are rich compared to a lot of the world, which is why everybody’s always trying to come here. And I say, let ‘em come so long as they follow the laws.
It’s still a dangerous world out there, but our boys in uniform stand ready, able and willing to keep the wolf at bay. So sleep tight, America, and God bless.
2006-01-31 » Greg Krehbiel
31 January 2006 @ 8:12 pm
Greg for president!
31 January 2006 @ 10:13 pm
Greg,
Pretty good. Just one part that I did not see included: “By the way, abortion is unconstitutional. Legislatures and courts have had not valid jurisdiction in declaring it legal, and so all such laws and court decisions have been void since their adoption. Since abortion is illegal, I as Chief Enforcement Officer of the United States of America will do everything in my power to both stop the illegal activity and to hold accountable those who commit such heinous crimes. National guard units, the FBI, ATF, homeland security, and anyone else who has a government issued gun have been mobilized to deal with this problem. The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff stand ready to lend the support of our armed forces, should the use of our own armed forces inside our borders become necessary. We would appreciate if state law enforcement officials would work in conjunction with the federal units. And for those in the more liberal states — remember, our guns are bigger than yours. At least stand aside if you are not man enough to help keep unborn babies alive. Otherwise we will shoot. And you will lose. We would like to thank everyone in advance for their cooperation.”
31 January 2006 @ 11:34 pm
Your position on education is surprisingly libertarian. I don’t think that Gregg’s abortion shtick would fit with it.
1 February 2006 @ 12:12 am
Enchore Greg!!! The no-BS president!!!!
1 February 2006 @ 12:56 am
Actually, I didn’t feel all that comfortable with your educational policy, but then, I am in the position of having to consider the educational options for my son on a very constrained budget, so I have obvious biases.
1 February 2006 @ 6:17 am
Clinton’s nominees to the Supreme Court were made after conferring with Senators from both parties. Then ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch (R – Utah) documents this in his autobiography. According to Hatch, Clinton was leaning towards nominating Bruce Babbitt to the SC and called for Hatch’s opinion. Hatch said that a Babbitt nomination would be tough and then suggested Clinton consider Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
It is political fiction suggest that Republicans were nice to objectionable Clinton nominees and that Democrats didn’t return the favor. The truth is Clinton showed bi-partisanship by conferring with Republicans and nominating only candidates recommended by a conservative Republican Senator. Bush and this Republican-majority senate, on the other hand, have shown no bipartanship.
1 February 2006 @ 6:24 am
The reason it was possible to make a good living working at the GM factory is because workers united and formed unions. Those unions, democracy in action, are what kept workers from having to overthrow the government to make a decent wage.
You are right that we can’t afford to lose any more of these jobs. It was quite a blow when companies like Toyota build plants in Canada to manufacture product for the US market because socialized medicine in Canada reduces labor costs.
1 February 2006 @ 8:36 am
Harvey — do you really believe the Democrats would have gone along with any Bush nominee who was pro-life? Even if Bush had approached them privately ahead of time? Not a chance.
The fact that Hatch agreed to support Ginsburg is proof of exactly what I’m saying — that the Republicans play nice with “qualified” judges that they object to on ideological grounds.
1 February 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Hatch didn’t agree to support Ginsburg; Hatch was the one who recommended Ginsburg to Clinton. Hatch documents in his autobiography that Clinton had not heard of Ginsburg before Hatch’s recommendation. That is quite a bit different from playing nice. Yes, both Breyer and Ginsburg are liberal judges, but they are compromise candidates recommended by the ranking Republican, who liked them better than other possible nominees.
Your original comment about play-nice bipartisanship is a hoot. Republicans have been uninterested in bipartisanship since they gained total control in 2001.
1 February 2006 @ 1:32 pm
(Cheer! Roar! Bravo!)
Harvey, I still think you’ve missed the mark about the SC nominee. Timelines and who suggested first are not relevant to the overall point.
If Bush asked the ranking democrat for a suggestion he’d get Babbitt as a response. The fact that Harvey was even willing to consider talking about liberal judges is a concession and “playing nice”. It says “I know that Clinton is not going to consider the type of person I want, so I’ll suggest someone that he’ll still approve of but I hope can be better than what he’s going to suggest.”
No such favor would be or has been returned.
And Greg, I understand your position on public education and you’ve got some valid points (including keeping the federal government out of the equation and that it has become an avenue for ideological indoctrination), but I think you’re wrong that we should do away with public education as a whole. Despite its shortcomings it also does a lot of good.
Otherwise, I loved your speech.
1 February 2006 @ 1:48 pm
I’m not at all sure how you know that the ranking Democrat would suggest Babbitt. I don’t think this is true at all.
I do think, however, that the pro-choice folks have so cornered the market on what is “moderate” that any pro-life judge is automatically rejected as “extreme.” Which is, in my view, nonsense.
1 February 2006 @ 1:57 pm
Edwin, I wasn’t clear in my comment. I should have said “someone like Babbitt”, not him specifically. I really don’t know much about Babbitt other than he’s pretty liberal all the way around the block (from what I hear). That’s all I was trying to imply: they’d suggest someone really liberal.
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
1 February 2006 @ 3:15 pm
I don’t think that simply packing the court with pro-life judges will threaten roe v. wade.
there is a hell of a lot of precident behind that ruling, it would be like the USSC overturning Marbary v. Madison… okay maybe not that bad, but I’m not w/ the whole sky is falling crowd. That’s just political appeal. Despite what people think about judicial “activism” Roe v. Wade is a really good ruling.