The following reaction to the King George’s latest State of the Union speech at
http://kubby2008.com/ got so many hits that it overwhelmed our server yesterday and caused the website to go down for most of the afternoon. We’ve got the site back up now, and Tom Knapp says we will be getting a server upgrade soon.
My fellow Americans,
Earlier this evening, America listened as President George W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, fulfilling his Constitutional duty to report annually to Congress on “the state of the union.” Shortly thereafter, Virginia Senator Jim Webb delivered the Democratic Party’s response to his report.
I am not privileged to address you tonight over broadcast televison or radio; my party’s opinions are considered unworthy of coverage by the “mainstream media.” A response, however, is required, and I accept the responsibility for making it as an American, a presidential candidate, and hopefully a worthy, although not official, representative of my party.
The union, President Bush tells us, is strong. And he may be right. What he does not admit is that the union is weaker now than when he took office.
As evidence for his claim of national strength, he cites an economy which thrives in spite of, not because of, the ministrations of his government … and proposes additional “help” of the type that weakens rather than strengthens it.
As proof of the bright future before us and the care which we take to leave our children a better world, he points to his “No Child Left Behind Act” — an act which props up a disintegrating public education system with more of the federal interference that, until only a few short years ago, his party had pledged to eliminate at the first opportunity.
Addressing himself to the question of national defense, he defends to the very last his failed experiments in foreign military adventurism which have stretched America’s armed forces to the breaking point, alienated our friends, empowered our enemies, and left us less, not more, secure against attack or invasion.
Turning to issues of energy independence and environmental sanity, he recommends more subsidies and more regulation, rather than smaller government and more innovation.
Like President Bush, I believe that the union is strong. Unlike President Bush, I and my fellow Libertarians understand what makes America strong.
We understand that every dollar in taxes taken out of your paycheck makes America weaker, and that every dollar left in your pocket makes America stronger.
We understand that Washington’s one-size-fits-all programs for public education make America weaker, and that parental control and individual choice in education make America stronger.
We understand that “bring’em on” and “mission accomplished” and “surge” make America weaker, and that a foreign policy based on “friendship and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none” makes America stronger.
We understand that government subsidies to Big Oil and Big Agriculture make America weaker, that unsubsidized competition makes America stronger — and that only the innovation fostered by a truly free market will allow us to meet the challenges of pollution, climate change and future fossil fuel scarcity.
The union is strong — not because of the efforts George W. Bush and his fellow politicians, but in spite of them. And in their clutches, America can only continue to become weaker … because the strength of our union, my fellow Americans, is freedom.
The notion that government exists only for the purpose of securing our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, bequeathed us by our nation’s founders, is the foundation upon which every worthwhile American accomplishment rests. The Bush adminstration, the Congress, and their predecessors in the White House and on Capitol Hill, have gone at that foundation with a sledgehammer.
The cracks they’ve produced in that foundation are visible all around us. The Patriot Act. The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless searches and wiretaps. No-knock raids. Detention without charge, counsel or trial. As a nation, we now imprison more of our own than any other. One in thirty of us are trapped in a “justice” system that has long since ceased to represent justice. The rest of us are subject to reams of arbitrary and capricious edicts concerning what we may say, how we may worship, which political candidates we may support (and how much we do so financially), what arms we may carry in our own defense, what medicines we may use, even whether or not we can play cards on the Internet.
America as we know it — everything in it worthy of our devotion and allegiance — stands at the edge of cliff, below which the darkness of totalitarianism awaits. Whether or not our union is strong enough to step backward from the precipice is a question only time will answer.
Over the next two years, I’ll watch with you as the new Democratic Congress wrestles with the problem of restoring freedoms that a corrupt and lawless administration has robbed us of. If history is any guide, the Democrats will choose instead to go to work with their own sledgehammers.
In the meantime, I urge you to join with me in support of America’s last, best hope for a better tomorrow: The Libertarian Party. Even as we speak, hundreds of Libertarians toil in elected and appointed office or as volunteer party activists, working to protect your reedom. With your help, we can elect thousands of new local officials, hundreds of state legislators, dozens of US
Representatives and Senators and, yes, a President, who understand what makes America strong and are prepared to act on that understanding.Let freedom grow!
Steve Kubby
Libertarian for President
George Phillies and Bill Redpath have also written responses to the
Shrub speech. My favorite review of Dubai-ya’s oratory, however, was written by Jason Gatties.
UPDATE 1/26: Libertarian Presidential Candidate Kent McManigal has also written a response to the State of the Union blatherings.



Do you have an idea of why it got so many hits?
Here’s Phillies’s commentary posted in full:
I’ll give Phillies the style points. I’d rank them this way:
Phillies
Kubby
Redpath
Redpath’s response was extremely disappointing – both in the quality of writing and in what he said (and what he left unsaid).
We had it up very quickly after the speech. I don’t know when Phillies and Redpath issued their responses, but I haven’t seen them until today. So either we were first, or we promoted it more – I’m not sure.
Someone posted it on digg and got hundreds of comments on digg. I think a lot of the traffic came from there.
I think Phillies had the best as well as the worst of all three in his speech/response.
On the issues where I agree with him – very well done.
Unfortunately, he also throws in some stuff I completely disagree with, like some of his remarks about immigration and health care.
Redpath’s response was too mild for my own taste, but I also understand why he felt it needed to be that way – he wants to reach a mass audience and have them believe we are not extremists, and thus at least take us seriously enough to consider our ideas.
To a lesser degree, I think Kubby may have been doing some of that too. At least from the publicity result angle, it seems to have worked:
“Kubby2008.Com, the web site for Steve Kubby’s presidential campaign, crashed today due to ‘the Digg Effect.’ When the site received more than 4,000 unique visitors in a short timeframe as web readers clicked on a link to Kubby’s response to the State of the Union address, the web host, citing server overload, panicked and shut it down. We’re working to get it back up, of course … and we’ll be seeking more spacious web quarters shortly.” – Tom Knapp
It has also received a lot more hits since we have had it back up, and that’s just at Kubby2008.com – it’s also been reposted a lot of other places, too.
Of course, it may well be that Phillies and Redpath got just as many or more hits on theirs, and just already had more server capacity so it did not hit them the way it did us – remember, Phillies got started earlier and of course the national LP has been around for decades (and was on the web before the Republicans and Democrats). I’ll leave it to their folks to tell us how much publicity they received.
One thing for Kubby, also, is that he did not say anything I disagree with, also, unlike Phillies. Redpath, also, didn’t say anything that jumped out at me as being completely wrong – but I only read his once. I’ll agree it was rather too milquetoastish for my taste. And I’ve never actually eaten, or for that matter, as far as I know, even seen – a milquetoast, actually, I’m not 100% sure exactly what a milquetoast is – but from what I understand, it’s the gastronomic equivalent of Redpath’s response.
Ultimately, I think that Gatties pretty much covered all the significant points in Bush’s effluvium of oral flatulence, and did you see the prequel video I posted? I’m still laughing at that one.
Finally, our own Michelle Shinghal was on a panel on national TV reacting to the speech right afterwards. We’re seeing what we can do about getting video.
One thing for Kubby, also, is that he did not say anything I disagree with, also, unlike Phillies.
Good point.
My issues with Redpath’s response were only partly the ‘milquetoast-ness’ (and I think that’s putting it mildly. ha. mildly.)
First: the party should have had something up that night. Aren’t these speeches available beforehand? Even if not, it’s hardly too much to ask for a speedy response. Reporters (the few who do look) will be looking that night and the next morning.
But second and (to me, worse) was the rambling nature, generally poor writing, and obvious lack of skilled editing in the response. It wasn’t *pithy*. It wasn’t *forceful*. it wasn’t *passionate*. It wasn’t *organized*. It was … boring. And rambling. And, did I mention boring?
That’s a key point. Yes, it is available beforehand, which is why Kubby’s was up so quickly, and why we got all those hits. We also went to work promoting it immediately.
Even if Phillies had his up right away, I did not see it until today, and if I didn’t see it until today with all the libertarian lists and websites I’m on, chances are very few other people did either.
Timing is a major factor in these things – supposing Phillies’ was twice as good as ours, but a hundred times more people saw ours because it went out quicker (I’m not saying either of those is necessarily true, this is just for the sake of discussion), I would then say ours was more effective because it had more impact.
But, other than that, did you like it? Don’t be shy – tell us how you really feel.
(Yawn). Sorry. What was that again? I went back to re-read the Redpath speech to see if I could find anything he said that I disagreed with and I totally spaced out – I’m not sure if I completely fell asleep, but why is my coffee cup knocked over, and what were we talking about again?
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_State_of_the_Union_A_Libertarian_Response
Here’s the explanation directly from the front page of
http://www.kubby2008.com/
Whew … the site crash came as a complete surprise, but we’re in better shape now. The existing site has been tweaked to decrease the burden on the server if we get Dugg or Slashdotted or whatever, and I’m negotiating a move to a better server.
We also just launched our first “public” fundraiser (I won’t flog it here — see the site if you’re interested).
I liked Kubby’s response best, but I doubt that anyone expected me not to.
The only thing I’d say in critique of George’s is a) it’s less a “response” than an “alternate SOTU;” and that b) therefore, it can be expected to produce less response of its own, since he gives more details on his policy positions. The idea behind Kubby’s briefer handling of the issues was that the reader would click on the issues paper links in the sidebar (and based on our page view to visitor ratio, that appears to have worked out fairly well — an average of not quite two page views per visitor, indicating that the visitors wanted to know more about this or that, and went looking).
I don’t consider that a major criticism of George’s approach. He got his ideas out to those who see his piece. Our goal was to get one idea out, with brief teasers to the details, and get the reader involved enough to dive in a little deeper.
I tried to read the chair’s response, but got distracted. I’ll try again later. At least it was nominally timely. Last year, I think it was a week or two before the LP issued an official response.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Listening to Steve Kubby on Angela Keaton’s show now.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/liberatedspace
for anyone who missed the show, check out the archive:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=8923
Media Archive
http://www.kubby2008.com/node/24
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Five by five for Kubby
posted at
http://knappster.blogspot.com/
Overall it is nice to see LP candidates out there talking back to the establishment. I may be sounding like an old record (whatever records were) in saying that I wish they would spell out the costs of someof the programs so that the people had a better idea what it costs. $400 billion annually for defense is about $1000 per citizen or $2000 per tax payer (actually more but I don’t have the recent figures in front of me). And many multiples of what our allies(?) spend. How much does it cost to keep 270,000 troops abroad, not including Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan? How much have we spent over the last 50 years? Put the number up so the American worker knows! Afterall we tend to vote for pocketbook issues, and have for some 200 years.
MHW