get donkey!

get donkey!’s off the cuff reaction to the SOTU

I have been extremely busy this week what with the SQL Slammer deal, catching up on work missed because of the SQL slammer deal, and trying to fit in 139 hours of C++/OOAD-related training between now and April, but I wanted to list a few things I noted about last night’s speech and the coverage of said speech. These are in no particular order.

The speech itself:

• I knew the speech was not going over well in the get donkey! Household when my wife kept shouting, “how are you going to pay for it!?” every time President Bush announced one of his domestic policy initiatives. I’m usually the one that shouts at the TV and my wife usually gets mad when I do. She beat me to it nearly every time.
• “Brazen” was the word that came to mind when President Bush delivered the line about not saddling future Congresses, Presidents, and generations with our nation’s problems, but then went on to discuss a litany of programs that will all be funded at a deficit and therefore will be paid for by future Congresses, Presidents, and generations. I guess spending money you don’t have is no longer a “problem” in this era of personal responsibility? What kind of lesson is that for the children of this generation?
• Bush is the most stubborn politician I have ever seen. He seems incapable of bending on any of his policy and still clings to things like Social Security Privatization and Dividend Tax Repeals even after members of his own party, nearly every Democrat, and most of the nation say they are not in favor of them. I don’t know if the president knows the meaning of the word “compromise”. Some people call this trait “tenacity” and “principled leadership”, I call it pig-headed, arrogant, and counter-productive.
• If the President’s plan for seniors to abandon Medicare in favor of Managed Care with Prescription Coverage is so great, why doesn’t he speak truthfully about it instead of disingenuously calling it a plan to “Strengthen Medicare”?
• Why did candidate Bush and his fellow denizens of the right pound Gore every time he brought up conservation and alternative fuel technology? What, all of the sudden these things are now cool for conservatives? Why did the President’s failed energy package of 2001 not push conservation? What about raising CAFE limits while we are waiting the 15 years(!) for hydrogen technology? Can you say smoke and mirrors? BTW, was there a hint about renewing the push for ANWR drilling in there somewhere (see the above point)?
• I really admired and support the AIDS relief policy statement. It’s been a long time coming, but (there’s always a but) I wonder what he meant when he said we would prevent 7 Million (or was it 70M?) cases of AIDS/HIV? How does he plan on doing that? This Administration is apparently fighting the war against condoms (as I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this blog). Does he plan on preventing that many cases of AIDS/HIV solely through abstinence-only sex education and faith-based missionary work? More information please.
• The President gave no indication that he would fund the “No Child Left Behind” Act that he touted as successful education reform. He also didn’t mention anything about Civil Rights.
• What was the name of that guy who runs al Qaeda again? I think the President has forgotten. Oh, and does anyone else get the impression that the President equates “American justice” with killing people?
• Some of the Iraq stuff was compelling. I liked the rhetorical device the President employed in his litany of the things Iraq has not accounted for and has not shown proof of destroying. I have a basic problem, however, with justifying war by using “what-if” scare tactics (the passage about crates and containers of chemical/biological agenst slipping into the US comes to mind) because such statements can easily be countered with another what-if scenario. One could easily ask, for example, “What if we do go to war with Iraq, and Saddam, sensing his end is nigh, decides to go for broke and use every WMD and chemical agent he supposedly has against our troops and anyone within his reach? Additionally, what if he decides to have a WMD fire sale for terrorist organizations when he senses he is toast?” Such an event could also bring about a day, week, months, or even years of unspeakable horrors like we have never seen, couldn’t it? Finally, maybe if the President would actually fund the Homeland Security measures he is imposing on the State governments, there would be less of a chance that such a crate or container could slip into the US. In proposing such a scary “what-if” scenario isn’t the President is admitting that his new Homeland Security Agency is mostly ineffective?

Now for the Democratic response and the coverage…

• Gov. Gary Locke seems like a nice guy, and while watching it I had a feeling that his speech was nice too, but I’ll be damned if I can now remember one thing he said. I think the Democrats needed a more forceful speaker and a speech that more clearly pointed out the fiscal crisis facing the States. If they were going to go with a governor (which I thought was a good idea), they should have picked someone like Nancy Paolotano (sp?) of Arizona. She is articulate, angry and, being a border-state governor, could make a great case about how the Administration is failing on Homeland Security.
• Ted Kennedy, of whom I am not always a huge fan, could also have been a good choice to give the rebuttal. Since President Bush’s speech (especially the domestic programs and all the faith-based stuff), catered so much to the right, it would have been interesting to use Kennedy, who was pretty focused and eloquent on the talk-show circuit last night, to address the left. Nancy Pelosi also redeemed herself somewhat after Sunday’s awful performance on This Week. She was also very good on NPR this morning.
• Pat Caddell, who I usually dislike, made my night when he said that whenever he feels he is slipping away from the Democratic fold Tom DeLay’s “smarmy” behavior sets him straight. He was also fairly critical of the SOTU speech and pointed out nicely how the President’s implied proposal that the US should impose democracy and liberate those we feel need liberating is a despicable distortion of what America stands for and means to the world. Caddell said that the United States is supposed to be a beacon and an example for the world, not an imposer of our way of life. I agree.
• I know it is a well-known fact, but Frank Luntz is an awful creature and is anything but a pollster. He stacked his room of “American voices” with nice senior citizen “liberals” who were unable to defend themselves against the rude Bush-youth who browbeat them every time they tried to voice their opinions. One of the most vociferous wingnuts (the one Luntz kept pointing out as a 20-year-old) claimed that after the speech he was so moved that he was ready to enlist and go fight Saddam. I think MSNBC should follow that young patriot and make sure he does. I also just loved how Luntz claimed “liberal bias” in initially refusing Chris Matthews’ request to truthfully describe the President’s Medicare drug proposal to the folks in the room. Luntz is slime.
• Why did MSNBC hide the Nooner?
• CNN’s panel couldn’t help but gush about the President’s leadership, seriousness, and sense of purpose immediately after the speech. It was downright unseemly. I half-expected Woodruff (or Aaron Brown) to tear open her blouse and start screaming “Take me! Take me! You big hunk of man!” It was so out of hand that I would have changed the channel if they had done the same during one of Clinton’s SOTU. Like that would ever happen.
• Jim Scarborough gets a show? I’m going to bed!

January 29th, 2003 Posted by Rob | Politics | one comment