I loved the foreign policy section of this speech. It was inspired, strong, and said what Bush so desperately needed to say. The domestic side of this speech was another laundry list of programs and vague statements with some redeeming moments, but nothing that rose to the beginning.
This speech was defensive without being defensive. Bush has one major advantage – he sticks to his guns. All Bush had to say is "our world is better off with Saddam Hussein," and that’s exactly what he needed to say. At the end of the day, that justifies his actions. I would have let WMDs drop and focused in more strongly on that, but Bush still did what he needed to do.
The line about not needing a permission slip to defend this country was a brilliant slap against the Democrats, as was the list of countries that have helped in Iraq. This is a direct and effective assault on the ridiculous lines that we need to "internationalize" Iraq (meaning give it over to the UN bureaucracy) and that Bush has gone it alone in Iraq. Neither are true, and both statements are insults to our allies.
His comments on the PATRIOT Act were also strong. The PATRIOT Act has worked, and the harms to our civil liberties are either overstated or simply wrong. If the Democrats run on opposition to the PATRIOT Act it will play directly into the hands of the GOP. The Democrats have a historic weakness on national security issues, and opposing the tools that give law enforcement the ability to prevent future attacks is simply poor policy and will only make that weakness more clear.
The domestic side was less inspired. The bit about steroid testing was essentially a non-sequitur for a State of the Union speech. What is striking is that not once did Bush mention a dollar figure for anything – this is very much deliberate. Bush is taking heat, and rightly so, from both sides of the aisle for spending too much. Bush desperately needs to balance his "compassionate conservative" agenda with fiscal common sense. So far Bush has not done very well with this, which is a potential weakness for him. I liked that he is going to limit the growth of government, but he needs to do something more radical. I would have gone off on a limb and proposed some real solutions such as a return to PAYGO budgeting and real limits on Congressional spending.
I also wish the President had talked about his space initiatives rather than steroid use by athletes. His plans for space deserved time in the SOTU while steroids did not. The absence of this proposal seems more than a little odd. Bush could have sold that program when he had the chance to do so before a national audience, but now he’s let it go. I hope this isn’t a sign that his ambitious and critical space plan is falling to more prosaic and less ambitious goals.
The part about values is a bit of red meat to conservatives, but it also is going to play well with many Americans who are dead-set against gay marriage and see the degredation of civility and values in this country as a greatly worrying trend. The values of family, country, and church are the values of America, and Bush alone speaks to those values.
Politically, Bush’s tack is exactly the right one. This is shaping to be a battle between Republican optimism versus Democratic negativism. Negative campaigns have never worked – witness McGovern’s "Come Home America", Mondale’s disastrous 1984 campaign, and Dole’s equally lackluster 1996 campaign. I don’t see the Democrat’s message playing well to what swing voters may exist. It may play well with the Democratic base, but many Americans don’t see America as a land of looming disasters.
This address was not one of the best of Bush’s address, although it was hardly one of his worst. Bush seemed very comfortable, his delivery was clear and conversational rather than didactic and boring, and his themes were resonant. He has some very good lines in his foreign policy section, and some nice moments in his domestic policy section. This didn’t have to be a home run, but a solid base hit, and that’s exactly what the President delivered tonight.
but it also is going to play well with many Americans who are dead-set against gay marriage and see the degredation of civility and values in this country as a greatly worrying trend.
Maybe you could explain to me what’s “civil” about a Constitutional Amendment that takes rights away from people. Maybe you could explain to me how more people getting married is a degredation of values.
None of the anti-gay rhetoric makes sense to me. It’s not like me and my wife have to lock our doors to protect out marriage against gay people or something.
It chills me that Bush is even flirting with the idea of ignoring state and personal perogative to appease religious fundamentalists. That more than anything else is why he needs to go.
Well, that and the tenor of retributive arrogance that has typified the adminstrations actions of late. That’s also why he has to go.
I personally don’t agree, but there is a significant number of people who see widespread acceptance of homosexuality as a symptom of the larger problem of the breakdown of values in this country.
The fact remains that the family isn’t some arbitrary structure, it’s the best arrangement for raising children. While I don’t think homosexual marriage necessarily undermines the family, there are a number of people who do, and they’re not going to accept judges ramming gay marriage down their throats.
Gay marriage will likely come sooner or later, but if it comes through the judicial rather than the political process it will only create decades of bitterness and likely lead to a Constitutional amendment outright banning it – which would be a mistake that would set back gay rights for decades again.
The fact remains that the family isn’t some arbitrary structure, it’s the best arrangement for raising children.
And gay people want to get married in order to raise children. I don’t understand why this is an argument against gay marriage.
I understand that you don’t oppose it, but so long as a slight majority is content to lord their stupid religious predjudice over a minority that’s almost as large then the judiciary is exactly the place to fight this battle. I guess I’m looking for somebody to explain why this is the one area where religious freedom and the separattion of church and state don’t seem to apply.