|
| Wednesday, February 01, 2006 |
| Expanded take on the State of the Union |
Elaborating on my initial read from last night, the State of the Union speech was somewhat encouraging politically, but discouraging from a how-the-hell-are-we-going-to-fix-this-country standpoint.
Clearly, the agenda has been downscaled in recognition of Bush's low popularity and the Democrats new-found effectiveness on batting away unpopular proposals (see 2005 and social security). To that end, Bush might have come across as good because he took few chances. He didn't propose anything extremely bold or Republican (but did propose things that are boring and Republican, like extending the tax cuts).
But it's discouraging that a President, with the nation watching, didn't do more to fix the world in the most immediate ways it needs fixing. When you tell us that America is "addicted to oil", give us some suggestions as to what we can do today, rather than just telling us that you're working for an X% reduction by Y year. Because I don't believe you are, Mr. Bush.
Bush's speech gives a political opening to the Democrats in this important election year. Because Bush will have failed to set the agenda by not mentioning any broad plans, Democrats have an opportunity to fill the idea vacuum. I heard all about this great platform they were going to roll out - outlining to the country what the party stands for.
Well it's February. Let's see it. |
posted by CB @ 10:18 AM   |
|
| 1 Comments: |
-
I thought I'd post a comment because no one has for so long and your blog seemed lonely. There was a correspondent on ABC who I think hit it on the head, that an awful lot of policies in the speech were retreads. We heard about the hydrogen cars last year - there ought to be lots more investment in the things we can do NOW instead of just the things we can do years from now. I mean, alternative energies are an urgent matter. So's reducing income inequality, which will only increase with the permanent tax cuts.
The Democrats do indeed need to get off their asses and organize, or else it's going to be a long November with no reason to believe that maybe this year will be better than the last. Can we get new leadership, too? I'm tired of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (and Dean, for that matter, but I'm willing to stick with him through an election). And when I say I want to replace them, I mean not with John Kerry.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recent Posts |
|
| Archives |
|
| Contact Me |
| Email me |
| Template by |
 |
|
|
I thought I'd post a comment because no one has for so long and your blog seemed lonely. There was a correspondent on ABC who I think hit it on the head, that an awful lot of policies in the speech were retreads. We heard about the hydrogen cars last year - there ought to be lots more investment in the things we can do NOW instead of just the things we can do years from now. I mean, alternative energies are an urgent matter. So's reducing income inequality, which will only increase with the permanent tax cuts.
The Democrats do indeed need to get off their asses and organize, or else it's going to be a long November with no reason to believe that maybe this year will be better than the last. Can we get new leadership, too? I'm tired of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (and Dean, for that matter, but I'm willing to stick with him through an election). And when I say I want to replace them, I mean not with John Kerry.