Shurb and the State of the Union
Jan. 20th, 2004 11:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerI think my housemates though I was insane, or a masochist, but I watched the SotU and the response(s). The guy, idiotchild fratboy though he is, is still the president, and if I'm going to despise him I want to feel I'm doing it on the basis of actual evidence, not my preconceptions of what stupid things he's goign to say, unvalidated by actually hearing him say them.
And say them he did.
First of all, presentation issues. He gave a speech with a very simple vision, using very simple sentences. In my opinion, that's because simple sentences are about all he's up to reading, even off teleprompters, rather than because it was intended to reach very simple people. His world is black and white. His world is very conservative. I do not want to live in his world.
That said, it was, for someone who is comfortable with his vision, a good speech. He acknowledged challenges that have been made to his foreign policy and responded to them. He stated his vision clearly. He gave creidt to those who are ont he front lines (literally) and acknowledged what Congress had done to support him. The only thing I thought was strikingly unbecoming was his constant smirking throughout the section on foreign policy. Maybe someone told him to smile and look more genial and avuncular, but it looked like C. Montgomery Burns contemplating firing a hundred employees.
OK, so I promised Melissa this would not turn into a rant, but for the love of Mike can't we have a real president, not a moneky that's been put into a suit and strategically shaved? I know he's been practicing this speech for days. He's got a copy in front of him. It's running on teleprompters right at eye level. And he can't manage to pronounce simple words? I don't count "nuclear" which every second person in thsi country seem compelled to pronounce "NUK-u-ler" for some reason that passes all my understanding, but the Shrub stumbled over polysyllabic tongue-twisters like "destruction," "industries," and phrases like "federal regulation" and "never discriminate." He couldn't read a letter from a little girl of "age ten" without turning her into a toddler of "age two"? If we have to have a small-minded, big-business, draft-dodging religious bigot running the country, does he have to be Bozo the Clown as well?
Sorry, Melissa...
So, to substance. The adminsitration needs to make up its mind. Is the war on terror a war or a criminal investigation. If it's a criminal investigation, the president needs to stop sneering at people who he claims want to "serve papers" on al Qa'ida terrorists. If it's a wat, why do we need the Patriot Act, which he compared to RICO (without explaining why, if RICO existed, we need the Patriot Act) as a necessary tool for *law enforcement* to fight terror. If this is a military conflict, in which our enemies have declared war on us, then captured enemy are prisoners of war. If this is a criminal action, then they are arrested criminals. Can't have it both ways (only, of course, he can, because no one is prepared to tell him he can't.)
They're going to limit growth in discretionary spending to 4%, cut taxes again, and still cut the deficit by 50% in five years? What was it David Stockman, Reagan's budget man, said about smoke and mirrors? or Shrub's dad, about "voodoo economics"?
How does the president think he's going to "bring hardworking fromt he shadows into working life" if he's set his face against amnesty for illegal aliens? Do all the IAs have to flee (secretly) back to their countries of origin, and then get in line for this new "jobs so awful Americnas won't do them" work permit program?
The constitutional amendment on marriage. Well, he's finally stopped lying and said what we all assumed he really meant. He's perfectly happy for "wishes of the people" he touts so highly to be trodden down by federal law if the people live in Vermont. Federal judges who interpret the Constitution are "arbitrary" when they are in favour of the marriage of people of the same gender, but presumably were not when they ruled against laws that enshrined similarly devoutly held beliefs such as the immorality of sexual relations (or marriage) of people of different races. Or would the president prefer we go back to banning that as well? Maybe a federal ban on divorces? Or stoning for adulterers? The Bush White House, putting Leviticus back in the Constitution where he belongs...
Money for programs to scare parents and kids with the horrors of STDs, but no funding for safe sex programs. Money for abstinence, proven to be ineffective in prevent teen pregnancy (mostly since teenagers--and the rest of us--don't stick to it), but no money for programs on practical birth control methods for when abstinence fails. Government funding for religious groups, because goodness knows we wouldn't want the Catholic Church to have to carry out its missions to the poor and needy with only th moeny it has in its pockets when the federal government has moeny to spare just because some silly old men hundreds of years ago thought that the government shouldn't fund religious enterprises.
I liked Kerry's small spot on NBC after the SOTU. He had the right message: George W. Bush lives in a different world from average Americans. He says one thing and does another. G*d bless you, senator!
Daschle and Pelosi did a good job, too, I thought, with the opposition response. Pelosi spoke of the need for a vision of unity, rather than division, of America being "a light to the world, not jsut a missile" (I loved that), of the need for us to engage with ur allies instead of shouldering most of the casualties and the costs alone. She, Kerry, and Daschle all did a good job of hammering Bush on the economy. Stock gains and low infaltion are good, but they don't make much difference to all the people who don't have jobs. Some of the homeland security goals she mentioned seemed unrealistic, though (100% inspection of all containers entering the US? well, I know where the 250,000 new jobs will be going to...)
Daschle had a nice dichotomy in his comparison of the president's economic plan of rewards for the few with the Democrat's proposal of opportunities for all. Jobs, healthcare, dignified retirement. Fully funded education programs instead of standards without resources.
Final analysis: No big surprise. I'm a liberal. I hated the president's vision, I dislike and distrust the man, and I'm disappointed that Cheney couldn't come up with a more dignified sock puppet. I liked the way the Dems criticized the president's speech, and I think they not only pointed out the holes in his policies but presented a much more palatable vision for America and the world.
And now time for bed! (Too late again...)
And say them he did.
First of all, presentation issues. He gave a speech with a very simple vision, using very simple sentences. In my opinion, that's because simple sentences are about all he's up to reading, even off teleprompters, rather than because it was intended to reach very simple people. His world is black and white. His world is very conservative. I do not want to live in his world.
That said, it was, for someone who is comfortable with his vision, a good speech. He acknowledged challenges that have been made to his foreign policy and responded to them. He stated his vision clearly. He gave creidt to those who are ont he front lines (literally) and acknowledged what Congress had done to support him. The only thing I thought was strikingly unbecoming was his constant smirking throughout the section on foreign policy. Maybe someone told him to smile and look more genial and avuncular, but it looked like C. Montgomery Burns contemplating firing a hundred employees.
OK, so I promised Melissa this would not turn into a rant, but for the love of Mike can't we have a real president, not a moneky that's been put into a suit and strategically shaved? I know he's been practicing this speech for days. He's got a copy in front of him. It's running on teleprompters right at eye level. And he can't manage to pronounce simple words? I don't count "nuclear" which every second person in thsi country seem compelled to pronounce "NUK-u-ler" for some reason that passes all my understanding, but the Shrub stumbled over polysyllabic tongue-twisters like "destruction," "industries," and phrases like "federal regulation" and "never discriminate." He couldn't read a letter from a little girl of "age ten" without turning her into a toddler of "age two"? If we have to have a small-minded, big-business, draft-dodging religious bigot running the country, does he have to be Bozo the Clown as well?
Sorry, Melissa...
So, to substance. The adminsitration needs to make up its mind. Is the war on terror a war or a criminal investigation. If it's a criminal investigation, the president needs to stop sneering at people who he claims want to "serve papers" on al Qa'ida terrorists. If it's a wat, why do we need the Patriot Act, which he compared to RICO (without explaining why, if RICO existed, we need the Patriot Act) as a necessary tool for *law enforcement* to fight terror. If this is a military conflict, in which our enemies have declared war on us, then captured enemy are prisoners of war. If this is a criminal action, then they are arrested criminals. Can't have it both ways (only, of course, he can, because no one is prepared to tell him he can't.)
They're going to limit growth in discretionary spending to 4%, cut taxes again, and still cut the deficit by 50% in five years? What was it David Stockman, Reagan's budget man, said about smoke and mirrors? or Shrub's dad, about "voodoo economics"?
How does the president think he's going to "bring hardworking fromt he shadows into working life" if he's set his face against amnesty for illegal aliens? Do all the IAs have to flee (secretly) back to their countries of origin, and then get in line for this new "jobs so awful Americnas won't do them" work permit program?
The constitutional amendment on marriage. Well, he's finally stopped lying and said what we all assumed he really meant. He's perfectly happy for "wishes of the people" he touts so highly to be trodden down by federal law if the people live in Vermont. Federal judges who interpret the Constitution are "arbitrary" when they are in favour of the marriage of people of the same gender, but presumably were not when they ruled against laws that enshrined similarly devoutly held beliefs such as the immorality of sexual relations (or marriage) of people of different races. Or would the president prefer we go back to banning that as well? Maybe a federal ban on divorces? Or stoning for adulterers? The Bush White House, putting Leviticus back in the Constitution where he belongs...
Money for programs to scare parents and kids with the horrors of STDs, but no funding for safe sex programs. Money for abstinence, proven to be ineffective in prevent teen pregnancy (mostly since teenagers--and the rest of us--don't stick to it), but no money for programs on practical birth control methods for when abstinence fails. Government funding for religious groups, because goodness knows we wouldn't want the Catholic Church to have to carry out its missions to the poor and needy with only th moeny it has in its pockets when the federal government has moeny to spare just because some silly old men hundreds of years ago thought that the government shouldn't fund religious enterprises.
I liked Kerry's small spot on NBC after the SOTU. He had the right message: George W. Bush lives in a different world from average Americans. He says one thing and does another. G*d bless you, senator!
Daschle and Pelosi did a good job, too, I thought, with the opposition response. Pelosi spoke of the need for a vision of unity, rather than division, of America being "a light to the world, not jsut a missile" (I loved that), of the need for us to engage with ur allies instead of shouldering most of the casualties and the costs alone. She, Kerry, and Daschle all did a good job of hammering Bush on the economy. Stock gains and low infaltion are good, but they don't make much difference to all the people who don't have jobs. Some of the homeland security goals she mentioned seemed unrealistic, though (100% inspection of all containers entering the US? well, I know where the 250,000 new jobs will be going to...)
Daschle had a nice dichotomy in his comparison of the president's economic plan of rewards for the few with the Democrat's proposal of opportunities for all. Jobs, healthcare, dignified retirement. Fully funded education programs instead of standards without resources.
Final analysis: No big surprise. I'm a liberal. I hated the president's vision, I dislike and distrust the man, and I'm disappointed that Cheney couldn't come up with a more dignified sock puppet. I liked the way the Dems criticized the president's speech, and I think they not only pointed out the holes in his policies but presented a much more palatable vision for America and the world.
And now time for bed! (Too late again...)
