Bland assurances...
I am not sure what you thought of the State of the Union address, but it was far from the speech that I expected from a President seeking reelection. From what I deduced, he is banking his reelection hopes on the fact that nobody wants to switch Generals during a war....even an unpopular war. In the beginning the doves squawked about us waging war unilaterally against Saddam, and continued to squawk and coo that we would stand alone in the end. The high point of his address did stymie the anti-war crowd with a laundry list of countries that have contributed troops and resources to the war effort, he gave no real time table for transition of power, or reduction of force in theatre.
In regard to the economy he gave a lukewarm assurance to fiscal conservatives by stating that discretionary spending would only increase by 4% over the next year. Additionally, he held on to the notion that tax cuts and other Reaganesque measures such as spending increases would continue to stimulate the economy. He spoke of personal savings account within Social Security, but gave no framework on how any of this would be paid for. I already know where the money will come from. "Program Cuts". Also had he mentioned any possible solution to the waning job growth that may have captured our attention.
He talked about the sanctity of marriage and pledged that if the court system continued to "impose its will", then there would be no recourse besides those of a Constitutional means to protect marriage. So, the fact that he is against gay marriage is no surprise. Whether wrong or right, most hetero people feel the same way, but are really afraid to say it. However, is this something that is worthy of mention during a State of the Union Address? Additionally, taking such a stance in this matter paints him into a corner when it comes to liberals, women, and the gay community. I remember he had some preposterous plan to focus on families as if making marriage more desirable would cure all of our social ills. What he doesn't realize as an "objective" leader of our country he says. "Marriage is important to social stability....unless you are gay."
I would say that his State of the Union address shows that not only the Democratic Party, but the Right is in flux. Bush is at odds with some of his conservative cohorts because a new school of Republican Conservatism is in session. A school of thought that shows that Republicans want to spread their social and political conservatism with liberal spending. All the Dems need to do is find common ground and the best candidate to unseat the Right. But, with this field of nominees it is going to be very difficult for us. It is too bad we couldn't put all of the prime characteristics of all of the nominees into one person. If we had Edward's telegenic looks, Kerry's charisma, Clark's military service, and Gephardt's earnest record of public service, and Dean's...........did I say Kerry was in the military too? LOL! Just kidding, I never was a big fan of Dean in the beginning, but after his Iowa speech I am convinced that Barney Rubble having a Steroid Rage is not fit to lead this great nation of ours.
The coming months have a lot to show us, but I am convinced to just channel my anticipation toward New Hampshire. That's all for now.
P.S.....Edwards/Clark 2004.....wouldn't that be a great bumper sticker? I like the sound of it even if the "snowball" has a better chance.
I am not sure what you thought of the State of the Union address, but it was far from the speech that I expected from a President seeking reelection. From what I deduced, he is banking his reelection hopes on the fact that nobody wants to switch Generals during a war....even an unpopular war. In the beginning the doves squawked about us waging war unilaterally against Saddam, and continued to squawk and coo that we would stand alone in the end. The high point of his address did stymie the anti-war crowd with a laundry list of countries that have contributed troops and resources to the war effort, he gave no real time table for transition of power, or reduction of force in theatre.
In regard to the economy he gave a lukewarm assurance to fiscal conservatives by stating that discretionary spending would only increase by 4% over the next year. Additionally, he held on to the notion that tax cuts and other Reaganesque measures such as spending increases would continue to stimulate the economy. He spoke of personal savings account within Social Security, but gave no framework on how any of this would be paid for. I already know where the money will come from. "Program Cuts". Also had he mentioned any possible solution to the waning job growth that may have captured our attention.
He talked about the sanctity of marriage and pledged that if the court system continued to "impose its will", then there would be no recourse besides those of a Constitutional means to protect marriage. So, the fact that he is against gay marriage is no surprise. Whether wrong or right, most hetero people feel the same way, but are really afraid to say it. However, is this something that is worthy of mention during a State of the Union Address? Additionally, taking such a stance in this matter paints him into a corner when it comes to liberals, women, and the gay community. I remember he had some preposterous plan to focus on families as if making marriage more desirable would cure all of our social ills. What he doesn't realize as an "objective" leader of our country he says. "Marriage is important to social stability....unless you are gay."
I would say that his State of the Union address shows that not only the Democratic Party, but the Right is in flux. Bush is at odds with some of his conservative cohorts because a new school of Republican Conservatism is in session. A school of thought that shows that Republicans want to spread their social and political conservatism with liberal spending. All the Dems need to do is find common ground and the best candidate to unseat the Right. But, with this field of nominees it is going to be very difficult for us. It is too bad we couldn't put all of the prime characteristics of all of the nominees into one person. If we had Edward's telegenic looks, Kerry's charisma, Clark's military service, and Gephardt's earnest record of public service, and Dean's...........did I say Kerry was in the military too? LOL! Just kidding, I never was a big fan of Dean in the beginning, but after his Iowa speech I am convinced that Barney Rubble having a Steroid Rage is not fit to lead this great nation of ours.
The coming months have a lot to show us, but I am convinced to just channel my anticipation toward New Hampshire. That's all for now.
P.S.....Edwards/Clark 2004.....wouldn't that be a great bumper sticker? I like the sound of it even if the "snowball" has a better chance.
Comments