Wednesday, January 24, 2007

State of the Union

I watched the State of the Union address last night as well as the democratic response. I must say, Bush still isn’t very impressive. This wasn’t the homerun he wanted to rescue his poll ratings from the toilet. The speech was entirely rehashed fluff.

Yeah, he made a few head turning statements. Mentioning climate change for one. That was a step in the right direction, but mentioning it is a long way off from doing something about it.

He also pulled the same old “Stay the Course” business from the last few years that is really starting to piss me off. Well, let’s be honest, it was pissing me off since the very beginning, but it’s frustrating to see him so foolishly stick to his guns. Why are we still in Iraq? If we would have left right after the invasion, before the sectarian violence set in, things would have been a lot better. In recent weeks, the war has only gotten bloodier. Why are we still in Iraq?

I liked Jim Webb’s response to the State of the Union address although I think he lacks enough personality to keep people watching. They should have had Chuck Schumer or Charlie Rengel do the response. Those guys have charisma.

But, if you boil it down, the State of the Union address was Bush asking Congress to give his new plan (read: staying the course) a chance and the Democratic response was essentially them telling him that he’s had a dozen chances too many.

And I can’t say as I can argue with that.

1 comment:

Peter said...

Did he actually use the words "climate change"? What an ass. Those words were devised by a Republican neo-con sociologist named Frank Luntz. They decided that by saying "climate change" instead of "global warming," you can appease the left without ruffling the right. Therefore it's probably meaningless chatter.