I thought the speech was well done, although it contained little that was surprising. I was disappointed, though, in the democrat reaction. Their dislike of our president is so strong that the were reluctant to stand even on things as inoffensive as praising our men and women in uniform.
Shameful.
A few notes on the speech itself:
1. Hillary! sat with Lieberman. Is this a preview of the Democratic ticket? If so, who's the boss?
2. The AIDS in Africa initiative was something of a surprise, particularly in the amount pledged, 15 billion over 5 years.
3. Prescription drugs for senior citizens. Why not for everybody? Why should one group be favored just because they are older? Somehow, that seems to violate equal treatment, but I guess I'm not supposed to notice that. I'm sure that Bubba, being a little bit closer to senior status than I am, will be able to explain it for me....
4. Ensuring that all people have affordable healthcare. Why? Health care is not a right; it's a benefit of living in a wealthy society. All the same, I do have an idea on how to provide health care to lower income folks; let folks who got gov't loans to get through med school pay those loans back with pro bono service instead of money. They aren't paying the money back anyway; at least this way we get some value out of it. Instead of a few hundred dollars a month, a few hours a month in a clinic. Seems win-win to me.
5. Call to ban partial birth abortions and all human cloning. Most of Congress favored ending partial birth abortion, but support for a ban on cloning was lukewarm at best. A funny thing, while many who support cloning for research oppose cloning for reproduction, they are not able to articulate why in any way which distinguishes them from those who oppose cloning altogether. They apply basically the same arguments at a different point in the process.
6. "Well, let's put it this way. They are no longer a problem to the United States and our allies" [quote from memory] I really think that this was an oblique reference to Osama bin Laden. He's toast.
7. Allowing Colin Powell to present new intelligence to the UN is a great move for the President. Powell all along has been the voice of caution, and is known to resist the idea of going to war unless all other options are exhausted. Allowing him to make the presentation sends a clear message that all other options are exhausted.
8. Gary Locke's response was absent of any specifics at all. He claimed that the Dems have a specific plan to help people and the economy now, yet he did not articulate that plan. He stated that Bush's plan would force seniors to leave Medicare in order to get prescription drugs, a harge which Bill Frist refuted a few minutes lkater. According to frist, seniors would have access to a plan similar to the one Federal employees have, or they could remain with Medicare.
9. Joe Biden indicated that the President has already scheduled another major speech, to take place shortly aafter Powell addresses the UN. I believe that will be the call for war.
10. No call for nuclear propelled rockets to Mars. Sorry, Richard. Maybe next year.
Posted by Rich at January 28, 2003 11:56 PMFirst, I agree that it's disheartening to see members of the opposite party disrespecting the office of the President and the military by not standing at the right times. However, this can be said every year, regardless of which party has the Presidency, and which party does not. Dem and Reps are equally likely and equally guilty.
Second, if Blogspot would ever get back up so I could post, I was going to say that Bush never mentioned Osama Bin Laden by name. Your point about Bush's oblique reference didn't occur to me. I hope you're right - although if you are, what bigger rallying point could the President have come up with to announce in the SOTU address that Bin Laden was indeed dead?
Finally, I had forgotten to listen for the nuclear-powered rocket proposal. Rats. Maybe next year.
Posted by: Barry on January 29, 2003 9:37 AMThe aid to Africa for AIDS is a Bill Frist exclusive. He is very involved in this issue. I'm guessing it's a reward to Bill for diverting attention away from Lott, strong leadership in the Senate, and for future favors. It's a nice gesture, and probably something that should have been done a long time ago. But I wish he had rewarded Frist by bailing out TennCare.
Speaking of things that should have been done a long time ago, what's up with this 'I'm tonight ordering the FBI and CIA and Homeland Security to setup centralized analysis of intelligence on terrorists'? Shouldn't that order have gone out 9/12/2001? (Realizing of course, we didn't have a Homeland Security office then. Boy, do I feel safer now.)
Posted by: SK Bubba on January 29, 2003 9:49 AMI can think of a few reasons not to announce bin Laden is toast, ranging from innocous to conspiratorial. For example, making the announcement could reveal intelligence sources we want to keep secret, like a mole within Al Qaeda, or some other intelligence gathering capacity we want to keep quiet. On the other hand, the politicians may want to keep the idea of bin Laden around as a brick bat to keep the unruly in line. Which theory you believe is more a function of your preconceptions, rather than any basis in fact. I choose the former, but I'm sure there ar plenty like nofundy, who prefer the latter.
Either way, they guy is gone.
Bubba, I kinda wondered about that myself. I thought that was already being done.
Posted by: rich on January 29, 2003 10:35 AM