I Liked The Speech
By Erick Posted in The White House — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I liked the speech. I say this as someone who has Bush fatigue. I love the President, but I just feel like a lot of times I'm out there fighting for the administration and the administration is doing nothing. I feel like we're being asked to send more troops to Iraq, but they really aren't going to fight anyone - just hold more Iraqi hands. And yet I am compelled by the President's vision of freedom and I like the healthcare initiative. It's a good start for reform.
The speech lacked the bravado that his other five of these have had. It was much more soft spoken, much more conciliatory, and it was realistic. I think the strongest signals were that domestically the President recognizes he must work with the Democrats and in foreign policy he will lead the country and dare the Democrats to retreat.
It was telling that more Democrats clapped longer and louder for a free Darfur than victory in Iraq. Perhaps that 35% number for Democrats wanting us defeated in Iraq consisted of San Francisco liberals and Capitol Hill Democrats.
I'm not sold on everything the President said. But I'm willing to still fight. I'm willing to still play on the Bush team. As it stands, he's still better than any of our 2008 prospects.
« McClellan Originally Wanted to Attack Media, Defend Bush — Comments (5) | What a Waste of a State of the Union — Comments (108) »
I Liked The Speech 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I feel like he struck the right tone in his speech, he seemed confident but not cocky.
Bush seemed like the bigger figure next to the new Democratic Congress. Despite the election setback, he's decided he's not going to act as a humiliated leader.
A much better performance than his "Surge" speech.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Democrats are, unfortunately, banking on defeat. Bush's ace in the hole is the American soldier. None of Jim Webb's valor can hide this, nor can his outrage cover the fact that his party has adopted the defeatisme of Leon Blum and the Third Republic.
BTW, I don't think we've seen the last of the Republican candidates.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
He sounded very genuine to me, and unfortunately economic populism, though disastrous for the country, is still a big political winner.
As for Bush, I can't stand the fact that he's not going far enough with the surge. I don't see how 20,000 troops will let us win. 50,000-100,000 would have given us a much better chance at success. I was also terribly annoyed with his continuation of big government, ala healthcare (disaster in the bush WH), No Child Left Behind (god-awful bill), and worst of all, comprehensive immigration reform. Unfortunately, he'll get big government if he asks for it now that dems control congress.
There was much more focus on the GWOT, the one issue where the president needs to have our attention, than leaked drafts indicated. As a matter of fact, the insertion of the war-related portion immediately after the objectionable domestic agenda turned out to quite effective. I also was pleased to see the president list accomplishments in the GWOT, along with challenges it presents.
I earlier wondered if Bush even would acknowledge the 700-pound gorilla in the room, Iraq, and instead focus on his big government agenda. He stepped up to the plate and gave the public a clear-eyed appraisal of the situation on the ground. I also was glad to hear him start to expand on what we face beyond Iraq in such a way that the global nature of the war was made clear.
It probably is too little too late to regain much ground with the public, but I was pleased.
"It was telling that more Democrats clapped longer and louder for a free Darfur than victory in Iraq. Perhaps that 35% number for Democrats wanting us defeated in Iraq consisted of San Francisco liberals and Capitol Hill Democrats."
Nail.Head.Hit it.
As it stands, he's still better than any of our 2008 prospects.
Kick us while we're down.