Month: February 2005

How more eloquent an image than the mother of a fallen soldier and a woman who was able to vote because of his sacrifice? Better than any words. Powerful, memorable iconography. Far, far better than the words the president was given tonight.

How extraordinary, in a way, that this so-far pedestrian address should be saved by the Iraq section. That Iraqi woman in the balcony brings a lump to my throat. I’ve thrown much criticism the way of this president because of missteps in the occupation. But it remains true and undeniable that without him, Saddam’s tyranny would still be in place, terror would still have the initiative, and hope would be dim. His obstinacy is better described in this context as alloyed with something more profound: steadfastness. This president deserves the applause. And his insistence on no artificial time-table is exactly right. No surrender.

In general, a nice and subtle encouragment of the dictators to become more democratic. But: “The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its leadership in the region …”? Excuse me? Tough words for Syria; not-so-tough for Iran. I don’t hear a call for more military intervention. I hear a desire to solidify progress in Iraq and use that as a pivot for broader change. A pretty solid balance, I’d say. Especially the direct words to the people of Iran. They are the future – not their rulers.

We’re finally onto foreign policy … and the speech suddenly improves. Love the dig at Zarqawi. Love the distinction between true imperialism and the force of the U.S. for good in the world, especially the autocratic Middle East. Still, none of it is Gerson-quality. None of it is even close. Bring back Mike!

The preamble to his attack on gay unions is truly a low-point in this president’s rhetorical campaign against a minority of Americans:

Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.

And this is the justification for banning gay unions in the constitution itself. So I – as a gay person – am somehow a threat to “family and faith”? How dare he? What about my family and my faith? Bringing gay people into the embrace of their own families through marriage is somehow an affront to bringing up responsible, moral children? What about gay children? And what about gay couples bringing up moral, responsible children? Are they not members of families as well? Then this:

Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America.

Unless you’re gay. In which case, we want to amend the very Constitution to keep you isolated from the very responsibilities and opportunities we insist on for everyone else.

Sounded like it. In general, I like his point about the gradual and increasing problems of social security. But this rhetoric isn’t very effective so far. He gave the impression that there’s no accumulated surplus that will keep the thing afloat after 2018. And the references to Clinton and Penny and Moynihan … well, give the man credit for reminding Democrats that some of them have long contemplated reform. The trouble is: no rhetoric could quite make the sell in the way he wants. He’s right – but the urgency is a little baffling. If I find it off-key – and I support the partial privatization (as long as it’s accompanied by benefit cuts) – how will skeptics view it?

Thanks, Mr president, for standing up against your party’s xenophobic tendencies. But generally, I’m missing Mike Gerson right now. Bad. He’s sounding like Clinton without the mastery of the itty-bitty. I prefer the Bush of broad themes.

A profile in courage.

I’m having trouble believing this president on that particular issue. 2009? I thought the goal was 2008. And why not balance the budget? You know: like Clinton did.

BOOMERS ONLY? A weird generational emphasis:

Our generation has been blessed – by the expansion of opportunity, by advances in medicine, and by the security purchased by our parents’ sacrifice. Now, as we see a little gray in the mirror – or a lot of gray – and we > watch our children moving into adulthood, we ask the question: What will be the state of their union?

As a post-boomer, and someone quite unimpressed with the boomer generation, have I just been excluded by the president? I thought he was pitching the social security reform to the younger folk?

Generally speaking: pedestrian start.

Interesting to see the inked fingers of many Republicans. Democrats too? There’s no question, surely, that the Iraqi elections have completely changed the atmosphere for this address. To the president’s advantage, of course. Major ovation right now.