Dateline: above the garage and the kids already shoveled the driveway in Portsmouth RI, 22 January 2005
Since so many readers ask . . .
I liked Bush's speech a lot. I liked how he focused on tyranny and oppression and freedom and liberty, and eschewed democracy and made a point about saying we don't seek to impose it on others in some culturally unrealistic way.
I liked how he pushed the big points and didn't mention the current details, which I don't think belong in such a speech, which is naturally written for the ages (and it was Mark Gerson's swan song).
Best analysis I heard was on "Here and Now" from presidential historian who said Gerson reaching for Declaration of Independence linkages, and I like that because it reminds us that U.S. is source code for current era of globalization and that we lead simply because we're just further along in this historical process.
I think it was right for Bush to talk mostly foreign affairs, because they have defined his presidency.
All in all, I found the speech very much in line with PNM's vision, and I think the criticism about it promising too much just misses the point of what that sort of speech is designed to do, plus I hate the logic that says, "if you can't do it all right away, then you shouldn't imply you're going to do it anywhere." That is an asinine slippery-slope argument that basically says, "perfection or hypocrisy--those are the choices."
Those are the choices alright--for non-action. And that's just not Bush. As I said in Esquire this month, the man's is the "just do it" president, and that's what we basically need at this point in history, even if he'll never be my first choice.
| Permalink |
