Bush gave a confident, solid, and somewhat uplifting speech on two important themes, while Democrats offered a laughably sad rebuttal consisting of a Vegas politico bleeding for the children and a Frisco pacifist pretending to rattle the saber for national defense while main-lining botox.
Forecast: 50 years of Republican government.
For a more elaborated review, see Jeff Goldstein, and for a more emotional one, see Roger L. Simon:
Like him or not, George Bush has done something never before done in human history by anyone I can think of — bring democracy to a faraway country that didn’t have it by force of his own will (because there’s no way this would have happened had he not been elected). No one, not even Roosevelt, can say as much.
Polling-wise, 86% had a positive reaction.
This came in the mail from The Revealer. It’s about the lack of the usual religious rhetoric in last night’s speech:
“Holy Ghost Power: AWOL. Where was it? No God. No scripture references we picked up on. No equation of freedom with Je-hov-ah! Nuthin. The American Ethical Union could have written that sad, rational, godless speech.”
I liked that it was rational. Don’t know what to think about the Social Security proposal yet. Have to read more about it, consider. Even a stalwart Bush supporter I know at work is having a hard time getting a handle on the proposed reform.
What’s your take on it?
Found the references to FDR in his speech interesting, strange. Part of a make-over? I recently read questioning responses to an article (Time or Newsweek?) about Bush being a voracious reader (!) & deep, methodical thinker. Quite a contrast to earlier representations, even by his staff.
Bush is supposed to have been impressed by Natan Sharansky’s Case for Democracy, and given copies to his minions. Sharansky is the disciple of Andrei Sakharov who said the inaugural address would have brought tears to his eyes and stuff.