I don't really have much interest in harping on most of the president's speech. Obviously I think he's been a failure and doesn't deserve reelection. Nothing he said changed that view. Though it's clear that if you want to ban abortion, marginalize gay Americans, and send federal tax dollars (as the Republicans say "your money") into the hands of church leaders like those ever-pleasant Messrs. Falwell and Robertson - Bush is the candidate for you. But if you're not voting on those issues, well, here's what I noticed most.
The lack of specifics all-night long was striking, but never more so than in his reference to tax policy. He wants taxes "reformed and simplified". That sure clears that up. Actually, out of all the things he said last night, this is arguably the top reason not to vote for him. Why? It sets up a push for the adoption of a national sales tax or a flat tax. Either one of those measures would seriously screw low and middle-income Americans. We already know who he favors when it comes to tax policy. I second Bush term could reditribute the tax base onto the back of the middle class. How thrilling is that!
He wants local people to be in charge of their schools? That certainly hasn't been his policy for the last four years. Do I smell a flip-flop? Oh, I suppose it's just his typical insistence on talking the talk even when it's abundantly clear he's not walking the walk.
The anti-Kerry straw-men were so obvious and boring. Kerry opposes Medicare reform? Uh, no. He opposes some of the minor moves you want to make on that topic. And when it comes to big Medicare reform you're just as terrified of proposing it as he is Mr. President. We're on track to have debts of a size we've never seen if we don't do something about that. So where have you been on that for the last 4 years?
He attacks Kerry for proposing spending increases and says expanding government is the politics of the past? Ummm, Mr. President has anyone told you what's been in your laws and budgets for the last four years? You've been spending money hand-over-fist (and promised to not propose a single balanced budget in the next four years or leave your successor in 5 years in a position to do so!) and your interest in big government is positively Nixonian.
Activist judges are bad? Really? Does that include 5 people who were wearing black robes in December of 2000? Huh. I'm suddenly seeing the last four years in an entirely different light.
And as to his line that "we must confront threats to America before it is too late" I have my usual response - North Korea. Though I suppose it would have been nice if he'd confronted al Qaeda in the winter, spring or summer of 2001 as well.
All of which isn't to say it wasn't an effective speech. For a lying failure trying to cover his ass he did a swell job.
Posted by armand at September 3, 2004 03:24 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics