Analysis of Bush's speech
Look out--I am actually going to say some nice things about Bush.
General comments
His speech tonight was good. His delivery was much better than usual. The tone and mood were appropriate and good.
One of the things that annoys me greatly about Bush speeches is the constant repetition of catch phrases, but there was a lack of that tonight (or at least it was greatly reduced).
Another thing that annoys me about most Bush speeches is the presence of lofty language without any meaningful substance beneath them. This was also reduced tonight, primarily because Bush offered some defined proposals.
And...Bush again accepted responsibility for the shortcomings of the federal response.
Because of the foregoing, I thought Bush did a good job tonight. However, I have many questions, and one correction.
The correction concerns what Bush said about New Orleans funerals. He said that there is a tradition in funerals for jazz musicians. That is not accurate. The traditional New Orleans funeral is for everyone, not just musicians. Nonetheless, what he said about the first and second lines was really good. Whoever wrote that part of the speech deserves a lot of credit.
Before getting to the questions, I have an observation that was echoed by Chris Matthews immediately after the speech when he said that the speech sounded like something LBJ or FDR would have given (that's for you, Ray).
Questions
Now for the questions. Bush made many proposals as to what the federal government is going to do, and my first question is how are we going to pay for all this? This is particularly pertinent given our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the enormous federal deficit that already exists.
Bush also expressly said that the recovery and rebuilding process now and in the future will require greater federal authority. This goes right back to my claim that the federal government had already asserted such primacy before Katrina. And now Bush wants even greater federal authority. I am interested to know what people think about this.
A related question is how is all of this going to be organized? Given the previous paragraph, the federal government will be in charge, and to say that does not fill me with confidence is an understatement--witness the current situation and Iraq.
Bush also placed great emphasis on entrpreneurs in the recovery process. Does this mean that the Bush administration is going to start doing things that are favorable to entrpreneurs and small businesses? Speaking as a self-employed person, I'll believe it when I see it. Anyone who wants to dispute that this administration has greatly favored big business needs a serious reality check.
As a general matter, is Bush really going to follow through on everything he said? Judging just from his demeanor tonight, I would say "yes," but his record again does not give me confidence--witness the faith-based initiative (discussed in a section of this post).
The last question raises my one major complaint about the speech: why tie the war on terrorism to the themes of this speech? That is part of the repetition that so irritates me. Bringing up terrorism distracted from the central messages of the speech, and it was unnecessary.
Conclusion
In any event, this was a good speech. While I have serious questions and doubts, I hope that it marks the start of a successful recovery and rebuilding effort.
General comments
His speech tonight was good. His delivery was much better than usual. The tone and mood were appropriate and good.
One of the things that annoys me greatly about Bush speeches is the constant repetition of catch phrases, but there was a lack of that tonight (or at least it was greatly reduced).
Another thing that annoys me about most Bush speeches is the presence of lofty language without any meaningful substance beneath them. This was also reduced tonight, primarily because Bush offered some defined proposals.
And...Bush again accepted responsibility for the shortcomings of the federal response.
Because of the foregoing, I thought Bush did a good job tonight. However, I have many questions, and one correction.
The correction concerns what Bush said about New Orleans funerals. He said that there is a tradition in funerals for jazz musicians. That is not accurate. The traditional New Orleans funeral is for everyone, not just musicians. Nonetheless, what he said about the first and second lines was really good. Whoever wrote that part of the speech deserves a lot of credit.
Before getting to the questions, I have an observation that was echoed by Chris Matthews immediately after the speech when he said that the speech sounded like something LBJ or FDR would have given (that's for you, Ray).
Questions
Now for the questions. Bush made many proposals as to what the federal government is going to do, and my first question is how are we going to pay for all this? This is particularly pertinent given our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the enormous federal deficit that already exists.
Bush also expressly said that the recovery and rebuilding process now and in the future will require greater federal authority. This goes right back to my claim that the federal government had already asserted such primacy before Katrina. And now Bush wants even greater federal authority. I am interested to know what people think about this.
A related question is how is all of this going to be organized? Given the previous paragraph, the federal government will be in charge, and to say that does not fill me with confidence is an understatement--witness the current situation and Iraq.
Bush also placed great emphasis on entrpreneurs in the recovery process. Does this mean that the Bush administration is going to start doing things that are favorable to entrpreneurs and small businesses? Speaking as a self-employed person, I'll believe it when I see it. Anyone who wants to dispute that this administration has greatly favored big business needs a serious reality check.
As a general matter, is Bush really going to follow through on everything he said? Judging just from his demeanor tonight, I would say "yes," but his record again does not give me confidence--witness the faith-based initiative (discussed in a section of this post).
The last question raises my one major complaint about the speech: why tie the war on terrorism to the themes of this speech? That is part of the repetition that so irritates me. Bringing up terrorism distracted from the central messages of the speech, and it was unnecessary.
Conclusion
In any event, this was a good speech. While I have serious questions and doubts, I hope that it marks the start of a successful recovery and rebuilding effort.
posted by WCharles @ 9/15/2005 09:15:00 PM
6 Comments:
very well written commentary. Not that i'm an expert mind you. Very rare to see an American writing in such a considered and eloquent manner.
Just a thought. Perhaps, one of the reasons why History seems to repeat itself in the American context is because they rarely consider global realities unless it concerns or impacts upon them directly.
No fresh perspectives may be afforded by such an appreciation/depreciation of the global milieu. This is exacerbated by the rest of the world, save some, who, due to the cultural and economic hegemony exerted by the u.s.a., also begin to view things in Americentric ways. This will eventually, as it already is, serve to make them devoid of perspectives that could complement American ones.
It's rare indeed to come across a site that deals with non-american matters without relating it to america.
Good site though.
W, how very republican of you to comment so favorably of Bush. Of course mentioning my name in your post just opens to door for me to respond. But, I would have anyway.
I actually agree with everything you say in this post. In past speeches Bush has tried to come across as erudite, but has always missed the mark. He is too folksy. Last night he spoke more conversationally and it fit him much better. But, one commentator last night spoke of this speech as Bush's was of trying to regain some of the popularity he has lost recently. That would imply the speech was politically motivated.
LOL, you are right about the NO funerals. It may have been better to say jazz musicians are an integral part of their funeral processions. That's not something you would see in upstate NY.
How are we going to pay for all this rebuilding on such a grand scale? Good question and it ran through my mind last night too.
And the proposed increase in federal authority concerns me also.
Well, one disagreement with your post.... I am a part of a medium sized business and the increased focus on big business has had a favorable effect on us. Maybe you need to get into corporate law. *said tongue in cheek*
I think Bush's tie in with terrorism was just part of his ongoing pitch to sell us on the justness of our actions in Iraq.
Maybe Bush will carry through on his promises of rebuilding LA and MS (I think MS has been somewhat forgotten in many discussions) and maybe WCharles will become a Bush fan.
Inquisitor, I assume your comments were prompted by the terrorism portion of Bush's speech. As for your comments, I think our current government often ignores reality in general (that is global and domestic). Consequently, plans that make little sense in the first place are pursued, and then when reality sets in and shows those plans to be faulty, "stay the course" becomes a manifested mantra.
"But, one commentator last night spoke of this speech as Bush's was of trying to regain some of the popularity he has lost recently. That would imply the speech was politically motivated."
Well of course there was some political motivation. However, it did not come across that way.
"Maybe Bush will carry through on his promises of rebuilding LA and MS (I think MS has been somewhat forgotten in many discussions) and maybe WCharles will become a Bush fan."
Mississippi did seem a bit of an afterthought, but was mentioned.
As for your "maybe," is that payback for me comparing Bush to Clinton? :-)
Interesting article in the NY Times related to paying to rebuild NO. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/politics/16cong.html?th&emc=th
I'm not sold that we should rebuild, at least not in the exact same location. We should give as much aid as is reasonable to provide food, shelter and clothing - and of course jobs. But, to spend our kid's and grandkid's money to rebuild a city that was built by people who chose to live there is pushing the limits of generosity. At what point are we fulfilling an obligation to our brothers and sisters and at what point have we crossed the line of fiscal irresponsibility?
"Mississippi did seem a bit of an afterthought, but was mentioned." I think in many of the discussions, online and the news media, MS has been a bit of an afterthought. Wonder why that is?
Post a Comment
<< Home