Media Roundup

OK, I've had about 14 hours to cool down from the State of the Union
address. I will now present a fair and balanced roundup of critiques
from various online sources:
First, a scathing editorial in today's New York Times. A definite must-read:

When the president delivers his State of the Union address,
we like to listen respectfully and respond politely. It is always easy
to find things worth applauding. Last night, for instance, President
Bush mentioned job retraining, immigration law reform and programs to
help newly released prisoners re-enter society. The impulse is always
to split the difference — to decry the ideas we disagree with and
then note the ones we like. This time, such evenhandedness seems
impossible. The president's domestic policy comes down to one
disastrous fact: his insistence on huge tax cuts for the wealthy has
robbed the country of the money it needs to address its problems and
has threatened its long-term economic security. Everything else is
beside the point.
[...]
It is actually a cruel hoax to pretend that Washington can afford to do
anything new, even with the modest grab bag of small new initiatives
and familiar retreads suggested by the president. In that context, his
decision last night to re-endorse the Social Security overhaul plan
from his last campaign was terrifying.

The lead editorial in the Washington Post was equally critical:

Mr. Bush offered deserved tribute to the sacrifices of U.S.
servicemen and servicewomen in Iraq. But he provided no accounting of
his mistaken or exaggerated allegations about Iraq's weapons in his
State of the Union address one year ago. Instead he tried to cover the
gap between what he described and what has been found with a brief and
tortured reference to "weapons-of-mass-destruction-related program
activities." He underlined his intention to transfer sovereignty to an
Iraqi administration by the end of June, but he failed to explain how
he will overcome political obstacles to that plan or how many troops
and how much spending may be needed in Iraq beyond this year. In the
face of record deficits, a costly new prescription drug program, and
mounting costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was as breathtaking as it
was unsurprising that Mr. Bush repeated his call to make the tax cuts
permanent. We would welcome a responsible national debate about putting
Social Security on a sustainable financial path, but Mr. Bush's breezy
revival of his 2000 campaign push for private accounts failed to
confront the complexities and costs of such a change. He devoted twice
as much time to rallying professional athletes to "get rid of steroids
now" as he did to Social Security reform.

Amazingly, the most critical analysis of the SOTU address came from USA
Today. This is especially good news because USA Today has the highest
readership (by far) of any daily newspaper in America. They were
absolutely relentless today in their point-by-point analysis:

• He promised to help create new jobs but didn't mention that 2.3 million jobs have been lost during his tenure.

• He promised that Iraq will govern itself. He didn't add that
  he's working feverishly to overcome Iraqi objections so he can salvage
  his goal of ending the occupation by July 1.
• He promised to cut the federal budget deficit � expected
  to be a record $500 billion this year � in half over five years. He
  didn't say that his tax cuts and spending contributed to the deficit
  and infuriated some conservative supporters. But the small price tags
  on new initiatives suggested that he feels boxed in by the deficit.
  
• Bush's assertion that marriage is the union of a man and a
  woman was for conservatives. About 4 million evangelical Christians,
  many of whom support a constitutional ban on gay marriage, didn't vote
  in 2000. He needs them this year.
  
• His plan to give $120 million to community colleges to train
  workers is an appeal to people in manufacturing states who have lost
  their jobs or worry that they soon will. Those states, including Ohio
  and Michigan, are vital to Bush's re-election strategy.
  
• The revival of Bush's proposal to allow some workers to
  invest some of their Social Security withholdings in the stock market
  is meant to appeal to younger voters who might otherwise be attracted
  to Democratic candidates.
  
• Giving tax credits to people who buy "catastrophic care"
  health insurance is supposed to win support from seniors � critical
  voters in Florida, Iowa and other closely contested states.
  
• Proposals to spend $300 million over four years helping
  former prisoners find jobs and to increase funding for school drug
  testing by $23 million are meant to showcase his compassion. Target
  voters: suburban mothers and moderates.

If this kind of coverage continues, Bush is going to have a very tough
time in November.
Finally, I'm kind of surprised that no one mentioned the round of
applause that erupted when Bush mentioned the imminent expiration of
the Patriot Act. That was a highlight for me. I also appreciated how
the cameras (on C-SPAN at least) focused in on Rick Santorum when Bush
started spewing his anti-gay rhetoric. For those not in on the joke,
check out the work-unfriendly Spreading Santorum for more info.

Update
Here's a point-by-point analysis of Bush's campaign speech.

Posted by flow Frazao on January 21, 2004 at 12:08 PM | Permalink