There are roundups everywhere, so please excuse my not linking to how I got to some of these or where they're from.
The Democratic Response was given by new Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine. It was, simply, boring. It wasn't bad, it wasn't good... it wasn't much of anything.
First of all, Kaine himself looked nervous, spoke in a monotone, and looked like he was reading off a teleprompter. Apparently, it was his first national appearance, so he likely was a bit nervous reaching such a huge audience. His eyebrow raising was a bit strange, and using the phrase "There's a Better Way" 9 times in 8 minutes just didn't convince me - nor, I think, many other people.
None of that is to say that Kaine wasn't a good choice to speak: Clearly, his religious background was meant to give credence to the Democrats, and that worked. He seems to be a genuinely nice guy, nervous appearing on national television, just like most Americans would be, which gives him that "real" factor, another plus, though too nervous, which was a negative. He's new to Washington, so nobody thinks "politician/corrupt" as soon as he starts talking, which was also wise. The problems are what he said and didn't say.
As Vodkapundit noted:
There's not much to say here, because Kaine isn't actually, you know, responding to what Bush said. If the Democrats want to win, they've got to take Bush and the Republicans head on. Kaine isn't doing that. He's only five minutes into his speech, and he's already presented a longer "laundry list" than Bush did in an hour.That's what I was thinking last night, and I hadn't even read/seen the SOTU address at that point. Kaine talked about Virginia a lot - but not much about the United States. This is understandable: Here's a guy who just won a Governership by talking about his State (or Commonwealth, whatever). He was likely given certain points that he was supposed to make, and tie it in with his own experiences to show that he knows what he's talking about.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, this was not a smart way of going about it. They should have instead allowed Kaine to watch the speech, take notes, and combine that with whatever points were important to make. Instead, as Vodkapundit noted:
Kaine is repeating the same old talking points we've heard for two years now. This is an unimpressive debut speech - and it has DNC fingerprints all over it.It also has absolutely nothing to do with Bush's State of the Union address. Instead of saying why his plans won't work, it just sounds like another "Bush stinks" speech - and it's not all that convincing.
The biggest problem, though, was obvious: Not a single alternative plan was offered. There were no suggestions as to how to finish the job in Iraq; no suggestions for Social Security; no suggestions for cutting spending; and no suggestions for getting rid of corruption. Nine times Governor Kaine said "There's a better way." Nine times he didn't say what it was.
The opposition party's response rarely is an actual response - it's generally a comment on the country as a whole, and what the president is or isn't doing.
ReplyDeleteI think Kaine was a great choice -for the Dems - he's just been helped along in his upcoming presidential bid. As for him relating to the rest of the country, though....
I don't remember seeing too many responses, but I do recall them usually at least calling out a couple of examples from the President's speech and why they disagreed. This time, it seemed to be on a completely different wavelength.
ReplyDeleteI didn't watch it, but it's pretty common in politics to ignore the opposition or the question and talk about your message. "Don't answer the question you're asked, answer the question you wish you had been asked."
ReplyDeleteResponding to Bush makes them look like they're playing defense. By ignoring it, they try to frame the debate the way they want it to be framed. Doing a bad job of it is a different problem altogether, though.
They probably should have sent Mark Warner, the moderate former governor of VA who has a bigger chance of getting nominated in 2008. Or Obama. Or John Edwards. Or Gore. (I'm a Dem hoping against H. Clinton, if that's not clear.)
"There's a better way" reminds me of John Kerry's campaign phrase - "America is going in the wrong direction". Nothing but empty words designed to stir up emotion. No real substance.
ReplyDeleteThe jewish freak,
ReplyDeletePolitics rarely has substance. The problem with "America is going in the wrong direction" is that it's pessimistic and Americans don't like a pessimist. "There's a better way" is a little more optimistic, but it's still negative in that it's a direct response to a negative perception of the present. Much better was Clinton's "bridge to the 21st century," which was optimistic without saying anything negative about the present.
JA - I think Gore or Edwards would have been suicide; Obama is who I actually expected and would have been a decent choice; Feingold would have been a another one. They are serious 2008 Democratic contenders who aren't all the way to the left - but are able to respond well, as Kaine could not.
ReplyDeleteJF & JA - I think you're both right, actually.
ReplyDeleteJA: I agree, I think Obama would have been a better choice, but the Hillaryites probably don't want him getting too powerful.
ReplyDeleteThats the way it always is - the president adresses the house asking for this legistlation or that and then the opposing party gives a coffee table response talk to a tv camera.
ReplyDeleteIt was cool though to see the many interviews afterward. Obama had alot to say. but rahm emanuel said it best "he is asking us for two more years of the last 5"
rah rah rah
blah blah blah
TTC - True. That's why I think it was a good speech, but not a memorable one. (That's what I'll be writing about later, including what he should have said.)
ReplyDeleteJF & JA,
ReplyDeleteThat was my first viewing of Kaine, too, and was disappointed because he was hyped so much. In hindsight, Warner, Feingold, or Obama would have been my choice... in that order.
Ezzie,
Outside of the direct response, in interviews with the press, everyone on both sides of the aisle mentioned earmarks as a way to cut spending and lobbying reform as a way to curb corruption. The pundits all seem to agree that those are the only two guarantees in the next year. They are the only two issues that both sides of the aisle can agree on and Frist has made them a high priority on the schedule. Social Security appears to be a dead issue at the moment in terms of viable ideas being lobbied hard from either side.
John Murtha offered a legitimate alternative plan to Iraq that I am quite fond of, but no one has pointed out flaws that I haven't seen yet.
Yes, I noticed Bush's line about spending, which was great. Let's see it happen.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to check out Murtha's plan, but his last one stunk.
His right eyebrow did have a mind of its own...
ReplyDeleteI would much rather have a very left wing response...to a very right wing state of the union...
Why not Representative Conyers?
Anyway...Thanks for visiting The Egel Nest :)
Bradley
The Egel Nest
croaky:
ReplyDeletesorry but John Murtha is dead wrong. I could explain why but someone has already done a better job than I can.
I agree with JBM: Murtha IS dead wrong.
ReplyDeleteI cant believe he actually took the botched "war on teyr" one step further and made a new mandate of stamping out tyranny the world over. Lofty goals - im wondering though why with all that could he not even mention the genocide in the sudan . the situration in darfur is exactly that.
ReplyDeleteIn any event. yesterday a pep rally about increasing test scroes and tomorrow a cut to student aid . hypocrisy at its finest, thank you dubya.
He ranted on and on in the 04 debates about health care and now - nothing, zilch.
Anon - Interesting comments, but try and choose a fake name. All the anons get confusing...
ReplyDeleteI want to post about his speech itself, but no time! Argh.
I dont understand tovya?
ReplyDeleteWhat specific details did the president give for his phantom legistlations?
It has been less than 24 hours since the speech.
Congressman Murtha has proposed an Iraq plan.
Senator Clinton has proposed a health care plan.
Senator Kerry responded this morning with ideas for Education.
Congressman Bill Young got on the house floor this morning and blasted them for gicking his wifeo ut of the speech for wearing a t-shirt that said "Support the Troops - Defending Our Freedom" (not to be confused with the Cindy Sheehan incident).
the list goes on...
the "whine and moan" tag sounds cool but like "flip flop" it lacks substance and is nothing more than buzzy catch phrases.
TTC: I think Tovya was referring to Kaine.
ReplyDeleteMurtha's plan is atrocious; Clinton I haven't read; and Kerry used incredibly false statistics, though I haven't read the whole thing yet.
On the WhiteHouse's site, it details the initiatives the President mentioned. Otherwise, most of what he discussed are items he's detailed other times (Social Security et al) or things that he specifically will not detail, wisely (Iraq, up to the generals).
dubyas problems was that he never had nay plans. most of his messes are because of his asinine actions without plans.
ReplyDeleteNo plans? You're kidding, right? Look at his economic successes, Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq... doing pretty well, I'd say.
ReplyDeleteno one in the country disputes the fact that he went into iraq without a plan.
ReplyDeletenevermind that jews supported the liberation of a bunch of jew hating arabs, now they are all killing each other.
no one in the country disputes the fact that he went into iraq without a plan.
ReplyDeleteOnly about half of it. And as he noted last night, they've shifted what they're doing there, which is good. More importantly, what are your plans for the future - and how are they different from his?
TTC I guess you don't read the posts here. When you make up some stupid way of handeling things doesn't make them a real plan.Murtha's plan as we already to disucssed is asking for disaster.
ReplyDeleteJewish Blogmeister,
ReplyDeleteI just got a chance to read the National Review article for which you posted a link.
First, that article was dated November. Murtha released an updated plan this past week. Read it at my blog and gang up with Ezzie against me there!
Second, let me say that the National Review article was a terrible counter-argument. I expect more from a respected publication like that. It's main criticism was to call Murtha's response, "defeatism." Much like many of the comments on this thread (saying the Dems have no plans, which as town crier pointed out is not true... saying that the Dems do not have a coherant vision is another story...), that kind of hack talking points parroting detracts from real debate.
The National Review article invokes the memory of Vietnam, quoting a North Vietnamese general as saying, "We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn’t our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."
The author is right to point out similar goals of America's enemies in Iraq. None of our enemies wants to face the American military. We kick serious ass... but we won't for long. As Murtha says, the president is in danger of "breaking the military."
He notes that it will not be long before America is no longer able to wage an effective war in Iraq, and it has little to do with the U.S. Congress:
1) President Bush has cut $8 billion from the base defense spending bill and ordered another $32 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next five years.
2) The U.S. army is the smallest it has been since World War II, cannot hit its recruitment goals, and have seen a far faster tempo of operations and redeployment than the last Gulf War.
The National Review article is worried that "Murtha’s proposal would validate Zawahiri’s belief that the United States is irresolute and weak." Murtha's argument is far stronger than that: the American military is in danger of ACTUALLY becoming weak, and he wants to act proactively before that happens.
Beyond all of that is the larger issue that Murtha has repeated and that the NR article didn't even address: Iraq is not the front on the war on terror and fighting it does not make America safer.
I'd love to hear your responses on my blog as well as at Serandez.
I was away from the Internet for a week's vacation and missed all the speechmaking. I will say that some friends of mine who used to be pro-Bush have turned on him. And the issue that did it: health care. One friend is incredibly upset about the poor quality hospice care that her dying husband received last year. She doesn't blame Bush specifically for that, but she does blame him for the prescription drug plan that her mother couldn't get enrolled into -- and the fact that her doctor had to quit her medical practice because medicare reimbursement had been cut so much. And that was typical. Oh, and none of these folks cared about Iraq.
ReplyDeleteBTW today is Paula and my first wedding anniversary. Yup, we were married on Super Bowl Sunday last year, in Pittsburgh. She is celebrating the Steelers' win!
ReplyDeleteCongrats!!!
ReplyDelete