My Opinion On The SOTU

OK, I said last night that I would give my opinion on the SOTU after I recovered from the NyQuil dose I took to get some sleep. So here we go.

Overall, I didn't like it.

Specifically, I thought the foreign policy section was pretty good, but I absolutely hated to domestic policy section.

The foreign policy section, an area which has always been one of Bush's strong suits anyways, wasn't too bad. I thought he spent a little too much time defending the war in Iraq, not enough time talking about Iran or North Korea (both of which barely registered a mention), hit it about right with his talking about Libya and how diplomacy without the backing of force is useless, loved the permission slip line, but also thought there was just a little too much fluff to make it really top notch. It was during this part of the speech that I thought the Democrats made their worst showing (before the rebuttal which was about as exciting as watching grass grow in the winter) when, as Bush was reading off the names of many of the nations participating in Iraq, they sat there like little petulent statues refusing, even for a second, to admit that the Administration might have actually done a pretty decent job in making Iraq an international effort. I think that it showing a slavish devotion to the UN and I think it was irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. This was a success of the Administration and one that deserved to be applauded as it did address the concerns of the Democrats.

Bush really blew it on the domestic policy side though. If the foreign policy contained a little fluff, the domestic side contained the Stay-Puff Marshmellow Man. There were two parts in particular that I really took issue with. First was his nearly hypocritical admonisment to the Congress to take care with the taxpayer funds. Second issue was the proposed marriage amendment to the Constitution.

Read yesterday's editorial in the Wall Street Journal Drunken GOP Sailors (this link requires registration). Bush has been raising non-defense spending at a higher rate than any previous President in the last 40 years. Congress was voting on an appropriations bill yesterday that would provide $2 million for golf awareness in St. Augustine. Why? Why is golf awareness a national priority? Why is a single traffic light in upstate New York a national priority? Come on! There is no prioritization going on here. And this has been the norm throughout the Administration. Read the editorial, it lays out the case pretty well. Bush should not have been standing up there talking about fiscal responsibility.

And the marriage amendment is, by far, my least favorite of the domestic issues discussed. A marriage amendment is a banana republic tactic. One of the reasons why our Constitution has succeeded where so many others have failed is because it is limited in scope and serves to limit the scope of government, not of the people. Think about it. There has really only been one attempt to Constitutionally tell the people what they cannot do: Prohibition. It is also the only amendment that has ever been repealed. One of the goals of the Founders, I believe, was to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The marriage amendment would do the exact opposite. It would categorrically deny rights to the minority at the direction of the majority. It is an extremely dangerous precedent to set and one that I certainly would not even attempt to set over something like gay marriage. I just can't believe that gay marriage is an issue over which it is worth risking the very foundations of our society, respect for the rights of minorities. It is not a timeless issue, it's a fad issue.

If Bush and Congress believes that there is a problem with judges misinterpreting the laws, then pass a one the is absolutely clear like "Marriage shall be defined as the union between one man and one woman only. The union of two or more men or two or more women shall not be regarded as a legal marriage and no judge shall rule otherwise." Dump all the caveats. Get rid of all the weasel words. Make it plain and clear what the intention of the law is and then, if a judge ignores it, take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Just don't wreck the sanctity of the Constitution along the way. (For what it's worth, I am still mildly supportive of gay marriage if it is instituted with reform to the marriage laws for both hetero- and homo-sexual marriages to make the institution more of an institution again and less of an issue of convienence. See here and here)

Bush has a long way to go on the domestic issues. However, I believe that the upcoming election is being framed in terms of foreign policy which is certainly Bush's forte. I don't think that he won reelection last night (I really don't think that he would have picked up any votes. The speech really was an overall dud.) but he also didn't really hurt himself either. His speechwriters had best get on the ball pretty soon here, though or it's going to be a long, boring campaign.