Update (12:42 p.m.): Someone just e-mailed and said my comments about Bush’s speech were on MSNBC just now. Can anyone verify when and where? (Update: Got the info I needed. Thanks.)
——————————————————
I didn’t listen to George Bush’s speech last night, but I’m told he plans to do what he does best: spend, spend, spend other people’s money. True?
And he didn’t sufficiently address the rampant Hurricane Katrina race-baiting. If he didn’t, that’s his fault. When it comes to liberals and the media, Bush is like the proverbial deer caught in headlines. What he’s afraid of, especially at this point in his presidency, I don’t know.
Bush could easily disarm the whole lot with a few “Who cares what you creeps think?” speeches from the heart designed to communicate the essence of conservatism and why it works in ways liberalism can’t begin to. Liberals and MSM hate him anyway, so what’s he got to lose? I wish I knew why he’s so timid and…hate to say it…ineffectual.
I’ll listen to the speech sometime today and give you my thoughts. In the meantime, read what these bloggers have to say:
Pundit Guy: “Presidents who give away other peoples money have always given me a bad taste in my mouth. And tonight, while watching George W. Bush, that taste showed up.”
Info Theory: “While acknowledging his responsibility, he can present no specifics as to what he should have done better. By confining the review to the subordinate departments, he is placing himself out of bounds.”
Funny man Scrappleface: “White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said he still does not know how the text of an address he had personally rejected as “too DNC” wound up in the president’s hands last night.”
Sister Toldjah: “I consider myself a social moderate but on fiscal issues, I am solidly conservative. I am upset at how a Republican-controlled Congress and administration have spent like wildfire over the last five years with very little concern for fiscal responsibility and accountability.”
Louisiana Conservative: “It’s one thing to assist with government money but to call congress and the President compassionate because of it is misleading.”
Heather Mac Donald: “The unstoppable charity towards New Orleans’s largely black survivors is so massive that even the racial demagogues cannot completely ignore it.” (via MM)
Other stuff: Political Teen (video), CNN transcript, Lorie Byrd, Michelle Malkin, The Moderate Voice…
Almost forgot this tidbit. I’m told ABC News’s planned race-baiting bash-Bush session failed spectacularly. The black folks didn’t play along, you see. Political Teen has the video and Lorie Byrd has the reaction.
From a commenter:
La Shawn, you are right about ABC. They pulled a half-dozen black people out of the Astrodome to have them watch the speech and give their reaction. It was a very transparent attempt to get the race-baiting going. It failed miserably because all these evacuees were pleased as punch. And why shouldn’t they be? The President promised so much free money, I would have been tickled to death if I were one of them.
Addendum: Is it Friday already? Good grief. Slow down.
Update: OK, I’ve listened to the speech. The first and last third were inspirational, but the middle justifies the “sugar daddy” title. More government handouts. How many of the displaced are willing to accept a job and work for a living when the government is giving away houses, apartments, and money like it’s Christmas? (Remember the 2K debit cards?) Many of the evacuees, at least the ones shown on TV during the aftermath, were living on government subsidies in the first place.
Subsidizing “poor” people will not keep them out of poverty. The empowerment of a can-do attitude, a strong work ethic, and the pride and dignity that come with supporting yourself without the government’s help are a few things Bush needed to talk about. Didn’t hear it. Just more skin color set-aside programs (money) for “entrepreneurs” and checks for people already feeding at the government trough.
What Bush proposes is not an improvement; it’s just a lateral, welfare-dependent move to different cities and states. It’s certainly not his job to vanquish poverty. That’s the job of individuals. But an honest speech would’ve acknowledged that government dependency does not improve lives. Part of the reason so many were stranded in the storm without food and water in the first place is because they were too dependent on the government for subsistence. Why couldn’t he say that?
Another Update: In America, many are duped into believing that the only way to have equal rights is for everyone to have equal resources. In all of human history, such has never been nor will ever be. Ironically, diversity, which liberals claim to love, is the main reason why.
Some people work hard; others are lazy. Some are more generous, motivated, talented, driven, etc., and others are not. No amount of government cash will ever change human nature. If the failure of half a century worth of social programs, despite billions upon billions of dollars, doesn’t prove it to you, you’re willfully deaf and blind.
Sane Nation: “Above all, let’s not buy into a mass-contrition experience based on some idea that the way to expiate the ‘sin’ of our lack of preparedness is to throw massive money in the wrong directions with no real accountibility.”
