The state of the union? Not so good.

The president’s State of the Union address was wholly predictable. No mention of Osama bin Laden, lots of conflating Iraq with September 11th, predictable lies about privatizing Social Security and the words “liberty” and “freedom” over and over and over again. The high point was the chorus of “noooo”s that greeted Bush when he started making things up about Social Security, parliament-style. The low point probably wasn’t Bush, but the Democratic response by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (NV). I say “probably” because I really couldn’t pay attention. They were staggeringly boring. No humor, no fire, no drive, no anger, no excitement. It was like one long advertisement for a local bank.

The Democratic response should have been delivered by Howard Dean or, better still, John Stewart. Pelosi and Reid do a good job as minority leaders (Reid is yet to be proven, of course), but as spokesmen for the party, they suck.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

2 replies on “The state of the union? Not so good.”

  1. I thought it was a great speech, which, for Bush, means an excellent speech. :) My personal high point was the tribute to the Iraqi woman and the parents of the fallen Marine.

    By the way, this real-time preview function is awesome!

  2. “Hello there, my name is Senator Reid. Would you like to be my neighbor? Come here and sit on my lap, little children. Do you want to feel my sweater vest?”

    ::shudder::

    “I am Nancy Pelosi from the planet Faceliftica, come to amaze you with my ability to go 2 minutes without blinking.”

    I think it would have been funny, had I not kept nodding off.

Comments are closed.