On Tuesday night, you either heard not only the state of, but also resolutions for, the compulsory and impending situations in which we find our nation (i.e. you listened), or — like Gary Locke — you missed the memo (and perhaps the speech in whole). The party’s choice of Gary Locke to deliver the Democratic response is as much of an enigma as what nuclear arms Hussein has under his belt at the moment.
There’s no necessity for a country on the brink of war to hear from a governor; particularly not one whose approval ratings continue to plummet and is responsible for Washington’s impending $2.5 billion budget deficit. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that after combing through the politicians of the Democratic Party, not a single one was found to be competent of listening to the State of the Union address before giving an impromptu response. Like Fox news correspondents, I too wondered if there was in fact a Democrat who could — only after having watched the address — ignore the pre-printed cue cards and give an unrehearsed reply. Perhaps then Locke’s prepared discourse would’ve seemed as inappropriate and immaterial as it proved to be.
Locke expressed the Democratic Party’s desire for an economy that boasts tax relief for all citizens, but most importantly the working and middle classes; opportunities and benefits for the unemployed and a decrease in the mammoth deficits our nation has incurred. He conveys these notions as though they are the antithesis of Bush’s plans, and seems to attribute the state of the economy almost entirely to Bush’s administration. Perhaps he is unaware of the “recession, terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and stock market declines” to which Bush accredits some of our nation’s recent exorbitant expenses. Did he hear when Bush explained the simple cycle under which the economy operates, in which he met the needs and desires expressed in the Democratic response to his address?
“Jobs are created when the economy grows; the economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest; and the best, fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place.” This is what Locke — as the Democratic Party’s representative — calls “upside down economics.” Stop standing on your head.
As for health care, Locke urges us to “read the fine print: his plan only helps seniors who leave traditional Medicare.” Where did he read this fine print? Was it after Bush’s plans to allot $400 billion to fortifying Medicare and before his intensive tackle of the legal mumbo-jumbo that imparts inflated costs on medical assistance?
Locke briefly addressed homeland security. Instead of proposing any solutions or schemes for the current problem homeland security poses, he told of an isolated incident in which Washington rejected the entry of a man who brought with him explosives. Congratulations. Where did he get those explosives? Were they possibly attained through liaisons with terrorist groups or Iraq? Should we not investigate this man-beast Hussein who has deceived the United States and United Nations for more than a decade? Can any one of us confidently say that Hussein would not impart the power of these weapons to al-Qaida?
“Imagine those 19 hijackers … armed by Saddam Hussein.” It is our place — as one of the world’s super-powers — to investigate this measure for the safety of not only our homeland, but of others; like Bush reminded us, “This threat is new; America’s duty is familiar.”
Locke’s Democrats agree that Hussein is a threat because it is the most logical and decent response to such a matter. But we will not automatically deter this man by “insisting on strong and unfettered inspections” as Locke proposes. He may have disregarded Bush’s two hour speech, but he cannot ignore the past twelve years, during which we have insisted upon such inspections to no avail.
How a man can give a response to the State of the Union having ostensibly missed or misinterpreted the main points is far beyond my realm of understanding. Best wishes to Locke and his approval ratings.