Now there's the understatement of the year.
Here's what the Cato institute had to say about the speech last night:
According to a Cato Institute analysis ( http://www.cato.org/new/01-02/01-29-02r-state.html ), the president outlined 39 new or expanded initiatives, up from 38 initiatives he proposed in last year's address to a joint session of Congress, and significantly fewer than the 104 initiatives proposed by President Clinton in his 2000 State of the Union address. Bush made his 39 proposals in 48 minutes--one minute less than last year. This is the fourth year the Cato Institute has tabulated the number of new initiatives proposed in State of the Union addresses. Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz offers the following additional analysis:
"It's a pleasure to watch a State of the Union address largely devoted to carrying out the federal government's proper function of providing national defense. Too many recent State of the Union speeches have involved a laundry list of proposals that exceed the powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution.
"It was gratifying to hear the president say, 'America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law... limits on the power of the state... respect for women... private property... free speech... equal justice... and religious tolerance.' Those are the liberal values on which America was founded, but it's been some time since a president included 'limits on the power of the state' and 'private property' among our fundamental values, along with 'respect for women... free speech... and religious tolerance.'
"This president understands that all those principles go together, and we can only hope that he will continue to focus his energy on the federal government's unique and important responsibilities, and leave other matters to the states, the local communities, and the people."
Would you like their email address so you can write them and accuse the Cato Institute of having ear muffs on as well? Funniest thing, you seem to be the only one that heard what you think you heard -- and with no evidence or "arguments" to back it up to boot.
P.S. Opinions not based on an underpining of argument are worthless. It is the logical, supportable, and explainable argument that has value in a political discussion. Or, where you just here to brawl?