Kevin Drum has a list of newspaper reaction to Bush’s speech.

I actually watched a good deal of the President’s speech today from New Orleans. I’ve taken to reading transcripts after the fact because Bush’s speaking style is often distracting. Today, however, he was actually not that bad. I think this was a heartfelt speech, well written and well delivered. It’s about time.

I’ll link up to some commentary about the speech at the end, but I’d like to focus on one thing going through my head during the speech. The speech had two major thrusts. The first was to blunt the bulk of the criticism and the second was to remind his base why they love him as President. What’s interesting to me is that I don’t think he’d be giving this particular speech right now if it weren’t for the job the media has done covering this story. The reporters on the scene really delivered to America a picture of the problems that existed in New Orleans and around the area. Watching CNN the next day was like looking at the aftermath of some natural disaster that happened in a third world country. Watching Anderson Cooper get testy with a Senator giving a laundry list of meaningless “thank yous” to other Senators and Washington leaders gave us a hint that, hey, this might be serious.

So far, the media has to be given credit (or blame) for putting Bush on the defensive. They surveyed the destruction and what their eyes were telling them and then told it like they saw it to the American people. No, he said/she said nonsense, no false balance. They looked at the situation and made a call that the response wasn’t fast enough. The call was intellectually honest and not contrived like many common claims about political reporting.

And if Bush’s unprecedented (for him) acknowledgment of mistakes made on his watch was a result of the reporting, think of what they could do if they took their daily jobs as seriously as they took this disaster.

Because we’re going to need the scrutiny over the next few years. In Bush’s speech and in Congress this week, an unprecedented amount of money has been allocated for the reconstruction and revitalization of New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The funds have been allocated in the same chunks Congress allocated for Iraq. Oversight will have to come from the public by way of the media with Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court in the hands of Republicans or their appointees. Omitted from the President’s speech today was that Bush put Karl Rove in charge of the reconstruction. His chief political advisor who, by the way, is as qualified as Mike Brown in disaster recovery…

Then there’s that whole Tom DeLay thing… Can’t we cut anything to pay for these expenses? We have military operations and reconstruction going on in two foreign countries. Then, we have the reconstruction along the Gulf Coast. How about a 1 point rate increase for the top bracket? The size of their 2001 tax cut would be the same as the rest of us. Or, let’s cut some of the pork.

Here are some of the folks commenting on the speech:

ThinkProgress has GOP talking points for the speech.
MyDD has some thoughts on the speech.
Billmon has commentary on DeLay’s foolishness.

I’ll have more in the micro blog to the right as I find it.

Update:Another blog commentary at ReidBlog.

From today’s speech at the VFW National Convention:

Bush said the only acceptable outcome is “total victory over the terrorists and their hateful ideology.” He did not define what he meant by total victory.

Bit of a cheap shot by the Post there, but entirely on point. What the heck is total victory? Specifics, man, specifics! (this was the first of the series of speeches that Bush hopes will shore up support for the war)

Karl Rove is a jackass.

I think at some point it becomes a question of why people want to win elections. To win? Or to do something?

For some, it’s about some level of patriotism or idealism that starts the ball rolling. For others it’s about dealing with a particular issue, whether it be high taxes, an environmental disaster, or dealing with a foreign threat. Then, I think, there is the craven lot that simply craves power and craves winning for it’s own sake. It is this lot that believes that winning divisively is no worse than winning on ideas. It’s a member of this lot that would denigrate the patriotism or loyalty of half of our country simply because they disagree with his policy. It’s a selfish, short-sighted politician who just wants to win with no concern about how his actions affect the nation at large.

Karl Rove, in my opinion is one of those selfish, craven, short-sighted politicians who could care less about the long tern health of our nation in order to win the next election. His recent comments were beyond the pale for a person in government. On top of that, they were hateful and ignorant. Numerous bloggers have pointed out that New York City is a relatively liberal town. It’s a Democratic city. To claim that a majority of the residents of that city wanted to “offer therapy and understanding for our attackers” after 9/11 insults all Americans.

But the sad thing is that this isn’t about “different philosophies and our different approaches” to the war on terror. There’s nothing illustrative about Rove’s comments or his candidates’ tactics. They don’t inform you. They don’t enlighten you. They aren’t about actually convincing anyone of anything. Instead, it’s simply about winning the election just to win. Not because they actually think they have a better plan for the problems of the day, but simply because winning is fun.

It makes me sad that this is all modern politics is about. It saddens me more that Rove and the Republicans have perfected this to the point that they can get away with claiming that 48% of the country hates America. That people that opposed going to war in Iraq are sympathizers with the terrorists that attacked our nation. There has to be line, right? I mean, at what point is the cost of winning by dividing America not worth paying? I wish we had a government that actually tried to improve voter approval by improving their policies or their execution. Instead, we get these idiots who simply fan the flames of division in order to distract people from their mistakes.

In a weird twist, but one that fits the pattern I’m describing here, it looks like the RNC and the White House may have planned this little firestorm knowing the controversy it would kick up. It’s sketchy, but it’s interesting to see the Republicans responding to this.

This was probably incoherent because I’m tired and annoyed. So, I’ll finish with some thoughts from the folks that are better writers than me.

From the Daou Report:

I’m devoting much of today’s report to Karl Rove’s vile comments denigrating half of the American public. My office overlooks Ground Zero, and I’m looking at the gaping footprint as I write this. My wife and I were in New York that day, on our way to the WTC for a morning meeting. A chance phone call dragged on a few minutes too long and most likely saved our lives. I lost friends in the towers, and when I walk past the site, as I do almost every evening, the pain is as real as it was on September 11th, 2001.

I spent my youth in Beirut during the height of Lebanon’s civil war, and I fought the Syrian presence in Lebanon long before the “Cedar Revolution.” I watched young boys give their lives and mothers cradle their dying children in blood-soaked arms. I’ve seen more bloodshed, war, and violence, and shot more guns than most of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists combined. I wouldn’t presume to question the strength or dignity of a stranger, and I pity those who blithely push the right=strong, left=weak rhetoric. It says far more about their inadequacies than it does about the target of their scorn. Today, Karl Rove took that rhetoric to a new, filthy low.

and, appropriately snarky from Atrios:

For the record, my motives aren’t to get more troops killed. If those were my motives I’d ship them off to a war on false pretenses without sufficient equipment to keep them safe.

(thx to Atrios and AmericaBlog for most of the links above)

Heidi and I had the pleasure of seeing General Wesley Clark speak tonight at Heidi’s school. The event was a fundraiser for the school, though it turned out that General Clark’s daughter-in-law was a grad. His speech was interesting, as was the Q&A period after. I was too chicken to go up to the microphone, so no questions from me.

His speech really focused on foreign policy which made me pretty happy. The most interesting of his observations came about the rise of China and India into the global arena and essentially that we (Americans) needed to focus beyond the Middle East when looking at America’s strategic goals. I think he was advocating that making sure the rise of China and/or India didn’t result in economic and diplomatic losses for us in the future. What was interesting is that he felt the Chinese were much closer to at least entering our neighborhood in terms of gross GDP than I’ve heard or would’ve guessed (he said 10-15 years; I would’ve thought 25 or more). He’s a good speaker and I encourage folks to see him if they have the opportunity.

I can’t help but feel that Kerry should have chosen Clark as his VP candidate. I would’ve loved to have seen the debate between Cheney and Clark. Edwards was a great candidate on domestic issues but, quite frankly, the Kerry had those votes sewn up. Clark is a southern guy (home in Little Rock, AK) and he’s a smart foreign policy guy. Of course, Heidi leaned over at one point and asked, “And how’s this guy a Democrat?” I got her point, but her definition seems too narrow. (more on that some other day when I’m less tired)

Clark is unabashedly honest about needing to maintain our strength both economically and militarily. Heidi read him as advocating maintaining our global economic and military hegemony by holding back China and India. I read it (more correctly, I think ) as a call to focus on the changing landscape so that we might change it from being a zero sum game. China and India growing and bringing their populations out of poverty is a good thing, but if we sit back we guarantee that we will be reacting to changing circumstances instead of taking action to secure our options and build the partnerships to keep America strong in the future (for example a strong relationship with Europe).

The most interesting response tonight was to a question by a serviceman who served under Clark in Kosovo. A K-O grad and a lawyer, he pointed out that few folks in the prep school socioeconomic circles serve in the military. Clark’s response was, again, honest. He first agreed and recounted a couple of conversations he’s had with wealthy folks who are gung ho for war until Clark or his wife asked them whether they would allow their children to serve. He then defended the choice to go into the military and claimed it was the best thing for young Americans. The interesting thing was that he phrased it by saying that the parents were the ones saying no. He asked the audience to allow their children to “make that choice” to serve. Interesting perspective.

Oddly enough, it applied directly to me. I wanted to join the Navy as a high school kid but my parents absolutely forbade it. I could do a lot of other things but joining the Navy was absolutely out. So, I didn’t and ended up at Hopkins and all the way along until I got here. I don’t have any regrets… I probably wouldn’t be with Heidi now if I had served.

After the speech and Q&A, he was signing books. We bought a copy and got in line. It was pretty cool. I got to shake his hand twice and say hi. Not often you get to say hi to a man who’s done the things he’s done and had the responsibilities he’s had. Seeing the “To Sujal and Heidi” scrawled on the inside of the book is pretty cool, too. I’m happy we went tonight. I hope he considers running again in 2008. I’m not sure he’s the candidate for me, but he brings a lot to the table and brings some expertise that seems sorely lacking for the Democrats. I would be very happy with him as a VP candidate regardless.