Shortly after Bruce returned to blogging in June 2005, I found it uncanny how oftentimes he would post on topics that I had intended to post on, with a spin similar to that I intended to offer, but with a style that, well, a style that showed the difference between the two of us.
And then when I started blogging more often than he, oftentimes he would e-mail me thanking me for addressing a topic he had intended to address, oftentimes embedding the same video he wanted to embed or quoting the very column he sought to quote.
Today, I woke to find that Eric and Nick had respectively considered two of the issues about which I wanted to write today — though Nick approached the social issue question through Christine O’Donnell, I will (in my next post) be approaching it through the much and mercilessly maligned Michele Bachmann. Uncanny indeed!
As to Eric’s point, I was wondering if the president had any idea what his actual jobs approach would be. In the first two years of his term, he depended almost entirely on his party’s leadership in Congress to draft his key domestic initiatives.
Will his big speech just be another one of his big speeches, a lot of platitudes, emphasizing broad points, but providing no specifics? Recall that in his celebrated keynote address to the 2004 Democratic convention, the speech that secured his fame (and helped him amass a small fortune), he didn’t put forward a broad agenda on how to solve this nation’s problems, merely decried the rhetoric and attitudes which seemed to be polarizing our country. And said we could do better.
So, I’m wondering if now ballyhooed post-vacation big speech will be like his once-ballyhooed budget address where he’ll offer many bromides, fault those political strawmen who don’t want to change, wonder at the heartlessness of his Republican adversaries, and offer no specifics.
It’s a full four months (and 5 days) after that budget speech and he has yet to put forward a concrete plan.
Can we hope to see a change with his next big speech?