Ran across this opinion column today making reference to the State of the Union Address. It is published out of San Franscisco.
Bush should have stayed out of steroid mess.
....So when President Bush spoke out against steroid use during his State of the Union address last week, I had to wonder if he had helped the cause at all. The statement, just like a ceremonial first pitch, came across as mostly grandstanding, allowing the President some folksy moments in the role of Talk Show Caller-in-Chief.
He didn't recommend any more funding for research to improve drug testing, which still can't detect the use of human growth hormone. He didn't vow to push for full regulation of the supplements industry, which is more closely monitored in other countries. He simply expressed disapproval about recent scandals and called on sports executives, athletes and union leaders to be tougher.
Now...first of all...let's note the thrust of the argument. The author, Gwenn Knapp takes the President to task first of all because of what he didn't do..."didn't recommend more funding" and "didn't push for full regulation". Then she upbraids him for what he did do..." he simply expressed disabpproval and called upon (those involved) to be tougher."
In other words, she takes him to task for not suggesting that government should fix it...then she takes him to task for asking folks to be responsible for their own actions.
Now we go back to the title...the premise of her article...that the President should have stayed out of this altogether. A quick review indicates that her own position gives away the inadequacy of the title she gave to the article.
Because what it is clear she really means is the President should stay out of it unless he is going to expand government to fix and police it. There is no room for the Presidents leadership by setting personal standards of conduct.
And that...perhaps, is all you really need to know about liberal ideology.