Lefty-watch: Inauguration Coverage

Since lots of bright stuff has already been written on the blogs I like to go to, I thought I'd go to the blogs you don't like to go to for a summary of their thoughts on the President's inaugural speech. Generally, there was agreement that it was a well-crafted speech. Noting one snide reference to Laura's "$700 haircut," and we're off and away:

Daily Kos:

President George W. Bush uttered those words yesterday in his Second Inaugural Address. Since then, the Media and the Blogosphere have spent a great deal of time and energy discussing the significance of that phrase. What a waste of time. If ever the phrase "watch what we do, not what we say" was appropriate, it is now. The Bush Administration has proven time and again that its words are meaningless, even on those rare occasions when they are true.

Talking Points Memo:

What inauguration? Yesterday's posts were almost entirely a set-up to the upcoming battle over Social Security. Only two relative matters:
This, a link to a Media Matters analysis of conservative bias in inauguration media coverage.
This, a link to "The Moose," who said:

"The Moose observes that the eloquence of the President's address was only matched by its disconnectedness to reality ... If he were in touch with the reality of America, he would discover that the country has deep doubts about the wisdom of the war in Iraq ... He is oblivious to the notion that he speaks ever so eloquently about advancing freedom abroad while he imposes economic policies that promote plutocracy at home."

Andrew Sullivan:

OK, he's not one I hate to read. His coverage of inauguration was unique, a mix of recognitions of greatness and snide rebukes. He quoted Instapundit at length, but also had stuff like this:

BUSH'S REFERENCE? I wonder if Mike Gerson and John McConnell were thinking of this wonderful Lincoln quote in their skilled speech: "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." Lincoln said that in Cleveland, Ohio February 15, 1861, according to an alert reader. If they did, it wouldn't surprise me. If they didn't, they're on the same wavelength as Lincoln. Either way: not too shabby.

Chris Suellentrop, in Slate:

As oratory, this was a marvelous speech, an inspiring statement of the universality of American values. But what might it mean in terms of the practice of foreign policy over the next four years? Bush said history does not run "on the wheels of inevitability," but he also professed "complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom." If freedom is inevitable, to paraphrase Clayton Williams, another Texan, why don't we just lie back and enjoy it? Are we asked to do anything to advance its cause? Are we democratic Leninists now, trying to accelerate the natural date of History's end?

Greenbeard in Democratic Underground:

Bush clearly stated the path he plans to take us down in the name of "freedom" and "liberty". It sure is saddening that those once hopeful words have become so tainted. They are powerful words. Americans want to believe in them and all they stand for. They are, after all, words that were once used to describe a great nation. Bush knows that and realizes that few will stand up to attack those concepts and even more will wrap themselves in the flag and attack anyone who speaks against his plan as traitors to both freedom and liberty.

Luckily there are those of us that see through the hypocrisy and are willing to call others out who use beautiful concepts and ideals to wage wars and gain power. Freedom and liberty have nothing to do with power and if we really believed in those ideals we would confront the degradation of those ideals at home.

Atrios:

But, the US generally, and the Republicans specifically, don't really want to expend blood and treasure to go help out a bunch of furriners. They don't want to spend any treasure to help out Americans. Most I think would prefer to mow the rest of the entire world down, or at least wish it just wasn't there at all.

I'm starting to think that people voted for Bush so that he could make things right, and thus justify their support for him and his little adventures in the first place. But, Bush is going to continue to do things very wrong -- and this inaugural speech was a sign of that.

I think Bush got to them with the speech. Compared to the tone of the rhetoric pre-election, this was mild stuff.