Bush's Last State of the Union

Last night President Bush gave his last State of the Union address to Congress. Many were rejoicing that this is the last time he would step foot in the House chamber to address a joint session of Congress, and many more hoped that the next person standing in the well of the House would either be a woman or an African American (but certainly a Democrat.)

It was a fairly good speech by Bush standards. But it suffered from lame-duck-itis. So many worthy ideas (and a lot of stuff about global warming, which was very nice to hear from a President whose administration refused to accepts its existence for much of the President's two terms) but alas, so much campaigning to be done. This last State of the Union doesn't matter for how it'll effect President Bush's last year, but rather what effect it had on the campaigns. Case in point, the CNN Political Ticker this morning whose top story (right now, anyway) has been carried over from last night:

Yes, Clinton and Obama shared an awkward moment and were saved from it by Teddy Kennedy and Claire McCaskill. One important thing we did hear from the President, and picks up on a previous post, was about earmarking. Now in his last year and so with literally nothing to lose and nothing that he really wants from Congress anymore the President is going to get tough on earmarks. He's going to be John McCain 7 years late. He'll veto any bills which contain earmarks not voted upon by the Congress (many earmarks are inserted into conference reports and bypass the vote of the two houses.) Way for Bush to get tough when he's got nothing to lose!

I'm personally not a fan of earmarks, simply because they drive member ambitions in some ugly directions. Their congressional careers shouldn't be about who can be the biggest ear-marker, but about who can do the most good for America. The people's schyzophrenia on this issue aside - earmarks are bad because they do not efficiently allocate money. They do it based upon the political power of the Representative or Senator and not based upon where that money is best spent. I think it's a shame Bush is manning up on this issue so late. He seems to have huge balls on the issue of Iraq, but not on earmarking? Perhaps because the practice is just as popular (if not more so) amongst his Republican brethren as it is amongst Democrats. Senator Ted Stevens was no doubt weeping, though Representative Jeff Flake may have been celebrating.