At least one political analyst thinks it's a bad idea for Tim Kaine to deliver the Democrats' State of the Union response. According to Nathan Gonzalez in The Rothenberg Political Report, "Kaine wasn't elected governor of Virginia by demonizing President Bush." In addition, Gonzalez argues:
Becoming the point-person for the Democratic Party in a nationally-televised doesn't match the definition of non-partisan, even though he may deliver a softer, less partisan speech than other responses in the past. And by becoming a face of the national party, it hurts his ability to stress his own background and values that helped him get elected.While the opportunity to address the nation is tempting to any politician with a pulse, Kaine may have more to lose than he has to gain.
I strongly disagree. Since when is addressing the nation and delivering the loyal opposition's rebuttal to the President's State of the Union address anything other than a great honor? And how is this not a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Tim Kaine to sell his "sensible centrist" Democratic philosophy to the rest of the country, those benighted souls (ha) who haven't had the honor and privilege of getting to know him as we have here in the Commonwealth? I don't get it.
For my part, I am proud that Tim Kaine has been selected to deliver the State of the Union rebuttal, and am sure he will do a superb job. As he always does. And to those who doubt him, I would simply quote that great political philospher Bart Simpson: "Eat my shorts!" (Sorry, I will now proceed to the blackboard and write 500 times, "I will not cite Bart Simpson as a great political philospher here at Raising Kaine. I will not cite Bart Simpson as a great political phiosopher here at Raising Kaine....")