My initial thought when reading the subject was a defense of algebra as it's important to understand the relationship of numbers. Not necessarily solving for X, mind you, but the interrelatedness of it all. However, it sounds like he's more interested in expanding other areas of math, which might actually be an improvement. I wouldn't consider geometry advanced math, and it's certainly a valuable skill, but algebra is one of the more focused disciplines and not as universally useful. Moreover, on the very rare occasion that I do need something akin to algebra I find that I've already forgotten it all due to decades of disuse.
Moreover, this reminds me of the discussion we had a few years go about common core math learning. I gather that they're actually focusing more on the interrelatedness of numbers now and teaching math on a more generalized basis. This is in some ways a huge improvement as it utilizes the techniques many of us already employ (subtracting something to make addition easier, then adding it back, or breaking a number down and multiplying/dividing its components separately, for example). However, what we figured out was that some people can do math one way while others can only do it completely differently. I suspect that applies here, as well, in that there are some people who will chew algebra up and others that will never grasp it. With something as specialized as algebra I'm not too terribly bothered by making it an elective or an honors class, but only as long as more basic aspects of math (including geometry) are better demonstrated.
While I certainly agree that dumbing things down to cover up a lousy system is a sham, I think there's also a case to be made that insisting everybody learn the same thing, the same way, isn't exactly the best approach to education, either.