Category: Politics

Identity By Negation

Jonah Goldberg has a brilliant little evisceration of Glenn Greenwald in The Corner. Greenwald made the following, and altogether too common, argument:

It used to be the case that in order to be considered a “liberal” or someone “of the Left,” one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, “judicial activism,” hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a “liberal,” such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a “liberal,” only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a “liberal,” regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more “liberal” one is. Whether one is a “liberal” — or, for that matter, a “conservative” — is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.”

Which, as Goldberg notes, apparently means that National Review has become a “liberal” publication, the Cato Insitution is staffed by liberals, John McCain is a liberal, Bill Frist is a liberal, and hell, even I am now apparently a liberal too. No doubt I’ll be changing the site’s tagline to “Liberalism With Attitude” any day now…

Goldberg later notices that there’s quite a bit of truth to what Greenwald is saying, except Greenwald confuses liberals with conservatives:

Several readers have observed something that I should have noted had I not been in vent mode. The opposite of what Greenwald and Sullivan is saying is far closer to the truth. So long as you hate Bush or attack him, you’re basically ok in the eyes of liberals. Often, when a conservative goes after Bush Andrew Sullivan will say something like “finally, a conservative with integrity” — the implication (repeated again and again) is that if someone does see things Andrew’s way, he lacks integrity.

As for actual liberals, I get email all the time from Kosites and the like saying, “Listen to Buchanan!” Or “Bob Barr’s right!”

It used to be that abortion, affirmative action etc defined who liberals would celebrate. Now, all it takes is going after Bush.

I think Goldberg hits it right on the head here. Since 2001, and especially since the beginning of the Iraq War, “liberalism” has allowed itself to be defined as nothing more than negation of George W. Bush. Liberalism has lost any sense of overarching purpose and is united strictly in its opposition to the President. It doesn’t take more than five minutes of looking through lefty blogs or reading publications like The Nation or Mother Jones before realizing that every issue, no matter how great or small, inevitably turns into an opportunity for vitriolic criticism of George W. Bush.

Furthermore, look at the coalition of the “right” these days, especially the “right-wing” blogosphere. Glenn Reynolds voted for Gore in 2000 and has always been a lukewarm Bush supporter at best. Ditto Stephen Green. Of the more popular “right-wing” blogs, many of them are hardly members of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. In fact, Reynolds, Green, Roger L. Simon, and others lean liberal on a whole host of social issues and aren’t afraid to take Bush to task on them.

And that’s the biggest difference I notice between the right and the left these days. The right has no problem taking shots at Bush when they are warranted. In fact, I’ve long stated, and it’s still been true that if you want an intelligent criticism of the Bush Administration, you’re far more likely to find it coming from the right than from the left. The idea that the right has “blind loyalty” to the President is categorically absurd.

Consider what happens to anyone who has even as much as a word of praise for Bush at a place like The Daily Kos or Eschaton or one of the other left-wing blogs. They’re instantly branded a “Bush apologist” and a “traitor” to the “progressive” cause – and usually shut down and kicked out in short order. It’s all or nothing for the left these days – either you join in their unending hatred of Bush or you’re not part of the clique.

Stephen Green also notes the disparity in rhetoric these days:

“Spendthrift Republican Congress” isn’t exactly a catchphrase, but I’ve used it five times in the last three years. Total comments from Democrats saying “Amen?” Next to zero. Thanks for the support, fellas. I did, however, hear from a bunch of conservatives who were just as disappointed as I was with their party.

When I virtually assaulted Canadian neocon columnist David Warren for his slipshod essay against gay marriage, I got the same result. Read the comments for yourself, but by and large I found Bush voters (and the usual libertarian suspects) on my side. Not one proclaimed Gore voter slapped me on the back and said, “Well done.” Not one of them said anything at all.

Last fall, I went out of my way to offend Republican sensibilities. I accused Bush and his science council of “tying their shoelaces together” in the race to develop new medicines. Again, the same pattern emerged. Republicans took me to task, libertarians shouted their atheistic hosannas, and Democrats said… nothing.

I could give more examples, but it’s late and my martini glass is empty. Besides, regular readers see it here every day: The right seems to love a good debate, and the left seems to love pissing on them for it. I’m speaking in broad terms here, obviously, but in my experience the point remains.

That is the single biggest issue I have with the left these days. Granted, I still think they’re wrong on the issues, but one can and should be able to have a respectful disagreement on the issues without resorting to the sort of hyperpartisan crap that is currently poisoning American political discourse. The issues we face are far more complex, far more nuanced, and far more important than to be distilled down to either hatred of or support for one single individual. Yet the war in Iraq has become less about American foreign policy, democratization, weapons of mass destruction, intelligence failures, or anything else than it has been about being another stick to use in the flogging of the President.

No matter what the issue, everything on the left revolves around President Bush. Whatever substance their critiques may have, eventually it all boils down to the personal. It’s no longer about policies it’s about the person of George W. Bush. Our national political rhetoric has turned into a massive circle-jerk of ad hominem arguments. Just for once I’d like to see a substantive argument from the left without the pathological need to drag the President into the argument. I’d hold my breath for one, but I don’t think I can go without oxygen that long.

Greenwald is right, but his comments reflect more of a sense of projection than anything else. The left’s current identity is one of negation: all that is required is a passionate dislike of George W. Bush.

On January 20, 2009, George W. Bush becomes part of history, and when that day comes, what will the left stand for? When one’s entire ideological basis becomes inextricably enveloped in the singular hatred for one man, where does that ideology stand when that man becomes irrelevant? The anti-Bush side better start asking themselves that question now, because unless they want to be full players in the marketplace of ideas in this country they’d better have an answer before that day comes.

Supporting Intellectual Diversity In Higher Education

Via Instapundit comes this piece on an effort to help foster and promote intellectual diversity in South Dakota higher education:

HB1222, passed by a vote of 42-26, asks the Board of Regents to report annually on what the state’s six universities are doing to promote “intellectual diversity,” defined as “a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological and other perspectives.”

“The 2007 higher education budget request is half a billion dollars,” Rep. Phyllis Heineman, R-Sioux Falls, the chief sponsor of the bill, said. “It is simply good governance that legislators ask questions and seek answers. Students and taxpayers deserve no less.”

I’ll admit some level of skepticism about how the Legislature intends to measure intellectual diversity, and how much interference is appropriate in this case. Indeed, despite the fact that the bill has already passed the House, there are some worries about how it would be implemented:

Other opponents took issue with a list of suggestions included in the bill on which reports can be based, such as encouraging a variety of speakers at campuses and creating an ombudsman.

Rep. Tom Hills, R-Spearfish, a retired Black Hills State University professor and dean, said the bill would “micromanage” tasks that should be left up to administrators.

But Rep. Thomas Brunner, R-Nisland, disagreed. He said the criteria are merely suggestions and that an annual report is not a hardship.

However, reading the full text of the bill helps show why this law is narrowly constructed enough to not be burdensome. The bill is quite simple, and lays out exactly what the report should contain. This does seem like a reasonable measure to help foster a climate of intellectual diversity.

The fact is that higher education often has a view of diversity that is literally only skin deep. Diversity is more than the color of one’s skin or one’s geographical position. Universities are often some of the least intellectually diverse institutions in society, where each and every issue from anthropology to zoology seems to be based on the secular Trinity of race, gender, and class. The partisan identification of college professors is overwhelmingly Democratic – and far to the left.

I know many people in academia, and while they aren’t consciously biased against conservatives, they have a worldview which systematically ignores and suppresses ideas that don’t fit within the narrow confines of normal academic discourse. They’ve essentially defined “academics” in accordance with a particular worldview, which is why the academy is often so far removed from the rest of society. Conservatives are kept as a minority, and conservative ideas are rarely if ever given much of a fair hearing. This kind of educational monoculture stands in opposition to the values of free inquiry and intellectual diversity.

As they say, sunshine is the best disinfectant, and ensuring that taxpayer-funded higher education upholds the values of intellectual diversity and pluralism is a goal that’s worth supporting. This bill should pass the Senate and Governor Rounds should sign it into law.

Can We Have Some Dignity, Please?

Apparently funeral of Coretta Scott King became just another avenue for Bush bashing – just as the Wellstone memorial service degenerated into the crudest of political spectacles.

Glenn Reynolds notes:

Why does this keep happening? Part of it, I think, is that the Democratic Party is in a state where it finds it hard to get national TV coverage except when someone dies. I think that their behavior reflects another forlorn hope for regeneration. I guess looking at policies is out of the question, though.

On this issue, I don’t care what the excuse, rationale, or reasoning was. A funeral is never a place to score political points. It is certainly an utter violation of common decency to not only polticize a funeral, but criticize a person sitting in the audience.

The Democrats are learning from the worst of the Republican Party during the Clinton Administration. One would think given that they were on the other side that they would do better. Then again the sad state of American politics makes me think that the idea of being able to put partisanship aside for one gorram moment is just too much to ask of some people these days.

Coretta Scott King was the wife of one of the greatest leaders of the previous century, a man who transformed American society for the better. She herself was a great and dignified woman. She deserved a better send-off than that.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds add a link here (thanks!) and the following observation:

MORE: Jay Reding writes: “Can we have some dignity, please?”

Apparently not. And this post by Eric Muller only serves to underline the very point it attempts to refute. The problem with today’s Democrats is that they try to invest the naked hunger for power with the dignity of the civil rights movement, a dignity that they no longer possess because it was based on a self-discipline that they no longer possess.

I think that’s about as dead-on as one can get. The Democratic Party has become increasingly vitriolic, to the point where partisan extremism is as easy to them as breathing. It’s become pathological for some, and that kind of extremism doesn’t work in a democratic society. If you can’t treat the opposition with the barest minimum of respect, you can’t come to the compromises necessary for democracy to function.

The reason why the Democrats keep losing elections is that things like this, using the opportunity of a funeral to criticize a man sitting in the audience alienates anyone who doesn’t share their ravenous sense of partisanship. There are plenty of people who may not like parts or even a significant amount of the President’s agenda, but are so turned off by the level of vitriol and extremism on the other side that they can’t support the Democrats either. As the level of partisanship grows, the level of disgust grows right along with it.

Coretta Scott King deserved better than that. Our country deserves better than this.

The Reagan Legacy

Mitch Berg has a great post on the legacy of Ronald Reagan 95 years after his birth:

Reagan didn’t bring down the USSR – but he catalyzed the events and inspired the people that did. He didn’t bring back the economy singlehandedly – but he extinguished the malaise of the mind and the crushing impediments of the tax code that had held it at bay. He didn’t relaunch democracy around the world – but he left a nation in his wake that believed it could be done.

He was a “dumb guy” – said his critics – who was smarter than his critics.

I’m a speech geek, of course. And Reagan was the last great American political orator. His “A Time For Choosing, the Challenger disaster speech, his speech at Pointe Du Hoc, and of course the Brandenberg Gate speech are just the highest points of a career full of the greatest speeches in American history.

Reagan was probably the second-best orator of the 20th Century (closely behind Winston Churchill). Decried as an intellectual lightweight, he was a voracious reader with an impressive command of public policy. The left believed that he would start World War III, and yet shortly after his tenure in office the crumbling edifice of Soviet Communism finally collapsed – thanks in large part to his willingness to face the Soviets head-on.

Conservatives owe a great debt to Reagan. He was the first person in American politics to truly and successfully advocate and win on conservative principles. Were it not for Reagan’s vision and leadership, America would have travelled much further down the road to serfdom, and we would have all suffered for it. Instead, Reagan challenged the basic assumptions of state power and brought in a badly needed breath of fresh air into the stale doctrine of expanding government power.

Reagan’s legacy of peace through strength, limited government, and strong moral values have become the core principles of the Republican Party – although we don’t always live up them as we should. Reagan’s incredible contribution to this country left it a much better place, and the world he left was a significantly safer one. We should continue his legacy in fighting for a strong national defense, less intrusive government, and a commitment to the values that make our society strong. The legacy of Reagan is a legacy worth continuing, and the his values should be our values.

The Balance Of Power

Tim Cavanaugh of Reason is predicting that the GOP will retain control of Congress in 2007:

The problem for the dems is that they have nobody capable of doing what Gingrich did in 1994: defying Tip O’Neill’s law and conceptualizing 435 separate contests as a single national referendum. The only Democratic legislator who gets anybody’s body heat up to room temperature is Barack Obama, and he is a) not yet old enough to see an R-rated film without accompaniment and b) in the Senate, where revolutions never occur, and where any attempts at energizing the troops will be blocked by DINOs Clinton and Lieberman.

That leaves the House. Fortunately for the Dems, they don’t have as tall a task as Gingrich faced in ’94. Unfortunately, they also don’t have a Gingrich. They don’t even have grich, or gin or even a ngr. They have Nancy Pelosi, the most incompetent politician in the western hemisphere. There are certainly more than 16 vulnerable House seats around this great land of ours, and to the extent those contests get decided locally, there’s a chance the Democrats may get a turnover in spite of themselves. But to the extent that any change in the House majority depends on good organization, a strong message, or inspired leadership from above, the Democrats are sunk. Nancy Pelosi is good at one thing—nothing.

I’ve said it a thousand times before, and I’ll say it again: petulance is not policy. The Democrats live in a bubble where everyone shares their unyielding hatred of the President and the Republican Party. Except the real world doesn’t work that way. Even with Bush’s poll numbers in the low to mid 40s, the Democrats have to have some kind of agenda in order to win. The brilliance of Newt Gingrich is that he could channel the anti-establishment feeling in 1994 into a cohesive desire for change. The Democrats aren’t that politically savvy. The Democratic leadership could be called piss-poor, but that’s an insult to urine. Nancy Pelosi? Howard Dean? Hillary Clinton? Harry Reid? None of those people appeal to anyone outside the hard-core liberal base.

The fundamental problem with the Democratic Party is that the extremists are firmly in charge. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg found that even among the kind of low-income voters that would normally be a strongly Democratic voting bloc, the poll numbers for the Democrats were abysmal. The Democrats were almost unformly viewed as hostile to family values and weak on national security. The Democrats simply can’t have a coherent policy on anything because of the massive internal divisions in the Democratic Party. Howard Dean is reportedly looking to stab Harry Reid in the back. The Democrats can’t embrace either surrender in Iraq (which the left wants) or continuing the fight (which moderates want) without pissing off the other side. So instead, they’ve chosen to carp from the sidelines while the Murtha wing of the party slowly pushes everyone farther and farther to the left. The NSA wiretapping brouhaha is the greatest gift to the GOP that they could ask for, as it once again refocuses attention to national security and makes the Democrats look weak.

Just when the Democrats try to run to the center, the radical left “netroots” that has metastasized throughout the Democratic Party screams bloody murder. The “netroots” are keeping the Democrats firmly planted in the minority by ensuring that a small cadre of hard-left activists can set the agenda for the party apparatus as a whole. That is simply not healthy for the Democratic Party, or the country for that matter.

The Republicans, much to their credit, realize how bad their situation is – the election of John Boehner as Majority Leader shows that the reformists understand that politics-as-usual just won’t work anymore. The biggest advantage that the GOP has is that their opposition is so hopelessly divided and incompetent that they can’t even kick the GOP when it’s down without tripping on their feet. Then again, that’s hardly something to crow about either.

The fact is that despite the increasing ideological polarization in this country, you can’t win by only appealing to your base. The party that is best able to reach out to the great middle will win. (Yes, it’s Anthony Downs again.) The Democrats are trying to keep in the good graces of the Kossacks and the radical “netroots.” The Republicans are trying to reach out to the fiscal conservative base by cutting spending.

The Republicans move towards fiscal discipline is more likely to appeal to Main Street USA than the Democrats shifting to the left. In the end, the Republicans are setting the right course and the Democrats are not. The Republicans have a leadership that’s looking at advancing a policy agenda and the Democrats have a leadership that can do little else than obstruct. The Republicans are setting the issue agenda and the Democrats are stuck in a permanent defensive position.

The Democrats are looking much better in the race for the nation’s governorships, which does help build a party in future Presidential elections, but doesn’t do much to influence national policy in the here and now.

While anything can and will change between now and Election Day, my guess is that Cavanaugh’s bet is a pretty safe one…

Boehner New House Majority Leader

On a vote of 122-109, John Boehner of Ohio has been elected the new House Majority Leader, replacing the embattled Tom DeLay.

This is exceedingly good news. Although Shadegg would have been the best of the three, Boehner carries along with him the same reformist impulses that Shadegg has and will help reform earmarks, cut spending, and lead the Republican members of the House into the 2006 midterms.

The 40 House Republicans who voted for Shadegg in the first round of voting clearly moved over to the Boehner side rather than see Roy Blunt become elected. Blunt is an effective politician, to be sure, but he’s also an effective politician. The GOP needs fewer Beltway insiders and more people who can reach back to the values of the Republican Revolution of 1994.

Congratulations to Rep. Boehner and the rest of the candidates on helping make this one of the most open leadership contests in the history of the Republican Party – or any other American political party.

SOTU Reactions 2006

Well, this speech was pretty decent. Again, it wasn’t great, it wasn’t genius, and it made some bold moves and some less so, but it did the job.

The problem was that President Bush had an opportunity to get truly bold, and he only skirted the edge of these issues. Bush did a good job in the first half on the war and national security, but if we’re going to truly achieve the important goal of becoming a truly 21st Century economy, we need a radical and comprehensive plan to do so. That means a real commitment to nuclear energy. China is working on pebble-bed reactor technology that can provide massive amounts of cheap, clean, and safe nuclear energy. We can’t allow ourselves to fall behind.

VodkaPundit also liveblogged the SOTU, and serves up a healthy dose of snark.

Glenn Reynolds gives it a positive, but hardly glowing review.

Ed Morissey also liveblogged the speech and gave it a positive reaction. He also suffered through Kaine’s speech as well.

I’ll also briefly liveblog Tim Kaine’s Democratic response to the SOTU below. Kaine is widely considered a moderate, and his reactions could be interesting. We’ll see how he does in this most unenviable task.

9:16PM CST: Gov. Kaine is speaking. His tone is just a bit too much like a preacher, and he needs to bring his gestures up. His speaking style is even more atrocious than the President, and he has an odd way of bringing up the tone of his voice at the end of each sentence.

9:18PM CST: The message is decent Democratic red meat, but the speaking style is just horrific. Jerry Kilgore lost to this guy?!

We have learned one thing here. Tim Kaine has no future in national politics. That eyebrow is stuck permanently in the raised position. Kaine’s message is also negative, whiny, and his constant repetition that “there’s a better way” is great – if you actually illustrate what policies constitute “a better way”.

9:22PM CST: And now he’s channeling William Shatner. Really, as horrendous as the President’s oratorical skills are, this is just completely atrocious. If I had taken a drink for each time Kaine says “there’s a better way” I’d be drunker than Ted Kennedy right now. Whoever was the speechwriter for this speech should be fired.

9:24PM CST: Oddly enough, it’s the Democrats who are stronger on enforcing our borders than President Bush was. The Democrats are smart to focus on this issue and try to chip away at Bush’s base – although most people who care about immigration aren’t really going to buy the idea that the Democrats are going to be the party to crack down on illegal imigration.

9:26PM CST: Why can’t the Democrats find a decent speaker? Kaine’s message was fairly decent with a call to come together as Americans, but the presentation was simply atrocious. Granted, this is the toughest job in politics, but Kaine left me feeling underwhelmed.

The Democrats deserve some credit for chosing a Democratic moderate, and while Kaine was horrendous, he wasn’t offensive, which I suppose is a step up.

Powerline gave the speech a good review although they note that Bush’s heart doesn’t seem to be in domestic laundry lists. I did think he rushed the domestic section as well, and his best rhetoric was in the first half dealing with the war and foreign policy.

This garnered a chuckle: “does The Rock know that Kaine stole his trademark facial expression?”

Mark Steyn notes the the intrinsic bizarreness of the concept of an American Competitiveness Initiative. I agree that whole idea is typical SOTU fluff. The last two things that go well together is government and competitiveness. The best way to make America more innovative and competitive is for government to get the hell out of the way. Brian Riedl also criticizes that part of the speech.

Fred Barnes notes Bush’s historic first mention of switchgrass in a State of the Union address on Brit Hume’s show.

The women in the headscarf next to the First Lady was a member of the Afghani government.

It’s off to Family Guy for me – more tomorrow…

State Of The Union Liveblogging 2006

Once again, I put my sanity on the line to live blog the annual State of the Union address, beginning at 8:00PM CST.

And while I won’t be following in the traditions of drunkblogging like the inestimable VodkaPundit, I am having a nice tall pilsner glass filled with delicious Schell’s Beer.

UPDATE: Cindy Sheehan has been arrested by Capitol Police for exceeding her fifteen minutes of fame… I almost wish they’d let them in. The sight of her shrieking and trying to disrupt the SOTU would make her look like the loon she really is – a vulture using the corpse of her son (who was a true hero for his actions) as a shield against criticism. The Capitol Police arrested her for trying to bring in an anti-war banner.

7:58PM CST: President Bush is always punctual, so we should be starting quite soon. Vice President Cheney is at the Speaker’s dais with Speaker Hastert.

8:00PM CST: Laura Bush has arrived. A woman in a headscarf is next to her – possibly someone from Iraq.

The Sargeant of Arms has announced the arrival of the Supreme Court – including Justice Alito, sworn in today.

The designated survivor is Jim Nichols, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. If everyone else is killed, he assumes the Presidency – AKA, he becomes Laura Roslin. Fortunately, the chances of Cylon attack seem quite slim.

8:08PM CST: President Bush arrives in the House chambers – a bit later than usual.

And again, the President wears a blue tie, in contrast to the usual Washington red power ties.

8:11PM CST: Ah, the smirk Democrats love to hate…

8:12PM CST: Bush opens with a memorial to Coretta Scott King. A very nice touch.

8:14PM CST: Bush opens with a call for civility in government. He promises to do his part. Sadly, I don’t think it will impact the poisonous partisanship in Washington much at all.

Bush is speaking out directly against protectionism and isolationism. It is interesting how the protectionist impulses formerly associated with the far right have become a staple of the far left. We can’t retreat behind Fortress America any longer – and Bush is right to point that out.

8:16PM CST: Again, the crux of Bush’s historic and in some ways radical vision is tying the freedom of the world to the security of the United States. For all the President’s flaws, that singular visions is the right one for our time. Democracy and freedom are linked. Bush mentioned Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran as places where the United States will push for freedom. It’s about time.

8:18PM CST: Bush reiterates the threat of terrorism in no uncertain words. He’s starting out quite strong. “We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.”

“There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat.” Amen to that. We are fighting in a battle of ideas, and our courage and convictions are the greatest weapon we have. “We will never surrender to evil.” This bit is almost Churchillian.

8:20PM CST: Bush states that we are proud to be the allies of the Iraqi people in the cause of freedom. For those of us who have watched Iraq develop, we tend to feel that way.

“The road to victory is the road that will take our troops home.” Again, as many flaws as Bush has, I’m quite glad he has the fortitude to see this war to victory.

Bush is speaking out against defeatism in this war. There are some harsh, but necessary words. Senator Kerry simply looks at his shoes while Bush speaks.

8:26PM CST: Bush reads a letter from a fallen solder, SSgt. Dan Clay of the USMC, killed in Fallujah. His family is in the gallery behind the First Lady.

The care and concern the President has for America’s troops is always evident when he speaks of them. It’s genuine, and it helps to humanize this conflict. The idea that Bush is some heartless monster never really matches what we can see in his face.

8:29PM CST: Bush challenges both Mubarak (in couched words), and the Hamas government of Palestine (in no uncertain terms). He speaks of Saudi Arabia and asks them to press forward with reform. He’s right to point out that Middle Eastern democracies may not look like our own, but they must be free.

And now Bush speaks to Iran. Bush demands that Iran end their support for Hizb’Allah and end their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Bush speaks directly to the people of Iran. He speaks of a close friendship between the US and free and democratic Iran. I hope that comes true during my lifetime, and hopefully it will.

8:32PM CST: Bush talks of foreign aid, and American compassion abroad.

And now the President speaks to the issue of national security.

8:33PM CST: Bush calls for a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, which will piss off civil libertarians, but is ultimately the right thing to do.

Bush speaks directly speaks to the NSA wiretapping issue. This is a major political winner for the President. “We will not sit back and wait to be hit again.” A line that reinforces what people already know – that the President is steadfast on defending this country. This might be the definitive line on this issue.

8:37PM CST: Hillary Clinton has a look on her face like “Soon, all this will be mine!”…

8:38PM CST: Bush speaks to the American economy. Bush really needs to show some real vision here. He’s right in pointing out that protectionism and government centralization aren’t the solutions here.

Bush argues that we can’t function without immigrant labor – which gets a standing ovation. Is trying to control immigration really tantamount to isolationism? Bush needs to get out in front of the illegal immigration issue, and I don’t see any sign of that here, which may hurt him.

8:40PM CST: Bush is advocating for making the tax cuts permanent. I have a feeling that Bush won’t get much popular traction here, but those tax cuts will be made permanent. Congress doesn’t want to get caught when everyone finds that their tax bills have gone up. Tax cuts are almost always solid policy.

Bush is stating that we’ll cut the deficit in half by 2009. That seems a bit optimistic to me. I’d like to see a stronger push for fiscal rectitude.

At least Bush did push for earmark reform – Bush is also asking for the line-item veto. Senator McCain is beaming at this point – and personally, I’m with him 110% on that one.

Bush talks of entitlement reform – with a nice joke about the relationship between his dad and President Clinton. A nice humanizing moment for the President.

8:43PM CST: Bush challenges the Democrats after they cheer on killing Social Security reform. What a dumb move for the Democrats. Denying the problem is politically idiotic. Especially when Bush follows up with a call to abandon partisan politics to get this problem solved. Bush isn’t pushing for private accounts, which may be a smart move for him at this point. However, even if we get the option to invest in Treasury Bonds or another government-backed security, having Social Security funds go into a personal rather than a general account is a valuable first step.

8:46PM CST: Bush now speaks out on health care. He’s rushing through some important lines here. Bush also speaks about the value of IT in healthcare, a subject that both Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton have been pushing. Bush talks about making health care portable, which is a key component of real reform in healthcare. Bush also demands medical liability reform, mentioning that 1500 American counties do not have a single OB-GYN.

8:48PM CST: “America is addicted to oil.” True, but that’s as much due to physics as it does with behavioral trends. More about “clean” coal. I’d really like to see a much more spirited defense of nuclear energy. If we’re to have a 21st Century economy, we need nuclear energy. No other energy source is as practical, especially with the advent of safe, clean, and efficient pebble bed reactor technology. I really wish Bush had hit on that and started a real program to advance America’s power generation capacity.

Bush is promising 75% less Middle Eastern oil by 2020. I hope we can do better than that.

8:50PM CST: Bush is flogging more funding for math and science education. More money for research, which is not necesarily a bad idea. But if Bush were really visionary, I’d like to see him offer something along the lines of The X-Prize for various breakthroughs like affordable hydrogen, nanotech, etc.

Bush is stating that we need to encourage kids to take math and science. Bush is promising 70,000 new math and science AP teachers. This is typical SOTU stuff, but at least there’s an essential vision there. The fact is that the market is demanding more math and science education, and the market does more to influence people’s choices than government.

8:53PM CST: Bush highlights the positive direction this country has been taking: fewer abortions, less crime, fewer teenage pregnancy. Bush states that governmnent has a played a role, specifically naming welfare reform. I’ll give him that, but the reality is that social mores are far more influential than government.

8:55PM CST: Bush seems to be rushing a bit vocally, stumbling at a few points. I like the optimism Bush displays here, but the rhetoric here doesn’t quite rise to the level of Reagan speech.

Bush gives a nice send-off to Sandra Day O’Connor.

8:57PM CST: Bush speaks out on bioethics, which really appeal to only a few.

Bush now speaks out on ethics on government. To be honest, I wouldn’t mind him going after his own party just a bit. Sadly, it’s just a line. I’d like to see Bush truly link the power of government to corruption in government – following Lord Acton. Sadly, Bush just isn’t that type of conservative.

8:59PM CST: Bush speaks out on the aftermath of Katrina. There’ are some good lines here, but not a great deal of substance.

Bush speaks out against AIDS, and calls for the reauthorization of the Ryan White Act. This is an area where Bush does feel strongly, not that he’ll get much political credit for it. The problem with “ending the stigma” of AIDS is that a certain amount of stigmatization can prevent people from contracting it.

9:02PM CST: Bush talks about this turning point in history – this bit is a nice capstone to his speech.

Just under an hour – not a bad job at all. Further reactions and analysis to follow.

Tom Vilsack Channels Admiral Akbar

Gov. Tom Vilsack (D-IA) is warning Democrats that the NSA wiretapping controversy is leading them into a political trap:

“If the president broke the law, that’s unacceptable. But I think it’s debateable whether he did,” Vilsack told Des Moines Register editors and reporters.

“And I think Democrats are falling into a very, very large political trap,” he said. “Democrats are not going to win elections until they can reassure people they are going to keep them safe.”

Vilsack is politically savvy enough to see the writing on the wall – his state switched from blue to red in 2004 largely based on Kerry’s poor marks on issues relating to national security.

The fact remains that the Democrats keep having to reach towards heights of rhetorical excess and invent increasingly outlanding scenarios to try to argue against the NSA wiretapping program. Most Americans understand the concept that this isn’t really an issue of civil liberties – the Fourth Amendment only applies to searches which are unreasonable and not supported by probable cause. The idea that this program might be used as a tool for tyranny ignores the fact that so long as the technology exists it can be used as a tool for tyranny. The police have guns that can be easily used to shoot innocent people, but that doesn’t provide an argument for disarming the police.

Vilsack is right that this whole issue is politically dangerous for the Democrats, and keeps the focus on national security where Bush is at his strongest. However, the “netroots” activists have firmly taken control of the Democratic Party, and they won’t rest until the Democrats have pushed themselves far out of the mainstream.

Like The Super Bowl For Political Junkies

Yes, I’ll be liveblogging the State of the Union address tonight. I’m that crazy dedicated. I may even try the VodkaPundit method of having a few, ahem, adult beverages at the same time. Although, I really doubt my liver would last it through the first 20 minutes if I tried this.

What does Bush need to say tonight? I’m with Jeff Goldstein when he says that Bush’s ratings decline is largely due to passivity in the face of relentless Democratic negativism. Bush’s base, and I’m certainly part of that, was rightly pissed at Bush’s idiotic selection of Harriet Miers, his inadequate handling of Hurricane Katrina, and most of all his apparent unwillingness to get out in front of this war. The biggest mistake a politician can make is to let his or her enemies take the political initiative, and Bush has done that. When he strikes back on the war, when he lays it straight to the American people, his numbers go up.

On domestic issues, Bush has also ceded the initiative. The numbers for the economy are relatively healthy even despite a weak fourth quarter. Unemployment remains low. Productivity remains high. The Dow is above 10,000 again. Yet people’s perceptions of the economy are uniformly negative because the media has shaped that perception. People are relatively content with their position, but they’ve been convinced that everyone else is miserable. The best political communicators, like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had the ability to inspire the nation. Bush isn’t in the league of either, but he can revive his “ownership society” agenda that was utterly dropped in 2005 and actually try and defend it this time. For instance, the Republicans made a key mistake in the Social Security reform battle – they pained it as a crisis, then they never fought for it. If it was a crisis, why wasn’t it at the top of the agenda? The Republicans let the Democrats and pressure groups like the AARP define the situation with silly attack ads and disingenuous arguments. Had the GOP stuck to its guns, been unified, and not backed off, Social Security reform would have likely passed. Instead, they got distracted and lost the issue – making it that much harder to revive it later. This nation needs to reform its entitlement systems – not just Social Security, but Medicaid and Medicare as well. If it can’t be done when the GOP has a majority in both houses of Congress and controls the White House, then the GOP has a serious problem.

That’s what President Bush needs to do. He needs to both put himself above the fray and set forth an agenda. The American people are rightly sick and tired of the constant and idiotic partisanship in Washington. They’re sick and tired of the constant sniping, the stupid attacks, the constant negativity, and the corruption on both sides of the aisle. While Bush’s approvals are weak (although Rassmussen has them at 50%, which seems to be a bit of an outlier), the approval ratings for Congress are abysmal. Bush needs to come out in favor of limiting earmarks, enforcing fiscal discipline, and cutting government fraud and waste. He needs to challenge Congress to do better and pass an agenda for the American people rather than shoving more pork into the system.

This will be one of the more critical speeches of Bush’s tenure in office. The war is at a crucial juncture in which the fighting has died down, but we still have a considerable amount of work to do. Bush has an uphill climb in restoring his agenda to the public forefront after a year of continuous Democratic attacks. He has a press that hates him with the fire of a thousand suns and will spin everything towards the negative. He faces a Democratic Party that is coming off the rails and an uncertain Republican leadership.

Bush is at his best when he’s getting down to the heart of the matter. He’s at this best when he’s connecting with the American people. Last year’s SOTU had the indelible image of an Iraqi mother and an American mother who both suffered greatly in this war reaching out to each other in a show of solidarity – one of the best SOTU moments in recent history. Bush needs to continually remind us all that we are still at war, we still have challenges ahead, but the way to win both abroad and at home is not by engaging in partisan attacks, but by working together as Americans.

President Bush came into office promising to be a “uniter, not a divider”, but events have left this country more divided than ever. The hatred from the left is palpable, the right is often clueless, and the American people are sick and tired of an increasingly dysfunctional political system that sees two sides fighting like cranky two-year-olds. Someone has to stand above the fray, and Bush has that opportunity tonight. We’ll see if he’s able to make the best of it.