The Blogfather Glenn Reynolds thinks this was Bush’s best speech yet.

Captain Ed gives the speech a thumb’s up.

Hindrocket at Power Line liveblogged the speech as well:

On the whole, an excellent job. Bush came out swinging on the two key issues: Social Security and the benefits of the war in Iraq. As usual, the President is his own best spokesman. He made the Social Security case well, but punted, essentially, on the transition issue. For now, though, that’s probably the right approach. Sell people on the need for and desirability of change, then work with Congress on the details. And on Iraq, he was impassioned and effective. The embrace between the Iraqi activist and Mrs. Norwood was powerfully emotional and symbolic, summing up at once the sacrifice, the purpose and the progress of the Iraq war. And reminding us that the military is overwhelmingly behind this President.

Charles Krauthammer called the speech “pedestrian” on FNC a moment ago. For the domestic policy section, I’d tend to agree.

The single best moment of this speech wasn’t the President’s.

It was the moment when the mother of Sgt. Norwood gave the dogtag of her fallen son to a woman representing the country she liberated. I don’t know if that moment was planned in some way or not, but it was an indelible moment. It was a symbol of what the sacrifices of our soldiers has been all about. They’re not dying for oil, for empire, or for some family argument. They were dying to give freedom to an entire nation and make our nation safer. That moment said that and more, which is why it was the greatest moment of the speech.

The President himself seemed calm, determined, and in command. He was on tonight, and looked Presidential. In terms of appearances, that’s exactly what he seemed to do.

The Democrats’ jeers on Social Security seemed petty, partisan, and all too willing to ignore what will be a major fiscal crisis. The most optimistic estimates of Social Security indicate that by 2042 the Social Security system will only be able to pay out $0.70 for every $1 in promised benefits. As Bill Kristol notes on FNC, if you owe someone money and can only pay a part of them, you’d declare bankruptcy — so why make Social Security different?

The biggest problem with this speech is that 2/3rds of it was a laundry list of policies with no overriding theme to tie it all together. Bush has an excellent theme of the “ownership society” — yet he never even used those words in the speech. Maybe that term didn’t test well, but I think it could do very well to illustrate what’s behind Bush’s plans. This is all about empowering the American people to make choices for themselves.

I’d also like Bush to have brought up his space initiatives, but that’s probably not something that would have fit into the speech.

When Bush got into foreign policy, he gained the strength of conviction that has been a hallmark of his previous addresses. He put Saudi Arabia on notice, put political pressure on Syria, and stood with the people of Iran in fighting the tyrannical regime in Tehran. That was classic Bush.

At the same time, I’m beginning to understand Peggy Noonan’s concerns about rhetorical overreach. Can we end tyranny in the next four years? As much as we should strive to end tyranny everywhere, we cannot change the human condition. As long as evil exists, tyranny will exist. We can never eradicate that, no matter how hard we try. We can fight for what’s right and continue to carry the banner of freedom, but there will always be those who would try to subjugate others for their own gain.

Overall, I’ll give Bush a strong B+/leaning towards an A-. He was on point, well-spoken, and had some good lines. The moment with the family of Sgt. Norwood was an indelible and beautiful one. The only thing that hurt Bush’s speech was the lack of an overriding theme in the domestic policy section that made it seem to meander — although that’s a common flaw in State of the Union addresses.

Bush has set the tone and set some very ambitious objectives for his Administration and the Congress in the coming year. We’ll see over the next 12 months to see how many of these he can achieve.

The 2005 State of the Union address begins in roughly half an hour. The speech is expected to last around 45 minutes, probably closer to an hour when you get through the inevitable pauses for pomp and ceremony and applauses (well, applauses from the Republican side and icy glares or curt claps from the Democrats). Social Security is expected to be one of the biggest issues discussed by the President tonight, as Bush is pushing his Social Security reform plan. Iraq will also be a centerpiece of the foreign policy element of the speech tonight.

Bush is a horrible off-the-cuff speaker, but given the right prepared address he can reach some surprising rhetorical moments. The bar by which every Bush address is measured is his September 20, 2001 address to the Congress which will be measured as one of the greatest pieces of American oratory and the first great piece of oratory of the 21st Century. I’m not counting on Bush exceeding that high, but Bush seems to have found his sure rhetorical ground. Expect the word “freedom” to be making frequent appearances throughout the address.

The liveblogging will be in the extended entry, and after the speech I’ll be doing the usual final word and blogosphere reaction posts as well.

Continue reading “State Of The Union Liveblogging” →

It seems clear that barring some unseen movement, Howard Dean will likely become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee on Feb. 12. The only candidate that comes close to Dean is Democratic activist Donnie Fowler, who won Kerry’s successful Michigan campaign last year, mainly by helping Kerry court Catholic voters who might have been persuaded to cross over to Bush.

If Dean wins, the Democratic Party will be committing an act of political suicide.

The Republican strategist side of me wants to cheer this on — a Dean victory will ensure that the Democrats have a DNC head who is so completely out of touch with mainstream America that 2006 would be almost guranteed to be another big win for the GOP.

On the other hand, the Republicans need a sane opposition party to keep them on their toes. In most elections parties compete for the middle. A Democratic Party with Howlin’ Howard at the helm would be focused with laser-like precision on their base, meaning that we’d see more of the Deaniac madness that alienated even Democratic primary voters. For all the talk about how great Howard Dean’s campaign was (and even I was suckered into believing the hype), it produced a lot of money but very few real votes. Even before the “I Have a Scream” rant at the Val-Aire Ballroom, Howard Dean’s campaign was coming off the rails. Inasmuch as the Kerry campaign copied Dean’s electoral techniques, they found them entirely lacking. The enthusiasm of the Deaniacs was offputting to anyone who handn’t gulped down buckets of Dean’s Kool-Aid.

In case the Deaniac’s hadn’t noticed, the Red States make up 286 electoral votes – and all a future Republican has to do is match President Bush’s performance. The Democrats lost decisively in 2002 and 2004 because they appeared weak on defense and out of touch with the values of the heartland of America. Howard Dean might as well be the poster-boy for both. Dean doesn’t even remotely understand how to speak to middle America.

If the Democrats were smart, they’d go for someone who speak to moderate voters. Donnie Fowler has proven he can do it. Tim Roemer’s pro-life stand may be unpalatable to NOW, but it would help him reach out to the Blue Dog Democrats who abandoned the Democrats in the 1980s and only crossed over to vote for Clinton. Hell, Bill Clinton may have been tarnished by scandal, but he’s got the charisma and he brings in the big bucks to make the best party head the Democrats could ask for.

But the Deaniacs have spoken, and they’re about to steer the Democrats off a cliff. Hopefully enough sensible Democrats will jump off and the Deaniacs will take the Kennedy/Kerry/Boxer wing of the party with them.

News reports are breaking the Senator Hillary Clinton has collapsed during a speech at Amherst Chamber of Commerce. No word yet on the cause of her collapse or her current condition.

More as the situation develops.

FoxNews has a short storyon the Senator’s collapse.

UPDATE: CNN has more on the incident indicating that Sen. Clinton was complaining of a stomach virus and general weakness. Hopefully it’s nothing more serious than that.

The Democratic strategy of opposing Bush’s Cabinet nominees strikes me as one of the most politically tone-deaf ideas they’ve come up with, which is saying something. Blocking Bush’s appointments is one of the things that caused Tom Daschle to lose his seat, and now the Democrats are up to it again. The idiotic grandstanding by Sen. Boxer against the nomination of Condoleezza Rice has put her neck-and-neck with Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) for the title of “Dumbest Senator Sitting.”

The whole Gonzales-torture issue is also a non-starter for the Democrats. Most Americans would have no quibble with the use of force if it would prevent another 9/11. The argument that Gonzales’ memo somehow lead to Abu Ghraib is also a difficult argument to make. The prisoners at Abu Ghraib weren’t being interrogated, they were being used as playthings by a group of sadistic prison guards. They want to use the argument that they were “just following orders” to evade responsibility — yet no one can find a shred of evidence that connects the events at Abu Ghraib with anything higher than the negligence of Gen. Karpinski.

Questioning Gonzales is fair game, and the Democrats have every right to critically probe his legal opinions on the applicability of the Geneva Convention. That’s the job of the minority party. At the same time, the kind of idiotic grandstanding that went on with Condoleezza Rice is both ignorant and politically foolish. If the Democrats keep playing by that rulebook, the GOP will enter into future election cycles with a 286 electoral vote head start — ensuring permanent minority status for the Democrats.

At the same time, some of the Democrats get the picture. Hillary Clinton voted to confirm Rice. However, “moderate” Democrat Evan Bayh voted against Rice. It’s clear that both are gunning for 2008, and while Bayh is following the failed strategy of embracing the left, Clinton is looking to run a 50-state campaign – which is why the Democrats would be wise to follow their winners rather than embrace the positions that have lost them three straight election cycles.

I’m starting to think that Hillary Clinton is by far the smartest Democrat out there. As the Howard Dean wing of the party leads themselves lemming-like off the political cliff, Hillary Clinton is poising herself as a centrist. Which means that Hillary understands that a hard-left liberal can’t win an election in this country, and that she has every intention of running in 2008. She’s gotten tough on immigration, she’s blasting Bush for not balancing the budget, and she’s now trying to paint herself as a moderate on social issues.

The Clintons may not have much in terms of personal morals, but in terms of political acumen Bill and Hill are second to none. I’ve always argued that Hillary wouldn’t have a chance at obtaining national office – but if Hillary keeps up this triangulation strategy, I’m not so sure that would be the case. Hillary certainly understands the American electorate far better than her Democratic contemporaries, and the Bush Administration better be taking a hard look at the issues she’s pushing and start getting tough on immigration, the budget, and other issues.

Right Wing News asked several GOP bloggers who they’d like to see run (and not like to see run) in 2008. The results are here.

Condoleezza Rice tops the list, with Rudy Guiliani in a strong second. Jeb Bush came in third.

I think by 2008 Bush fatigue will be a major factor. Granted, Jeb is a good politician and would be a strong candidate, but 12 years of a Bush in the White House might be too much. Plus, I don’t think he could win against Hilary, whom we all know is the heir apparent for the Democrats in 2008.

Rudy Guiliani is realtively liberal in comparison to the GOP mainstream, but he’s admired by conservatives for his tenacity in the face of the horrors on September 11, 2001, he’s tough on crime, and he’d be likely to be fiscally conservative. Some hardcore evangelicals would vote against him, but he’d more than make that up with crossover votes from Blue Dog Democrats. Guiliani is one of the strongest candidates in the field should he choose to run.

Condoleezza Rice is also eminent qualified, is one of the smartest people in government, and a black woman. Many Republicans see her as the best shot at keeping the White House in 2008. Personally, I don’t think she’ll run, and I’m not sure she has enough domestic political experience to complete on that front. Then again, I understand her appeal. Having the first woman President and the first black President by a Republican would be quite something — and in Dr. Rice’s case her qualifications are impeccable on foreign policy. If she runs, she’s got a solid chance — but I just don’t see her running.

My personal favorite? Sen. George Allen of Virginia. He’s got the brains, he’s got the charm, and he’s a solid conservative. At the same time, he’s also a Senator, and Senators don’t tend to be elected President. (Although Allen was also a popular governor of Virginia as well…) Executive experience is far more valuable and tends to leave far fewer political skeletons in one’s closet. That’s why my guess is that the next GOP nominee will be a current governor who isn’t Jeb Bush. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts is one possibility. Former governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma is yet another. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is rather young, but he’s another potential contender.

If I had to guess, however, I’d guess that the actual nominee would be “none of the above.” 2008 is a ways away, and the political winds can and do shift. Powerhouse contenders can take a fall and unknowns can rise up to dominance. After all, politics wouldn’t be quite as interesting if weren’t so volitile.

P.J. O’Rourke has the inaugural speech that Bush should give this week. A selection:

MY FELLOW AMERICANS, I had intended to reach out to all of you and bring a divided nation together. But I changed my mind. America isn’t divided by political ethos or ethnic origin. America isn’t divided by region or religion. America is divided by jerks. Who wants to bring a bunch of jerks together with the rest of us? Let them stew in Berkeley, Boston, and Ann Arbor.

The media say that I won the election on the strength of moral values. If the other fellow had become president, would the media have said that he won the election on the strength of immoral values? For once the media would have been right.

We are all sinners. But jerks revel in their sins. You can tell by their reaction to the Ten Commandments. Post those Ten Commandments in a courthouse or a statehouse, in a public school or a public park, and the jerks go crazy. Why is that? Christians believe in the Ten Commandments. So do Muslims. Jews, too, obviously. Show the Ten Commandments to Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, or to people with just good will and common sense and nobody says, “Whoa! That’s all wrong!”

But jerks take issue with every one of the Ten Commandments. Jerks are particularly offended by the first two Commandments. Of course people of faith, decent people, differ on interpretations of the first two Commandments. For example, we don’t all agree about the meaning of “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” However, we do all agree about “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them” when them is Freud, Marx, and Dan Rather.

Personally, I’d love it if Bush got up to the podium, cleared his throat, waiting a second and then simply said: “Hey Dan, neener, neener, neener!” then sat down again. On the other hand, that wouldn’t exactly be the most elegant inaugural address in the world, but it would be the most personally satisfying.