First off: how the heck should I know what the President is going to say? That should preface all punditry in advance of the speech. We'll all have to wait for it - but I do have some thoughts I think worth sharing.
One thing we should keep in mind is that President Bush is much smarter than 90% of his opponents and 25% of his supporters give him credit for. What this means is that whenever one tries to predict what the President will do, the last thing one should concentrate on is what one wishes the President would do. He is smarter than his critics, and thus has already gone over their concerns - he may or may not agree, but if he doesn't hit upon your pet issue it doesn't mean he's dumb, but that he thinks your issue unimportant (and I think this is really what chaps leftwing hides about the President).
What the President will do is propose things he believes vital to the nation - and this may or may not be in line what left and right punditry thinks is vital. Lefties might think that NSA is very important, righties might think that cutting spending is very important...President Bush, from all I've learned of him, won't give a tupenny damn what anyone thinks and will just move on with what he, the man elected to do the job, thinks is important. Here's what I hope he will hit upon:
1. Iran needs to be brought to heel. It isn't time to unsheath the sword, but it is time to put Iran on final notice that, really, we are not going to allow them to obtain nuclear weapons.
2. Hit hard at the domestic critics. He did come to Washington hoping to bring a new tone to the debate, but the left has spit in his face for five years...time to give it up as a bad job and just be relentlessly partisan. If we came out in favor of socialised medicine, the left would suddenly discover a love of the free market...it doesn't matter what the President does, his critics will slam him...so, make a virtue out of a necessity and draw the partsan lines. Let the voters decide in November who is right.
3. Re-state support for Social Security reform. The Democrats think this is a dead issue...don't let it die. It bedevils them - they are deathly afraid of this debate. Keep pressing it.
4. Call for a border fence to be built prior to starting a guest-worker program. Lets get on the side of the American people on this issue - come what may, the broad mass doesn't want an endless stream of undocumented aliens pouring at will across the border.
As I said, this is what I hope he'll hit upon - but we shall have to see what the President thinks important; perhaps some of it will also be what I think important. No problem, though, if he doesn't use all my issues...after all, I'm just a pundit, not the man in the Oval Office with the weight of the world on his shoulders.
Posted by Mark Noonan at January 31, 2006 02:41 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
I'm definitely on board with No. 3. SS is a lead albatross to say the least. Healthcare reform that IS NOT a tidalwave expansion of entitlements is a close domestic second. I see the meme "It's wealthcare, not healthcare" has been floated by Emmanuel and others but I don't think they will fly far with that. Health is wealth and if you need chemo or corrective shoes, wealth is health.
I don't think the advice on "partisanship" is salient though. We've seen that while the Dems can crow all they like, in the crudest terms and it is trumpeted throughout the media uncritically but it hurts them on net. As Steyn is wont to say, it seems the chief effect of liberal media bias is that liberals are tactically blinded. Which of course results in much hilarity hereabouts. In our affections and respect for the President we take these hystrionics personally... and of course they are meant personally but the bold, bright partisan lines are not for the President to draw. He can point to where they have been drawn by the other side which is what he did in last autumn's pushback to great success. Lincoln would have had nothing to do with the rhetorical course you seem to suggest. Because he was a pushover? Nah, hell no. Because he was not looking in the faces screaming lunatic invective at him but towards the horizon of a better future. So is Bush and so should we. Let's not muddy up the Presidency as the Clinton's were happy to do. If there is hog wrasslin' to do it is our job, we political groundpounders, to do it, face to face with our neighbors, family and colleagues. And we must not only 'git her dun' but do it right. We claim to be the adults at this party don't we? Pleasant it is not but this is our generational challenge. And compared to the Revoluion, the Civil War or WWII it's a day at the beach. Let's expect and practice a bit of grace from our side as we know what to expect from the other.
Posted by: megapotamus at January 31, 2006 09:29 AM
I think Bush should emphasize the domestic issues. Particularly his success with our economy. He should focus on unemployment , job creation, the stock market and his success with the budget surplus. He should use the pitiful economic performance of the Clinton years just to really drive home the point.
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm
From there he could go on to discussing his success with the trade debt, average American purchasing power, average American savings trends, the 15% rise in income of our hard working 1% wealthiest class compared to the stagnant income of the laziest 20% of "workers", the number of home owners with interest only loans, the number of news jobs created from his military expansion and government contracts, he should also discuss his booming success with social security reform, Medicare and Medicaid and his control of medical cost and the trends of those with health insurance. He should pound home the successful medicare drug supplement bill. He should not leave out his success with the hurricaines..I'm sure a lot of those in the Gulf states will still be listening on radio. He should bray about his success in controlling climate change and emphasize the recent massive forest fires, heat waves, droughts and floods are all going to stop soon. He should also emphasize his unending support for science and keeping it an open process not to be suppressed by government administrators. Then he could go onto his 18 billion dollar loan cuts in support of higher education and how that will help with the military recruitment needed for the next war.
To end his brilliant State of the Union speech he should tell all the viewers to be afraid....be very very afraid and then raise the Homeland Security Threat level to its highest color...what is it red....right their on national TV......that ought to get em.
Posted by: muirgeo at January 31, 2006 10:05 AM
Everyone exects him to be strong on defense. But ye has got to connect wity the concerns of the voters namely:
Immigration: He needs to cover item 4 above.
The budget deficit: he MUST address the budget deficit by controlling spending and using his veto.
energy: Finally he has got to call for Congress to open Anwar while at the same time introducing sopme incentive to develop ternative fuels
Posted by: phnxbmed at January 31, 2006 02:18 PM
He did come to Washington hoping to bring a new tone to the debate, but the left has spit in his face for five years...time to give it up as a bad job and just be relentlessly partisan. If we came out in favor of socialised medicine, the left would suddenly discover a love of the free market...it doesn't matter what the President does, his critics will slam him...
I think you're totally wrong on this point, Mark. It is not about personality but policy. If the president actually supported socialized medicine, I would be thrilled with him. In fact it's ironic that you picked that particular issue. In the late 60s to early 70s, I didn't like Nixon. When Watergate happened, I was outraged; but in the private sector media it was almost ignored. I voted for McGovern and Nixon won by a landslide. Later on in his second term, I was amazed that Nixon suddenly proposed to the congress that we have socialized medicine. I was able bodied at that time, but still ecstatic at the prospect of never, under any circumstances, would I have to worry about any huge hospital bill. I was turned from being anti-Nixon to being wildly pro-Nixon in a matter of a few hours (after the initial Twilight Zone type of shock wore off). But strangely enough, within a week the private sector media resurrected the Watergate issue. I thought, "The election is over, so why bother; especially if there's a possibilty he could give us socialized medicine. Please, leave him alone!" Of course, that was not to be; but what I'm telling you Mark, for me (and I'm guessing for many other liberals) it's not personality but policy that matters, in the case of both presidents.
Posted by: Robert K Meyer Jr at February 1, 2006 02:54 AM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
I'm definitely on board with No. 3. SS is a lead albatross to say the least. Healthcare reform that IS NOT a tidalwave expansion of entitlements is a close domestic second. I see the meme "It's wealthcare, not healthcare" has been floated by Emmanuel and others but I don't think they will fly far with that. Health is wealth and if you need chemo or corrective shoes, wealth is health.
I don't think the advice on "partisanship" is salient though. We've seen that while the Dems can crow all they like, in the crudest terms and it is trumpeted throughout the media uncritically but it hurts them on net. As Steyn is wont to say, it seems the chief effect of liberal media bias is that liberals are tactically blinded. Which of course results in much hilarity hereabouts. In our affections and respect for the President we take these hystrionics personally... and of course they are meant personally but the bold, bright partisan lines are not for the President to draw. He can point to where they have been drawn by the other side which is what he did in last autumn's pushback to great success. Lincoln would have had nothing to do with the rhetorical course you seem to suggest. Because he was a pushover? Nah, hell no. Because he was not looking in the faces screaming lunatic invective at him but towards the horizon of a better future. So is Bush and so should we. Let's not muddy up the Presidency as the Clinton's were happy to do. If there is hog wrasslin' to do it is our job, we political groundpounders, to do it, face to face with our neighbors, family and colleagues. And we must not only 'git her dun' but do it right. We claim to be the adults at this party don't we? Pleasant it is not but this is our generational challenge. And compared to the Revoluion, the Civil War or WWII it's a day at the beach. Let's expect and practice a bit of grace from our side as we know what to expect from the other.
I think Bush should emphasize the domestic issues. Particularly his success with our economy. He should focus on unemployment , job creation, the stock market and his success with the budget surplus. He should use the pitiful economic performance of the Clinton years just to really drive home the point.
http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm
From there he could go on to discussing his success with the trade debt, average American purchasing power, average American savings trends, the 15% rise in income of our hard working 1% wealthiest class compared to the stagnant income of the laziest 20% of "workers", the number of home owners with interest only loans, the number of news jobs created from his military expansion and government contracts, he should also discuss his booming success with social security reform, Medicare and Medicaid and his control of medical cost and the trends of those with health insurance. He should pound home the successful medicare drug supplement bill. He should not leave out his success with the hurricaines..I'm sure a lot of those in the Gulf states will still be listening on radio. He should bray about his success in controlling climate change and emphasize the recent massive forest fires, heat waves, droughts and floods are all going to stop soon. He should also emphasize his unending support for science and keeping it an open process not to be suppressed by government administrators. Then he could go onto his 18 billion dollar loan cuts in support of higher education and how that will help with the military recruitment needed for the next war.
To end his brilliant State of the Union speech he should tell all the viewers to be afraid....be very very afraid and then raise the Homeland Security Threat level to its highest color...what is it red....right their on national TV......that ought to get em.
Everyone exects him to be strong on defense. But ye has got to connect wity the concerns of the voters namely:
Immigration: He needs to cover item 4 above.
The budget deficit: he MUST address the budget deficit by controlling spending and using his veto.
energy: Finally he has got to call for Congress to open Anwar while at the same time introducing sopme incentive to develop ternative fuels
He did come to Washington hoping to bring a new tone to the debate, but the left has spit in his face for five years...time to give it up as a bad job and just be relentlessly partisan. If we came out in favor of socialised medicine, the left would suddenly discover a love of the free market...it doesn't matter what the President does, his critics will slam him...
I think you're totally wrong on this point, Mark. It is not about personality but policy. If the president actually supported socialized medicine, I would be thrilled with him. In fact it's ironic that you picked that particular issue. In the late 60s to early 70s, I didn't like Nixon. When Watergate happened, I was outraged; but in the private sector media it was almost ignored. I voted for McGovern and Nixon won by a landslide. Later on in his second term, I was amazed that Nixon suddenly proposed to the congress that we have socialized medicine. I was able bodied at that time, but still ecstatic at the prospect of never, under any circumstances, would I have to worry about any huge hospital bill. I was turned from being anti-Nixon to being wildly pro-Nixon in a matter of a few hours (after the initial Twilight Zone type of shock wore off). But strangely enough, within a week the private sector media resurrected the Watergate issue. I thought, "The election is over, so why bother; especially if there's a possibilty he could give us socialized medicine. Please, leave him alone!" Of course, that was not to be; but what I'm telling you Mark, for me (and I'm guessing for many other liberals) it's not personality but policy that matters, in the case of both presidents.