SOTU Review

After watching the State of the Union, Bush seems even weaker than I thought, and that’s pretty weak. I haven’t seen any polling data, but this could be the first time since they have been polling that a President’s approval rating could go down after a SOTU address. Specifically, I have a few problems with the speech. We’ll start with the superficial and work toward the substantial. This president is a terrible public speaker. His rhythm is awful, he stumbles over words and completely lacks the ability to inspire through oratory. There are some that say there are many important qualities to leading the nation that do not include public speaking. I agree, but I think that out of 300 million people, we can find a few that have the intellectual capabilities to be president and the ability to speak well to a nation. Substantially, the President invoked the 9/11 attacks consistently throughout the address. In other words, FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR. Remember how those 19 men from Iraq…err… Afghanistan…err… I mean Saudi Arabia attacked us 5 years ago? Remember how much you liked me back then? Remember the confidence you had in me then? Please forget the past 4 years of failed policy in Iraq – the turning of corners, the nonexistent WMDs, the last throes of the insurgency, the trillion dollars spent, staying the course, the 3,000+ dead Americans and the seemingly endless war. The President has so little credibility that he had to quote terrorists in order to try to convince Americans to trust him. He can no longer use his own words to strike fear in everyone; now he is reduced to using the words of the very men who are trying to kill us. When bin Laden has more credibility than you, you know you are in trouble. Why should we believe that the terrorists will fight us here if they don’t fight us in Iraq? Why, after all the other lies this administration has told (yellow cake anyone?) should we now trust you? Domestically, the President gave a convoluted and incoherently-written proposal about health care. Rather than go into my thoughts on health care here, wait a few weeks and we will have a fuller debate about it. As for the energy section, we’ll tackle that next week. In short, we need a comprehensive energy policy that focuses on higher fuel-efficiency standards, increased public transportation and reduced consumption. No Child Left Behind is reviled by teachers across the nation, including friends of mine who are conservative republicans. The last thing we need is to let that atrocity of a bill sail through Congress without severe rewriting and rethinking. Education can be the great equalizer, the silver bullet that can pull kids out of poverty, drugs and a cycle of violence. A real commitment to education could propel American to even greater heights – in the 60’s, a true commitment to math and science brought man to the moon. The possibilities are endless, if only this administration would live up to its commitment of being the education administration. All in all, I give the address a D+. I did like honoring the subway hero from New York. That was definitely the highlight. Policy-wise, not impressive in the least.

First, let me pause and appreciate the fact that one of my New Year’s resolutions has come true. For personal confirmation of this, see the “Oh, really!” segment of SNL from last weekend regarding Michael Vick.” Despite the fact that some of the President’s most vigorous applause came during his pandering to the futile ideal of bipartisanship; I am not a believer. I am convinced that the next 12 to 24 months in Congress will be one long campaign for President, interspersed with bickering along traditional party lines. It is clear, from the covert activities over the last few months, culminating in announcements about Presidential exploratory committees, to the responses to Bush’s State of The Union that many of the most important and influential members of Congress and the Senate have their minds elsewhere, namely on the President’s job. So, what does that mean for the State of the Union…well, the President seems to believe that – the War on Terror is good, the troops in Iraq are good, Congress’ failure to support Bush’s strategy in Iraq is bad, balanced budgets are good, health insurance for poor people is good, global warming is bad, education for our children is good, world peace is good…etc. Practically speaking, the State of the Union means that Bush is going to bog down every subcommittee on Capitol Hill with legislation over the next several months. Ambiguous and controversial proposals are great time wasters in a city divided. The pundits are discussing Bush’s new education reforms and changes to “No Child Left Behind.” What a dumb name, there are kids left behind everywhere. I was left behind every time we played sports, no skills. I have friends that will always be left behind economically, no desire. Bush wants mandatory test scores in science and school choice via vouchers. Democrats will offer counter proposals, Republicans will offer counter-counter proposals. Bureaucrats will rejoice – there is red tape and legal documents to go around aplenty for years to come. Advocacy groups will demand hearings, and the other side will demand counter hearings. They will debate funding levels, implementation strategies, impacts to educational systems, minority issues, gender issues, sexual orientation issues, how to keep the system accountable, can we keep the system accountable, who is going to have oversight, blah, blah, blah… Then it will be February 2008 and oops, we are out of time. Must run for President. And then the Democrats will serve with, “the GOP fought us on education reform,” volleyed back by the Republicans, “the democrats were not serious about educational choice,” returned with, “the GOP never made meaningful, practical proposals,” countered with, “the Democrats were not serious about bipartisanship,” and so on. It will be flavors of the same on every topic. Neither party can let the other party have a victory/feather in their cap going into 2008. The Democrats can not let the President advance his health insurance proposals, because they want to be the saviors for the uninsured. The Republicans can not let the President move forward on his immigration strategy because they want to mandate who can and can not come into this land of the free. Everybody wants to say Iraq=bad, but soldiers=good except the President. Any major reform will be countered and watered down so badly that I can not see it having true impact. Consequently, the State of the Union was for me, an announcement that no major reform will be accomplished over the next 2 years as both parties wait with bated breath for a new national leader.

Democrat in the White House

It seems like the ‘06 elections have barely ended, but about 83 different people have announced they are running for President, including Tom “Blow up Mecca” Tancredo, Dennis “Little Person” Kucinich and Barack “Rising Star” Obama. So here at GMTD, I have decided to throw my considerable political weight behind the same person I voted for in the 2004 primaries: John Edwards. Why John Edwards? In addition to his boyish good looks, Edwards is the only major candidate that continues to talk about domestic poverty and economic inequality. His stump speech in 2004 dealt with the "two Americas" – the one America that is for the rich and privileged and the other America, for everyone else. Rich kids went to better schools, which offered classes in Latin and gymnastics. Poor kids went to schools that were falling apart and used textbooks that had Richard Nixon as President. Millions of children are born into poverty every year in this country, many unsure where their next meal is coming from. And one politician had the guts to speak about such debilitating poverty in the richest country in the world. And, not only does he continue to talk about it, he is putting his money where his mouth is. He directed UNC’s Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity after his failed VP run in 2004. He crisscrossed the country over the past year to encourage states to increase the minimum wage, after the Republican Congress refused to do so. Even now, he is encouraging supporters to hold canned food drives and conserve energy. More than a politician, Edwards actually cares about the issues. And he is a realist. He knows that we can’t have everything all at once. In order to keep the deficit in check, he is proposing to eliminate Bush’s tax cuts for the top 2 percent of earners – those making about $200,000 per year. Unlike the Republicans who have controlled Washington for the past 6 years, Edwards is pledged to fiscal responsibility. As for his relative inexperience in international affairs, Edwards was one of the first Democrats to come out against the Iraq war, after being deceived (like the rest of us) by this administration’s cherry-picking of intelligence. While in the Senate, Edwards authored legislation on biosecurity and port security, topics this administration and the Republican Congress had largely ignored. Over the coming months, I will make passing references to why Edwards should be elected. He brings the knowledge of D.C., but not the taint of an insider. He is willing to talk about topics that aren’t sexy because he knows they are important. And he has an intelligence and depth that is sadly lacking in the current president. He is a fresh face, bringing important topics into the public forum for discussion. I will be volunteering for him, working to ensure that we close the economic gap between rich and poor in this country, ensuring that everyone has a shot at the American Dream. I urge you to do the same.

Presidentially speaking I would like a libertarian Republican; failing that, I would like a conservative Republican; failing that I would like a conservative Democrat; failing that I would like a libertarian Democrat; failing that, I would have the current field of contenders. I would think that the Democrat base should be excited and energized by the current stable of candidates for the Presidency because most if not all of the serious candidates have historically been true liberals. If I was to pick one I would pick Dennis Kucinich, but that is because he would lose, and since Dan asked that I seriously consider which of the Democrats I would prefer assuming that it is unavoidable that one will be elected, I should give a more serious option. So, let us take a quick glance at the two front runners – Senators Obama and Clinton. Senator Obama strikes me, in the little that I have read and heard about thus far in the campaign, as a true believer. My perception of Senator Obama is that he is truly devoted to the agenda that he has laid out and that he will pursue his beliefs without compromise. This type of impenetrable liberalism is a terrible direction for our nation. The excesses of liberalism are on full display in Western Europe where socialized welfare and medicine, along with strong economic disincentives like taxes and required vacation, have crippled their economies, making them almost irrelevant in the global economy. I fear that Senator Obama would not offer us fair and just leadership. His history with corrupt individuals offers me no hope that he would be able to resist temptation when given Presidential power. On the other hand, I never thought I would prefer Hilary Clinton over anyone for President, but here I am suggesting she may be the best of the worst. The Clintons are consistent - consistently worried about two things: power and legacy. Bill obsessed over his legacy as his Presidency wound down, and he pressed for international agreements that he could claim as part of his accomplishments. Hilary, I am confident, would do the same. She has already demonstrated a remarkable ability to hide her personal feelings, beliefs and convictions (if she has any) when it is not politically expedient. Regardless of her stated policy objectives, I could easily see her administering over a Presidency that does not radically move us towards socializing every institution of American policy while preserving a relatively low tax regime. This would be the result of an aggressive conservative movement, energized by the fear of what a Democrat in the White House could accomplish, taking strong action to reverse trends in Congress and unify the Republican party, if only temporarily. Success breeds complacency, but fear breeds action. President Hilary would inspire great fear in the Republican base and she would probably not pose as great a threat as some of the other frontrunners who are true ideologues. I, by no means, want to sound as if I doubt Senator Clinton’s commitment or resolve around her key issues, however, when asked to measure the Democrats, I find her candidacy to be more tolerable than some of the others whom I consider stronger threats to the values that I believe make America great.

(P)reaction and (P)response

Rather than wait and post a reaction to Bush’s much-touted and oft-delayed public address on Iraq, we decided to throw our opinions out there before the speech. Why, you might ask? Because so much of what goes on in this town is political theater. Everyone knows that Bush is going to call for a troop surge in Iraq. We all know that he will vaguely speak about finishing the job, about fighting the insurgency, and about making Iraq a stable democracy. There are leaks to all the major news outlets already, undoubtedly official leaks, telling all the details of the address. So, why not go ahead and preact? A troop surge is a bad idea. It is a bad idea because this administration has failed repeatedly to have any sort of military success in post-war Iraq. Last summer, the President launched “Operation Together Forward” in Baghdad, adding some 10,000 soldiers to suppress violence in the Iraqi capital. Violence increased. Lots of people died, including hundreds of Americans. A troop surge is like finding a stockbroker who has lost millions upon millions in the past few years because of bad investments and saying, “Here, take my life savings and invest it for me.” Only an idiot would think this is a good idea. Yet, for some reason, this administration is blundering ahead with another 20,000 troops. Why should the American people have any faith that this administration has the slightest clue how to handle Iraq? If I came into work every day and mangled every project I worked on for 48 months, I can’t imagine that my boss would pile more work on me. Incompetence ought to be dealt with by reducing responsibility (or getting fired). Unfortunately, the American people did not punish Bush after a failed first term, but rather gave him a “mandate” to continue to do what he is doing. Mr. President, you are a failure. Your policies have failed – miserably – in Iraq. From finding WMDs to “turning a corner” to “staying the course”, all of your initiatives have lead to death, destruction, international ill-will and billions of tax dollars wasted. The best thing you could do for the country is admit that you are incompetent, then try to do the least damage possible until we can finally vomit you out of the White House and begin the healing process with someone who knows what the hell they are doing.

In presponse to Bush’s comments tonight I am encouraged that at the very least, we are embracing change. I have been consistently amazed with the proclivity of the Bush administration to pursue a strong policy of stagnation in Iraq. Regardless of the attitude of the public, the news from Iraq or the reaction of the media, the Bush team has been resilient in their policy. They declare victory, demand patience and perseverance and change nothing. It is a sound political formula in Washington DC, but not on the streets of Baghdad. As I prespond to Bush’s inevitable comments this evening, I am convinced that the turnover in the House and Senate is an opportunity for the conservative movement and the GOP. Finally, Bush is looking for, finding and implementing new ideas. What the military (and most of us) have known for a long time, that you can not defeat radical Islamic militants who embrace suicide attacks with just enough troops to occupy and rebuild a country. I am excited to see that the President is preparing us for a different and stronger approach to the war in Iraq, but I will be amazed if he can build the consensus needed to implement and complete any such troop buildup over many months. He needs agreement not only from his own party, which is hardly a given anymore, and the opposition as well. DC will absorb this new policy agenda with the same slow, lethargic ingestion it has offered for every major policy issue over the last several years. We are bogged down in a war that must be won or at least ended in Iraq. Until that happens, it will take some incredible leadership to provide policy direction that does not require people to start every speech with an “I” and finish every speech with a “q;” with everything in the middle being “ra…ra…ra.” America’s leadership seems paralyzed by this Iraq issue, and yet, the issues that create energy here in the US are everything but Iraq. Minimum wage and illegal immigration are probably the two most interesting and exciting topics to the American public, but we are forced by politicos who are afraid to rock the boat to only discuss and think about Iraq. I am thoroughly behind a new strategy in Iraq, and troop buildup sounds great to me. Either we beat down the insurgents enough to let the Iraqis handle their own problems, or we lose so many troops that we call it quits and let the Iraqis handle their own problems. Meanwhile, the US political leadership are obsessed with the Iraq topic. Speech and response, act and react. It is one big production in DC. This is what is so amazing about DC. Dan and I can write relatively accurate preactions to the speech tonight because everything is choreographed and prepared. Even the media plays their roles perfectly. They tell us what the President is going to say, break it down, and then wrap it up. The President might as well not even show up to say anything. And for that matter neither party needs to react to the speech either, we can let America’s commentators handle. They can say things like, “Well, if the President had given the speech, he would have said, “X;” and then if the opposition had responded, they would have said “not X.”” Therefore, all that is left is for Dan and me to preact about the speech that we will hear tonight. That way, we really are on the cutting edge, and maybe we will beat everyone else to the punch with our witty and in-depth analysis of a speech we have not heard.