Politics Blog

In keeping with my track record of deadly accurate five-minute reviews, here’s what I think of the SOTU: It’s a missed opportunity.

Rather than giving the people what they want, the president has adopted an eat-your-spinach approach. While that’ll make the goo-goo types happy, it does nothing to improve the GOP’s political fortunes. Sure, there may be a small post-SOTU poll bounce; there will always be one. But it could have been so much bigger!

Imagine how different today could have been if the president had chosen to bludgeon Democrats with a winning issue, like, say illegal immigration. Sigh.

UPDATE: “Earmark reform?” “Line item veto?” Joe Lunchpail is changing channels. Sigh.

— PoliPundit

[Update: The portion Glenn Reynolds referred to in his post-speech post (thanks for the link, by the way) is located at the beginning and the end of the live-blog portion of this post (update III below) and the network was ABC.]

I have not yet decided whether or not to liveblog the speech. It will depend in part on whether or not my kids are in bed yet. [Update: Obviously liveblogging has commenced below.] Please feel free to use this thread to discuss the speech and liveblog it yourselves if you would like. From the advance speech excerpts I have seen, the one that stands out to me is regarding America’s dependence on oil. I have little doubt that the speech will be a winner.

What almost certainly won’t be a winner is the post-speech “analysis.” A few things I will be surprised if I don’t hear from the network pundits: that Bush is sugarcoating the total disaster that exists in Iraq, that Bush does not fully grasp the problems many working men and women face everyday… blah, blah, blah…Jack Abramoff…culture of corruption…recitations of all the polls showing low support for Bush…Jack Abramoff…that Bush doesn’t like black people (but not in those words)…Jack Abramoff… blah, blah, blah…that Bush only included certain points to pander to specific groups that don’t like him… and last but not least, Jack Abramoff.

Jack Abramoff might just be the new Halliburton.

Update: The quote I referenced above is already the banner at Drudge, “America is addicted to oil.” When I read the advance excerpts that was the one quote that jumped out at me immediately. It will be interesting to see the reaction in the room to that line.

Update II: Bruce Kesler conducted an informal focus group of his own with his copy of advance excerpts from the speech. His results are interesting and encouraging. I suspect that what he found was discovered by the White House well in advance of this speech. I will be listening to the speech now to identify the passages directed at the Kesler playgroup focus group.

La Shawn Barber is planning to liveblog the illegal immigration portion of the speech.

I love this 16 Word SOTU speech. Link via Michelle.

UPDATE III (Live-blog begins): The speech has not even yet begun and already on ABC two references to the President’s horrible approval ratings, inept reaction to Katrina, disaster in Iraq, Abramoff scandal…blah, blah, blah. These people are TOO predictible. Now they are discussing Sheehan as a security concern. She has been arrested for trying to get a banner into the speech. Forget the speech, the coverage on this network will be poll numbers, Sheehan, doom and gloom. Where is the flippin’ remote?

9:12 – So far the best picture is of the Supreme Court justices with Roberts and Alito in robes. Thank you Mr. President.

Beginning with tribute to Coretta Scott King seems pretty smart and appropriate.

9:18 – Sheehan has been arrested. More about Sheehan at the SOTU in the post below.

9:22 – On Iraq

“WE ARE WINNING”

Decisions will be made by military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, DC.

“Hindsight is not wisdom”

“Second guessing not a strategy”

“stand behind American military in this vital mission”

“those who know the costs also know the stakes”

I am LOVING this speech!

9:26 Sobbing now (me, not Bush). Don’t forget the sacrifice of America’s military families.

9:37 – I am really loving this speech. The portion about not waiting for another attack and the lesson Bush is giving to learn from Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan against isolationism is great.

9:39 – The Economy. Preach it, Mr. President.

McCain is clapping for the line “make the tax cuts permanent”. Maybe he should have voted for all of them in the first place instead of engaging in “tax cuts for the rich talk.”

9:43 – Absolutely the best piece of theater: the Democrats, led by Hillary, hooting and hollering in celebration that they didn’t act to save social security. Followed by the ultimate slapdown from President Bush pointing out that the problem is NOT going away and that it is too important for partisan politics. Do the Democrats feel about an inch high right about now? Of course they don’t, but they should. Thank God for this man who keeps pushing what I would like to see for my kids, social security reform, in spite of polls and politics.

9:49 – I still cringe everytime I hear him say “nucular”. Since I am sure it really annoys all his critics, though, it makes me grin, too. The energy portion of the speech sounds good. I haven’t a clue whether or not any of it will work, but it sounds good.

10:03 – speech just ended. I thought it was good, but not great. My absolute favorite part, and the part getting the most discussion in the comments section, was when he got the Democrats to cheer the defeat of social security reform. He had some big ideas. He was extremely gracious.

Charlie Gibson is an idiot and a jerk seriously misguided (I edited that last line because it sounded too Kosian when I re-read it) – when his cohost (Elizabeth Vargas) said the President put his hand out across the aisle, Gibson said that yeah he did reach out to Democrats and then he wondered if the President had done it four years ago if all this partisanship could have been avoided. What a total idiot Gibson is. Bush let Kennedy write the education bill for goodness sake and then invited the guy to view a movie at the White House. That is above and beyond, baby. What did Charlie want from the President? Idiot! Ugh. Now he is saying most of the speech could have been given verbatim by Bill Clinton because of the tone. Clinton was THE most partisan President EVER. Seriously, I have to find that remote. (I am not too lazy to change the channel manually, if I don’t use the remote it messes up the satellite.)

I really wish the President had hammered the Dems on the spectacle that has been the judicial confirmation process. I guess he didn’t think it was necessary, but I think he should have made the point.

Update IV: John Hinderaker asks if anyone was watching.

11:00 Rudy is on Hannity and Colmes.

Looking back at my live blog, I want to change my assessment of the speech as good, but not great, to good overall and great in parts. The foreign policy part of the speech was excellent, great, kickass – I loved it.

I think much of the rest of the speech was almost too bipartisan. I think he should have pointed out the horrible treatment Alito got, not in an “in your face” way, but in veiled terms, after praising Alito’s character and qualifications. There are other places in the speech that I wish Bush had been a bit less gracious, but I am sure that his way was the smart way to go. Heck, look at Bruce Kesler’s playground focus group (referenced above). Heck, it sounds like the President was telling them exactly what they wanted to hear in terms of tone. Good speech overall, with some portions of it reaching levels of greatness. That is my final word on it. Unless something else occurs to me.

Update V: You absolutely HAVE to read Jon Ham’s live blog of the speech. It is perceptive and smart, but it is also hilarious (Pelosi “stalking” the President as he entered the room – what a perfect description). It was his first live-blog attempt and it is some of the best live-blogging I have seen.

11:40 – Wacky Wes Clark is on Hannity and Colmes saying that he has been told by some soldiers about some wrongdoing by our troops against Iraqi civilians. He says he is not saying it is our policy, but he says “some soldiers” have told him some of that has happened over there.

Mary Katharine Ham has a great take on the Democrat’s response – heads might just roll.

I agree 1000 percent with Hugh Hewitt’s take on the point made in the speech (and by Democratic response)about which party is serious about national security.

John in Carolina posted about one of the best pundit lines of the night from Fred Barnes.

Here’s a Marine’s take on the Democratic response.

Roger has an idea for a great political ad in the comments section.

I was being really good by not saying anything out loud about something distracting in the Democrat’s response, but Ian wasn’t so well-behaved in the title of this post. Emily Yee noticed too, and even has an eyebrow roundup.

12:20 – On CNN (Larry King), Bill Richardson just said he was troubled that the President was so uncompromising on the issue of terrorist surveillance (NSA intercepts). Someone please save that tape in case he runs for President. Thank God that the President won’t compromise on tracking terrorists and listening in on their phone calls. Have Democrats not figured out yet that the public understands this issue and it isn’t some budget dispute over increasing education spending by five percent or ten percent, it is a matter of life and death and there is no room for compromise on this issue.

– Lorie Byrd

Scroll to bottom for updates.

I am a bit torn on this one. On the one hand, Cindy Sheehan would appear to be something of a security risk considering the wacko things she has said about the President and the company she keeps. But isn’t Cindy Sheehan a great representative of the modern day Democratic Party? Don’t we want to see her on television as often as possible? I have not yet made up my mind on this one.

Cindy Sheehan said she will be part of the live audience during the president’s State of the Union speech to congress Tuesday.

Bay Area Congresswoman Lynn Woosley gave anti-war activist a gallery pass late Tuesday, just hours before the planned State of the Union speech. Sheehan was in Washington to protest the president during his national address, but then came word she was invited to see the speech live.

A spokesman for Sheehan says she decided to accept the invitation two hours prior to the speech. The spokesman also said that Sheehan will be respectful and listen to the address because she is a guest of a member of congress.

Sheehan is expected to fly back to Berkeley Wednesday. She announced over the weekend that she is considering running for Senate against Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Okay, I have made up my mind to support Cindy Sheehan’s Senate run. No doubt whatsoever on that one.Link via Drudge (Hat tip: Evan).

Update: Jim Hoft has lots of Sheehan coverage, and lots of other good stuff at The Gateway Pundit.

Hugh Hewitt asks what the President will do if Cindy Sheehan stands up and starts shouting. He also has some links to the comments of the father of a soldier who lost her life in a roadside IED attack about what comments from Cindy Sheehan and Christiane Amanpour do to him. The disrespectful words and actions from the likes of Sheehan and Amanpour have consequences. Free speech is encouraged, but it should also be somewhat respectful of those currently fighting and their families.

Update: I just heard on ABC that Cindy Sheehan may have been arrested as a security concern (ya think?) for trying to sneak a banner into the Capitol. I can’t find the story online yet. Anyone with a link, please post in comments.

Here is the link, filed at 9:13 (two minutes after the post above).

— Lorie Byrd

The latest email from John F.(ilibluster) Kerry:

Dear ________,

Yesterday, 25 Democratic Senators joined our effort to filibuster the Alito nomination – that’s more votes to filibuster the Alito nomination than there were votes against Justice Roberts’ nomination itself just a few months ago.

This morning, 42 Senators voted against Alito’s nomination. That’s the highest number of votes against any Supreme Court nominee since Clarence Thomas in 1991.

It’s hard to lose – but it’s important to fight for what we believe in. I want to thank the hundreds of thousands of you who signed our petitions, called your senators, wrote letters to the editor and, most important, refused to stand silent while President Bush worked to pack the highest court in the land with far right ideologues. We fought a fight that needed fighting.

We made sure the nation knew the truth about the Alito nomination. We made sure America heard how a right wing ideological coup sandbagged Harriet Miers’ nomination and replaced her with Judge Alito. No one will be able to say, in five to ten years, that he or she is surprised by the decisions Judge Alito makes from the bench. People who believe in privacy rights, who fight for the rights of the most disadvantaged, who believe in balancing the power between the President and Congress had to take a stand.

We also made it clear to the Bush administration that no matter whatthey throw at us in 2006 – whether it’s extreme nominees, special interest giveaways, shortsighted policy or Swift Boat-style attacks against Democratic candidates – we will never surrender. We will always fight back.

Now, we must be clear about something else. Winning the 2006 congressional elections is the only way to change the dangerous path George W. Bush has put us on. We need to defeat those Republicans who have overlooked this administration’s incompetence, turned a blind eye to its failures, and lent a helping hand to its dangerous ideology.

Together, we have to act to make sure 2006 is the year Americans, led by Democrats, stand up to incompetence, cronyism and corruption, take back Congress, and get our nation moving in the right direction again.

I look forward to fighting alongside you.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

— Lorie Byrd

Worth noting: Each of the five senators who crossed party lines on the Alito vote hails from a state that went for the other party’s presidential candidate by 13 points or more.

— PoliPundit

John Hawkins’ readers came up with some great lines that might just appear in the children’s book, Why Mommy is a Democrat. I am sure Polipundit readers can suggest some great ones as well.

— Lorie Byrd

From the Asocialist Press - Jan. 31, 2006:

“Bush Speech to Seek to Restore Confidence“

President Bush on Tuesday put the finishing touches on a State of the Union address designed to help restore faith in his leadership among the many Americans who don’t approve of the job he’s doing or [don’t] think the country is on the right track.

Mmm, hmm.

Also from the Asocialist Press, on Jan. 31, 2006:

“Consumer Confidence Increases in January“

Americans grew more optimistic about the job market in January, sending a widely followed measure of consumer confidence to its highest level in three and a half years.

Go figure.

— Jayson

“You better believe the Dem establishment knows we exist.”

In rather the same way that a cancer patient is aware of a malignant tumor, yes.

“While this may feel like a huge loss (and it is), understand that it’s not the end of the road. Republicans are still fighting to turn back the country to the 18th century, and we’re all that stands in the way. And we are doomed to keep losing until we boost our numbers in both the House and the Senate. That’s the ONLY way we will prevail.”

Seeing as Dubya is bringing parts of the world into the 21st Century, that claim is a bit ironic. Seeing as how the MSM and Kos try to play down New Media and return to the scripted control by the MSM, it’s insidious.

But Kos is right about one thing – he is doomed, because informed Americans will never allow his ilk to grab power again, and it is our job in the blogs to keep truth front and center, whether it is convenient or not, ugly or pretty, good news or bad. Face the facts, lance the boils, and kick tyrants of any stripe to the curb.

You are doomed by your own methodology, Kos. America will see to that .

— DJ Drummond

If you thought those on the left had already gone as far as they could go out onto the lunatic fringe, you might want to pay close attention over the next 24 hours. Just this week we have heard Ted Kennedy blaming Sam Alito for everything wrong in the world including asthma deaths, Colleen Rowley depicting her 25 year Marine Corps vet political opponent in a Nazi uniform, a liberal blogger threatening to “out” a Senator if he didn’t vote against Alito…(insert your favorite example of left lunacy this week). If you dare, venture into the liberal blogosphere and witness the meltdown. It isn’t pretty, but it was predictable. I can’t imagine how much worse it could get, but considering that the Alito confirmation and the President’s SOTU address will occur within one 12 hour period, I am sure that it will get worse. Seriously, I am almost to the point of feeling pity for them.

Update: I am sure the fact that Justice Alito has been sworn in is pushing a few over the cliff at this very moment.

— Lorie Byrd

It is now official. Justice Samuel Alito has been confirmed with a vote of 58 - 42. Gee, I wonder if the President will mention this vote tonight.

There will be a ceremony Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 at the White House.

Polipundit and I are suggesting all those wishing to make it known how much you appreciate the confirmation of Justice Alito to contribute to the RNC to help elect more Republicans to the Congress. You might even want to tack on an extra 58 cents to your contribution (for each of the votes in favor of confirmation) to make the point. 58 is a beautiful number. It is truly time for thanks and celebration.

Update: Blogs for Bush is asking readers to thank the GOP.

Update: Jon Ham makes an interesting point and prediction about the 58 vote count.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3 in 1993 while Samuel Alito was confirmed by a vote of only 58-42. That must mean that Ginsburg is 65.5 percent better for the country than Alito. You laugh, but I predict something very much like this will become the MSM template when Alito’s confirmation is discussed in the next few years.

Read the whole thing. I think he is probably right about that being the spin offered by those on the liberal side. I say let’s counter it now, by pointing out what the numbers really say, which is that Republicans are much more reasonable and tolerant of differing views and they respect the President’s right to nominate someone who shares his political philosophy as long as that individual is qualified.

— Lorie Byrd