Posted on 02/05/2005 7:25:23 AM PST by johnny7
ON HIS WAY TO A special lunch on the day of his State of the Union address, President Bush asked why he was hosting this event.
t's traditional, he was told. Indeed, for years presidents have invited television news anchors to the White House to brief them on the speech that evening. This year, Bush magnanimously kept Dan Rather of CBS on the invitation list despite the newsman's attempt to derail the president's reelection. The president told one anchor that he didn't think the anchor understood "the politics of Social Security." Another guest said critics fear Bush will try to bring down every tyrant in the world. Bush replied, sarcastically, that he didn't believe that was a criticism.
The president sounded confident about his second term. He was jaunty and joking. He said there was one thing he knew for sure: "If the president doesn't set the agenda in the second term, it'll be set for him." Bush, of course, is pursuing an aggressive agenda that would change the relationship between government and the governed both abroad and in America. He told the anchors he'd rather not bother with "littleball," one of his epithets for smaller and less consequential issues.
After months of trouble--beginning with the emergence in 2003 of a strong insurgency in Iraq and abetted by the failure to find WMD--Bush is once again in a strong position, politically and otherwise. The trend line of his presidency has been jagged. The line was flat in his first eight months in the White House, then it skyrocketed after 9/11, before drifting downward until he produced a strong Republican performance in the 2002 midterm election. Then it soared again during the war in Iraq, only to plummet as postwar turmoil set in. Following his reelection, the trajectory of the Bush presidency is again upward, buoyed by successful elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, a memorable inaugural address, and an effective State of the Union.
A White House official noted recently how lucky the president is to have Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as his chief political opponents and critics. The pair, along with Senator Edward Kennedy and possibly Howard Dean as the next Democratic national chairman, are viewed as less than formidable. But they're still capable of mounting stiff opposition to Bush's agenda, especially Social Security reform and judicial nominations. Besides, dissing a foe can be fatal. John Kerry thought Bush an unworthy rival last year and look what happened.
For now, Democrats on Capitol Hill are flummoxed. The Bush agenda is dominant across the board, as Democrats have failed to lay claim to a single issue on the table in 2005. They merely react to Bush's initiatives. Reid, the Senate minority leader, advocated a "Marshall Plan for America" in his "rebuttal" of Bush's State of the Union address. He said it would be designed to "build the infrastructure our economy needs to go and grow." It is probably more rhetorical than real. The rebuttal by Reid and Pelosi didn't actually rebut. Their speeches were written before Bush spoke.
Bush and his speechwriters labored over the Social Security section of his speech just to make the issue understandable. It was. And Bush has learned to talk about Social Security in simple terms on the stump. Long ago, he dropped the supposedly threatening word "privatization." Democrats now use it to attack Bush. The president has also abandoned the wonkish term "unfunded liability." And, instead of a "personal investment account" for younger workers, he refers to "your own personal retirement account" or "nest egg." In the national debate over Social Security, the president has positioned himself on the side of the future and reform. "I think it makes sense to put out new ideas for an old and important system to make sure it works," he told a crowd last week in Fargo, North Dakota. "That's exactly what we are doing. I want the people, as I travel around the country, to know, one, there's a problem, [two,] I'm willing to work with members of both parties to come up with a solution, and, three, I've got an innovative idea as to how to benefit the younger workers in America."
Democrats have positioned themselves as representatives of the past and advocates of inaction. They rushed to the FDR Memorial the day after the State of the Union to emphasize their commitment to preserving Social Security largely in its current form. President Roosevelt was the father of Social Security. "They're worshipping at the altar of the past," says Republican consultant Frank Luntz. "FDR died 60 years ago." Democrats argue little needs to be done, particularly now, to sustain Social Security. "Demographic and statistical factors" show otherwise, Luntz says, "and everybody gets it" but Democrats.
Democrats in Congress aren't Bush's major problem on Social Security. For one thing, no matter how persuasive he is, he won't get many Democratic votes. Nor can he expect much sympathy from TV news anchors. But what he does need is near-unanimous support from congressional Republicans. Bush wowed them at a retreat on January 29. "I haven't seen him this fired up about anything domestically ever," says Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma. Presidential adviser Karl Rove, who's schooled himself on Social Security and become an expert, was blunt. For decades, Republicans prayed for the day they'd control Congress. Having achieved that, Rove said, it's time to do something with it.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
"But they're still capable of mounting stiff opposition to Bush's agenda, especially Social Security reform and judicial nominations."
Shouldn't it be "stiff OBSTRUCTIONISM?" Opposition is when you oppose someone and actually have ideas and solutions to the problems presented.
Obstructionism is when you just block votes and say, "No" for the helluvit, with no ideas or solutions to offer.
Am I misunderstanding something? Not trying to be knit-picky, but a spade is a spade.
I am one of Fred's biggest fans; however, I have been troubled by his crossed arms for some time. To me, it makes him appear to be on the defensive and uncomfortable, not relaxed and confident.
I am im a very public job where everything I do is seen and everyone is looking at me most of the time and I NEVER cross my arms. In fact, I try to look like Brit Hume does when he delivers the news on his show [and it is harder to do than it looks]. Fred is fine from the neck up, but he has to learn to keep his hands on the table or under it.
I think the crossed arms are a distraction from what he is saying.
I agree with you. Mort is indeed thoughtful, and often has good points to make. I think some of his views are also pretty dumb, but I'm sure he would think the same of mine.
Yes, Mort and Fred are good foils for each other's views, and the fact that they can disagree and obviously have respect for each other as people is a nice thing to see.
Mort's not whipped. Mort understands how he is beating them. Too bad his party doesn't listen to him.
My wife and I were talking about this very thing yesterday. President Bush seems to have things fall his way....just out of the blue. Buckhead exposing Rather, the Swiftboater coming out of nowhere,....these 2 things were not working for Bush insofaras they were on his payroll. Things just fell his way. He seems easier in his own skin. The main stream media are in derision. They have been made to see the light and finally realize they are not bulletproof. If they do not change they will be destroyed. The very dim bulb is slowly becoming more incancescent. More MSM bodies will still have to be left along the roadside but we are finally heading in the right. I hope President Bush will do the single most important thing he can for the country and that is name very strict originalists to the subpreme court. If he can get 3 or 4 liberal seats fitted with conservative butts our country may be saved yet.
Presidential adviser Karl Rove, who's schooled himself on Social Security and become an expert, was blunt. For decades, Republicans prayed for the day they'd control Congress. Having achieved that, Rove said, it's time to do something with it.
Learning to control one's instinctive body language in public speaking situations is an extremely hard thing to do. I have had to do it also, and I can verify what you're saying.
I agree with you, crossed arms are always read instinctively by the observer as defensiveness and/or rigidity. It should never be done in his situation. That, combined with his hesitant speech, tends to dilute the effectiveness of his arguments on the air. Some of his other mannerisms, like bobbing up and down slightly with his hands in his lap, also convey a sense of nervousness and uncertainty.
With regard to Brit, have you noticed that Brit Hume nearly always leans slightly forward and looks quite intently at the camera when delivering the news or speaking directly to his audience? Because of that, when Brit leans back in talking to a panelist, it has an immediate unconscious impact on the viewer, maybe more than his actual words.
The other major negative in a public figure's speaking style that I have noticed is Dick Cheney's tendency to lower his head and talk to his lap. In his debate with Edwards, that nearly drove me nuts. That unconscious habit dilutes the man's message, and his thoughts and views are both profound and important. George Bush, for all the criticism of his speaking, has done a phenomenal job of improving both his speaking style and his public presence.
You said: "With regard to Brit, have you noticed that Brit Hume nearly always leans slightly forward and looks quite intently at the camera when delivering the news or speaking directly to his audience?"
Yes, this is what I am talking about. This is what I try to imitate when it is my turn to speak and make a strong point. You have to be careful, though, because you can come across too strong and undercut yourself.
Who are you... Howie Carr?
What a class act our President is - pure class in the face of hatred. Awesome!
I don't think it's cold - as much as it's CALCULATED to rub salt in the wounds. LOL! And .. he does it so well.
And .. we to continually remind our repubs in congress - that we expect them to DO SOMETHING with this new power - something meaningfull and lasting.
"she has been revealed as a lying, promiscuous, ungrateful simpleton"
Sheeeeesh! I didn't know this thread was about Hillary .. LOL!!
Bush, by not caring one whit about his "Legacy" will have one almost as great as Reagan's.
NOPE!! Frist is armed and ready to change the rules if the dems try to filibuster anything.
Frist could force them to actually filibuster - or he could change the rules - and he's already warned them he's prepared to do that. I suspect they will try to force his hand - just so they can whine to the media on how unfair the repubs are and how power hungry they are .. etc.
I know .. isn't it a scream!
Frist has vowed a change of the rules of filibuster only in regard to judicial appointments. I've not heard him say that filibusters will be opposed for other legislative business.
I do believe, however, that I've read someplace that the rules don't permit filibusters of budgets.
But .. Bush does not underestimate them .. that's why he's ahead of them. And .. they still have not figured that out. Kerry made the fatal mistake of believing Bush was a dunce - and he made that statement when he found out he was losing and losing badly .. "I can't believe I'm losing to that idiot". To characterize your opponent as an idiot - is a fatal miscalculation.
Your analysis is exactly correct!
They are obstructing - not opposing.
I don't think they ever will figure it out. That's why they're losing, and losing big.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.