Posted on 02/02/2006 9:48:11 AM PST by dson7_ck1249
The real Bush? By Robert Novak
Feb 2, 2006
WASHINGTON -- While jumping up on cue to cheer during the speech and delivering rave reviews afterward in the Capitol's Statuary Hall, conservative members of Congress were deeply disappointed by George W. Bush Tuesday night. It was not merely that the president abandoned past domestic goals. He appeared to be moving toward bigger government.
The consensus on the Right was that President Bush's fifth State of the Union Address was his worst. Republican congressmen agreed privately that he was most effective at the beginning with his familiar message of why U.S. forces cannot abandon Iraq. The problem for these lawmakers was the rest of the 51-minute presentation, which was filled with unpleasant surprises.
With polls showing the president's approval rating persistently anemic (as low as 39 percent), the speech aimed at a kinder, gentler Bush. But beyond atmospherics, the policy initiatives staked out new directions in the sixth year of his presidency that raised questions. Is this the real George W. Bush? Is he really his true father's son and not Ronald Reagan's?
The president seemed more comfortable with his foreign policy declarations than with what followed, but even here he did not live up to expectations. Pre-speech tips from White House aides and from Bush himself had pointed to laying down the law to the Iranian regime (step back from nuclear arms) and the Hamas party in Palestine (recognize Israel). He did so, but not with the force and specificity promised.
As expected, Bush backed away from what a year earlier were labeled as the two great initiatives of his second term. He complained that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," unintentionally setting off self-congratulatory celebration by Democrats on the floor. But Bush made no promises about trying to revive his personal accounts. The president did not even give the comprehensive tax reform the courtesy of a death notice. It went unmentioned and apparently unmourned.
Prior to the speech, one conservative Republican senator fantasized about Bush turning to Democrats and calling on them to pass permanent tax cuts and then turning to Republicans and calling on them to cut spending. He did call for permanent tax cuts and for control over spending, but so briefly and undramatically that the president's demands lost their impact.
However, what bothered conservatives most about Tuesday night's performance was not what the president failed to do but what he actually did. The pre-speech public relations drumbeat had promised the president would deliver a new energy initiative to Americans angry about the price of gasoline. Indeed, Bush deplored that "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world" and promised to end "our dependence on Middle Eastern oil." It was how he would accomplish this that stunned conservatives.
The president proposed that the government preside over a wide array of non-petroleum energy options. That has all the characteristics of an "industrial policy," with the federal government picking winners and losers. While violating the Republican Party's free market philosophy, this is a course with a lengthy pedigree of failure all over the world.
The same State of the Union address that neglected the Republican goal of reforming the tax system called for an American Competitiveness Initiative that also promises an extension of growing, intrusive government. That would expand still more the federal role in education. Instead of shrinking the federal government, Bush wants to grow it.
None of this change in direction will lead to a kinder, gentler Democratic Party in Congress. Tuesday night's response by newly elected Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, while far more partisan than the president's speech, was relatively moderate and restrained. But it will not be Kaine with whom Bush must deal in this election. It is the fiercely partisan Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and George Miller.
Bush's softer rhetoric can be stiffened as this year moves toward the serious business of midterm elections. But what happens to the blueprint for big government laid out by President Bush Tuesday night? That will not be easy to reverse.
Robert Novak is a television personality and columnist. Novak is also editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report available through a free offer from Human Events Online
Regretted it later, but too late.
Maybe conservatives SHOULD be mad at the speech, but I haven't seen it. We're pretty conservative here and the poll suggest we were very happy.
Novak must have a different set of conservative buddies.
BTW, I don't think Bush's energy plan has to be an industrial policy, or pick winners and losers. I don't think Government does a good a job of research investment as the private sector, but I don't think it is wrong to HAVE investment in the things he mentioned (batteries and hydrogen fuel).
I'm not sure it's needed, and it probably is a waste of money, so I don't want to suggest we should be happy about it either, just it's not something that will force people to use batteries or hydrogen.
I wouldn't mind seeing government spend money to re-energize the nuclear industry, which is hurt by government allowing support for govermnent-judicial risks that companies can't accept.
the polls might seem like it, but compared to the polls for all of his other State of the Union speeches, this one has the lowest ratings...
I agree though, that the energy issues in this country are critical and the government needs to be better in handling it, as it has global ramifications.
He's a registered Democrat.
This is disapointing and undercuts his own rhetoric and doctrine.
I was at the Michael Medved speaking engagement in Hopkins, MN Tuesday, and the SOTU was put up on the Big Screen, with Fox News coverage (thankfully).
And it was a generally warm set of applauses for the President.
But when he talked about Trade Isolationists, and needing Immigration....the entire audience of like, I would guess over a thousand, very conspicuously....
SAT ON THEIR HANDS,
this despite the GOP Congressman dutifully clapping.
You could almost hear the crickets chirping.
Look who he treats better!
As a former teachers, I know one thing: Federal Aid for education is pure pork. It results in better football stadiums, not better science classes.
Actually, it makes no difference if he was a troll or not, he posted a real article, not a vanity -- and the article is not from some left-wing nutcase.
You are correct. Bush can "reach out" to the socialists all he wants and he is not going anywhere now. He blew his liberal spending wad, so to speak. Republicans need to set a separate agenda from Bush for the next election.
For 2008, if we go for the "squishy middle" strategy again, and fail to field a true Rightist, then shame on us all. This experiment in tolerance of the middle of the road has been pretty mediocre. Bush gets credit for many things, but the overt pangs of liberalism that have colored his outlook since childhood cannot be denied. Either live and learn, or, fail.
That's like saying if you see a front door open with no car in the garage why wouldn't you walk in and steal the stereo?Not everyone would.
The Congress is the body which writes the laws. Thus, if the laws are corrupt, the people are responsible for putting pressure on them to either change them or elect them out. It's not a given that every congressperson is corrupt IMO. Put pressure on the good ones to do their job.
Correct. This will be difficult, however...
It appears the administration is still trying to tie up the major funding sources with his proxy agents. Thence he will be able to try and steer the nomination to whomever appeals most to him at the time the decision is made.
Clearly, there has been a push by him, via Dick Morris, to build a groundswell for Condoleeza Rice. [ Minor digression: I believe she is pro-abortion, and 'moderate' on other social issues. A protege of Gary Hart. ]
Specifically, I also have a number of skeptical doubts about her soundness of judgement, from foreign trade, to national security. I believe flat out she was soft on the need to clean house of bad (democRAT) personnel from the get-go in 2000. [Who here doesn't think Richard Clarke's shenanigans prior didn't have a lot to do with our unpreparedness for 9-11? As Rush reported...Neither Clarke or Tenet EVER briefed Rice, the Prez, or Rummy on the Al-Queda's "Operation Bojinka." A good National Security Advisor would have discovered this on their own, despite this misfeasance. No evidence she ever did, if the 9-11 Commn hearings are to be credited. ]
I believe Rice was Soft on the Russians. Hence the GWB-Putin love-fest. Soft on the Chinese. Soft on China thuggery controlling the Panama Canal. Soft on the Law of the Sea Treaty. Soft on the WTO infringing on U.S. Sovereignty. Soft on Mexico. Soft on Chavez in Venezuela (even when he sent $1 million to Al-Queda). Soft on Brazil.
And even in the War on Terror...why are the clearly-labelled "axis" nations of Iran and North Korea still not dealt with four years later? And Soft on Syria. So much for the much-dreaded unilateralism of the "princess warrior."
I meant the poll of members here at FreeRepublic. I'm not saying its a really accurate reflection of reality, but I would think if there was widespread conservative disenchantment with the speech, it would show up big-time in this poll.
According to the latest numbers, the members of FR say:
How would you rate President Bush's State of the Union address?
I assume you are being facetious....we are talking about the same guy, right?
I frankly don't credence Wikipedia's claims with regard to the party registration. Consider the information contributors: NYT, and Salon.com But I suppose that my expectations could be confounded. Anybody got an actual interview where he admits this?
I most certainly am not kidding; he's said so himself.
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.