Well, I just finished listening to the President's State of the Union Speech, and I really thought it was excellent. By far the best line of the night was when the President pointedly declared the following: "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." Very effective, very good.
Just like the Patio Pundit, this speech reminded me why I love GWB. Tom Shales is wrong about the speech, and Taegan is stupid for calling Shales's article "the most accurate review" of the speech. I have to say that I found this State of the Union Address more powerful and moving than any of Bush's previous ones. Obviously, the post-9/11 SOTU was good, and the "Axis of Evil" line was bold. So was the 2003 speech where the President laid out his case for the War in Iraq. However, this speech found a perfect balance of domestic and international concerns.
Also, the President used better lines and sound-bytes in this speech. In addition to the afore-mentioned "permission slip" comment, I really enjoyed the following:
As you guys know from my previous posts, I don't support the Patriot Act. However, I found it appalling when a few Democrats interrupted Bush in mid-sentence to clap after he noted the Patriot Act's looming expiration. Bush, however, won the battle, as he stated, "The terrorist threat will not expire on this schedule." (Paraphrase)
Kudos to Terry McAuliffe for allowing Nancy Pelosi to help deliver the Democrats' response. If I'm not mistaken, last year Governor Gary Locke (Democrat of Washington State) delivered it. His was bland and boring. Nancy Pelosi is a brilliant orator and an energetic politician. Too bad I disagree with almost everything that comes out of her mouth. I left the room when Tom Daschle came on, though, because I can't stand the man personally or politically. (Note to self: Contribute money to the Thune campaign.
As for the really big political story of the week, I'll have Iowa analysis and New Hampshire predictions up in the next few days. Also, I'll try to update my candidate section over the weekend, seeing as how our "frontrunner" is no longer the frontrunner and two of the candidates have dropped out.
Four-star General Wesley Clark (D) appears to be filling the role that many (myself included) predicted for Gephardt - the anti-Dean candidate.
More later...
I haven't been updating very frequently this month, so I'll try to update you on all of the big political and news stories of the past few weeks. To do this, I'll list them in (subjective) order of political importance:
I would also like to say thank you to all of my readers and I wish you all a joyous holiday season and a happy and very successful new year!
I was thinking about changing the title of this weblog to "Confessions of a Bipolar Republican" or "Confessions of a Contradictory Republican" because of my vast mood changes toward President Bush (notice that I usually only call him "President" Bush or "My President" when I'm feeling good about him). On the one hand, I think that his argument for going into Iraq was a complete fraud (see yesterday's article), and I disagree with many of his positions (see the developing "Platform" page), but I can't help but strongly admire him as a person. That, I believe, is unquestionably his most powerful political strength. When Clinton was President, I was not proud of him at all. As a whole, the American people did not look at Clinton and think, "Wow, he's a guy that makes a good role model for my children" or even "Gee, he's a leader that I can really respect." With George W. Bush, that's all different - if I knew Bush as an ordinary person and not as a President, I believe I could count him as one of my friends. True, Bush is not the intellectual heavyweight that Clinton came off as (occassionally), but, through all of his bumbles, policy errors, and intolerant positions, I believe that the President truly has good intentions in his heart.
This perception, I believe, is widespread throughout the electorate, and that is why Bush's favorability ratings (i.e. his ratings "as a person" or "as a leader") have been consistently higher than his job approval ratings (i.e. the American people's assessment of his policies rather than his personality). That is also the reason that Bush's ratings plunged during the heat of the weapons-gate charges. The thing that had been propping up the ratings had been the people's belief that deep down Bush was an honest, hard-working guy. Thus the accusations of widespread deceit on behalf of the Administration and Bush himself took a toll on Bush's public approval.
In this way, Bush is a lot like Ronald Reagan. Although many Americans saw the somewhat-bumbling, aged Reagan as an ineffective leader, his personality helped convince people that his intentions were good, and that won him two overwhelming electoral victories, especially when facing two opponents (Carter in '80 and Mondale in '84) whose own personalities contrasted so much with Reagan's. If Dean wins the nomination and faces Bush in 2004, the President's mild optimism and genuinity will easily give him the advantage over the arrogant, hot-tempered, perpetual pessimist embodied by Dean.
I was pondering the full spectrum of Gulf War II yesterday: the "selling" of the war, the "waging" of the war, and finally the "botching" of the post-war situation. Now don't get me wrong - I'm a Bush supporter, and a registered Republican, but the whole Iraq issue leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I couldn't really put the feeling into words before, but it really hit me the other day.
The fact that the war was the product of an extensive marketing campaign on behalf of the Administration is disturbing. In my mind, if a war is truly necessary, the elected officials would not have to "market" it to the American people and to the world at large. If there is a blatant threat - a clear and present danger, if you will - this threat should be so apparent to the government and the citizens that no "selling" of the war should have to take place. But instead, with the Iraq War, Bush had to resort to campaign slogans and punch lines in order to sell it - "disarm Iraq," "free the Iraqi people," "defend the world from grave danger."
Not only that, but the Administration's campaign for the war was two-fold: to the American people, the war was an extension of our broader War on Terror, a war against a dangerous terrorist-sponsoring regime; to the rest of the world, the war was an enforcement of previous U.N. mandates to ensure that Saddam Hussein was not developing weapons of mass destruction. It reminded me of the way stores and restaurants tailor their specific advertisements toward their target demographic.
When the Administration saw that they did not have sufficient evidence to back up either of those claims, they began to fabricate intelligence - African uranium, Saddam's supposed harboring of terrorists. And then the White House engaged in a systematic portrayal of those opposing the war as unpatriotic.
We did not need to market the conflict in Afghanistan after 9/11. We did not need to market World War II after the Japanese attacked. We did not need to market World War I after the sinking of the Lusitania and our Kaiser-induced naval afflictions. The War in Iraq needed marketing because it was an unnecessary war; it was not immediately crucial to the interests of the United States. I still support my President, but his handling of this situation was wrong.
I know that I haven't been blogging a lot recently, but I've been trying to work to improve the site instead (I hope you've noticed the changes). To try to make up for the lack of recent updates, I've put a new item in the Special Posts section of site called "Election 2004: Candidates, Issues, Polls, and Predictions". Go check it out when you have time. I'll be updating it weekly.
Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) is one of the politicians whom I most admire. He has taken a stand against that of his party because he sees that the Democratic Party he once adored has become a branch of extremists. He is unlike the traitor senator (whose name shall not be mentioned here), because the traitor defected from his party less than a year after being reelected on the GOP Senatorial ticket, and he did so simply for political gain. Instead, Miller had repeatedly attempted to save his party from the McGovern-Mondale-Dean wing before ultimately realizing that the Party will no longer be the Democratic Party of the past (for more from Zell Miller, check out his excellent new book, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat" - which, coincidentally, has a title very similar to this website.)
Anyways, the point is, Democrats have become too liberal to appeal any longer to the South. Back when Democrats stood for the regular folks, for old-fashioned values and strong national defense (especially during the "initial" presidencies: FDR, JFK, and LBJ), they were strong in Dixie. However, since they've made their stand for "radical" issues - as perceived by the Southerners - such as gay rights, gun control, and the environment, they have been completely ineffective in this region.
In the early days of his campaign (before the polls came out showing him behind Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton), North Carolina Senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was hailed by some as a savior for a beleagured party that faced a solidly GOP South. However, his campaign has faltered, mostly due to Democratic hostility to conservatism and moderation.
The point is, the Dems will have to find a way to win without the South, which is very difficult because historically winning (or at least breaking the other party's lock on it) the South has been crucial to an electoral victory. The South has risen again, but this time in the form of a political powerhouse.
Although the conventional wisdom has been that a bitterly contested Democratic primary battle would be a benefit for Bush, I have a different theory about the race. I speculate that by having Howard Dean as the declared frontrunner this early, Karl Rove and the Bush gang can begin custom-tailoring their general election campaign to attack Dean.
Think about it - all of the Dems have known from day one who their biggest opponent was (or would be, if they got to the general election): Bush. But the GOP was at a clear disadvantage in the fact that it had no idea whether to tailor its campaign to an opposition the likes of a John Kerry, a Howard Dean, a Wes Clark, or a Dick Gephardt. Now that Bush can safely assume that Dean will be the Democratic nominee next year (barring any completely and totally unforeseen event), he can begin attacking Dean either blatantly or by implication in speeches and such while Dean is still tied up in the formalities of the Democratic race (debates, primaries, pretending like John Kerry's campaign really matters, etc). Another thing that the GOP can do is to threaten a Dean presidency in its fundraising letters in much the same way that it uses a Hillary presidency as a scare tactic. I can certainly imagine getting a letter in the mail from Ed Gillespie telling me all about how Howard Dean is a "Vermont liberal" who supports such "radical" policies as gay civil unions.
PREDICTIONS: Bush gets a head-start on the negative race against Dean, and the RNC manipulates fear of the "ultra-liberal" candidate to bring in huge amounts of money for the 2004 campaign.
Well, you know what they say - you win some, you lose some. Following three consecutive gubernatorial victories for the GOP (Schwarzenegger in California, Fletcher in Kentucky, and Barbour in Mississippi) the Democrats saved one for themselves yesterday as Kathleen Blanco was elected in a dramatic come-from-behind victory to halt Republican upstart Bobby Jindal.
Now, don't expect Jindal to just disappear. He's the son of an Indian immigrant in a party that's desperately trying to reach out to minorities. I believe Ed Gillespie has big plans for him.
PREDICTIONS (although we've now seen that my predictions aren't always accurate): Senator John Breaux (D-LA) vacates his Senate seat next year. Bobby Jindal runs for and wins this seat.
Although the average voter pays little attention to any election that does not directly affect them, let alone an election in another state in an off-year, the political advisors and analysts in Washington are eyeing very closely today's Louisiana gubernatorial runoff.
Now, as we found out from last year's Landrieu-Terrell senatorial runoff, Louisiana has a hokey election system. On Election Day in Louisiana, everyone is on the ballot - there are no party primaries. I imagine that looking at a Louisiana ballot would be much trying to figure out the recall ballot in California. If no one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the two top vote-getters (it doesn't matter if they are Republican or Democrat) advance to the runoff, which is set at a later date.
Bobby Jindal (R), an Indian immigrant, and Kathleen Blanco (D), an experienced public servant and current Lieutenant Governor, are vying for the seat being vacated by incumbent Governor Mike Foster. Jindal has lead slightly in the polls coming up to Election Day, but I can guarantee that this election will be a close one.
Both Republicans and Democrats are watching this race because of its national implications: Louisiana has been a traditionally Democratic state (both of its senators are Democrats and historically most of its governors have been too), but it went for Bush in 2000, and the GOP is hoping to permanently incorporate it into its long-term "Southern Strategy." If we are to see a Jindal victory, expect Republicans to praise it as another sign that Bush is solidifying his support in the South - and also expect Louisiana to be essentially "off the table" for Dems in '04. However, if Blanco wins, the Democrats will realize that Louisiana is the crack in the GOP's supposedly solid strategy, and expect them to try to exploit it and make Louisiana a battle-ground state in 2004.
PREDICTIONS: Jindal wins, Bush is triumphant, Louisiana's off the table in '04.
INTERESTING NOTE: Because of the redistribution of electoral votes from the Census, this year if Bush wins the same states that he did in 2000, the margin would be 278-260. If, however, Bush wins all of those states EXCEPT Louisiana, the final count would be 269-269. And then the election would get thrown into the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, and we could very well see yet ANOTHER Bush presidency marred by an indecisive electorate and scandal in the election.
LINK TO THIS SITE...
...COPY AND PASTE THE ABOVE IMAGE AS A HYPERLINK TO YOUR SITE
