The Ashford Zone Blog

I have little to say on this.  I saw a recording of the Bush speech, and heard the Democratic response by Senator Webb (the latter of which impressed me).  I’ve also read/heard a number of commentaries on Bush’s speech, and — at least in the blogosphere — they are entirely predictable.  Those few still in Bush’s corner thought it was "home run"; everybody else thought it was meager at best.  [Interesting sidenote: Apparently, a lot of people who hoped to liveblog the speech were thwarted last night due to a tremendous crash at Blogger].

My feelings (obviously) fall to the latter, articulated well by the New York Times (emphases mine)

The White House spin ahead of George W. Bush’s seventh State of the Union address was that the president would make a bipartisan call to revive his domestic agenda with “bold and innovative concepts.” The problem with that was obvious last night — in six years, Mr. Bush has shown no interest in bipartisanship, and his domestic agenda was set years ago, with huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans and crippling debt for the country.

Combined with the mounting cost of the war in Iraq, that makes boldness and innovation impossible unless Mr. Bush truly changes course. And he gave no hint of that last night. Instead, he offered up a tepid menu of ideas that would change little: a health insurance notion that would make only a tiny dent in a huge problem. More promises about cutting oil consumption with barely a word about global warming. And the same lip service about immigration reform on which he has failed to deliver.

At times, Mr. Bush sounded almost as if he’d gotten the message of the 2006 elections. “Our citizens don’t much care which side of the aisle we sit on — as long as we are willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done,” he said.

But we’ve heard that from Mr. Bush before. In early 2001, he promised to bring Americans together and instead embarked on his irresponsible tax cuts, a divisive right-wing social agenda and a neo-conservative foreign policy that tore up international treaties and alienated even America’s closest allies. In the wake of 9/11, Mr. Bush had a second chance to rally the nation — and the world — only to squander it on a pointless, catastrophic war in Iraq. Mr. Bush promised bipartisanship after his re-election in 2004, and again after Hurricane Katrina. Always, he failed to deliver. He did not even mention New Orleans last night.

When Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, Mr. Bush’s only real interest was in making their majority permanent; consultation meant telling the Democrats what he had decided.

Neither broken promises nor failed policies changed Mr. Bush’s mind. So the nation has been saddled with tax cuts that have turned a budget surplus into a big deficit, education reform that has been badly managed and underfinanced, far-right judges with scant qualifications, the dismantling of regulations in order to benefit corporations at the expense of workers, and a triumph of ideology over science in policy making on the environment and medical research. All along, Americans’ civil liberties and the constitutional balance have been trampled by a president determined to assert ever more power.

Now that the Democrats have taken Congress, Mr. Bush is acting as if he’d had the door to compromise open all along and the Democrats had refused to walk through it.

Last night, Mr. Bush also acted as if he were really doing something to help the 47 million people in this country who don’t have health insurance. What he offered, by the White House’s own estimate, would take a few million off that scandalously high number and shift the burden to the states. Mr. Bush’s plan would put a new tax on Americans who were lucky enough to still have good health-care coverage through their employers. Some large portion of those are middle class and represented by the labor unions that Mr. Bush and the Republicans are dedicated to destroying.

Mr. Bush’s comments on Iraq added nothing to his failed policies. He did, at last, propose a permanent increase in the size of the Army and Marines that would repair some of the damage he has done to those forces. But that would take years, and it would do nothing to halt Iraq’s spiral. Mr. Bush failed to explain how he would pay for a larger force, which would almost certainly require cutting budget-busting weapons programs. That would mean going up against the arms industry and its lobbyists — something Mr. Bush has never been willing to do.

Mr. Bush almost certainly didn’t intend it, but his speech did reinforce one vital political fact — that it’s not just up to him anymore. There was a big change last night: the audience. Instead of solid Republican majorities marching in lock step with the White House, Congress is controlled by Democrats. It will be their task to give leadership to a nation that desperately wants change and expects its leaders to work together to deliver it. The Democrats’ challenge will be to form real coalitions with willing Republicans. If they do, Mr. Bush may even be forced, finally, to compromise.

Say what you will about the flaws and shortcomings of the two-party system. After six years of the Bush presidency, at least we know it’s a lot better than the one-party system.

By the way, it is clear that Bush’s words were empty.  He talked about "bipartisanship", but delivered his speech with a subtle and petty but noticeable jab at Democrats.  There is a certain amount of "bipartisanship" in Congress these days — a lot of Republicans aren’t Bush fans either.

A sneak peek:

I stopped writing about Bush’s low poll numbers a while ago, simply because it became redundent to do so, and it only serves to reinforce what everybody knows: Bush is a gloriously unpopular president.

But going into his State Of The Union speech tonight, it is worth noting that he has reached all-time lows — even for him.  The new CBS poll, for example, puts him at a 28% approval rating, which is Nixon territory.  (When Nixon resigned, his approval rating was 24%.  And his disapproval rating was 66%, just two higher than Bush’s 64%).

It’s common — indeed, expected — for Presidents to devote major portions of their SOTU speeches to listing the accomplishments over the past year (capped by the inevitable: "Ladies and Gentlemen of Congress, distinguished guests, and the people of the United States of America, the state of the Union  …is …STRONG!!")

Still, I wonder what Bush is going to actually be able to say.  The stock market is doing well, although I’m not sure how much credit he can take for that.  Gas prices are low . . . at the moment.  But other than that, what can he cite as accomplishments for his Administration over the past year?

News reports suggest that he is going to present some bold initiatives, kind of like a couple of years ago when he tallked about colonizing Mars.  Of course, what he says and what he does remains to be seen.

It seems clear though that he is opening the doors to, and addressing, the issues of health care and environmentalism. 

On the former issue, Bush will propose a limit on the deductibility given to employees who have employment-based health insurance, and a tax credit for most in that category, too.  These is a nice start, and I welcome it [UPDATE: Well, maybe it’s not what it’s cracked up to be].  Sadly, it hardly does much to address what is actually needed — universal health care coverage (the U.S. is the only advanced country in the world not to have this).  And it doesn’t move the ball forward in terms of getting insurance companies to pay for health care benefits, rather than look for reasons to deny it.

But at least it puts the ball on the field, and begins the dialogue.

Still, I won’t be watching SOTU.  I have a feeling it will be just a lot of feel-good words and promises, and then nothing will happen.   For sure, he’ll talk about the need for America to no longer rely on foreign energy, but, we’ve heard that before, yes?:

State of the Union, 1/29/2002: Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil.

State of the Union, 1/28/2003: Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. … Even more, I ask you to take a crucial step and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined.

State of the Union, 1/20/2004: Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run — so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

State of the Union, 2/2/2005: To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. … I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy.

State of the Union, 1/31/2006: Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil. …. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.

One wonders how much saber-rattling Bush is going to do over Iran.  And will he have the evidence this time?

On the other hand, it would be entertaining to watch everybody sit on their hands and give lukewarm applause.

HISTORICAL NOTE:  My first blog post was written 3 years and two days ago (Jan. 21, 2004) on the subject of Bush’s 2004 SOTU address.

UPDATED:  Graphic from NYT added.