« I Was Wrong | Main | Ruth Marcus's Cloud Castle »
January 23, 2007
SOTU
The speech, technically, struck me as fairly unobjectionable. Bush didn't much stumble or shock, the rhetoric never soared but rarely fell (with one major exception). The few policy ideas outlined were uniformly awful, of course, ranging from the wreck of a health policy proposal I tore apart earlier to the surge. I'm a bit more concerned about Bush's promise to "submit a budget that eliminates the Federal deficit within the next 5 years." That's a savvy move that will be hard, politically, to reject. If Democrats accept it, however, their freedom for new spending and affirmative policies will be near nonexistent. The punditocracy does love balanced budgets, and I somehow doubt we'll hear much about Bush's suspiciously recent discovery of the deficit hawk within.
All that said, I found myself curiously detached from the whole affair. The Democratic Majority robbed the threat of action from Bush's rhetoric. His cruel health plan and Social Security fear mongering are evanescent annoyances, not upcoming agenda items. He's weak, and you sense he knows it. The speech hit the notes it needed to and no more. It was, this time, a formality, a book report bound and delivered to Congress, just as the assignment called for. He sought checkmarks for attendance and completion, and went home.
Webb's response, in contrast, was strong, clear and just. His voice vibrated with outrage and urgency, and his speech laid out Democratic principles with a confident, spare, eloquence. By far the best SOTU response I've seen. I should note, as an interesting aside, that I spent a few minutes chatting with Webb earlier in the day, and he seemed perfectly at ease. Not a hint of anxiety in the freshman senator about to give a nationally televised response on behalf of his entire party. It struck me as vaguely odd at the time, but perfectly appropriate given the quality of his performance. Webb's appeal, I think, comes from his obvious and genuine conviction. He does have an ideology, and it makes him a far more compelling messenger than the technocrats and establishmentarians Democrats tend to rely on.
January 23, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
A few things I really liked about Webb's speech:
a) He focused on values and general principles rather than slavish babblings about wonkery
b) He played the carrot and the stick incredibly well. Often, what is missed in the discussions with some people on this blog is not that we shouldn't have a carrot in the arsenal of tricks on the left/Democratic/liberal/progressive side of the aisle, it is that we need both the stick and the carrot.
c) He used his history to create emotional resonance (thank God not another emotionless Democratic response)
One criticism: needs to look directly at screen more and smile less- learn to show emotional shifts. This is an acting skil, but one that would have made what was powerful content even more powerful. moment to moment- sad when the moment is sad, but shift with the tone to smile when the moment called for that too.
Posted by: akaison | Jan 24, 2007 12:00:33 AM
I wouldn't say they were all uniformly awful. What about his proposal to raise CAFE standards? Or his increasing the mandatory fuel standard? And what did you find objectionable about his desire to help out states who are helping the uninsured get insurance?
None of these are earthshattering or will make a tremendous amount of difference. But I don't see how they can be labeled "awful".
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 24, 2007 12:19:58 AM
Webb was okay. But vast, soaring eloquence? Come on. Given the quality of most SOTU rebuttals, I think you're grading on a curve here.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 24, 2007 1:09:57 AM
Well, the uninsured bit redirects existing money from Medicaid and Medicare, so yeah, that's pretty bad. And the CAFE standards bit doesn't exist -- he never advocated a raise, at least not that I heard or noticed in a quick read of the transcript. I'm glad he wants to, over time, cut gasoline use, but I'll believe the strength of that proposal when I see it.
Posted by: Ezra | Jan 24, 2007 1:14:48 AM
A small point, but one that addresses a pet peeve of mine: When Webb spoke about bipartisanship and working together, he did not say that Democrats "need to reach out" or some other crap. He simply and clearly told the American people that the Democrats are reaching out, they are working with those who are willing to set aside their differences to make things better for the country.
That is exactly right. On this matter - throughout the rebuttal, really - Webb gave a concise presentation of not only Democratic principles, but Democratic achievements and commitment to make the right things start to happen again.
Webb spoke as a member of the party that controls Congress and is facing a weak, extremely unpopular lame-duck president. It was indeed a nice change.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 24, 2007 1:25:43 AM
Yea after posting I read Chait's article over at TNR about the problems with the grants. So I see your point.
As for CAFE standards, it wasn't in the speech. But is in the policy initatives outlined over at the White House website
http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html
The President's CAFE Plan Will Reduce Gasoline Consumption By Up To 8.5 Billion Gallons Per Year In 2017. The President's plan calls for reforming and increasing CAFE standards for cars, and for further increasing light truck and SUV standards. The President believes new technologies can be deployed to significantly improve fuel economy without impacting safety. Reducing projected consumption by up to 8.5 billion gallons in 2017 means a 5 percent reduction in projected gasoline consumption in that year. The fuel efficiency standard will have even larger benefits later, when consumers replace even more of the auto fleet with purchases of the more efficient new vehicles. These amounts are based on an assumption that on average, fuel efficiency standards for both light trucks and passenger cars are increased 4 percent per year, beginning in Model Year 2010 for cars and Model Year 2012 for light trucks. Given the changing nature of the marketplace for both cars and light trucks, the Secretary of Transportation will determine the actual standard and fuel savings in a flexible rulemaking process.Congress Must Reform CAFE For Passenger Cars. The Administration has twice increased CAFE standards for light trucks using an attribute-based method. An attribute-based system (for example, a size-based system) reduces the risk that vehicle safety is compromised, helps preserve consumer choice, and helps spread the burden of compliance across all product lines and manufacturers. Congress should authorize the Secretary of Transportation to apply the same kind of attribute-based method to passenger cars.
Though I don't like leaving the raising of CAFE standards in the hands of the Sec. of Transportation, instead of congress.
Congress Should Not Legislate A Particular Numeric Fuel Economy Standard. The Secretary of Transportation should be given the authority to set the fuel standard, based on cost/benefit analysis, using sound science, and without impacting safety.
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 24, 2007 1:31:14 AM
Bush is still interested in an immigration package. I don't know if there are enough votes for one, but I'd like to see it.
Money for fighting disease in Africa will be welcome, if not necessarily enough.
The energy proposals might be reworked into some kind of decent package, possibly including stricter CAFE standards.
The balanced budget and earmark reform are easy for him to call for now that Democrats would be allocating the funds, but I do think they're both good things. I'd be surprised if enough senators will go along for the earmarks, since they've already balked at the House measure. Don't know about the budget, but that might fly. If so, there will be a great temptation to leave huge loopholes.
I'm agnostic on the "surge," not having any very good sense of whether it's enough, or workable in other ways, but I do think it's important to defend the idea of not letting Iraq fall into pure chaos.
He put Social Security on the table, but even though we should act on that sooner istead of later, I haven't seen any evidence that comgressional leaders are all that interested, and time is limited for such a big undertaking.
Anyway, not all bad, and some of the bad parts might be open to bargaining for better.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 24, 2007 1:53:49 AM
I really liked the very firm but unstated last words in Sen. Webb's response on Iraq:
These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Webb spoke softly but he carried an unmistakably big stick.
------
Jeff said: And what did you find objectionable about his desire to help out states who are helping the uninsured get insurance?
Bush's plan Is to increase state aid by cutting federal payments to hospitals. Does that make sense?
Federal payments now come in several varieties:
- funding for treatment for those without funds (ER work, largely);
- funding for academic medical centers, largely because they are sent the most difficult cases and because they support the hands-on training of interns and resident MDs; and
- funding for hospitals in rural areas with dispersed populations, or urban city/county hospitals with large patient loads of HIV and other chronic diseases and low income patients.
Which of those should be cut? None, in this Democrat's opinion.
Shifting funds from the federal budget to the states is the GOP way of starving the baby. They've done a lot of this, particularly with Medicaid, with the result being that the increase in state costs exceeds the increase in federal budget allocations, so each year the people get less treatment than before.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jan 24, 2007 2:00:21 AM
I wonder if Webb's "showing him the way" will amount to a big stick, with some force, or just nonbinding resolutions, which are the current plan. I'm not sure the latter will actually serve any good purpose. They won't move Bush, but they might well send a bad message to the troops in Iraq, for no real purpose, other than a possible political one.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 24, 2007 2:19:00 AM
If Democrats accept it, however, their freedom for new spending and affirmative policies will be near nonexistent.
If they were serious about PAYGO, there wasn't going to be much room for that sort of thing anyway.
Posted by: Thlayli | Jan 24, 2007 5:08:31 AM
Sorry guys, but I think that Webb seemed like an immature, frustrated child trotting out the same misleading "facts" about how the economy is not working for most Americans. He tried to scare Americans into believing all of their jobs would be outsourced.
Then, he cites Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower (intentionally picked Republicans) as examples of Presidents who did the right thing. Well, Eisenhower did achieve some success –South Korea is safe, but he did kind of cut and run and look what has happened to that peninsula since then(the war, is in fact, still going on). Then he picks Roosevelt as an exemplar. He perpetuates the ridiculous myth of the robber barons and then seems to overlook that it was Teddy Roosevelt and his Roosevelt Corollary that set a precedent for subsequent US military interventions around the world.
Great stuff.
Posted by: Mike | Jan 24, 2007 8:56:28 AM
Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Jim, I loved the aural subtext there (replace way with door).
Ah, Webb's speech was riveting in its entirety.
Posted by: litbrit | Jan 24, 2007 9:11:14 AM
I thought Bush's speech was tired - much the same topics as previous years - immigration reform, Iraq part of the Woor on Terra, energy independence, etc. The fact it was so similar to last year's just shows he's been a lame duck for a long while.
Webb's speech was excellent, and just the right tone.
Posted by: No Longer a Urinated State of America | Jan 24, 2007 10:07:46 AM
Errr, Mike? When you say look what has happened on the Korean Peninsula since Ike, I see the South, which was an agrarian culture, oppressed by the Japanese for decades, and barely evolved past feudalism in 1950 making Hyundais and Samsung stuff today. If the North has not advanced at the same pace, and is a bellicose actor in the region, that is the problem of its sponsors. And seeing as its sponsors to date have been its neighbors, it is more a problem for them than us. To the extent that the Kim Family Regime is a problem for us, a continued policy of containment, which worked for 50 years on the Soviets, should serve us equally well against North Korea. It ain't perfect, but how Ike handled North Korea was good enough, and the best of any alternatives available at the time.
Posted by: Rick | Jan 24, 2007 10:13:59 AM
I wonder if Webb's "showing him the way" will amount to a big stick, with some force, or just nonbinding resolutions, which are the current plan. I'm not sure the latter will actually serve any good purpose. They won't move Bush, but they might well send a bad message to the troops in Iraq, for no real purpose, other than a possible political one.
Errr.... The Democratic majority has actually been in office for, what, three weeks now? And they don't seem to have anticipated that Bush would high-handedly reject all of the ISG recommendations, which doesn't seem like the worst miscalculation ever, since the ISG study went out of its way to give the administration some face-saving opportunities. I think it's pretty clear that Dems are counting on investigations to clear the way for more assertive Congressional action -- in particular, by peeling away a significant fraction of wavering Republicans. Yeah, it's a drag that the Dems can't do more, more quickly. But somehow I suspect that if they did, you'd be bashing them as appeasers and defeatists.
Posted by: sglover | Jan 24, 2007 10:42:28 AM
I continue to be amazed with the disconnect of some of the posters here versus the reality of what the American people voted on last Nov. I suppose the lesson to be learned won't happen until after 2008 when the GOP's continues to sustain more loses. I suppose then, as now, many of you will claim that Webb's speech doesn't exactly reflect what the American people want of Democrats.
Posted by: akaison | Jan 24, 2007 10:45:30 AM
Ezra, there was another exception: when Bush followed up his kind words for Pelosi by falling back into the schoolboy taunting of "Democrat majority". Even though the prepared copy said "Democratic", he apparently couldn't restrain himself.
Posted by: KCinDC | Jan 24, 2007 10:58:26 AM
"...when Bush followed up his kind words for Pelosi by falling back into the schoolboy"
Golly gee, everybody is praising Bush for his graciousness toward Pelosi. Well, almost everybody.
Goodness Gracious ...Adele M Stan at Tapped
"Pelosi's introduction by this president, this scion of a dynasty of mediocrity, reduced her to status of somebody's daughter." ...AMS
I have been watching Bush for more than twenty years, and know that if he does anything that appears kind or gracious, I need to take another look. He is not capable.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 24, 2007 12:21:38 PM
The Prez made a terrible, and messy, attempt to equate the Sunni extremists in Iraq with practically every Al Qaeda agent and angry Muslim in the world. It was a jaw dropping, awful moment. I realize that fewer and fewer Americans are buying that shit, but these speeches are getting translated and scrutinized around the world now.
Posted by: sprocket | Jan 24, 2007 12:35:42 PM
ezra, why wouldn't webb be calm?
i'm certain he's faced tougher audiences than a houseful of politicians -- like people shooting at him fer instance. dealing with politicos is like brushing off fleas for him.
Posted by: christian | Jan 24, 2007 1:16:17 PM
SGlover, it isn't that a nonbinding resolution won't be enough. It's that it accomplishes no practical good at all while sending a morale-busting message to the troops, who will still have to fight. If the Congress wants to investigate and prudently lay the groundwork for cutting off funding, that at least will be literally putting their money where their mouths are, and won't just leave the troops hanging in what they will be officially told is a bad cause. Some half-measures are worse than nothing.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 24, 2007 1:36:58 PM
"I do think it's important to defend the idea of not letting Iraq fall into pure chaos."
Unless you have a time machine, man, you're about 4 years too late.
Posted by: rea | Jan 24, 2007 1:53:49 PM
It's a relative thing, rea. Conditions in Iraq will very likely get far worse if we leave than if we stay.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 24, 2007 2:03:24 PM
GOP woman at work just came back from some GOP thing for women, and says that they saw the speech last night and felt that Webb clearly did extremely well.
Posted by: akaison | Jan 24, 2007 2:56:55 PM
liqingchao 07年08月30日
google排名
google排名
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
Crm
Crm
呼叫中心
呼叫中心
客户关系管理
客户关系管理
北京月嫂
北京月嫂
china tour
china tour
hongkong hotel
hongkong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
北京律师
北京律师
礼品
礼品
礼品公司
礼品公司
会议礼品
会议礼品
商务礼品
商务礼品
保洁
保洁
保洁公司
保洁公司
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京翻译公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
鼓风机
风机
风机
货架
光盘刻录
光盘刻录
光盘制作
光盘制作
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
红外测温仪
红外测温仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波测厚仪
超声波探伤仪
超声波探伤仪
频闪仪
频闪仪
涂层测厚仪
涂层测厚仪
电火花检测仪
电火花检测仪
google排名
集团电话
集团电话
网站设计
网站设计
多媒体
监控
监控
搬家公司
搬家公司
条码打印机
条码打印机
Posted by: wslmwps | Aug 30, 2007 2:19:14 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
