Right Wing Nut House

Media reaction to President Bush’s State of the Union Speech was surprisingly mild. The afterglow from the Iraqi elections may have had something to do with that. More than that, it was the President’s use of one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite SOTUS ploys; draw broad pictures and let Congress fill in the details. That way, something gets done about the issue, Congress gets some credit, and the President doesn’t make too many enemies; win, win, win all the way around.

In the case of social security, however, that dog ain’t gonna hunt. Bush’s primary job will be to convince Republican lawmakers to get on board the reform bandwagon. Democrats have made clear (and in no uncertain terms) that their job will be to obstruct the President’s proposals, even to the point of a Senate filibuster. The Dems think they have a club to beat the president over the head with come midterms in 2006. If they stay united and play their cards right, they’re absolutely correct.

The fact is, there’s no easy way to get from here to there on social security. Any reform will mean soaring deficits and, for people like me, cutting benefits. Over the next few months you’re going to hear a lot of numbers bandied about by both sides. No matter what anybody says, a transition to private accounts will cost the government at least $1 trillion dollars. There’s no getting around it and both Bush and the Democrats know this.

Everyone also knows something must be done. The Democrats will content themselves with being naysayers, sitting on the sidelines allowing Republicans to do the heavy political lifting, and garnering the political windfall when it becomes clear that there’s real pain involved in the transition.

Good strategy. Irresponsible governance.

Here’s some media reaction to the President’s speech.

The New York Times was less vitriolic than usual:

The State of the Union speech has come in recent years to be a laundry list of everything the president would do if he had the power to do everything. Bill Clinton was a particular fan of that approach, and polls have always shown that Americans like it. Last night, George W. Bush delivered a modified version, with a raft of initiatives that included some things new but a great deal that was very familiar. We were pleased to hear the call for better defense in death-penalty cases and more community health centers in poor areas, and the mention of $350 million in aid for Palestinians to promote the peace process with Israel. But we were disheartened by the renewed call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and the failure to mention development aid to Africa or virtually any other country that is not identified as a prime source of terrorism.

The Times was also “heartened” by the Iraqi elections but dubious of SS reform.

The Washington Post was encouraged by the President’s SS proposals but sees the devil in the numbers ($754 billion) put out recently by the Bush White House:

The personal accounts Mr. Bush advocated are intelligently structured in many ways. The requirement that workers, on retirement, use at least part of their money to buy annuities to keep them above the poverty level; the prohibition on workers withdrawing money before retiring; the default investment plan of a “lifestyle account” that would shift workers, as they age, into less risky investment blends — all of these are sensible approaches.

Because the accounts would be phased in beginning in 2009, that number is misleading. And Mr. Bush made private accounts look like a no-lose proposition, saying, “Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver.” That may be true for many account holders, but Mr. Bush didn’t address what would happen to those who do not fare as well.

David Frum of NRO Online was predictably ebullient:

The speech was long, but not wordy: Its power came not from poetic flourishes, but from the clarity of its message and the firmness of its purpose. And yet the speech was not uncompromising or harsh. Without trimming his conservative principles, the president reaffirmed his commitment to a compassionate approach to AIDS, poverty, and gang violence, and he affirmed a renewed national commitment to defendants in death penalty cases.

The Los Angeles Times, one of the President’s most persistent and vocal critics, was impressed…up to a point:

It was a triumphant moment for Bush, but also a reminder that the rationale for the war has changed. If the Iraqi people’s freedom was once seen as merely a bonus from an unavoidable war, that freedom has moved to center stage as the war’s primary justification. That’s because contrary to what Bush said in a previous State of the Union speech, we now know the threat posed by Hussein was not imminent.

Given that history, Bush was wise in Wednesday’s address to restrain himself in discussing Iran and North Korea, nations he memorably described as part of a three-country “axis of evil” three years ago.

The Nation seems a little miffed:

He did not shy away from the freedom-is-our-mission rhetoric of his inaugural speech, which was widely criticized for being cynically unrealistic. Bush declared, “America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” And he named names, calling upon Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two autocracies long supported by Washington, to move toward democracy. Certainly, he–or Condoleezza Rice–might be on the phone tomorrow to Cairo and Riyadh, explaining that Bush does not expect immediate action. Nevertheless, such words probably will provide encouragement to democracy activists in those countries and in others. These people, though, should keep in mind that Bush’s father–who clearly is no role model for his son–egged on the Shiites in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War and then did not come to their rescue when they were slaughtered.

And here’s a laughable bit from the BBC Online:

But one of the moments that many will take away was of a mother whose son was killed in Iraq emotionally embracing an Iraqi human-rights campaigner.

Janet Norwood’s marine son, Sgt Byron Norwood, was killed in the assault on Falluja, and Mr Bush acknowledged her and in doing so, publicly acknowledged that troops are dying in Iraq.

I took a chance and googled up “Bush acknowledges deaths Iraq” and got 557 pages. The fact is, every time the President speaks of Iraq he speaks of the sacrifices of the soldiers and their families. Everyone with half a brain (excluding, I guess the BBC reporter) knows what he’s talking about when he says “sacrifices.” Only the deliberately myopic would say otherwise.