Like his other major addresses given over the past month, the President’s oval office speech last night was a calm, measured and fairly accurate portrayal of the situation in Iraq and the consequences of giving in to the Democratic party’s defeatism and surrender tactics. It was delivered in typical Bush style – which is to say that it didn’t put anyone to sleep but was hardly the kind of rousing, “Rally ‘Round the Flag” stemwinder that is probably needed to change the political dynamic and actually garner more support for his policies with middle of the road Americans. These all-important voters who have mostly abandoned the President on Iraq are the reason the Democrats have been smelling blood in the water all these months and will continue to work to undermine the war effort.

Unlike his last oval office speech in 2003 when the President enjoyed substantial support among independents for the war, today that number has fallen to around 37%. And to make matters worse, Rasmussen’s rolling average over the last month has shown a depressing steadiness to the President’s support from these “unaffiliated” voters.

Basically, this means that the President’s rising approval ratings are the result of Bush winning back Republicans who had strayed off the reservation and not indicative of a sea change in public attitudes toward Iraq.

While it is true that the President’s information offensive has been going on for only a month, the White House is probably asking itself what else they can do to reverse the decline in the support of independents before next year’s Congressional elections. The arithmetic is all too frightening. As it stands now, for every independent voter who makes a decision to vote Republican based on the President’s and the party’s support for the war, the Democrats will get two independents to vote for their candidates. Therein lies electoral disaster for Republicans in the Senate and perhaps even in the House, although the number of people who weight their vote based on a Congressional candidate’s foreign policy views is far fewer in House races.

Is there a way to win back enough independents to avoid a Republican debacle at the polls next November? The answer is a qualified “yes.” In the Presidential election of 2004, Bush received 48% of the independent vote with voter identification by party dead even at 37%. Today, with only 37% of independents supporting the President and party identification at a worrying 47% Democratic to 43% Republican, the President must not only find a way to win back at least some of those middle of the road voters but also energize the Republican party base so that enough conservatives go to the polls and keep Republican Senate candidates – especially in the south – from being swamped by a Democratic surge.

What the President must do is change the narrative on Iraq to reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground rather than the fairy tales being spun by the Democrats and their allies in the MSM. Recently, there has been some very small moves in this direction as a few media outlets have begun to compare the tone and tenor of their past coverage of the war with evidence that all is not as they have been reporting. The steady progress in reconstruction along with the obvious strides being made by the Iraqis in the political arena (and American-Iraqi military successes in slowly beating down the insurgency) have bestirred some in the mainstream press to grudgingly change the constant drumbeat of negativity that has permeated their coverage for more than 2 years. Ed Morrissey:

The Sunni participation puts the last of the building blocks in place for the establishment of a consensus democratic republic. The reporting of the Times indicates that the American media might finally start recognizing what will shortly become obvious to all whether they do so or not: that a free Iraq exists, thanks to an administration that steadfastly refused to listen to the Chicken Littles of the opposition and the whiners of the Exempt Media at home. The war may finally have turned the corner in the only place it could be lost—here in America.

It’s not enough, of course. While the Democrats have concentrated on undermining the President’s credibility on the war – with a great deal of success – they have either failed to realize the real world consequences of their defeatism or, more likely, could care less as long as it brings them victory in 2006. There follows a logical progression here; if the real story of what’s going on in Iraq can begin to be told, the President’s credibility will rise. If that occurs, the Democrats may be faced with an election day debacle of their own. Those same independents who have abandoned the President could return in large enough numbers to deliver a stinging rebuke to the Democratic party on election day 2006.

Several factors on the ground in Iraq could help the President and Republicans regain some momentum:

• Several insurgent groups lay down their arms and join the political process

• The Iraqis have a comparatively uneventful time of it in forming a new government

• Zarqawi is either killed or he announces a move out of Iraq to somewhere more hospitable, the former being more likely.

• A large and noticeable fall off in civilian casualties over several months.

• A rise in secularism with demonstrated unity between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds.

• Well publicized successes in fighting the insurgency by the Iraqi military.

• More public support from Arab governments for Iraqi democracy.

I would hope that two or three of these things happening between now and the 2006 election would secure a Republican triumph and, more importantly, drive a stake through the heart of the insurgency and hasten the day when our sons and daughters can come home.

UPDATE

Some react to the speech:

Michelle Malkin live blogged the address and, in something one rarely sees from a liveblogger, she gives the talking head response immediately following the speech.

Think Progress published a copy of the speech even though it was embargoed. Their explanation?

[Ed note: We’ll start respecting embargoes when they start telling the truth.]

Um…does anyone else see that as petty and childish? Par. For. The. Course.

Is Glen Reynolds being cynical?

BUSH DOUBLES DOWN: I just watched Bush’s speech. Nothing new there for anyone who’s been paying attention to the speeches he’s been giving over the past couple of weeks. But one big thing struck me: In this national televised speech, Bush went out of his way to take responsibility for the war. He repeatedly talked about “my decision to invade Iraq,” even though, of course, it was also Congress’s decision. He made very clear that, ultimately, this was his war, and the decisions were his.

Why did he do that? Because he thinks we’re winning, and he wants credit. By November 2006, and especially November 2008, he thinks that’ll be obvious, and he wants to lay down his marker now on what he believed—and what the other side did. That’s my guess, anyway.

Paul Mirengoff nails it:

He expressed respect for those who oppose the war, admitted to some mistakes, and conveyed how wrenching it is to be a war president and how determined he is to win the war. Bush also put the focus where it should be—on where we go from here. He has a coherent answer; the Democrats don’t.

Most lefty bloggers are too busy wetting their pants over the NSA story to write much about the speech. Does this mean that they care more about safeguarding the rights of terrorists than fighting and winning the war?

Of course not, don’t be silly. That would be unpatriotic and defeatist not to mention suicidal.