In case you missed the speech, CNN put together a pretty good 3-minute audio summary. I recommend it.
Each of President Bush's last two State of the Union addresses have followed largely the same pattern--43 goes through his policies, makes half a dozen or so fumbles through words, announces moderate-but-not-sweeping proposals, and half or less of people watching think it's good. The Democrats then come on with their canned message about how 43 is "incompetent" or how there is some vague but undefined "better way".This State of the Union, however, had some differences from those in the recent past that made it a bit more bearable. For one, this was President Bush's first with a Congress opposes him. It was the first ever with any female in the main shot. It was the first of his two "downhill" speeches, as he is entering the era where the candidates for 2008 will certainly overshadow anything he says or does. All these things made for a more entertaining evening. President Bush was more relaxed, more conciliatory, and more realistic. That is not to say that he was relaxed, conciliatory, or realistic, but he was those things to a greater degree.
What was the most surprising was how the polls looked immediately afterward. Everyone knows how galacticly horrible Bush's approval ratings are. So bad, I would argue, that it cripples his ability to effectively do his job as commander-in-chief. Yet the polls about the speech were remarkably positive. Here is the poll from last night: "Question: What was your overall reaction to President Bush's speech -- very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative or very negative?"
A few caveats: the sample size was small and the margin of error high (+/- 5%). Nevertheless, the vitriol cast toward President Bush seemed to subside just a bit, if even for a moment, last night. What is particularly surprising is the very small number of respondents who said "very negative".Bush 43 has argued that poll numbers don't really matter, and that he has to do what is right, not what is popular. While I wholeheartedly agree with the second half of that phrase, I disagree with the first half. Poll numbers, in one important respect, matter very much. Let's say that there is some thing that is really necessary for America to do, but that thing is very unpopular (you can imagine the sort of scenario of which I write). The President needs to have the political capital that would allow Congress to support his decision to "do what is right". Further, the American people need to be willing to listen and consider that the President is right and knows what is best. If his approval rating is in the low 30s it becomes increasingly difficult for him to "do what is right".
The President will be out of office in no time. Still, there will be very important things for America to do over the next two years. For that reason, I hope President Bush can get his numbers up. Perhaps this is the first step. Even if he does, I'm still convinced (as I have argued before) that the Democrats are more likely to win the White House in 2008 that the GOP. But for the sake of our country, we can't have 70% of America opposing the Chief Executive's every move.
3 comments:
I look forward to the Address, even when I disagree with the President. It's a nice tradition and injects a little decorum and ritual. Add this to the short but significant list of things we can agree on: Tim Russert is the man.
Bush has mentioned renewable energy in every SOTU so far. Too bad his energy policy hasn't lived up to what he proposed. Last night was a little different. He had some concrete ideas and they probably have a good chance of getting passed now that the Democrats are in power. I think we can do even more than what he suggested in reducing oil usage, but it's a good start.
You said: Further, the American people need to be willing to listen and consider that the President is right and knows what is best. If his approval rating is in the low 30s it becomes increasingly difficult for him to "do what is right".
I'll continue to consider and listen, but very few people who have been paying any attention in the last 6 years think that the President is right and knows what is best. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt, but as time goes on there's less doubt to work with. He needs to consider the possibility that 70% of the country is onto something. If he's having such a hard time convincing us that something is right, then maybe . . . wait for it . . . it's not right. And I believe that's the case with the escalation in Iraq. He's got some of the best turd polishers in the world, but I think this is such a bad idea that he won't be able to convince the nation that it's good.
Agreed on many of your points, danny. I am hopeful that the now Democratic Congress will pass many things that have not been on the table, but will do so in a non-political way so that 43 will not be forced to veto them. I happen to think that so long as they are reasonable (even if Bush slightly disagrees) he will sign what is brought to him (stem-cell research excluded--he has proven he will veto that, even if nothing else).
As far as your second point, I am more than willing to think the President might be wrong on the troop surge. As we've gone around about that before, and there is no need to rehash it (yet). We can say for now that we just disagree. My general point was more this: history shows that wars are almost always unpopular, especially when things get hard, like Iraq clearly is. Let's say, hypothetically, that we could determine with certainty (which we cannot) that 100,000 more troops would secure Baghdad and create a permanently stable Iraq that loves America and democracy in general (obviously a big hypothetical). The problem would be that the President would not have the ability to do it because he does not have the political capital to do so. I'm not saying we should send any more troops, or that the troop surge is necessarily the solution. All I'm saying is that it is bad for the country for any President--Democrat or Republican--to have approval ratings as low as Bush does now, and he has to do something about it. I'm not saying he has to listen to the people on Iraq (though I'm sure you and many others would like him to, and understandibly so), but he has to stop ignoring the polls all together and come up with a strategy to get his ratings back to at least the low 40s.
It's certainly possible for the majority of Americans to be wrong. When that's the case, it does put the President in a very tough position. I can respect him for doing what he thinks is right, even when it's not popular. But in this case, well, you know.
Post a Comment