Bush gets the spotlight — but doesn’t know what to do with it

There was an episode of The Simspons a few years ago in which Springfield faced one of its many crises. Mayor Diamond Joe Quimby called a townhall meeting and pledged to create a “blue-ribbon commission” to investigate and address the emergency. One character responded earnestly, “Did he say a blue-ribbon commission?” Prompting another to say, “Well, you can’t do any better than that!”

I kept thinking of Quimby’s empty gesture while watching the president’s State of the Union last night because Bush’s pledges were nearly as vacuous and equally as ambitious. Last year, Bush insisted Social Security be privatized. This year, he politely asked Congress to create “a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security.”

Conservative pundit Fred Barnes recently wrote an entire book praising George W. Bush as the bold visionary of our times, willing to sacrifice temporary poll numbers to advance a sweeping agenda that literally changes the world. Last night, Bush proved Barnes wrong — the president’s 2006 State of the Union address was dull, but more importantly, it was small. Bush gets one chance a year to seize the spotlight with a national address before Congress that lays out a policy agenda for the nation. Last night, it seemed the president simply didn’t have much to say.

There was no new “ownership society” plan, no Mars mission, not even an assertive stance against steroids. For about an hour, we heard warmed-over rhetoric on everything we’ve heard from Bush for the last few years. It was like a greatest-hits package from a band happy to rest on its laurels. Of course, Bush hasn’t had a hit in years, so it may not have been the wisest of strategies.

Even all that talk about an ambitious new approach to health care turned out to be hype. By my count there were two paragraphs on the issue, mentioned almost in passing in the last third of the speech.

I noticed that Slate’s John Dickerson argued that it was a surprisingly partisan speech. That’s true, but it was partisan in an unproductive way. If you’re a conservative today, what’s the new game plan? On which parts of Bush’s national agenda are you ready to start working the phones? Everything the president mentioned that the right may care about — Iraq, Patriot Act, the tax cuts from the first term, tort reform — was already been on the table. A SOTU address is a chance for a president to lay out something new, but Bush didn’t want to.

Scott McClellan told reporters on Monday that Bush will follow up on the SOTU by traveling across the country to discuss “four key issue areas” in what McClellan described as “major policy speeches.”

After listening carefully to last night’s address, I haven’t the foggiest idea what those four issues might be.

But he was very clear about his constitutional and statutory authority to ease-drop on Americans’ phone calls overseas.

Not that anybody but his lawyers believes there is such an authority.

Bush is pretty clearly the “give the guy and inch and he will take a mile” kind of president.

And I still wonder why he could not stop Al Queada before 9/11…

  • Oddly, it seemed to me that the speech was intended to not make news. In an election year you would think that he/they would map out some sort of pre-election agenda to run on. Could it be that, with all the scandals etc., they couldn’t come up with one?

  • I was somewhat surprised by the bold un-truthfulness of most of the second half of the speech (maybe I should not be…)
    All that stuff about competitiveness in education and research from a guy who has made record breaking cuts in funding for education and research? Please! Or does all that fall under the category of tax cuts for big corporations?

  • I think I’m in a good position to judge the SOTU address — because I didn’t watch it. That’s because I knew that, for all practical purposes, Bush wouldn’t actually give one. From the comments I’ve read, he didn’t.

    I am, however, thankful for his raising the alarm regarding the Atomic Mole People. We just can’t have enough enemies (who are perpetually on the verge of defeat). Just a few more tax cuts, and our enemies will be crushed.

    I regret that there was no mention of dogs — as in “what the country is going to.”

  • Oh man, the bit about the “baby boomers’ impact on Social Security” is just another lame attempt to frame the matter to the GOP’s liking. What Congress should be taking seriously is looking at what the impact on federal revenue will be when the current Social Security surplus that boomers have been contributing to since 1982 starts going away. Hint: you might look at all those big tax cuts for the wealthy and oil companies Bush wants to make permanent.

  • I was wondering how Bush’s talk about how important science and math are to the future of America impacts the debate over ID. How can you assert that the Bible should be taught as an alternative to hard science and then turn around and say we need more scientific minds? Is he hoping to create 30,000 scientists that don’t believe in global warmng, evoultion, or the scientific method? I thnk I saw Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum sitting quietly and looking like a character from Our Gang during that part of the speech. I did not see “Man on Dog’s” reaction to the Human/Animal hybrids. Maybe that is what Rick is really concerned about.

  • The subterraining menace known as the crab people have been a menace long enough, I am glad he brought attention to this threat of human-animal hybrid, unitl now I only could get any news from this disaster waiting to happen from South Park on Comedy Central.

  • From an AP article, “He termed it irresponsible to allow “a massive tax increase” if previously passed cuts, set to expire, are not permanently extended. ”
    Once again he creates a big mess (massive tax cuts) and then warns of the consequences of trying to end his mess.

  • The best review of the SOTU was at Balloon Juice in a comment quotation:

    “If length be not considered a merit, it hath none.”

  • I didn’t watch the speech, but saw a few minutes
    of pundits and Republicans trying to make something
    out of what was obviously a dull and anticlimactic
    event after it was over. This was on CNN.

    I think we should feel relieved that there are no
    bold new initiatives that have to be defeated.
    Although maybe that’s premature – what in the
    world is his latest road trip about?

    The alternative energy proposal was pathetic.
    A massive, Apollo type program is needed.
    Ironically, there’s one gathering dust in
    Congress now – sorry, should have found the
    link. Just Google “Apollo bill” or something like
    it. There’s also a Conyers-Kucinich national
    health care bill that’s been wallowing around
    without attention for years.

  • I think it’s obvious that Bush was supposed to be a one-termer like his old man. Wasn’t there some movie about that, where they cloned a dead son; but when the kid got to the age at which he had originally died, he became all psycho or something? Maybe that’s what’s going on here.

    More likely, it’s that Bush really only liked running for office, and without another election to worry about, he’s got nothing to do. His entire first term was solely about getting another term, and now that he’s got it, he can’t do anything with it. And that’s the problem for the conservatives: Once they move away from the smoke and mirrors, they’re left with nothing but an unpopular agenda. They can either push their agenda or they can get re-elected, but they can’t do both.

  • Comments are closed.