The Democrats tried to distract from the substance of President Bush's speech by planting Cindy Sheehan in the House chamber tonight--she was reportedly the guest of a Democrat Congresswoman--but Justice Samuel Alito's presence in the chamber was much more significant. Plus, he lasted longer, as Sheehan was hauled out of the chamber when she tried to unfurl a banner. She is clinging tenaciously to her fifteen minutes.

On to the speech: The first question is whether anyone is watching. I hope I'm wrong, but my guess is that ratings are low tonight, and that most viewers are Republicans.

On foreign policy, President Bush made the same points he's made before, and made well.

The only way to protect our people … the only way to secure the peace … the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership – so the United States of America will continue to lead.

Abroad, our Nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal – we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state seven thousand miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause.

Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies on Earth. Today, there are 122. And we are writing a new chapter in the story of self-government – with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan … and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink … and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half – in places like Syria, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran – because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom as well.

The President's logic is ineluctable, and the left rarely argues against it in any coherent way. He's made these points before, but you can't make them too often.

The key language on Iraq:

Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan … or blow up commuters in London … or behead a bound captive … the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.

Even the Democrats had to applaud. Next, this:

If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will – by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself – we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil.

Note the Churchillian echo, an increasingly common motif in the President's rhetoric.

More on Iraq:

Our work in Iraq is difficult, because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, that nation has gone from dictatorship, to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory … I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people … I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning.

It is, really, an amazing record of progress. That is the message the Democrats, and leftists like Christiane Amanpour, can't tolerate.

Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.

Hard to argue with that. John Kerry isn't arguing, he is looking intently downward as though he's playing with a Game Boy.

Thunderous applause for the family of Staff Sergeant Dan Clay, who was recently killed in Fallujah. The Democrats have no choice but to join in, even though what they really wanted was for Cindy Sheehan to unfurl a banner as though she were the legitimate spokeswoman for families of servicemen killed in combat.

Here is what Bush said about the NSA terrorist surveillance program:

It is said that prior to the attacks of September 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al-Qaida operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late.

So to prevent another attack – based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute – I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have – and Federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate Members of Congress have been kept informed.

This terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it – because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

Thunderous applause from one side of the House. Hillary C. grins weirdly. Bush knows he has the winning side of this issue. Key language, as we've said repeatedly: "Federal courts have approved the use of that authority."

You'd think more people would know this:

In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs – more than Japan and the European Union combined.

More on the economy:

In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left 880 billion dollars in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families – and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth.

The Democrats look wistful at the thought of $880 billion they missed out on.

"Earmark reform"--he's for it! And, shrewdly I think, he links it to the line-item veto. On to entitlements--the Democrats get off their hands with enthusiasm, for the first time, when Bush says Congress didn't act on his Social Security proposal. Foolish--it set him up for what followed. Both sides have to stand up when he says, we need to put aside partisan politics and get this problem solved.

The health care discussion is bad. The Republicans have pretty well thrown in the towel on the issue. Personally, I'd like to see every federal program that relates in any way to medical care phased out. But that will be the task of another generation, I'm afraid.

This is very interesting: on energy, he talks about just about everything--ethanol, hydrogen-fueled vehicles, etc.--but not a word about ANWR, or any other domestic petroleum sources.

Bush notes positive social trends, without taking credit for them:

In recent years, America has become a more hopeful Nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row.

A Roberts-Alito plug; the Republicans and servicemen all stand, but I couldn't see the Dems. Bush continues with an attack on cloning, etc., which is pretty bold in today's environment.

The President finishes with strength and optimism. On the whole, it was a good performance. It was reported that he practiced the speech a lot, and it showed during the first half, on foreign policy. It seemed to me that he rushed the domestic portion; he's never really had his heart in the domestic laundry lists. The important point, though, is that people got to see the President first-hand. Bush is always better off when people are seeing him, rather than reading what Democrats have to say about him in newspapers, or hearing what Democrats think about him on network news. Which brings us back to where we started; were many uncommitted Americans watching? I hope so.

PAUL adds: The content of the speech was, on balance, good -- very good on the foreign policy side and fair on the domestic side. I wish President Bush had provided more specifics on the progress we've made in Iraq, as he did in his series of speeches last December. I don't know how many uncommitted Americans were watching, but I'm sure more were than will be for quite a while.

Content aside, the president struck perhaps the best balance he ever has in terms of image. He looked confident and comfortable, unlike he did much of last year,. However, he was not as cocky and combative as in prior years. He even gave the Democrats a share of the credit for positive long-term developments like reduced crime, fewer people on welfare, fewer teenage pregnancies, fewer abortions, etc. (in reality, I doubt that either party deserves much credit -- most of these trends have more to do with demographics and society's own survival instincts than with public policy). Bush has given better speeches, but he's rarely looked more presidential.

The most interesting audience shots, I thought, were of Hillary Clinton, and she didn't come across well. In fact, the phrase "tone deaf" comes to mind. She was completely stone-faced when Bush made his friendly joke about his father's two favorite people (Bill Clinton and "W" himself) turning 60. I would have thought she'd want to be in on a joke about successive presidents from two families. On the other hand, she smiled rapturously when Bush noted the failure of social security reform, and grinned dismissively while shaking her head slightly when Bush, at the conclusion of his discussion of the NSA intercept program, said "we will not sit back and wait to be hit again." In sum, Hillary looked anything but presidential.

Posted by John at 08:38 PM  |    |