State of the Union column
During the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, President Bush told the American people that he’s finally going to start being the president that many believed they were voting for in the ‘00 election.
Sure, he may not have said it in so many words, but that’s what he did. The Bush we’ve seen for the last six years never showed up on Tuesday. The Bush that the Republicans sought to put in office finally arrived for his first real day on the job.
But hasn’t Bush been in charge all this time? Isn’t he the same guy?
Nope. And you thought he took a lot of vacation before Tuesday.
Before President Bush was elected (depending on who you ask) president, in 1999 he told David Horowitz of Salon.com, “I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.”
He finally put his foot down on Tuesday. He finally said “enough.” He finally told America that he was willing to play bipartisan ball.
“Some in this chamber are new to the House and Senate -- and I congratulate the Democratic majority,” Bush proclaimed. “Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity, to spend the people's money wisely, to solve problems, not leave them to future generations, to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.”
Nice swing, Mr. President. Just remember to run through the base.
Bush’s points were filled with concessions for the Democrats. He announced initiatives that he said would reduce the nation’s dependency on foreign oil, tighten emissions standards for automobiles, and balance the budget within five years. He promised to make sure Medicare and Medicaid got the funding they need. He promised to save social security.
Do you think he meant privatize it? The Democrats who stood and cheered for Bush probably didn’t think so. They were probably just glad to be there. After all, the speech that the president delivered would not have happened without the Democrats in charge.
On healthcare, Bush promised to make healthcare coverage more affordable for those who don’t get insurance through their jobs. By taxing them more.
You can’t hit a home run every time you go to bat.
Of course, the main sticking point in Bush’s speech for most Democrats was the president’s decision to deploy additional troops to Iraq to assist with the security of Baghdad.
Swing and a miss. The Democratic response was predictably a voice of protest.
“The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought,” said Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, delivering the official Democratic response, “nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.”
Baby steps, senator. The uniter hasn’t had a lot of practice. Diplomacy’s not exactly his bailiwick. At least not lately.
“Well, government can't change attitude,” said Bush in the ’99 Salon interview. “Government can lead - a leader can lead and convince people, but there's no law that makes people love each other.”
Who’s doing the convincing in Baghdad, Mr. Bush? Where’s the element of diplomacy in your plan? Where’s that spirit of cooperation?
Remember, baby steps. Bush may be trying to remember what he meant all those years ago. He’s making an effort.
The man even admitted that global warming is a problem. Some Democrats took notice.
"I welcome the President's change in tone,” said Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont. “I stand ready to work with the White House and with senators across the aisle on comprehensive immigration reform and on other pressing issues the President has discussed. But though President Bush's tone now sounds more accepting of other views, his basic policies so far have not changed...It is regrettable that the President has rejected opportunities for a change of course in Iraq."
Regrettable, sure. But at this point, most of us are willing to split the difference. The Bush that won the presidency six years ago is certainly better than the one that took office.
Overall, I thought that Bush made some pretty sweet overtures to the left side of the aisle. The flip side though, is that this speech could be used as evidence that Bush is finally walking wounded. I'm curious as to what this civilian service corps thing he proposed is, and I'm not holding my breath on implementation.