The Real Bush?

Townhall.com ^ | 2/2/2006 | Robert Novak

[dson7_ck1249]

The real Bush? By Robert Novak

Feb 2, 2006

WASHINGTON -- While jumping up on cue to cheer during the speech and delivering rave reviews afterward in the Capitol's Statuary Hall, conservative members of Congress were deeply disappointed by George W. Bush Tuesday night. It was not merely that the president abandoned past domestic goals. He appeared to be moving toward bigger government.

The consensus on the Right was that President Bush's fifth State of the Union Address was his worst. Republican congressmen agreed privately that he was most effective at the beginning with his familiar message of why U.S. forces cannot abandon Iraq. The problem for these lawmakers was the rest of the 51-minute presentation, which was filled with unpleasant surprises.

With polls showing the president's approval rating persistently anemic (as low as 39 percent), the speech aimed at a kinder, gentler Bush. But beyond atmospherics, the policy initiatives staked out new directions in the sixth year of his presidency that raised questions. Is this the real George W. Bush? Is he really his true father's son and not Ronald Reagan's?

The president seemed more comfortable with his foreign policy declarations than with what followed, but even here he did not live up to expectations. Pre-speech tips from White House aides and from Bush himself had pointed to laying down the law to the Iranian regime (step back from nuclear arms) and the Hamas party in Palestine (recognize Israel). He did so, but not with the force and specificity promised.

As expected, Bush backed away from what a year earlier were labeled as the two great initiatives of his second term. He complained that "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security," unintentionally setting off self-congratulatory celebration by Democrats on the floor. But Bush made no promises about trying to revive his personal accounts. The president did not even give the comprehensive tax reform the courtesy of a death notice. It went unmentioned and apparently unmourned.

Prior to the speech, one conservative Republican senator fantasized about Bush turning to Democrats and calling on them to pass permanent tax cuts and then turning to Republicans and calling on them to cut spending. He did call for permanent tax cuts and for control over spending, but so briefly and undramatically that the president's demands lost their impact.

However, what bothered conservatives most about Tuesday night's performance was not what the president failed to do but what he actually did. The pre-speech public relations drumbeat had promised the president would deliver a new energy initiative to Americans angry about the price of gasoline. Indeed, Bush deplored that "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world" and promised to end "our dependence on Middle Eastern oil." It was how he would accomplish this that stunned conservatives.

The president proposed that the government preside over a wide array of non-petroleum energy options. That has all the characteristics of an "industrial policy," with the federal government picking winners and losers. While violating the Republican Party's free market philosophy, this is a course with a lengthy pedigree of failure all over the world.

The same State of the Union address that neglected the Republican goal of reforming the tax system called for an American Competitiveness Initiative that also promises an extension of growing, intrusive government. That would expand still more the federal role in education. Instead of shrinking the federal government, Bush wants to grow it.

None of this change in direction will lead to a kinder, gentler Democratic Party in Congress. Tuesday night's response by newly elected Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, while far more partisan than the president's speech, was relatively moderate and restrained. But it will not be Kaine with whom Bush must deal in this election. It is the fiercely partisan Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi and George Miller.

Bush's softer rhetoric can be stiffened as this year moves toward the serious business of midterm elections. But what happens to the blueprint for big government laid out by President Bush Tuesday night? That will not be easy to reverse.

Robert Novak is a television personality and columnist. Novak is also editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report available through a free offer from Human Events Online

[dson7_ck1249]

Interesting, because I certainly got the impression that many of the things Bush was proposing on Tuesday would require an expansion of government, not the limiting of it. I might vote Republican, but my orientation is certainly conservative. As a general rule, the less government there is...the better. What we need is a strengthening of civil society, a greater emphasis on individual responsibility and less inclinations toward a nanny state.

[Bommer]

Thats all they are...promises! Bush can suggest it. Whether or not it gets implimented is another story! Welcome to FR BTW

[peyton randolph]

dson7_ck1249

Since Jan 30, 2006

Is that a DU code? If so, care to post the master sheet so that we can have the Viking Kitties ready to pounce?

[Siena Dreaming]

The Executive is supposed to execute (put into effect) legislation.

I'm starting to think the ball is in Congress' court. They need to write some expense-cutting legislation and give it to the President to sign. Hastert needs to get it moving IMO.

[dson7_ck1249]

what is a DU code?
I have no idea what the Viking Kitties are, or what you're talking about.

[Siena Dreaming]

The Executive is supposed to execute (put into effect) legislation.

I'm starting to think the ball is in Congress' court. They need to write some expense-cutting legislation and give it to the President to sign. Hastert needs to get it moving IMO.

[peyton randolph]

what is a DU code? I have no idea what the Viking Kitties are, or what you're talking about.

DU sends trolls and the viking kitties pounce. IBTZ is quite popular these days. Feel free to search any of these terms to learn more.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"What we need is a strengthening of civil society, a greater emphasis on individual responsibility and less inclinations toward a nanny state."

Can't argue with you there. Welcome to FR.

[dson7_ck1249]

okay..I'm not exactly sure what troll is, but I'm pretty sure I'm not one. I'm not from the DU, and I'm not sure why you would think that if you would actually read the articles that I post. I still have no idea what IBTZ or viking kitties, I did search them though, to no avail.

[marlon]

You know if Novak's column is true and I have my doubts since he is always writing that the republicans in congress really hate W, what I want to know is where were theses wimps when bold things like SS reform were put out there last year? Runing for the hills. Where were they when W's judges were being blocked? Running for the hills. Where were they when W was being savaged day in and day out for supposedly lying and making up intelligence to launch is into a war for oil? Hidding in the cloak room.

So if they are now grumbling that W didn't propose any sweeping new reforms I say STFU and propose some yourself you bunch of nutless, self-serving wimps.

[Señor Zorro]

Here is something to know about FreeRepublic: no matter how conservative you are, if you criticize Bush (and there is much for a conservative to criticize Bush over, especially over fiscal and social issues) you will be labeled a troll by the Bushbots on the forum. Believe me, I know.

That said, as you have been here all of two days, I certainly do not know if you are a troll or not. I have been here almost two years and, if anyone would care to look, have a nice track record as a conservative--but I have still been called a troll.

[eskimo]

what is a DU code?

I have no idea what the Viking Kitties are, or what you're talking about.

Every place has a few looneys. Over the years we have accumulated some of the type that have cat fantasies.

[dson7_ck1249]

thanks for the advice...I'll do my best to establish a reputation as a conservative, not a Bushbot or even a down-the-line Republican.

[dson7_ck1249]

thanks, I guess I should've figured as much.

[af_vet_rr]

Interesting, because I certainly got the impression that many of the things Bush was proposing on Tuesday would require an expansion of government, not the limiting of it.

Novak brings up the education bit, and he's absolutely right on that - when No Child Left Behind was introduced, most Conservatives had a hard time with it, because it was the beginning of a big expansion of the federal government's power, in regards to what was traditionally handled at the state (and usually at the local level).

We are creating a generation of kids that are taught to pass tests, rather than to actually learn (and I don't blame the teachers - if somebody told me that my job, or my school's funding was on the line if my kids don't pass the test, I would ignore everything else in order to make sure they passed the test).

[ARealMothersSonForever]

If you do a keyword search on ZOT and ZOTME, you will see what Viking kitties refers to.
Welcome to FR

[af_vet_rr]

I'm starting to think the ball is in Congress' court. They need to write some expense-cutting legislation and give it to the President to sign. Hastert needs to get it moving IMO.

They have a lot more pressure from lobbyists and upcoming elections, to keep the pork intact, than the President does.

Ideally, a Conservative President would highlight 5 pork projects every week in a press conference - he would talk about who pushed for them, who benefits from them, etc. Of course, then Congress would get upset and work against him..

[Paul Ross]

However, what bothered conservatives most about Tuesday night's performance was not what the president failed to do but what he actually did.

Agreed. There were a number of times he frankly was attempting to lambaste the conservatives in trade and immigration.

In immigration, while not explicitly reiterating his failed Guest Worker plan, clearly he is still tying it to any border enforcement efforts. His rhetoric about the U.S. needing "comprehensive reform" and needing immigrants was his way of saying he hasn't learned a thing...and he is more stubborn than a democrat Mule. He intends to keep right at his scofflaw illegal alien defending and amnestying behavior.

In trade, his rhetoric approached real stridency. Trying to link conservatives with cowardice. Meanwhile, it is the President who is steadfastly APPEASING RED CHINA . He is blindly refusing to admit his trade failures... quanitified by the soon-to-be trillon $ trade deficit...and China's communist tyrants pointed humiliation of the U.S. President. They explicitly smirked at his lack of power over them...symbolically shooting in massacre fashion any protesters, and then after he left town, announcing that almost all their airplane orders would go to Airbus instead of the superior planes, the Boeing's.

The President, while talking up new energy alternative R&D, frankly is also continuing to appease the JIHADISTS with Saudi Arabia. A tough foreign policy line with them is warranted. But its not going to happen.

The President had the gall to imply that nationalists wanted to "retreat" from trade and go into "isolationism." These are classic, LIBERAL, expletives against CONSERVATIVES.

And they are counterfactual in the current circumstances, as nothing that they imply is further from the truth of today's realities. What in fact is cloaked by this attempted rhetorical jui-jitsu, is the fact that the ADMINISTRATION IS IN RETREAT FROM REALITY.

We are in a trade war.

Right now. And we are losing do to the lack of national response to other nation's predatory practices.

And the results of 12 succesive years of losing this trade war means our defense capabilities are seriously faltering and endangered in the future when we need to recapitalize...our F-15s need updated replacement. Our nuclear subs and carriers need to be timely replaced. It will now take until 2017 before the next generation carrier can be produced. And the schedule for that is slipping. Those who brag on our defense advantages are not in the industry, and don't what they are talking about...as the industry implodes...and costs go through the roof due to the lack of an efficient underlying commercial industrial base to support it domestically...and the willingness to fund sufficient orders to achieve economies of scale...and make a real quantitative difference in the prospective battle environments.

[dson7_ck1249]

amen to that! our educational system is in shambles, and it's tough for me to view No Child Left Behind in any way other than as a complete and massive failure. What disturbed me about the State of the Union was that there was no admission of error or even a proposal for a better way. The American Competitiveness Initiative was not only vague and weak, but it doesn't address the actual problem with the way American public education is handled.

[Siena Dreaming]

They have a lot more pressure from lobbyists and upcoming elections,

I don't think it's up to the President to occupy his staff whith deciding which of the hundreds of pork items it would be advantageous to highlight.

You have pointed out where the problem is. The Congress. They need to write the legislation. That's where the pressure should be applied, not the President on this one IMO. Hastert needs to be brought more into the spotlight on this.