In judging the message and efficacy of a President's speech, many methods are available. You can do a poll, you can interview people in Missouri (who are generally intelligent, plain spoken, and historically a good guide to the relative political pulse of the nation), have a pundit roundtable discussion, or you can do what I do and look at what the opposition party says in its reaction. I have found this to be a great identifier of what the real effect of the President's speech will be for the nation.
There are some ground rules. First, you never should appear to hostile. He is the President, and if you cannot actually show him the respect his office demands, you at least need to convincingly feign it. Second, you also need to state that both you and the President both share fundamental beliefs about America, you just disagree with his and his administration's way of bringing that about. Finally, you want to subtly attack the specifics of the speech and show that he really knows nothing of what he is talking about and has no idea what he is doing. All the while, your goal will be positioning yourself and your opposition party as the the real group in the know.
The Democratic response to the President's speech confirmed my initial approval and agreement towards his speech. As the Democrats previously did with Social Security Reform, they merely attacked the President and his policies without offering one single worthwhile idea, plan, or alternative to make things better (or at least different). The Democratic leadership has offered the same sort of strategy the insurgents offer in Iraq or terrorists offer in Madrid, London or Jordan: drama, chaos and adversarial bemoaning without one iota of a real strategy for change; an easy life, especially when you realize they don't have the uncomfortable requirement of accountability and responsibility for their actions.
The Democrats slated to offer this cookie-cutter reaction speech were Senators Jack Reed and almost-President John Kerry. While I disagree with most of what they had to say, I do agree with a sentiment offered by Sen. Reed:
...[the President's] inability to articulate such a plan [for success in Iraq] has allowed the nation's doubts to grow about the course of our efforts in Iraq. The American people are hungry for leadership and a frank appraisal of how we are doing [in Iraq].
The timing of the President's speech and the recent rebuttals by the White House have been defensive in nature. They are defending themselves against the recent attacks by the Democratic leadership, primarily in the House. The House Democrats scandalously irresponsible and politically damaging rhetoric has played a large part in the impetus for the President's speech today. However, the Democrat's rhetoric has been born out of a real and growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq among increasing numbers of Americans. While most Americans do not agree with the efforts and message of grieving-mother-turned-MoveOn.org/CodePink- spokesperson Cindy Sheehan, they are, nonetheless, growing nervous about the situation in Iraq.
While this dissatisfaction has been fanned and fostered by the Democrats for political gain and face-time in front of the camera, the general sentiment existed temporally prior to these recent attacks on the administration. This growing dissatisfaction among the electorate is the fault of the administration. They have allowed a vacuum of information and leadership to grow unchecked. Sen. Reed is right when he said the country is "hungry for leadership and a frank appraisal of how we are doing in Iraq." The Democrats only capitalized on the mishandling of the public sentiment and lack of real information from the President. The President should be communicating with the country and releasing his National Strategy For Victory In Iraq, not because the Democrats are hounding him and his poll numbers are slumping but because his role is to keep the nation, emotionally and intellectually, behind him in supporting the war. This is not merely an intellectual pursuit one hopes to bring stability and democracy to the Middle East, it is a war with America's sons and daughters paying the ultimate price for liberty and freedom. As the President said that American military forces "require an unwavering commitment to the mission and a clear strategy for victory," he and his administration needs to understand that this is also required to keep the public support for the war from eroding. No long-term military engagement can continue with extensive, widespread opposition at home.
The President likes to use the phrase "War on Terror" but in using it so glibly and without any real sense of importance or national urgency, he has lost much of the country in this war. Are we at war or are we not? If we are, the President needs to be focused and sub-orient everything else to this effort. He needs to remind people what they can do to help in this effort. His call to live like nothing out of the ordinary is happening is not the way to keep the nation focused on the war, it is a plan for national apathy.
While Bush has many public personas: the aloof, aw-shucks normal guy; the straight-shooting communicator; the defensive 'just trust me' attitude; and the firm and resolute (post 9/11) strong leader. The firm and resolute Commander-in-Chief was present in Annapolis this morning. This is President Bush in his best and most compelling role, the leader of the United States of America. The distinction between would-be and actual leaders was never more evident than this morning as the President clearly and convincingly communicated his plan for victory in Iraq while the almost-President Senator Kerry mumbled his condescending and indecipherable response to the President's speech. Nothing was more telling (and absolutely in-sync with the American mainstream belief) than CNN's decision to cut away from the live broadcast of the Democratic response midway through Kerry's remarks. Even CNN understands how little weight Kerry commands in this country.
Sen. Reed was right when he said "the American people are hungry for leadership and a frank appraisal of how we are doing [in Iraq]." Too bad for Sen. Reed and the Democrats, they offer no legitimate leadership and only criticize Bush's frank appraisal of how things are going in Iraq. If the situation on the ground in Iraq were as bas as the Democrats paint it, they might retain some sense of credibility when they speak. However, today, the President was the only one making any real sense and offering any real leadership. Today, the President was the leader we need him to be everyday, not just when things get bad enough that he has no other choice.
Crossposted at: California Conservative
The continuing saga of Terrell Owens continued this week with the 
