Super Bowl of speeches (longish)

[marbles]

Here we are on the eve of arguably the most important speech of W's presidency, if not his entire life. With the passion that some posters have shown on all things politics, I'm amazed that I haven't seen any buzz today.

I'll fire the first shot w/my two cents...

What W should do with his speech tomorrow night:
1. Devote little time, but strong tone to the issue of Iraq. At this point, his policy on this issue, for better or worse, has been made crystal clear. To spend any more than a couple of minutes on this issue will only give the impression that he is open to debate. His political strength since 9/11 has been his resolve; now's the time to show it.

2. Spend the bulk of the speech detailing the strengths of his economic reform package. To steal from the prez, "make no mistake," his ability to sell this package will determine his fate in a reelection effort. No matter what happens in Iraq, he will be toast if he can't show progress in his economic efforts by '04. And he may never have a more captive audience than tomorrow night.

3. Rally his GOP congress/senate to get his back. Again, if he wants to do his job, he needs their help in a big way. They have a real opportunity to pass some significant conservative reforms, and they need to come through. He should also call out the members of the senate judiciary committee, by name if necessary. Think of the last scene in "The Contender," only replace the liberal president (call me Dude) with the current conservative one.

4. Lastly, he could sprinkle just a little of that Reagan-esque "proud to be an American" seasoning on the top. It seems redundant, but he really does need to remind voters these days of how much the U.S.A. rules... If he doesn't, who will? The French?

Did I miss anything?

[IrishHand]

Some random thougths and responses:

(1) I disagree entirely that it's in his best interests to avoid the Iraq issue. The topic is open to debate - both domestically and aborad. To pretend otherwise certainly won't help his cause. Yes, his current position is pretty clear: Iraq is evil and we are going to crush it regardless of what anyone else thinks or does. Of course, if we invade with the current (barely majority) level of support domestically and miniscule (Britan and 11 other imaginary friends) level of support internationally, I suspect the long-term (meaning the next election) consequences will be fatal for him. That would simply give the Dems way too much ammo to fire away at his foreign policy in addition to the hammering they're going to lay on his domestic policy, which is anywhere from irrelevant to bad.

(2) I agree that this should be his other major topic. Not sure what he can say on the topic though, since he's completely neglected the area for two years as far as I can tell.

(3) If you need to work to convince your own party to support you, something is wrong.

(4) I'm sure he will. Of course, the whole "us against the world" thing isn't helping anything...

[marbles]

"(1) I disagree entirely that it's in his best interests to avoid the Iraq issue."

--Of course not. But the way he addresses it is key here. He has to be very careful to deliver a message, not start a discussion. Like you said, he still has a majority - by a hair. If he wavers (or looks like he's willing to waver), that majority is gone IMO.

"(2) I agree that this should be his other major topic. Not sure what he can say on the topic though, since he's completely neglected the area for two years as far as I can tell."
-A valid point. Of course, if he wipes the slate clean and sells it as, "I couldn't do anything with the nasty Dems bogging down the legislative branch," he may make some headway with the common voter.

"(3) If you need to work to convince your own party to support you, something is wrong."
-I have no doubt that the party supports him. He's the biggest cash cow they've had in years. The challenge will be getting the party to FIGHT for him. The reality is, both houses are packed with crafty career politicians... on both sides of the aisle. Many will sell out anyone at any time, since they're working on 30-year terms, not 2 or 6. Now, he has the bargaining power that he just got quite a few guys elected, and he needs to remind them of that.

"(4) I'm sure he will. Of course, the whole "us against the world" thing isn't helping anything..."
--Couldn't agree more. I have no solution for that one, though.

[IrishHand]

Most of your responses are well-reasoned. However...in regards to:
He has to be very careful to deliver a message, not start a discussion. Like you said, he still has a majority - by a hair. If he wavers (or looks like he's willing to waver), that majority is gone IMO.

Bush has, as you have rightly noted, been very consistent in his foreign policy, insofar as it concerns Iraq. However, this approach doesn't seem to be working with the American people. (Of course, it never worked with the rest of the world, so we'll ignore them for the time being.) American support for invading Iraq has steadily declined from a high of 74% in Nov. 2001 down to the present 52%. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030127.asp)) Based on that, it would seem pretty clear that he's got some work to do on this issue.

[marbles]

"American support for invading Iraq has steadily declined from a high of 74% in Nov. 2001 down to the present 52%. (CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll)"

Generally, I put very little faith in poll numbers, since everyone's got one, but you can take your poll and my poll, from Newsweek:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2003/01/18/12595-ap.html

And I think you get a very clear picture. Among other things, this one says that 81% would favor an attack IFF we had UN backing. This one also agrees that invading right now is a 50/50 proposition as far as support is concerned.

Even though I am relatively conservative, I have to admit that I would PREFER the support of the UN, but I'm amazed at how huge it is in the eyes of Joe Shmoe American. If you throw our polls together, you get 30% of Americans that want to invade Iraq, but only if the UN approves. That's an astounding number. I have no idea how my President should deal with that; I do think it's one of those "buck stops here" kind of situations, though.

BTW Irish, I'm more than a little surprised that you and I are the only ones that want to discuss this. I believe the "what's your favorite fruit?" post got roughly 10x the interest. Wow.

[IrishHand]

I'm pretty sure that they're the same polls - if not, they're saying the same things. The poll I linked had a pile of breakdowns similar to the ones you referenced (support w/ and w/o UN resolution, etc). And not to be contrarian, but while many "polls" are useless by virtue of their deliberately flawed methodology, I've always found Gallup's organization and methodology to be above reproach. Of course, the questions asked are often useless or ineffectively worded from my point of view, but that's another matter entirely.

As for what it means - I agree entirely that it's a totally different matter if the UN passes a resolution in favor of laying the military smack-down on Iraq - both for me and for the average American.

Back to the topic of tomorrow's address...looks like Bush is adopting the marbles approach: "Most of the State of the Union will not be about Iraq. Most of the State of the Union will be about improving America's economy and providing greater access to health care for millions of American people, including senior citizens," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday. (CNN.com article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/27/sotu.advance/index.html))

Will certainly be interesting...

Irish

PS. I suspect you'll have more responses later this evening. I've just got nothing better to do during this fine 8-hour evening watch than to read news sites and post on this forum. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[adios]

"BTW Irish, I'm more than a little surprised that you and I are the only ones that want to discuss this."

I made a post about 4 or 5 months ago (when seemingly thee was a lot less opposition to an invasion) asking if Bush had made his case in attacking Iraq and I got little or no response. My sense from reading many postings on other Internet message boards is that there is nothing that would convince the most extreme Bush detractors that it was right. In general I think most USA citizens would prefer not to violate another nation's sovereignty. Therefore the declining support for an invasion and probably why a large percentage seemingly wants UN support for such a violation. Weapons of mass destruction and their consequences are horrible things to consider.

[marbles]

"PS. I suspect you'll have more responses later this evening. I've just got nothing better to do during this fine 8-hour evening watch than to read news sites and post on this forum."
--Sorry couldn't get back to you last night. I've read some of the articles, and it sounds like the media won't know exactly what he's going to say until he says it tonight. I wouldn't want it any other way.

I'm sure I'll have an opinion after the speech. Until then, I guess we'll have to patiently wait.

[IrishHand]

I'm not interested in waiting. I shall deliver a pre-emptive State of the Union address at high noon today on the major networks, and it will be in line with the ideas discussed above.

[marbles]

By all means, please do. I'd love to hear your take on the Union, in the areas discussed.

Just start a new thread in doing so...