Time to Thaw Out

It's way too cold to keep having the inauguration here.

There, I said it. I'm prepared for the wrath of the D.C. tourism industry to come down on my head.

After a snowy day yesterday (the low was 17), George Bush gets to take the oath of office today with flurries predicted (and temperatures expected to climb to the mid-thirties). This might seem picturesque to you Sunbelt types, but the thousands of people standing out in the cold might be wondering why we do this every four years in a place where the January weather almost always induces shivers. There were eight inches of snow for JFK in '61, and it was so cold in '85 that Ronald Reagan had to move the whole shebang indoors. (And don't forget the ice storm that gave William Henry Harrison a fatal case of pneumonia in 1841.)

Why not steal a page from the Super Bowl playbook? Football's championship game moves around from one season to the next, almost always to warm-weather cities like Miami, L.A. and New Orleans. Admit it: Wouldn't an inauguration without winter coats, gloves and scarves be more fun?

The reporters would love it because, as with conventions, each city would provide a new story line. The cities that would compete to host the festivities could kick in some cash for the honor. And people out there in the provinces could feel that the quadrennial ritual wasn't just an inside-the-Beltway affair (unless they live in the North, of course).

What's that? You would miss the Washington tableaux, the historic Capitol vista, the parade to the White House? Let's do what Hollywood does -- build a set!

It's time to think outside the frozen box. Plenty of time to get this off the ground by 2009.

We're told that Bush's speech will run 17 minutes, and everyone will have their post-game critique. Maybe the president will surprise us and give a memorable address, which nearly all second-term presidents (with the memorable exception of Abe Lincoln -- you know, the guy some people are saying was gay) have failed to do.

Why is that? Historian David Greenberg offers this analysis in Slate:

"In the last 44 years, no president has delivered a memorable inaugural address. The only speech to come close was Ronald Reagan's 1981 effort, an impassioned argument for smaller government. Even that speech, however, is recalled essentially for its one Bartlett's-worthy line: 'Government is not the solution to our problem.'

"Why have inaugural addresses in modern times failed to stir the public? Every four years, pundits hearken back to John F. Kennedy's 1961 speech -- the last great one -- and suggest that the new president treat it as a model. But this advice never seems to work. For one thing, when it comes to public speaking, most presidents are no Jack Kennedy. And for another, times have changed: The high-flown classical style that a venerable ritual like the Inauguration seems to call for no longer really works. . . .

"Why haven't recent presidents managed to invent a new oratory -- one that inspires with the artful use of more colloquial language? Partly, the problem is that the Inauguration, with its antiquated pageantry and its ritual invocations of the Founding Fathers, compels presidents to try to emulate Kennedy (or FDR, or Lincoln) -- and they invariably fail. Inaugural speeches that reach for the lofty and literary usually sound stilted (like Clinton's in 1993). On the other hand, when they aspire to sound accessible and familiar, they fail to rise to the occasion, as did the elder Bush in 1989.

"And there's a more basic obstacle confronting today's presidents as well. Since Kennedy's day, we've not only revised our expectations of presidential speech, but our expectations of the office altogether. The troubled presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon (whose difficulties stemmed in part from the same cultural turmoil that changed the language) made Americans view their chief executives with far more cynicism, and far less reverence, than they had at the Cold War's height. Kennedy's pomp-filled Inaugural, widely recalled as a snapshot of Camelot at its most regal, now stands on the other side of a historical divide. The reason that presidents have such trouble recreating the 'idealism' of that 1961 address is because the inimitable idealism wasn't really Kennedy's. It was ours."

Salon's Eric Boehlert lambastes the inaugural coverage:

"In Sunday's New York Times, John Tierney examined the delicate balancing act administrations face when throwing a lavish inauguration celebration against the backdrop of unsettling world events. . . .

"Tierney must be confusing the D.C. press corps as it might be expected to function -- posing uncomfortable questions to those in power -- with the press corps that exists in Washington today. Because the notion that the television networks or 24-hour news channels would spend their inauguration coverage contrasting the scenes of wealthy corporate donors toasting the president while young soldiers and middle-aged Guardsmen battle in Iraq is wildly naive. During the nearly 24 months of war coverage of Iraq, many American news outlets have remained steadfastly allergic to relaying disturbing images of war, particularly anything that shows Americans being wounded or killed. So the idea that broadcast journalists would use this celebration, of all things, as a time to press President Bush on Iraq simply does not reflect the modus operandi of today's mainstream media.

"This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance."

Funny, I don't remember liberal pundits making an issue of this during Clinton's first inaugural, when American soldiers were fighting and dying in Somalia.

The White House put out speech excerpts last night (doesn't that spoil the suspense?), producing stories like this one in the Washington Times:

"His 17-minute inaugural address, which by late yesterday already had gone through 20 revisions, will reflect the soul of a man who sees freedom as God's gift to mankind and the spread of democracy as an unstoppable force for good."

USA Today has one of those Bush-has-grown-in-office stories:

"Bush's hair has become grayer and his face more creased during his time in the White House. But aides, friends and family say there are more dramatic, though perhaps less visible, changes since his first inauguration. The ordeals of the past four years, especially the Sept. 11 attacks, have made him more deliberate and focused than he was when he came to Washington, they say."

National Review's David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, sees a broader PR problem:

"It is a weird thing to say about a president who has given some of the most eloquent speeches of the twentieth century, but George W. Bush has a serious communications problem -- and it may be getting worse. . . .

"The Bush administration will lay down broad general principles with great verve. It's the next step -- the step that s consensus within the political system -- that they so often decline to take. And yet that's the step that will be so necessary in battles over domestic reforms on social security, torts, and taxes.

"It's not enough to give good or even a great speech. You have to come back every day -- and offer too something more than pre-digested talking points. The president had an especially effective townhall meeting on Social Security in Washington last week. But these days, this kind of detailed presentation is not the norm -- and anyway the president should not have to do all of this kind of work himself. But increasingly, if he doesn't do it, it doesn't get done. And so it's not getting done."

Two Bush nominees have hit a small bump in the road, says the Los Angeles Times:

"Voicing displeasure over the administration's handling of the core issues of prisoner abuse and the Iraq war, Senate Democrats on Wednesday forced delays in the confirmation of Atty. Gen.-designate Alberto R. Gonzales and Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice.

"White House officials had hoped that Rice would be confirmed and sworn in Thursday, in time for the president's inauguration celebrations. But congressional Democrats, critical of Rice's advocacy of the Iraq invasion and Gonzales' answers on abuse and torture, postponed final votes until next week at the earliest, aides said.

"The maneuver underscored the limits on the new, bigger Senate Republican majority as they push Bush's legislative agenda. . . .

"Gonzales, who was sharply questioned about the administration's torture policy at his Jan. 6 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was assailed today by Democrats for written answers he provided to committee members to follow-up questions. 'These are very arrogant answers,' Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said at a Judiciary Committee meeting, where Democrats used a procedural device to postpone a discussion of the nomination for one week. Kennedy said Gonzales had engaged in 'gross nonresponsiveness.' "

That's pretty unusual in Washington, huh?

The New York Post seems to take offense:

"Senate Democrats handed President Bush the first insult of his second term yesterday with a surprise delay in confirming Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state."

Rice did win a 16-2 vote in the Foreign Relations Committee, with Kerry and Boxer opposed.

Looky here -- another poll about Bush, this one from the New York Times:

"On the eve of President Bush's second inauguration, most Americans say they do not expect the economy to improve or that American troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by the time Mr. Bush leaves the White House, and many have reservations about his signature plan to overhaul Social Security, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

"Seventy percent, however, said they thought Mr. Bush would succeed in changing the Social Security system. And the poll found that 43 percent of respondents expect most forms of abortion to be illegal by the time Mr. Bush leaves the White House, given Mr. Bush's expected appointments to the Supreme Court."

That's an eye-opener.

"Nearly two-thirds said a second Bush term would leave the country with a larger deficit, while 47 percent said that a second Bush term would divide Americans."

I wonder who that 47 percent voted for.

Here's a nugget from a NYT chat with Laura Bush:

"Her favorite topic of campaign conversation with her mother-in-law last year? 'We loved to complain about various media.' Institutions or individuals? 'All.' "

Remember Bush's comment to The Post that the election amounted to a ratification of his Iraq policy? Roger Simon begs to differ:

"There are any number of problems with this including the fact that only 50.8 percent of those who voted cast ballots for Bush and only 30.8 percent of eligible voters voted for him.

"Not all that huge a ratification.

"Also, while I certainly don't dispute that Bush won the last election, people voted for him for all sorts of reasons. Some people didn't want to switch presidents during wartime. Others liked and trusted him more than his opponent. Others agreed with his positions on gay marriage and abortion. Others felt his values were the same as their values. And some endorsed his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"There were a lot of reasons that people voted for George Bush. But to pick just one of them and say the public ratified his Iraq policy by re-electing him seems to be stretching the facts.

"There is another problem. Opinions change quickly in this country. The election was held back last November. This is mid-January and a new poll shows that the public is much less pleased with our Iraq policy than President Bush currently is."

Journalists, always quibbling about the details.

InstaPundit disapproves of Kerry '05:

"Back during the election, we were told that characterizations of John Kerry as the most liberal Senator were an outrageous calumny, leading me to comment: 'Gosh, you'd think that being "liberal" was bad or something!'

"Well, I don't know about most liberal, but the fact is that of the Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee, only John Kerry and Barbara Boxer voted against Condi Rice. And Kerry's embarrassing performance during the hearings certainly puts him in a class with Boxer.

"I agree with Kos: He would have been an 'unmitigated disaster' as President. I hope the Democrats do better in 2008, because it would be bad for the country -- and, ultimately, the Republicans -- if they became as marginalized as the Tories have in Britain. And performances like this make me wonder if that's not in the cards."

Bill Safire, who's giving up his NYT op-ed space soon, offers some thoughts on the press under siege:

"On mainstream media's feeling that President Bush doesn't give a hoot about what we say or write: That's his loss more than ours. He may deliver an uplifting second Inaugural Address, but still does not appear thoughtful or adept at answering questions.

The reason: Bush holds quarterly, rather than the traditional monthly, news conferences. This lack of regular rehearsal costs him familiarity with issues, and costs his administration the discipline of deadlines for suggested answers. As the debates showed, Bush gets better with practice. He is not as good as he thinks he is when winging it.

"On widespread suspicion of political bias in news coverage: Here's the good news: Bad news is newsier than good news. Even when media try to be 'fair and impartial,' they can be expected to annoy rather than please the party in power. That's because clean government needs a snooping adversary, not a cheerleader; the Outs need help from the press to hold the Ins accountable.

"Today that media bias is undeniably liberal. That's natural when conservatives are the Ins; five years ago, the bias often ran the other way. As future elections near, that tilt must disappear from news pages to let the voters do the tilting. Some mainstreamers flopped on necessary election evenhandedness in 2004 and should be grimly thankful for a corrective kick in the teeth from other media, bloggers and righteous right-wingers."

Finally, this AP dispatch for viewers from the pre-Leno age:

"Do you miss Johnny Carson's comic monologues on the 'Tonight' show? So does he, apparently. 'When he reads the paper in the morning, he can think of five jokes right off the bat that he wishes he had an outlet for,' said Peter Lassally, one of his former producers. . . .

"He'll send a joke every now and then to David Letterman, who has used some of Carson's jokes in his monologue, Lassally said. 'Johnny gets a big kick out of that,' he said."

Hi-yo!