Praise From the Pundits

An effort "to craft a bipartisan bill to assure Social Security's solvency," says the Los Angeles Times.'

"A bold move to put the future of the massive retirement program at the top of his agenda," says The Washington Post.

"They still must resolve an emotional ideological debate over whether the government should continue to take money from the working-age generation and transfer it to retirees . . . or whether Social Security should be transformed so that individuals would have more freedom and responsibility to save for their own retirements," says the New York Times.

George W. Bush last night? No, William Jefferson Clinton in 1998.

The reason you may not remember much about Clinton's "Save Social Security First" SOTU speech is that it took place six days after the Monica Lewinsky story broke, and 99 percent of the punditry involved whether he could distract the nation by dealing with substance instead of sex.

Then, as you may recall, the question was what to do with huge government surpluses. Now we face yawning deficits. And Bush's plan for restructuring the retirement program is far more sweeping than Clinton's plan to sock away some extra cash in what Al Gore came to call the lockbox. That lock was picked long ago.

Bush laid down an important marker last night, vowing a below-inflation budget that would cut the deficit in half in four years. Then (as is customary at SOTU time) he ticked off the following spending proposals: increase Pell grants, help community colleges, health care tax credits, community health centers, improved medical technology, expanded health savings accounts, hydrogen-fueled cars, clean coal technology, an anti-gang initiative, "dramatically expanded" use of DNA evidence, special training for defense lawyers in capital cases. Oh, and he thanked Congress for doubling the NIH's budget.

The cutbacks? The 150 programs that Bush said will be either trimmed or eliminated? Gee, the speech didn't have room for those (including the proposed elimination of funding for Amtrak, which in its most popular portion, the Boston-New York-Washington line, serves mostly blue states).

We'll see whether the budget that emerges from the Hill is as austere as the president wants.

As for network reaction, Bob Schieffer said: "One of the best delivered speeches I have heard President Bush make. He was confident, he was direct, he drove his points home."

(Speaking of Schieffer, here's my story on his becoming the temporary anchor of the "CBS Evening News.")

Chris Matthews: "I would expect lots of newspapers to lead with 'President Says Social Security Headed for Bankruptcy.'"

Tim Russert said: "This president has bet his presidency on the outcome in Iraq. He is staying the course . . . It will be a cloud that hovers over the Bush presidency."

Cokie Roberts may have nailed it when she talked about the Iraqi woman seated next to Laura Bush embracing the mother of a soldier who died in Fallujah. "To have that completely spontaneous hug was something that leaves you with goose bumps" and will outlast anything Bush said.

To show how blogging has arrived, CNN showed Andrew Sullivan live-blogging the speech at his laptop (though initially he was live-blogging about being filmed by a cable network). He and Wonkette provided the online perspective afterward.

CNN also served up a quickie Gallup poll that contained good insta-news for Bush: 60 percent positive, 26 percent somewhat positive, 13 percent negative.

Some of the morning newspaper analyses find a trait not previously associated with this man.

The Los Angeles Times: "As president, George W. Bush has more often sought to roll over his critics than negotiate with them. But intriguingly, in a brisk, businesslike State of the Union speech Wednesday night, he hinted at more flexibility than he has typically displayed.

"Bush reaffirmed the ideologically aggressive agenda he defined during his reelection campaign. But he also attempted in subtle yet unmistakable ways to respond to key criticisms that have emerged about his plans."

The Boston Globe hits a similar theme: "Confronted with a unified Democratic opposition and doubters in his own party, President Bush last night laid out his much-anticipated domestic agenda with uncharacteristic gestures of diplomacy. It was a soothing, calming State of the Union speech on the heels of his soaring, sometimes strident inaugural address. . . .

"On this night, the man who admires Winston Churchill came off a little like Bill Clinton, taking the driver's seat but offering those who don't fully agree with him a chance to help navigate."

Others deconstruct the SS issue, like

USA Today:"President Bush offered his much-discussed proposal for Social Security private investment accounts Wednesday night. What he didn't offer was a solution to the system's future fiscal shortfall.

"After warning for weeks that the 70-year-old retirement program faces a future of bankruptcy, Bush used his State of the Union address to repeat the dire forecast and outline his vision for transforming it."

The Chicago Tribune goes a step further:

"In laying out the details of a revolutionary plan to set up Social Security private accounts for workers under 55, President Bush had to concede the hard truth Wednesday night--his plan won't save the system from running out of money...

"But he also depicted himself as a visionary president seeking to modernize a Depression-era program that he believes no longer is appropriate in an era where a large segment of the American public is invested in private markets."

The Washington Post casts Bush as salesman-in-chief:

"President Bush launched the battle to restructure Social Security last night with an eye on wary older Americans, nervous Republicans and potential Democratic votes in Congress, outlining a plan that he sought to characterize as less risky, less radical and more fiscally responsible than his critics have charged."

The New York Times leads with the vision thing:

"Much as he remade a broad swath of American foreign policy in his first term, President Bush has now vowed to reshape a towering pillar of domestic policy, Social Security, in his second.

"It is a bold goal, one that faces fierce opposition from Democrats and uncertain support from Republicans, and the outcome could weigh heavily in determining the success of his presidency and his place in history."

The Philadelphia Inquirer goes with a bloc-by-bloc breakdown:

"Bush's big policy ideas are wedded to big political goals. His Social Security privatization plan is aimed at today's youngest voters, who, if ultimately given the option of private retirement accounts, might swear long-term loyalty to the GOP, much the way their ancestors pledged fealty to the Democrats for decades, after Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal lawmakers invented the federal retirement safety net.

"His call for curbs on lawsuit damage awards is aimed in part at lightening the wallets of America's well-heeled trial lawyers, who, individually and through their law firms, donated 73 percent of their campaign largesse to the Democrats in 2004; and whose trade association donated 92 percent of its campaign money to Democrats.

"His faith-based programs are aimed in part at attracting African Americans, many of whom support more religiosity in social programs, thereby cutting into a key Democratic bloc. His call last night for better-trained defense lawyers in capital crime cases was also aimed at wooing blacks, who have been hostile to Bush because of his support for the death penalty.

"His immigration plan, which would make it easier for illegals to work here (a Bush initiative that infuriates many conservatives), is aimed in part at winning support among Hispanics, the fastest-growing ethnic group in the electorate."

Did we leave anybody out?

InstaPundit: "NICE JOB. The inaugural was OK, which for Bush is a success. This, on the other hand, was actually good, making it Bush's best speech ever, I think. He seems much more comfortable and relaxed, probably because of the Iraqi elections going so well. I think we're just figuring out just how much the Administration's plans turned on that. He bet on the Iraqi people, and he won."

Andrew Sullivan: "FISCAL SANITY? I'm having trouble believing this president on that particular issue. 2009? I thought the goal was 2008. And why not balance the budget? You know: like Clinton did."

David Frum: "Double or nothing: that was the theme of the president's dazzling speech. Bold, bold, bold -- bold on social security reform, bold on controlling the growth of government, bold on legal and tax reform, bold in daring to mention nuclear energy, bold on social issues including marriage, bold on judges, and bold on foreign policy and the war on terror."

In other news, National Review applauds the likely selection of Howard Dean:

"Freud could get an entire monograph on his theory of the 'death drive' out of observing contemporary Democrats. The party is displaying an unquenchable thirst for irrelevance. Several theories have been advanced in the wake of Bush's reelection for the Democrats' troubles: a lack of seriousness on national security; an out-of-touch liberalism on social issues; an inability to sell its message in terms that connect with 'red state' voters. The DNC is about to reject all these theories in favor of one of its own -- all that ails the Democratic can be fixed by more of the same, only more so.

"In his own northeastern liberalism, Dean makes John Kerry look like a figure out of the painting American Gothic. Dean's defenders say he governed as a moderate in Vermont. But moderation in Vermont is extremism in much of the rest of the country. And the fact is that Dean did not run as a moderate in the Democratic primaries, when he cemented his national image as a ranter against the Iraq war and tax cuts, even before his infamous Iowa scream. He was so far left on social issues that he pledged -- riffing off of Bill Clinton's status as 'the first black president' -- to be the first gay president. DNC members counting on Dean to keep this all under wraps as he becomes a team player as chairman don't know their man."

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum is more supportive: "There's no question that Dean is a high-risk choice, and he's going to need to be smarter about harnessing his passion than he was during his presidential run. From all reports, he's also going to need to find a top notch manager he trusts who can do the organizational and management tasks that he's apparently not very good at.

"But at the very least, it's gonna be fun. Give 'em hell, Howard."

That has a nice ring to it.

Dan Okrent, the NYT ombudsman, weighs in on the Iraqi bloggers flap. Brief recap: After I reported on the blogging Baghdad brothers (Omar, Mohammed andAli), Times reporter Sarah Boxer wrote a piece, leading with online speculation that maybe these guys were CIA operatives. Jeff Jarvis of the Buzz Machine slammed her, and Okrent's post includes comments from Culture Editor Jonathan Landman as follows:

"Anytime you write about somebody involved in Iraqi politics it's going to be fraught. No question about it. Iraq is a dangerous place for sure, and all kinds of innocent things can have nasty consequences. As Ali put it to Sarah, 'Here some people would kill you for just writing to an American.' When the Washington Post wrote that these guys met President Bush at The White House people got nervous and angry, saying the same thing that your Globe reporter said of us: that it put a bulls eye on their heads. Is the Washpost also vile?"

Ahem. I was told of the Bush meeting by the brothers' representative, who had no problem with my printing it.

"It sure seems a stretch to accuse us of repeating unsupported allegations that the brothers are actually C.I.A. agents. Sarah wrote that the blog had provoked a deluge of intrigue and vitriol on the Internet. She went on, 'People posting messages on an American Web site called Martini Republic accused the three bloggers of working for the C.I.A., of being American puppets, of not being Iraqis and even of not existing at all.' Surely that isn't putting the prestige of The Times behind the proposition that the guy is a C.I.A. agent. It's saying that there are lots of wild charges flying around (vitriol), of which this is one. 'Vitriol' is even in the headline, signaling right from the start that we're talking about nastiness, not facts. . . .

"Buzzmachine is run by the well known conservative blogger Jeff Jarvis who, Ali wrote in one of his Internet exchanges with critics, has helped set up blogs run by some of his (Ali's) Iraqi friends. So Buzzmachine is possibly not the most dispassionate source of analysis on this subject.

"Although I accept much of Landman's argument, a few things about his response unsettle me. First off, labeling Jarvis (disclosure: he's a former colleague of mine) a 'well known conservative blogger' is both inaccurate and irrelevant. Either his charges are justified or they are not. Second, I've been at this racket long enough to have learned that opening paragraphs vastly outweigh the impact of elaborated arguments further down in an article; the lead's references to the C.I.A. and the Defense Department were needlessly provocative, and would have been just as interesting, and less inflammatory, if they'd been set up with a sentence or two on the nature of the controversy -- an Internet shouting match. And though Landman is right that hanging the story from the label Critic's Notebook would have helped explain what was going on, The Times still has a long way to go to explain to readers what such a phrase actually means, and how a story attached to it is different from a news story."

Jarvis's response includes the following:

"Is The Times in the habit of spreading vitriol it finds in the rare tin-hat blog? Is that your job? Is that news? Is that worthy of the top of your lead page? You know better, sir. She spread that speculation in the lede -- and, as Dan points out, you cannot assume that people would read on to see what is not fully shot down because it is not reported. And, yes, when you put such speculation in the lede of a story on the top of your section page you bet your butt that you 'put the prestige of The Times behind the proposition.' Until you did, it was merely the rantings of a ranting blog."