Analysis: Kaiser on State of the Union Address

Washington Post Associate Editor Robert G. Kaiser was online Tuesday, Jan. 31, at 10:30 p.m. ET to provide instant analysis following the President's State of the Union address and the Democratic response.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Robert G. Kaiser: Good evening. I look forward to batting around some ideas with you tonight about Bush's state of the union speech, and Gov. Kaine's reply. I'll field as many comments and questions as I can in the next hour or so.

At the outset let me pose a question to all of you: Do you think Bush actually addressed the true state of the union tonight? Did he speak with candor about subjects of concern to you? Did the world he described sound to you like the world you live in and see around you?

_______________________

Portland, Ore.: Mr Kaiser, in his speech Bush made a statement that absolutely floored me. He said that if we left Iraq that would "put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country." Does Bush and his administration really view Iraq in such simplistic terms? I'm not for a withdrawal of the troops but there seems to be quite a bit more going on in Iraq than just us against al Qaeda. There are Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and their various factions all jockeying to fill the power vacuum, after all, and I really doubt that al Qaeda is the most powerful of them all.

From what you know, does Bush and his administration really view the world in such child-like ways or did his speech writers just dumb things down for the American public?

Robert G. Kaiser: This, sadly, is a good question. I too cringed at that passage. More broadly, I think it would be difficult to argue that Bush dealt candidly with the problems we face in Iraq now, which are grave. If anyone wants to disagree with me about this, please do so.

___________________

Louisville, Ky.: It took the president 45 minutes to briefly mention Hurricane Katrina -- the greatest natural disaster in this country's history. This is simply not good enough.

Is this a cultural indicator that despite what Americans say, it is true that no one really does care about black people, especially if they're poor?

Robert G. Kaiser: Hey, the victims of Katrina were hardly all black, were they? I do see a striking contrast between Bush's speech from Jackson Square last September, when he promised to rebuild New Orleans in lofty terms, and the treatment he gave the crisis on the Gulf Coast tonight. Personally I watch in sad amazement as the country seems to turn away from the devastation down there.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I am not a Bush fan and I disagreed with many things he said, however I think it was one of the better State of the Union speeches I have heard. He did better delivering it as well.

I was kind of appalled that he managed to give the U.S. credit for liberating concentration camps, then launched into comment on the defeat of an "evil empire." Especially considering the fact that the Soviets lost millions of people in WWII.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for posting.

_______________________

Redlands , Calif.: Comment - there does not appear to be anything new. There is nothing inspirational, no vision for the second term. This state of the union speech is only another defense of what has gone before. The president is out of touch with most Americans and continues to play to his base. What is most amusing is the use of protectionism and isolationism in the speech. I keep an ear to the news, and this is the first time anyone has said anything about either one. Could it be that that administration is again to imply that the opposition is saying that America needs to become isolationist? I hope that America is listening and will not choose to play that game again.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for your comment. I agree with you--I haven't heard a single politician speak up in favor of isolationism or retreat from the world in a very long time. Does anyone else out there have a theory about what Bush was talking about here?

_______________________

Anonymous: Why did the Republicans cheer when Bush said that the "rising costs of Social Security is a problem that just won't go away?"

Robert G. Kaiser: I guess because they wanted to score a point against Democrats whom they perceive as having successfully blocked any consideration of Bush's Social Security overhaul.

_______________________

Montreal, Canada: Simply put, did the momentum change?

Robert G. Kaiser: I don't know, of course, but I spent some of this afternoon reading our latest poll, and also the Hart-McInturff Poll released today by the Wall Street Journal and NBC. I hope we can link to our poll here, and also to Dan Froomkin's column of today, which contains a link to the full WSJ-NBC poll.

These polls are startling to me. They show quite astounding weakness of Bush and the Republican Congress. Voters by 2:1 want us to start getting out of Iraq; they are upset by the health care problems and unimpressed by Republican efforts to address it; in the WSJ-NBC poll, most people say they would like to see their incumbent congressman defeated to give a new person a chance. This is really unusual in my experience, and evidence of the real weakness of Bush and the GOP at this moment. I don't see a speech like this one making a huge difference, but let's wait to see what Tom Shales says about the speech. His reactions are invariably better than mine. (Shales is our brilliant TV critic; you can read his column tomorrow.)

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Message: I Lead , ( Post, Jan. 31, 2006 )

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, (Jan. 2006)

_______________________

Reading, Mass.: Do you feel the President is so aggressively defending the NSA wiretapping to obscure the true nature of the program?

The $64,000 question is why the Administration bypassed the FISA statute if this program is truly a "terrorist surveillance".

Will the Bush Administration continually obfuscate this issue and declare the NSA program details classified?

Robert G. Kaiser: Polls may help answer this question, too. Our poll and others show narrow majorities support the wiretapping as described by Bush. Of course we have no way of knowing how accurate that description is. The Post and, I'm sure, other news organizations are trying to learn more about what the NSA is actually doing. But from what we know about its technology, we know it cannot be very discriminating; it's not possible to avoid eavesdropping on totally innocent phone calls, obviously. But many Americans say they don't mind that.

I think the real test here will come after courts get to consider the program. Legal scholars of all stripes, conservative to liberal, seem to agree overwhelmingly (but not unanimously) that Bush's legal rationale is dubious. But scholars aren't judges--and, we've learned, judges often are not scholars!

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Did his juxtaposition of lauding democracy in the Arab world with warning against Islamicism not disturb you when you look at election results in Palestine and Iraq?

Robert G. Kaiser: I'd put it differently: Bush's decision not to speak candidly about the election results in Palestine leaves him open to criticism that he isn't facing up to reality. In my view the state of his policies in the Middle East is very precarious; he wants us to believe everything is going fine.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: I'm curious about the standing ovation given to what Bush termed the "terrorist surveillance program." Is that a signal that regardless of the program's possible lack of any legal and constitutional foundation, the Republicans in the Senate won't pursue/allow a serious investigation?

Robert G. Kaiser: I don't think so. Sen. Specter has already signaled his intention to hold tough hearings, and several Republican senators have said they are very concerned by what is going on.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I don't think that the country has turned away from the Gulf Coast and New Orleans disaster -- it's that we have no leadership asking us to make any sacrifice. Why aren't they asking every American to make a sacrifice to rebuild NOLA? I have friends down there whose house is fine, but their neighborhood is gone, they are surrounded by trailers, and they have no prospects for a future. What has happened? You can't blame average Americans -- at least not until the next election.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the comment.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Was there any indication in the speech that Bush would change his administration to move in a new direction-- or try to bring in new ideas? new people? new perspectives outside of playing to his conservative base?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well he spoke about bipartisanship, about his desire to listen to critics. But no, I heard no indication that he plans any substantial changes.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: What did you think of Samuel Alito at the State of the Union? He seemed to be very excited, inspired, even by the the crowd and the cause.

Robert G. Kaiser: I agree. I bet he was mightily pleased to be there! Interesting to note that the new Chief Justice came, and brought most if not all of his colleagues. Last year, I believe, Justice Breyer was the only justice; Rehnquist hadn't come for some time.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Does anyone see the similarity between the way that the President implied that his domestic surveillance program would have prevented 9/11 and is necessary to prevent the next 9/11 the way he so often implied that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to prevent another 9/11? Is this just the catch-all justification for anything controversial? These claims are very far-fetched but the president avoids that inconvenience by merely implying connections without making any substantive claims.

Robert G. Kaiser: thanks for posting. Still hoping for some strong defenses of the President tonight...

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why was Tim Kaine chosen to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union? He is not very well-known, and he has not held his office for very long.

Robert G. Kaiser: Perhaps you've answered your own question? An attractive newcomer, an obvious moderate, untainted by any known history--I can see the appeal of Kaine, can't you?

_______________________

Reading, Mass.: What do you make of President Bush's conciliatory nature? Genuine or theater of the absurd?

Robert G. Kaiser: Genuine but limited. He's been doing this now for some weeks. I think it's their response to the bad polls. I don't think it will change them much.

_______________________

Watertown, Mass.: How do you think Bush's call for civil discourse plays agains Rove's ongoing tactics to attack all Democrats as soft on national security?

Robert G. Kaiser: I believe musicians call that counterpoint.

_______________________

Kunming, China: How does Bush's administration deal with China's democratic situation?

Robert G. Kaiser: By ignoring it, mostly.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: "We've created more jobs than Japan and Europe combined." Except Japan and Europe offer free national health care plans whether you're employed or not, free college if you can pass an exam, and handsome pension plans, etc. etc. Bet a lot of GM, Ford, and Verizon workers didn't love that line!

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for posting

_______________________

Prince Frederick, Md.: Is there an objective forum on washingtonpost.com or are we stuck with this "anyone but Bush" diatribe?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, I guess you're stuck with me tonight. Tomorrow, as usual, there will be a rich variety of discussions on the site.

_______________________

Las Vegas, Nev.: McCain/Rice in 2008 ... what would the odds be?

Robert G. Kaiser: Long. Very long.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Robert, I enjoy that you always do these "insta-responses." Thanks for doing them during the '04 debates and thanks for this.

Re: SOTU. My reaction: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

It was typical Bush both good and bad. He ignores any legitimate criticism, sets up a rhetorical straw man, and then whacks the non-existent straw man with a hammer. I'm guessing Republicans thought it was great, Dems thought it was horrible, and purple America just thought it irrelevant.

I thought the biggest weakness was on Katrina or lack thereof. The rhetoric of this speech vs. five months ago when he was in Jackson Square was striking.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for posting.

_______________________

Arlington, Ind.: Why did the entire nation not break-up in laughter when the President suggested making the tax cuts permanent?

How do we "baby boomers" justify spending and borrowing our children's future?

Robert G. Kaiser: The fiscal irresponsibility in Washington over recent years has really been something. We have indeed piled up huge debts for our children to take care of, without any hint of how we expect them to be able to do so. It's fair to blame the ruling party for this -- their budgets have run up the tab. But the Democrats have hardly been protesting. Nor have they made very specific proposals about what they would do instead of passing the buck to our descendants.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: I would say time wise (if not words) at least 50% was on foreign policy--a proportion that strikes me as unprecedented. Any historians or old fogy's there in the background who can recall if this has happened since WWII? Did Nixon, for example, talk this much about Vietnam and China in the 70s?

Robert G. Kaiser: I fear I may qualify as a fogy myself, and I do remember earlier SOTU speeches with heavy doses of foreign policy, including from this president. Not as rare as you obviously think.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: My first observation would be that there is hardly agreement about the illegality or unconstitutionality of the NSA wiretapping program.

Secondly, I believe that President reference 9/11 to remind the public why he is acting as he is and to contrast it with some of his loudest opponents who instead look at the NSA program as a sound bite and an excuse to make outrageous politically motivated claims. The NSA program may have prevented 9/11 if in place it may not have and the intrusion may not be justified - but the efficacy and necessity of the program isn't being debated by his critics, they are simply pandering to their extreme supporters by calling it illegal and discussing impeachment.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for posting.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: If Bush deserves any credits at all, he deserves some for telling US car makers that they created their own current problem. Hope he/Congress will not give Ford or GM a dime of tax payers' money to bail them out.

Robert G. Kaiser: And thank you too.

_______________________

Santa Barbara, Calif.: Do you think viewers understood that when he said "since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources" and "I announce the Advanced Energy.

Initiative - a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research" that a major portion of this is funding of the nuclear energy industry?

Robert G. Kaiser: probably not. Bush's enthusiasm for nuclear energy doesn't seem to have registered on public opinion .

_______________________

Richardson, Tex.: What's your take on the President's--and Gov. Kaine's--appeal for bipartisanship and the end of cross-party bitterness? Surely the administration deserves blame for its "my-way-or-the-highway" approach to executive and judicial nominations, and its indifference to Democratic input in a number of policy areas. And would Kaine really do anything differently than the Democrats across the river in D.C.?

Robert G. Kaiser: This is not the place for a long dissertation about divisive politics in Washington, but it seems to me that any fair history of the phenomenon would blame the Democrats for firing the first shots more than 20 years ago that have led to today's dreary situation. The country has largely forgotten the early-'80s Indiana congressional race which was so close that the Democratic leadership in the House decided they could determine the winner--a Democrat, not surprisingly. But the fairest, fullest count in Indiana showed that the Republican had actually won, a fact that sent many Republicans around the bend. That, to me, was the first battle in the wars still raging in the Capitol. But Newt Gingrich and his descendants have done at least their share of keeping the war going, often raging. It's a miserable situation.

_______________________

Arlington Heights, Ill.: Sure, let's talk about reality.

What else could Bush have said that would have appeased these critics? They seem to want him to apologize for the last five years. Sure some things have been screwed up, but the presidency is a big, tough job. It's a big tough world, and no president controls everything. Bush's critics' benchmark can't be perfection.

I feel we are lucky to have this good, decent man doing a very tough job. Do his critics really doubt his heart? Maybe they should check their own.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thank you very much for this comment.

_______________________

Champaign, Ill.: As a Republican, I would have loved to see Bush respond to the "culture of corruption" talking point with a positive message, but I guess that's being left to the Congress to sort itself out?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, I think the White House is very edgy about what may be coming. Remember, a senior White House official is under indictment in the Abramoff affair, and we have no idea what may be coming. Karl Rove's case is not resolved, and we have no idea what may be coming. Might Tom DeLay get indicted? Yes he might. I think Bush was probably wise to stick with the generalities he used tonight.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll , ( Post, Jan. 27. 2006 )

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: I find it ironic that Bush didn't mention Medicare drug rx stuff, because you'd imagine a political leader trying to make it clearer or give seniors some information that could make it easier to use, even though the Medicare program hasn't been popular.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for reminding us about this. I was struck also by the omission, a reflection I suspect of nervousness brought on by polls showing how unpopular AND confusing the new Medicare drug benefit has been so far.

I also wonder how uninsured Americans, doctors and many others who are worried about the state of our health care responded to a speech which gave quite short shrift to the whole issue, and relied largely on old bromides in the passages that addressed it.

_______________________

Sugar Land, Tex.: I might be mistaken, but I think I read somewhere that Tom Delay was already indicted. Yes, I think that is why he stepped down as majority leader. You might be able to read about this in the Washington Post, somewhere in the Sports section.

Robert G. Kaiser: All right, all right, I blew that one, but didn't you get what I meant? Tom DeLay may get indicted in the Abramoff case; of course he HAS been indicted in Texas.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: To address your question, "Do you think Bush actually addressed the true state of the union tonight?", I would say in an indirect way Bush did address the true state of the union.

We all observed the division in the Capital tonight. Republicans applauding. Democrats sitting. Democrats applauding in a sarcastic swipe at the President's failed Medicare reform policy.

Yet, the President spoke of bi-partisanship. Of how both Democrats and Republicans can be proud of achievements even as the President, moments before, was taking swipes at his liberal opponents.

The President demonstrated the state of the union tonight in his speech and the state is in dis-union. In this predicament the problems will not be solved without drastic change in leadership.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for this good comment.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: My own instant reaction is pretty close to yours. The speech was well-crafted and often beautiful and the rhetoric was lofty and inspirational. I thought the last stanza was quite remarkable.

President Bush is certainly improved as an orator the past five years. Unfortunately, though, presidential leadership is about more than just having clever speech-writers and keenly delivering lines.

For all its soaring language and grand ideas, this Administration rarely seems to pay much attention to execution, detail or follow-through -- Iraq, war on terror, global warming, Katrina, etc.

I can imagine reading this speech given by a Lincoln or a Kennedy and marveling at it. As it is, though, I can't help but be saddened a tinge by thinking of what might have been.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for posting.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kaiser,

Thanks for being here. I am curious about the repeated statement about "we have to fight them there to avoid the fight there."

Why is that ok with all of us? Doesn't it imply an acceptance that our American lives are more important than Iraqis' (or insert nationality here)?

Robert G. Kaiser: As an old veteran of Vietnam (as a reporter, not a soldier), this rhetoric rings a familiar bell. LBJ used to say precisely the same thing--we're fighting the communists in Vietnam so we don't have to fight them in San Diego, he said once. Bush has been saying the same sorts of things repeatedly. They are pretty hard to defend in logic, I would agree with you.

_______________________

Walnut Creek, Calif.: I was disappointed that he didn't propose specific ideas to improve the health insurance situation. The news leading up to the speech led us to believe that this would be a major emphasis. He gave us one vague paragraph, but no specifics.

In general I think this was a "defensive" speech. Say enough about health care, social security, disaster relief, AIDS, energy, etc. so he can't be accused of ignoring these issues, but he proposed nothing substantial except more funds for research. The speech left me disappointed that he's got nothing in mind to solve our problems except "make the tax cuts permanent" and "pass the Patriot Act".

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the comment.

_______________________

Cambridge, Mass.: Cindy Sheehan was arrested in the Capitol Building tonight. What do you make of this?

Robert G. Kaiser: Here's a link to our story on what happened.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Activist Cindy Sheehan Arrested at Capitol , ( Post, Jan. 31, 2006 )

_______________________

San Antonio, Tex.: A pundit is saying the following this evening: "In the Middle East, oil and democracy do not mix. It's not an accident that the Arab world's first and only true democracy - Lebanon - never had a drop of oil."

Do you think it is possible for an oil-producing Arab country to have democracy--whether it wells up from its citizenry or whether it's imposed externally/manipulated by the United States?

Robert G. Kaiser: I am not persuaded by arguments that one sort of person or one sort of country cannot have, enjoy or value democracy. Democracy is hard; it requires institutions, laws, tolerance, etc. Therefore the number of strong, reliable democracies is a lot smaller than the 125 Bush cited tonight. And creating new ones in places like Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Iraq for that matter is going to be exceedingly difficult. But I don't think impossible because of oil, or anything of that kind.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Given that the Republican Congress has been less that absolute in its support of President Bush (see Social Security Reform, tax reform, ANWR, etc.) why didn't he take them head on on runaway spending? Is he so weak that he must accept whatever the Republican Congress allows him? Wouldn't standing up to the problems of the majority party in Congress give him more credibility as a leader and perhaps improve his popularity enough to bring Congress into line?

Robert G. Kaiser: Good question. I don't know the answer, of course. I have never understood why this White House was so cavalier about spending money they didn't have. the only explanation we ever got for this, you may remember, came from Paul O'Neill, the short-lives Sec Treasury in the first term, who quoted (in his book) Vice President Cheney as telling him that Ronald Reagan had proven that "deficits don't matter." Is that really what Cheney thinks? I don't know.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Someone early asked about the isolationism reference in the speech. It was a jarring note. Why'd he do it? Bush has successfully in the past put up straw men that both characterize his opposition in a misleading light and then gives him the ability to "fight against" a non-existent complaint. This is an effective way to control the discussion when you don't want to discuss what is actually going on. The question is whether the public will continue to be led abound by the nose by such misleading and misdirected statements. Thoughts?

Robert G. Kaiser: Well, I thought your comment was worth posting.

_______________________

Hummelstown, Pa.: Perhaps the level of cynicism about politics practiced Washington, D.C. style was on display during the President's speech. One side roars while the other sits on it's hands. The Governor's response sounded hollow as well and reminded me of host John McGlauglin's famous response to his panel..., "wrong."

Like most Americans, and perhaps I am taking a giant leap here, are sick and tired of more commissions to tackle problems that our elected officials apparently cannot.

If indeed the Congress and apparently the country are divided so completely that neither can consider another point of view, then perhaps we need to consider creating a new constitutional convention.

I am not suggesting that we go back and reinvent the wheel here, simply that the times and situations faced today are much different than those of our forefathers. The courts have done little except to muddy the waters between federal and states rights. A typical example seems apparent in both Medicaid and No Child Left Behind.

Is a strong an omnipotent federal government the way of our 21st century, or should that power be more severely restricted in favor of the states. Clearly there is a crisis brewing, both in a political and economic sense that must somehow be addressed for the U.S. to move forward.

Thanks.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks. I share your view that something big might be coming. Just a hunch.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: Did you catch Hillary Clinton rolling her eyes? She saw herself on a monitor, I suppose. It was priceless.

Robert G. Kaiser: And was she chewing gum?

_______________________

Buffalo, N.Y.: I heard the president ask Congress for "Line Item Veto" power. Wasn't that power already granted to President Clinton, then overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional?

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes it was. That was a surprise to me, too.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: The presidency IS a tough job, and it is good that nobody really has to do it alone. I just wish that this President was doing his job with people that would help promote the honest debates that are necessary to get citizenship involved and in touch with their government.

Today, I feel like politics (in this administration's view) is how best to convince the people by ANY MEANS NECESSARY that they are speaking the truth and have their best interests at heart.

I do not think that all Republicans or even a majority of Republicans think this way. I think that it is something that is going on in the presidency and that is very disturbing to me.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the posting.

_______________________

Concord, N.C.: Since an earlier poster asked the question about "isolationism," let me respond. President Bush is referring to two different kinds of isolationism: a military "bring the boys home" and only-go to-war-when-directly-attacked line of thought increasingly prevalent among the Democrats' activist base, and an economic protectionism that sees any kind of "free" trade as a threat to unions and other key Democratic interest groups. Both are quite commonplace and routinely percolate through Washington Post and other news stories.

The President is right to point out the folly of both. 9/11 should have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the war on terrorism is a different kind of war against a very different kind of enemy. Why that hasn't sunk yet to everyone is rather puzzling.

Military isolationism brought us Pearl Harbor and the lack of attention to Osama bin Laden et al during the Clinton administration brought us 9/11. They could have arrested him when Sudan detained him but were worried about offending internationalist sensibilities. Now we know we can't sit back within our borders and wait to clean up after we're bombed and it's too late.

Criticism of the President's foreign policy is warranted in many areas but you can at least say this: he's consistent and bases his ideas on a very American principle -- freedom! The Democratic Party's foreign policy, in contrast, is inter nationalistic until there are sacrifices and costs (American lives) in which case it reverts to isolationism, ineffective sanctions and rhetoric. They say they are for women's rights but aren't glad when military action gives women in Afghanistan the right to vote and not be beaten by rods in the public square. Go figure.

That's how North Korea got its nukes and soon Iran will, too. One last point about internationalism: Americans don't elect other country's leaders to protect us, we elect our representatives to fulfill that role. Do you really want to trust the U.N. Security Council with protecting America? All our enemies have to do to is affect one vote to put every American at peril.

My last comment is about your reference to polls. Given the concerted attempt on all quarters to cast the administration as responsible for everything bad (except perhaps for trash pickup problems occasionally here in Concord after the latest race at Lowes Motor Speedway), who would possibly be surprised at those numbers? Our cousin -- who kicked down doors to route out insurgents in Fallujah and saw a very different Iraq than the one he read about when he returned -- certainly isn't.

Fortunately, the Democrats will eventually have to govern and show what they are FOR instead of AGAINST. Once the anti-Bush crutch is removed and their lack of their own solutions and ideas is apparent, I think opinion will follow.

Vote yes for additional gas tax hikes and other measures to increase government spending and cost average Americans even more, for rolling back measures that foiled plots like the plan to blow up the New York subway under Madison Square Garden (now underway but not reported by many media outlets since it undercuts the 'Blame Bush/Bush is bad' script?), etc. etc... I doubt it.

Robert G. Kaiser: Your reply probably violates our space limits, but your comment is so good that I will post it anyhow. Hope people will read it an be provoked by it.

One comment on the polls: I don't think your explanation is adequate. Indeed, it strikes me that the White House has shown great skill in continuing to control a large part of the political conversation EVEN AS its numbers of gone into the toilet.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: On the isolationism point, either he's still worried about the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1927 or (maybe more likely) he's reading the polls that show an increasing tendency by voters to turn away from foreign affairs. I think Pew Research confirmed this which, when you consider that the murderers of our countrymen still roam free, is a pretty drastic repudiation of the "democracy on the march" story line and what Bush views as his lasting legacy.

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks.

_______________________

Clinton, Md.: My brother and wife voted for Bush in '04 because he would outlaw abortion. Well, Bush did nothing last year, expending no "political capital" on the issue. In tonight's address, there was only one sentence relating to the drop in number of abortions. I know why he's done nothing, but why is he never called on it by reporters. Bush is acting hypocritically, but this is never pointed out by The Post or the media. Why?

Robert G. Kaiser: Bush has never proposed outlawing abortion.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Mr Kaiser..

I wanted to hear, what happens after the elections in Iraq? what happens to the Sunnis? what will we do if there is a civil war climate?

I wanted to hear.. how my grandmother should feel comfortable about this Medicaid?

I wanted to hear how jobs will stay in U.S.?

I wanted to hear how he will stop US companies going underground against cheap labor foreign companies?

I wanted to hear how we will police the borders?

I heard none... again that's what I expected!!

Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the post.

_______________________

Potomac, Md.: Where did President Bush get the idea that Americans were more hopeful? I was wondering if it was just how he thought America was feeling, or if there were any polls on that.

Robert G. Kaiser: This will be the last question for tonight. It's bed time.

I don't know the answer to your question, but it wasn't from polls. The polls show a strong majority of Americans think the country is off on the wrong track. They also report a lot of pessimism about the future of the economy, and about Iraq.

But Bush's people made clear in recent days his determination to come across tonight as a strong and optimistic leader. We'll be able to see more clearly in the days ahead if that determination has borne fruit.

As usual I am impressed by the intelligence and thoughtfulness of our readers. Thank you all, and good night.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.