The Note: Having No Useful Result
— -- NEWS SUMMARY
We all know now how Bob Woodward gets top-level sources to talk.
Has 'em over for dinner; schmoozes in a low-key way about this and that for a whole meal of chit chat; moves them to some comfortable sitting area (maybe a porch) for post-dinner drinks; and then says "On October 15th, you were at such-and-such a meeting with so-and-so, and Mr. Whoever said 'X' and then you said 'Y' -- now, tell me, why did you say that?".
Less clear to Official Washington is how the Associated Press' Ron Fournier gets people to spill.
Superstar Fournier -- who, as we have mentioned before, is liked by both 42 and 43 (just like Karl Rove is) -- wrote his usual more-than-wirey news analysis piece yesterday right after The Speech, in which he said that the un-uttered word "Iraq" would likely determine Mr. Bush's fate, both practically and historically. LINK
And buried deep within the Fournier text was this amazing paragraph:
"'Unless we get Iraq straightened out, and quick, anything else we try is futile,'' said a senior White House aide who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid stepping on the president's inaugural message."
(Not very good avoidance, that.)
(Note that Fournier didn't describe his source as "a senior Bush adviser" or a "White House adviser," or some other construction that could refer to some low-level Bush fundraiser, Matt Dowd's dry cleaner, a member of Congress, or, say, Vin Weber.)
(Our guess: Fournier skips the dinner part and the small talk and just gives his sources a couple of belts from his hip flask before questioning them.)
So although we shall review the inauguration coverage below, you can snap out of your festive stupor right this minute and start to focus on the first real-world test of the President's pan-historic commitment to universal freedom -- the Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.
(Whose results, we will Note over and over, are not expected for about two weeks after election day!!)
At 10:00 am ET, the President attends a prayer service at the National Cathedral.
At 11:00 am ET, CMS administrator Mark McClellan announces changes to the Medicare Advantage program.
At 11:45 am ET, the new chief of Fannie Mae holds a news conference in Washington.
Attention Jano Cabrera: the daybook says some protestors will deliver a "spine" (synthetic, we hope) to DNC headquarters at 11:30 am ET.
At 2:00 pm ET, some protestors who participated in yesterday's festivities hold a news conference.
Today the Progressive Democrats of America begin a three-day conference in Washington, D.C. at the University of the District of Columbia. The Rev. Jesse Jackson speaks at 2:00 pm ET.
Tonight, one of the last parties of the week just might be the hippest party of 'em all. Hosted by the mysterious "Super Girls," the salute to White House and BC04 campaign staff will feature Toots and the Maytalls and the Gourds. You ain't seen nothing 'til you have see Republicans grinding to "Gin and Juice." And if you haven't already been invited, cry yourself a river, because it is too late to get in.
On Saturday, Democrats gather to hear candidates for DNC chair speak in Sacramento, California. Will anyone go negative on the surging Howard Dean, we wonder aloud ( . . . if one can "wonder aloud" in print . . . ).
On Sunday, on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," George has an exclusive live interview with said Howard Dean and several other top-notch guests.
In Thursday's Note, in writing about Todd Purdum writing about Laura Bush in the New York Times, we incorrectly suggested that Mrs. Bush had described her husband as "the sweetest man you've ever know," when, in fact, she was referring to her father-in-law. Now, both men have been elected president (and we find the current president to be awfully sweet), but, nonetheless, we regret the error.
The inauguration: the speech: policy and analysis:
If there has ever been a speech that produced so much unanimity of analysis, we ain't seen it.
Almost without exception, the entire punditocracy thinks:
1. The speech was well written and solidly delivered.
2. The goal of freedom around the world is worthy but tough to achieve.
3. Many of America's current bilateral relationships are not consistent with the expanded Bush Doctrine.
4. History will judge deeds more than words.
5. Mrs. Bush is, uhm, smokin!!!! (That has nothing to do with the speech, but everyone is talking about it . . . )
"His tone was proud, unapologetic, even defiant, and his emphasis on foreign policy muffled his outline of the domestic agenda that he and his aides have said is so important to the success of his second term," the aforementioned Mr. Purdum penned. LINK
Purdum Notes the President's speech failed to get down to the nitty gritty -- but it was a chance to "hit the reset button."
"President Bush began his second term without uttering the words 'Iraq,' 'Afghanistan,' 'Sept. 11' or 'terrorism.' But those omissions seemed to be precisely the point, allowing him to cast the crises and controversies of his first four years -- and the ones he welcomes in the next - as a seamless struggle in defense of the nation's founding creed: freedom."
Timespersons Bumiller and Stevenson write that the speech was "infused with a deliberate sense of timelessness." LINK
"Bush's speech was a ringing reaffirmation of his belief that freedom is the best way to keep America safe because free societies don't breed terrorists. And he pledged anew to stand up against all tyrants," writes Deborah Orin in/of the New York Post. LINK
The Washington Post's Baker and Fletcher got lede-all duties. LINK
The Washington Post's John Harris quotes Sandy Berger and (of course) Carleton College's Steven Schier in his news analysis about the speech's boldness and/but the questions it begs. Bill Kristol, natch, loved the speech. LINK
The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright look at how much U.S. policy vis-à-vis many a nation would have to change dramatically to make the President's words a reality. LINK
David Broder and E.J. Dionne both liked the speech. LINK and LINK
David Yepsen liked it too. LINK
Tom Shales hated the delivery and/but didn't much trash the TV people. LINK
The New York Times ed board opines, "The president is expected to deliver an address that emphasizes the basic principles that unite the country. On that count, George W. Bush did his job." LINK
William Safire ranks Michael Gerson's speech "among the top 5 of the 20 second-inaugurals in our history." LINK
Write Christopher Cooper and Neil King Jr., in the Wall Street Journal: "To be sure, it's not clear how Mr. Bush's soaring words might translate into concrete policy. For a variety of reasons, for instance, the U.S. often has embraced countries that don't hew to democratic principles. The practice was widespread during the Cold War, as the U.S. sought to keep nations out of the grasp of the Soviet Union."
"The war on terrorism has bred its own curious alliances, such as the one between the U.S. and Pakistan, whose president took office in a coup. Similarly, with Russia, the fight against terrorism has overshadowed any U.S. desire to promote democracy there, despite tensions over President Vladimir Putin's efforts to clamp down on dissidents and centralize power."
"But any shift in diplomacy in accord with the president's words could have far-reaching effects on everything from nuclear proliferation to trade."
"William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute, criticized Mr. Bush's call for a more activist military role in the world as 'dangerous, eloquent nonsense,' rejecting the implication in the president's remarks 'that anyone's lack of liberty threatens us,"" writes Don Lambro in the Washington Times. LINK
"There long has been strong opposition among some conservative Republicans to the tendency to become the world's policemen by sending troops to topple dictatorships in various parts of the world," continues Lambro. "Pat Buchanan became the leader of this bloc when he challenged the first President Bush for renomination in 1992, denouncing Mr. Bush's decision to go to war to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He since has left the Republican Party."
Finally and contrarily, excerpts from Peggy Noonan: (we've resisted the urge to follow the rest of the MSM and put the Republican dissenter first):
"It was a foreign-policy speech. To the extent our foreign policy is marked by a division that has been (crudely but serviceably) defined as a division between moralists and realists -- the moralists taken with a romantic longing to carry democracy and justice to foreign fields, the realists motivated by what might be called cynicism and an acknowledgment of the limits of governmental power -- President Bush sided strongly with the moralists, which was not a surprise. But he did it in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance."
"Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth."
"One wonders if they shouldn't ease up, calm down, breathe deep, get more securely grounded. The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible. Perfection in the life of man on earth is not."
And nowhere does Ms. Noonan (or the Journal) reveal that, until recently, she worked for Mr. Bush's campaign!!!
Perhaps predictably, realist Bob Novak didn't like it either. LINK
The inauguration: festivities and sideshows:
How the heck did Sen. Santorum get that seat? And Newt Gingrich his!!!!
Dana Milbank turns his keen eye on the semiotics and theater of John Kerry's every inaugural move in the Washington Post. It's must-readish. LINK
Al Kamen's Washington Post column points out that Speaker Hastert only made three errors in administering the veep oath -- but that Mr. Cheney fixed them on the fly. LINK
Jane Norman and Philip Brasher of the Des Moines Register have their normal outstanding eye for Hawkeye detail, in a piece that tells us all that Tom Harkin's oft-seen gray Stetson fedora was bought at Classic Hats for Men in the Sherman Hill neighborhood of Des Moines; that Harkin did a spot-on Humphrey Bogart imitation for them; that Senator Grassley's Capitol hideaway was used as a Bush family holding room; and that "Iowans are early risers . . . " LINK
Per the Des Moines Register, some Iowans dance at crowded balls in DC, while others protested in Ames. LINK and LINK
While huddled shivering masses lined the parade route, Gotham Timeswoman Sheryl Gay Stolberg takes Note of the "friends and family" security checkpoint at the Capitol, where "women in full-length mink coats slipped their Louis Vuitton purses through metal detectors as they snaked through." LINK
Linda Greenhouse Notes Rehnquist was "misidentified twice as 'the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court' by Senator Trent Lott, who was announcing the names of the platform guests -- the title is 'chief justice of the United States.'" LINK
Mr. Clinton and Mr. Rove break bread and talk libraries, says the New York Times' palatable Marian Burros. LINK
USA Today's Andrew Stone wraps the day's protest activities. LINK
USA Today's Mimi Hall reports on security holdups that caused some to miss inaugural festivities. LINK
After a night of party-hopping, the Bushes made it back to the White House by 11:25, just in time for "Nightline." LINK
Bush agenda:
Jackie Calmes in the Wall Street Journal writes about the AARP and what it will likely recommend as a counterweight to Social Security.
And Calmes, as ahead of the curve on this story as any journalist in Washington, writes that the White House is watching what a bipartisan group of Senators do.
"For now, the administration is waiting to see if a small, bipartisan group of senators can find any common ground in private meetings."
"The senators' biggest obstacle -- in no small part as a result of AARP opposition -- is Mr. Bush's nonnegotiable demand that any compromise include private accounts. At this month's initial meeting of the three Republican and four Democratic senators, Montana's Max Baucus, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee that oversees Social Security, made clear that few if any Democrats would support allowing workers to divert payroll taxes to private accounts, according to a participant. Republicans have problems with the idea as well, said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the meeting's Republican host, given the Bush administration's talk of covering the estimated $2 trillion in transition costs for the first 10 years with government borrowing."
David Sanger, per usual looking for any excuse to write about North Korea, watched (or, "listened to") the Vice President on Imus and heard his inscrutible words on Iran and Israel. LINK
Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post watched Imus, too. LINK
DNC chair's race:
From the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire, citing the paper's latest poll: "DEAN BATTLES a tarnished image in bid for Democratic chairmanship. Just 27% of party backers view the Vermont ex-governor positively, down from 48% a year ago. But he's less of a lightning rod for Republicans than during his presidential bid; 37% view him negatively, down from 58% in January 2004."
+1 for Martin Frost, in the name of New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid.
The Alabama DNC membership wants to know: what are we gonna get? LINK
Some questions we hope are answered this weekend:
Who is the first California Democrat to express (a) anger (b) joy over what The Note has taken (tongue in cheeck of course) to calling the "Brewer Defections."
How many California DNC members ask for LESS influence in order to give those smaller, red states a greater say in the party? How will Howard Dean adhere to progressive principles and balance the budget at the same time?
Which DNC candidate mentions Gov. Schwarzenegger first?
Does Martin Frost do something to excite the netroots? (Do the netroots matter as much as they think they do?) Who slams the current party leadership on Hispanic outreach?
Will any candidate drop out after the weekend?
Has anyone there read and digested the Chuck Todd thesis on Clintonism?
2008:
Adam Nagourney looks at the field of candidates for '08 and Notes a missing heir apparent. "For the first time since the inaugural of 1949, the president and vice president were considered to be at the end of their elective political careers." LINK
Will Michael Slackman of the New York Times retain his obsession with Guiliani versus Pataki after he leaves the City? LINK
It's a must-read for those named "Stoll," "Mindel," or "Halperin"; others might find it excessive.
Fred Dicker on Gov. Pataki's PAC: LINK
Washington Wire on Sen. Bill Frist: "The Senate Republican leader raises his profile with a tour of Asian tsunami damage. He embraces the global challenge of expanding access to clean water and may propose steering foreign aid toward that priority in a speech this weekend. Frist emphasizes the issue's importance to saving lives, liberating poor women and developing economies. It also broadens his portfolio for a 2008 race. The former heart surgeon's résumé may be better received in primaries than Dean's medical background was last year; in the poll, 19% of Republicans credit doctors as mostly interested in the public good, compared with 15% of Democrats."