Another gift of history that keeps on giving is the highly complex relationship between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. In The Kissinger Presidency historian Robert Dallek reveals how Kissinger managed to usurp presidential powers, most notably during the 1973 Yom Kippur War:

Kissinger and Haig decided to convene a meeting of national-security officials to devise a response to Brezhnev. Kissinger acknowledges in his memoirs that Nixon was by then asleep, and that he and Haig decided not to get him up. "Should I wake up the President?," Kissinger asked Haig during a 9:50 p.m. phone conversation on October 24, according to the transcript. "No," Haig answered. A half-hour later, in another phone conversation, it is Kissinger who has become reluctant. "Have you talked to the President?," Haig asked. "No, I haven't," Kissinger replied. "He would just start charging around I don't think we should bother the President." Haig persuaded Kissinger to at least shift the meeting from the State Department to the White House, as a way to leave the impression that Nixon was "a part of everything you are doing." Was Nixon on sedatives that would not allow him to function effectively? Had he been drinking? Was he simply preoccupied, as Kissinger suggests in his official recollections? For whatever reason, Kissinger did not want the president involved.

It was an extraordinary turn of events. None of the seven officials who met for more than three hours, until two a.m., had been elected to office. Yet they were setting policy in a dangerous international crisis, and coming to a decision that should have rested with the president: directing U.S. forces to raise America's worldwide level of military readiness from Defense Conditions 4 and 5 to Def Con 3, a level reached only once before, during the Cuban missile crisis.

Kissinger's determination was not only rooted in his own relentless ambition, but also in the belief that as time went on Nixon had increasingliy become incapacitated as a functioning president:

The president himself fared little better. Kissinger privately referred to Nixon as "that madman," "our drunken friend," and "the meatball mind."

Most of what Dallek reports is based on a trove of recently released information and transcripts. That of course begs the question whether such extenisve recordkeeping is still being practiced in today's White House so that we can eventually construe how policy during the Bush years came into being. Somehow I think that the lessons of Richard and Henry will ensure that it will be much harder to unwind the eventual narrative of George and Dick.

You can pre-order Dallek's new book here.

A potentially disruptive independent bid from NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg is getting some momentum. A realistic move? British historian Andrew Roberts tried to figure it out a few weeks ago:

I asked Bloomberg whether any of the rumours that he might be standing for president were true. ‘You’re the historian, Andrew,’ he replied. ‘Remind me the last time that a 5ft 7in Jewish billionaire from New York got to the White House?’

Bloomberg is right of course so he may position himself as a Perot-style spoiler and ensure that 2008 will essentially be a battle waged in the center.

Take a look at Michelle Malkin’s video chat with Sean Hannity at Hot Air. Both lament the fact that there no longer is a Reagan and wonder if they will ever be able to find one. On purely ideological grounds Giuliani is probably the only one to come close to the Gipper and equally important the only one that will not pander to the socially conservative base in order to get the GOP nomination. Reagan himself was the ultimate pragmatist in these matters and it should be noted that he knew that sustained conservative success went right through the political center and never by staying on the far right fringe. Anyone believing that another 'Roveian pin-down the base strategy' will get the GOP access to the White House in 2008 will relegate that party to the political wilderness.

Ann Coulter’s disgusting performance – which indeed in the end is all about the cash register – is therefore the opportunity for the leading GOP contenders to position themselves for a battle that will take place in America’s political center. So, John McCain did well at CPAC this year.

As a reminder, you can continue to vote in the PJM Presidential Straw Poll on your left. There haven't been that many ballots cast so far, but there seems to be more unity on the Republican side than on the Democratic side: Rudy Giuliani is a clear favorite.

There has not been a formal Obama-like announcement from Rudy, but it appears that his current momentum has positioned him nicely to do just that in the next few weeks. Or has he already done so?

You can now vote in the PJM Presidential Straw Poll directly from this site, you will see it on the left sidebar. The fun part is of course that we can now directly determine which candidates get Peaktalk-reader support and which don't. I would be surpised to see a Kucinich-Tancredo run-off as a result, but you never know. So vote often - I believe you can cast one vote a week.

Reagan's birthday is coming up and his former speechwriter Peggy Noonan has penned a delightful column about the essence of the former president:

You knew he was a good man and you knew he meant it. So you understood how he could be the biggest supporter of FDR and the New Deal in 1944, and the most persuasive voice for Barry Goldwater in 1964. He'd thought it through and changed, not overnight but in time and with effort. He could change his mind on abortion in the same way, and not because he feared the base. Reagan was the base.

Something worth remembering when the commentariat questions Giuliani's handicap to be sufficiently appealing to certain constituencies. Very few of the candidates that are lining up for the next presidential contest have the ability to define and become that base.

And the Hillary-Obama ticket will win in 2008, according to Dick Morris in an interview with PJM.

By analyzing his New York-record, Steven Malanga expains why Rudy Giuliani is a real conservative, a point often painfully missed by today's GOP base.

At least that's the sentiment after the news broke that the former mayor hired Patrick Ruffini, formerly of the Bush 2004 campaign. Of course, most of us know Ruffini as one of the early days bloggers, take a look at his blog which has many election features here. Good for Giuliani, good for Ruffini, good overall. Yes, I like Rudy.

Cast your vote for your Republican and Democratic favorites, once a week. You can view the results here. Note that this is a rolling poll that will track the relative strength of candidates over time, so don't read too much into Obama's current spectacular lead. He owned the media these past two weeks. Hillary's weak start in this poll however is remarkable.

Peter Beinart argues that "George Bush has screwed John McCain one more time". I fear he is right and that he is also correct in arguing that McCain has taken a position of conviction when it comes to supporting the troops surge. But that, alas, may not win you any elections and that is something that will also ultimately affect the Giuliani card.

And McCain is fully aware of the consequences. In the latest edition of Vanity Fair, Todd S. Purdum paints a picture of a man constantly challenged by finding the right balance between political expediency and doing what is right:

McCain says he understands how little public support there would be for more troops. "I read the polls all the time. But does that mean I'm not going to do what is morally right? I look you straight in the eye, my friend, and tell you: I want to be president of the United States. I don't want to be president of the United States so badly that I'm going to do something that I know is not right for the security of this nation and the young men and women that are defending it. So, if this position makes me viewed as too militaristic, or unrealistic, or whatever it is, I will more than happily take those political consequences, because I'll sleep a hell of a lot better."

Well said. Note that these words were spoken before Bush's speech last week.

Merging socially liberal attitudes with a conservative platform? Jonah Goldberg nails it in this excellent column:

Giuliani needs to articulate a Fortuynish vision for the American context. This might mean a zero-tolerance attitude on terror, a crackdown on crime (including corporate graft) and explaining how his mayoralty actually had socially conservative effects by liberating New York from the stranglehold of the identify-politics left.

For newcomers, I have long argued the case for this approach by pointing to both Fortuyn and Giuliani. In fact, the case was made on this site by directly comparing Fortuyn and Reagan.

As most of you know, I strongly favor Giuliani as the man for 2008. Dan Drezner has an inventory of some of the divergent data on Rudy's chances and despite common wisdom that his social liberalism will cost him, things aren't looking all that bad for America's mayor.

Yes, there were a few die hard conspiracy theorists who had braved the cold to hand out leaflets indicating that the Twin Towers had come down as the result of bombs planted by the US government, but even they could not prevent the warmth and excitement of an evening with Rudy:

“Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the next president of the United States, Mr. Rudy Giuliani”

I never thought I would hear this in a Vancouver theater, but last night I did and the audience was no less excited than an American one: Rudy is indeed still the mayor of the world. It is a reputation that gives him an incredible amount of currency abroad and it may be a crucial asset if this next president needs to enlist some real support in unifying the west in its struggle with global terror.

The presentation was centered around Rudy‘s principles of leadership (goals, optimism, accountability, preparation, communication and teamwork) which are all discussed in his book on the subject matter. I won’t bore you with the details as it has all been documented and equally well promoted over time, but Rudy can dive into a reservoir of endless anecdotes and turn these business and life lessons into highly entertaining stuff.

The evening was scripted and rather than have the audience fire off questions, local newspaper editor Patricia Graham probed the man who had just launched his 2008 exploratory committee. And that is where Rudy moved into more interesting territory. He was for instance quick to point out that last week’s election most likely would not represent a shift away from the major goal in Iraq: ensuring the establishment and survival of an accountable government. The one thing that differs from before was the bi-partisan nature of the effort, but the trick would be to accomplish that goal without deviating from that key objective. In that he also neutralized the expectation that Jim Baker’s Iraq Study Group would come up with any dramatic changes and he linked this argument back to his leadership principle: remain focused on your goals. So no return to Kissingerian realism and settling for some useful authoritarian partners if that would allow the US an early exit, at least that is how I interpreted Giuliani's message.

Graham then asked where he stood on stem cell research, abortion, gun control and gay marriage. Giuliani was a lot more forthcoming on this then he would be had he been performing somewhere deep in America’s heartland I suspect. He fully supports the right to opt for abortion (although using the standard qualifier that as a person he would never make that choice), he endorses stem cell research, control of handguns and did not see any obstacles to civil unions for gays. “Well, you sound like a Canadian liberal!” countered Graham which was a nice cue for Rudy to drill home his other, more conservative, side. Cutting taxes, balancing budgets and an aggressive foreign policy, Rudy’s list was even spontaneously interrupted by a round of un-Canadian applause when he insisted on a determined effort to pursue the war on terror. And the latter is probably safe in the hands of the man who tells his audience that he continues to think about 9/11 everyday, and who also quite perceptively believes that America still hasn’t fully absorbed what happened on that day.

Walking back to my car it occurred to me that the issues that some of the organizers had wanted to see addressed – urban decay and crime – had not gotten all that much attention from the man who vigorously cleaned up New York. But that was not what the smartly dressed crowd had come for. While they made their way home among the omnipresent panhandlers and drug addicts it became clear that an evening with Rudy is exactly like his term as mayor of New York: a rapid exercise in how to get tangible results with a prescient lesson in foreign policy at the tail end. Despite his perceived tendencies to ‘Canadian values’, that should position him well for his 2008 run. His track record, vision as well as his political capital outside the US is unmatched by any other candidate in the current field of contenders for 2008.

Rudy Giliani launched his exploratory committee for the 2008 election today. Tomorrow he will be here in town for a leadership event and I managed to get my hands on a ticket, so more on Rudy's run tomorrow. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Nice Frum quote:

Hillary Clinton is a fanatic pretending to be a moderate; Al Gore is a moderate pretending to be a fanatic. And with impressive credulity, the authentic fanatics in the Democratic base are aligning themselves behind the faux-fanatic rather than the genuine article.

It supports my initial liking of Al Gore, although that preference was to a large extent informed by the hope of an early Clinton dismissal during the late 1990s. Frum's point also highlights how each candidate presents a challenge for both Democrats and undecided centrists and why Gore and Clinton are probably not the best material to put on the 2008 Democratic ticket.

Donald Luskin links to a collection of Reagan's CPAC speeches from 1974 to 1988. If you have the time read them all, they reveal a lot about those years and how the emerging conservative movement was able to effect meaningful and above all positive change. So yes, there's too much to excerpt, but I selected two bits that I really liked. This one may be relevant for today, from the 1974 speech:

We are not a warlike people. Nor is our history filled with tales of aggressive adventures and imperialism, which might come as a shock to some of the placard painters in our modern demonstrations. The lesson of Vietnam, I think, should be that never again will young Americans be asked to fight and possibly die for a cause unless that cause is so meaningful that we, as a nation, pledge our full resources to achieve victory as quickly as possible.

At many points over the past three years I have been at pains to explain why Iraq is not Vietnam - and it still isn't - but with what we know today there is no denying that certain lessons from that terrible war were not heeded. Reagan's term 'our full resources' I believe does not need any further elaboration in that context. Reagan, had he been president today, would have been as reluctant as George Bush to relieve his Secretary of Defense of his duties. But he would at a juncture like the one we're in today, and after some pressure, have allowed his advisors to carry out a dismissal that in the long run would salvage and buttress his own reputation.

This is a beauty, from 1987 and it doesn't need any elaboration:

Our confidence flows not from our skill at maneuvering through political mazes, not from our ability to make the right deal at the right time, nor from any idea of playing one interest group off against the other. Unlike our opponents, who find their glee in momentary political leverage, we garnish our strength of purpose from a commitment to ideals that we deeply believe are not only right but that work. Ludwig Von Mises, that great economist, once noted: “People must fight for something they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil.”

Well, the conservative movement remains in the ascendancy because we have a bold, forward-looking agenda. No longer can it be said that conservatives are just anti-Communist. We are, and proudly so, but we are also the keepers of the flame of liberty. And as such, we believe that America should be a source of support, both moral and material, for all those on God’s Earth who struggle for freedom. Our cause is their cause, whether it be in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Angola. When I came back from Iceland I said—and I meant it—American foreign policy is not simply focused on the prevention of war but the expansion of freedom.

There is a reason for the emphasis on 'I meant it'. Reagan's detractors have always labeled him as an actor, most often a bad actor. But through most of his time as a politician I believe he wasn't acting at all, he merely and often very effectively used certain movie industry techniques to further the message in which he deeply believed. Especially in later age Reagan became keenly aware of how his message was read and thus felt a need to underline his sincerity and earnestness. For most of his followers however that was hardly necessary, they instinctively understood the natural honesty that was an essential part of Ronald Reagan.

Read this and then convince me that death would have been better. (ht: Sullivan).

Bill Quick has another candidate in mind to offset Condimania.

Via Glenn: Michael Barone expains why Bush's speech on terror this week was so outstanding.

Greg Djerejian suggests that George Bush gets back to work, real work, hard work. And there were many other voices this week that argued for a “hands-on” approach of America’s CEO, the first president with an MBA degree in his pocket. The problem with that is that Bush never really executed the role of president as CEO. The presidency is an anomaly in the western world as it comprises two functions, head of state and head of government, a separation that in the business world would find its analogy in the separation between Chairman and CEO, more or less. The chair is usually hands-off when it comes to the day-to-day running of the business, gladly leaving the detailed execution of the grand vision to the chief executive who is increasingly supposed to get his hands dirty in the trenches these days.

George Bush despite his rumored business acumen never filled the presidential shoes as a CEO, although some media were more than happy to replicate that notion once he entered office. Sure, a chief executive delegates to his sub-ordinates and holds them accountable one way or the other, but the laid-back style, the 9 to 5 routine, the inability to talk about policy details left the impression that in actual fact Bush had comfortably retreated to his role as head of state, the distant chairman. Although debunked by hardcore Bush adherents, the theory of Cheney acting as a de-facto head of government or prime-minister gained ground rapidly. Some even pointed to the message behind the now famous Vanity Fair cover where the wise leader is sitting, surrounded by his team.

Now, there is nothing that prevents a president from putting more weight on the Chairman-like aspects of the office. Reagan was made to fill the presidency that way and he was experienced and shrewd enough to weigh in on matters of execution if required. If he missed certain points, he could fall back on an excellent staff to ensure that he would balance the dual requirements of the job appropriately. When a thoroughly restructured staff without sufficient ties and knowledge of the Gipper started managing affairs during his second term, things went off the rails dramatically. But even then Reagan had enough weight and credit to let his skills as Chairman of the Board carry him into the realm of one of America’s greatest presidents. There’s not a lot of evidence that Bush’s skills as an inspirational orator can disguise his failures as leader of a very complex organization, or for that matter that his unique management style can compensate for his failure to articulate a vision.

The reason for that is simple. George Bush came to the presidency with neither the imagination that a visionary head of state should carry with him, nor did he seem to be the managerial wizard that some had projected him to be. And while trying hard to unravel it, there’s still no explanation for his poor communications skills. His credit on all these fronts was wafer thin and it was only 9/11 that propelled him into a leadership role that enabled him to reach out across party lines, unify a nation and define a grand strategy to protect America and spread freedom.

It obscured the fact that his management style, if there was one, was deeply flawed. The terrible weakness of his opponent and the strength of the war on terror message allowed Bush to claim a second term, but already doubts were raised - righty or wrongly - about the many mistakes made in post-war Iraq. The inability of Bush to hold his staff directly accountable deprived him of the most basic of tools any CEO needs: firing the incompetent. His loyalty is commendable, but it isn’t a trait that you would normally find among effective CEOs and certainly not among Chairmen who are increasingly held accountable by skeptic shareholders.

The Katrina debacle brought all of this into sharp focus. The White House staff was holidaying and failed to resurrect the man that can unite the nation, the de-facto head of government was away in Wyoming and the president himself failed to grasp that it was upon him to be both the Chair and the CEO at this critical juncture. Bush doesn’t have enough weight in either department to compensate for a shortcoming in the other like a Reagan or even a Clinton. As discussed earlier the affair has put his very presidency on the line and to lead the nation both as Chairman and CEO he will need to roll up his sleeves and get at it. It requires a lot of work, a revamped team and time. He has three years to do it.

UPDATE: A reader comments:

I've read your blog for months and have seen the passes that we all give to Bush. He's tired, he's overwhelmed, he's busy with the important stuff. Well, I'm sick of it. I've been a supporter of him since 1999. I just cannot stand the incompetence now. I expect this of Democrats. I'm glad you have come to the conclusion that the rest of us have: he is not managing properly and somebody, anybody needs to point this out. You can't just be continually cute and compassionate for all the world to see. We demand results. Damn it, we're Americans.

FINAL UPDATE: The debate continues at the Moderate Voice.

And while we're talking about RFK, here's another interesting analogy. Mickey Kaus predicts that the Iraq-conundrum that faces Hillary Clinton may well derail her campaign even before it has properly started:

Hillary's dilemma is similar to the one that must have been faced by Bobby Kennedy in 1968--how to break with LBJ and the surface D.C. consensus in favor of the war. But Hillary's dilemma is worse, because Iraq isn't Vietnam and the current Beltway consensus she's being asked to denounce is a lot righter than LBJ was. Even mainstream Bush-bashing libs, in my experience, readily recognize that just withdrawing from Iraq now would be a global strategic disaster in a way withdrawing from Vietnam wasn't.

When it comes to Iraq, Democratic contenders for 2008 will have to make the awkward choice between talking in absolutes to rally the base or come up with carefully worded scenarios that may please the center. Today, both appear to be fairly risky options so the aspiring candidates may be quiet for quite a while to come.

Christopher Walken is running for president. Whether this is a credible effort or not, the Catalina Island drowning of Natalie Wood with a drunk Walken on the same boat is sure to add some Chappaquiddick momentum to the Walken ticket. Otherwise, he's a pretty good actor.

Go and cast your vote to the pick the 2008 Republican nominee. George Allen is leading and my pick, Giuliani, is a close runner-up. What is interesting is that results are broken up by blog so I assume that if you follow this link and vote we will learn how Peaktalk readers see the 2008 GOP contest.

One of my concerns about presidential rankings is that they are always influenced by the time during which they are put together and by the inevitable manipulation that’s involved in them. One other important aspect is that the record may be so overtly negative that we fail to see the beneficial influence that some poorly rated White House occupiers may have had. The latter is true of course for Richard Nixon who is now it seems, finally, up for reconsideration.

It’s hard to see how we today are going to write admiringly about a big-spending, department building, 1970s conservative, but since Bush’s track record isn’t that different the time may be ripe for it. But seriously, the Watergate affair has for too long been hanging over Nixon’s unique track record in international relations. And it’s a skill he applied long after leaving office: an often underreported fact is that he regularly supplied Reagan with succinct and extremely helpful foreign policy memos that the Gipper often took to heart. It’s doubtful the Watergate stain will ever be washed away, but it would be interesting to see some more revisionist works of Nixon’s presidency.

I'm with James Joyner on this one, let's not overhype this. Still it's a cool picture:

And despite my doubts about Condi running in 2008, I could not resist picking the presidential category for this post.

Very interesting piece in the WaPo with lots of links (including White House pay scales and office allocation) discussing Karl Rove's promotion to Deputy Chief-of-Staff. Most salient bit:

And official titles aside, while Bush may achieve lame-duck status in a matter of months, Rove remains king-maker for life. As a result, Rove's influence over Republican elected officials may soon exceed that of his boss, if it doesn't already.

Titles are really irrelevant here but this move does underline the phenomenal power that Rove wields.

It almost seems as if Bush’s speeches have become better over the past four years. That’s not necessarily a matter of content but more the result of his growing confidence and the fact that events have moved his way. Having kept an economic meltdown at bay - for which there may still be a hefty bill down the road - and having been able to formulate a bold and successful strategy to counter terror have both contributed to Bush’s credibility as a statesman. His speeches haven’t changed but they, like the man himself, have been given context and from that perspective the success of the Iraqi election was an enormous boost right before this State of the Union. The net result of all of this is that Bush has now moved the political center to the right, witness Hillary’s steady march rightwards, and by doing so he is shedding the image of the radical from the right with an agenda that is dividing the world. Let's see if Europe is reading it that way too later this month when he visits the old continent.

So, a mature and statesmanlike George Bush whose vision is steadily becoming acceptable to those who doubted his capabilities and thus his plans can consequently expect much smoother sailing domestically and internationally in the years ahead, but that’s an optimistic assumption on my part.

That the meta-level analysis. On the operational level this State of the Union was pretty much to the point and didn’t have any real surprises for those who have been following the Bush journey. Safia Taleb al-Suhail’s presence was moving and so was that of the parents of Marine Sgt. Byron Norwood who died in Fallujah. While these appearances are scripted, it was a good move to have them there and honor them; but when an emotional Safia (whose father was killed by Saddam) embraced Janet Norwood it brought the house down and, I have to admit, it brought a tear to my eyes. It highlighted the bond that has been forged between Iraqis and Americans and that is something which in my mind has had very little attention in the media. And Safia’s hug was a lot more genuine and spontaneous than congressmen dipping their fingers in ink which really is borderline behaviour.

Anyway I wasn’t the only one watching, here are some useful insights from around the sphere:

James Joyner thought that having Safia and the Norwoods present was exploitative;
Tyler Cowen has taken the opportunity to recycle his oeuvre on Social Security;
Greg Djerejian found it business-like and good but not great;
Powerline argues that Bush came out swinging on Social Security and Iraq;
Kevin Drum wondered why he bothered to listen at all;
Steven Taylor thought it was pedestrian with nothing really new;
Kevin Aylward has a mega-roundup of reactions;
Matt Yglesias was right to point to the interesting piece on DNA testing;
and Joe Gandelman's laptop died but see what he has to say later on.

The ambitious agenda abroad that George Bush defined during his inaugural address is a logical extension of Ronald Reagan’s vision and it’s not hard to see how the current president learned from Reagan.

This weekend I got a chance to look at the various DVDs I picked up at the Reagan Library during my California trip and I was particularly glad to see the Gipper’s speech at the Republican National Convention of 1992 in its entirety as it was by far one of his best speeches ever. What struck me though was that at the very moment that Reagan called passionately for delivering balanced budgets the camera zoomed out and refocused on the assembled family members for a close-up of Barbara Bush and yes next to her, a youthful future president who looked pretty disengaged the moment the camera caught him. It was of course a coincidence but from today’s vantage point it was an extraordinary moment: Bush looking the other way in the face of mounting deficits.

The Inaugural Speech is now a week old, but still news. Today Peggy Noonan defends her initial criticism:

But loyalty consists of many things, including being truthful with our friends. As Reagan used to say, candor is a compliment.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: And Mark Steyn is at it as well, and as was to be expected he likes the Bush Doctrine:

In other words, Bush is doing what the leftie professors spent the days after 9/11 shrieking he ought to do: look at the ‘root causes’.

And that is one of the key drivers of the inaugural's idealism, it neutralizes the opposition.

(hat tip: Maderblog)

Here are a few more thoughts on Bush and his speech, taking on criticism from the army of pundits that have been working around the clock to take the speech down, dissecting even the explanatory notes from Bush Sr. To take on the critics directly I have two key points briefly summarized to go with the Monday morning coffee rather than the long essay that was going nowhere and pretty much wasted a Sunday evening:

Idealism Underpinned by Realism
If you state you’re going to be the world’s leading supplier of freedom and democracy it doesn’t mean that you’re going to be that tomorrow, nor does it mean that you have to achieve that by supplying only that and nothing else. It’s a long term vision and if in the meantime we have to team up with the Mubaraks and Musharrafs of this world then so be it. Note that thanks to the latter the people of Afghanistan were able to recently cast their ballots. To try and define and set the world on a course to realize an ideal by underpinning it with some hard-nosed realism is already a major departure from plain old Kissengerian realism. My advice: translate the speech to the everyday world.

Incrementalism
No, no. No one is arguing to roll into Tehran or Pyongyang tomorrow. Hardly. The pursuit of freedom and democracy will be a guiding principle to not only combat terrorism, but to create a better world. Trade, diplomacy, alliances, disaster relief, applied step-by-step over a long period of time can all help to foster freedom and democracy. Countries like The Philippines and Indonesia have been gradually nudged towards early stage democracies in no small part thanks to American efforts, and that was well before last Thursday. My advice: look around you to see what incremental steps have achieved already; with speech momentum we’ll see a lot more of them.

That’s it.

UPDATE: Some good commentary from the Belgravia Dispatch along similar lines. (Greg's trackbacks are now working so I had to link to it).

If anyone believed – on the Democratic side especially – that the “world will never be the same notion” after 9/11 could somehow be reversed and that after a Bush presidency older foreign policy concepts could be revived, well, Bush ended any feelings in that direction this morning. The bold agenda summarized in his speech and its legacies are going to stay well after Bush will leave office four years from now. As I said earlier, there’s a lot to chew but by making the point that no one can credibly argue against spreading freedom he has thrown down the gauntlet and we’re in for an interesting and challenging ride. Basically, we’re back to the dream of the 1990s when after the collapse of the iron curtain we appeared to be moving to a happy free trading world of democracies, the difference is that now there will be a fight for it as there’s not only some very strong opposition, there are some out there ready to destroy the very notion of freedom. Of course, there’s always a fight for realizing a dream and the quest for a free world at peace is going to be monumental, with America leading the charge. I have yet to see some solid comments on the resource aspect of it all, given the the scope of the effort it will put a lot of strain on an already heavily challenged budget. Less government at home to subsidize more abroad?

Here are some significant voices from around the blogosphere:

Capitain Ed: Read the speech and thought it was brilliant and historic.

Stephen Green: Sees an even greater focus on international affairs after 2006 and a likely second-term scandal.

Kathy Kinsley: His best speech yet.

Joe Gandelman: Has a valid point, noting that inaugural speeches have a limited shelf life. Indeed, grand words have to backed up by action and that goes back to my point about resourcing the vision.

Cadmusings: Argues that this may have been one of Bush’s most personal speeches, freedom being the core of his beliefs.

Andrew Sullivan: Wonders how the reconcile freedom with the expansion of government.

Kevin Drum: is uninspired today, so disappointingly no commentary from him, so far.

Just switched on the TV and listening to Trent Lott who is opening the ceremonies.

There's Rehnquist, looking frail but good, an impressive appearance given his serious illness.

LaShawn Barber is also liveblogging, with lots of details.

Dick Cheney has taken the oath. As I said earlier today his biography and capabilities make him a very suitable guy for 2008 but it won't happen. He'll retire and remain a strong and influential player behind the scenes.

Denyce Graves performs.

There were some comments that former Vice President Dan Quayle was present but that Al Gore was a noted absentee. Not surprising. Watched the Clinton's, both in good spirits.

It's a little before noon and George Bush has taken the oath, four more years have just started. Now let's wait for the speech.

The Inaugural Speech

Starting off with the Cold War and standing watch on "distant borders" and pointing to the mortal threat that has now emerged. The only force that can take on the hate, tyranny and resentment we now see is human freedom. Here's the Bush doctrine: spread democracy and freedom. Expect to see more of it soon. He's right to point to this as the only weapon to defeat terrorism.

"Ending tyranny in our world" is our ultimate goal, says Bush. He goes on to describe the limits of American power and the toughness of the task at hand.

"Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve"

If Bush is going to act on what he's setting out here, the US is going to be extremely engaged in the next four years, all over the world. Nope, it won't stop in Iraq.

Positioning the US as the benevolent saviour of the oppressed goes a lot further than pro-actively defending US borders, it's an interesting move to start building alliances in the Third World. That's where a lot of the focus will be going forward. More partnerships to spread freedom and democracy. Recasting it this way will make things easier for American efforts, Bush is on a mission and wants others to join, making the argument that no one can reject the principles of freedom. Take that Old Europe.

He now appeals to the younger generation: they are going to be needed to roll out this strategy abroad. Yes, more military recruitment will be necessary and here's a veiled call to effect that.

On to domestic affiars: widen ownership, retirement savings: "making every citizen responsible for his or her own destiny". Music to the ears of libertarian-conservatives. Yes, Social Security reform is coming and it will be a template for other free-market societies with demographic strains, pay attention rest of the world.

He now takes on racism and bigotry as it conflicts with the message of freedom. By setting out this doctrine he's raising the bar for Americans to a high level, no more Abu Ghraibs please.

Reform at home and abroad go hand in hand. An ambitious and determined agenda, who would have thought that four years ago?

Bush compared to four years ago is now far clearer on his misison and he brings it across with purpose and gravity, he deeply believes his message. He has emerged as the statesman that few expected him to be. He's defied and challenged his critics and he's giving them lots to chew on here.

Lots of applause, the crowd tunes in to his sincerity.

In Summary
Truthfully, there was nothing really new for those that have been following this administration's journey, but it was a clever move to condense everything that has happened since 9/11, the situation it has created and the path ahead in a short and powerful speech directed not only at America but at the world at large, friends and foes alike. Unite by explaining, so to speak.

The resources for it all: that will be the key challenge for this administration and it wil not be just money and manpower. Partners, politcal capital and purpose are equally important in executing this highly ambitious but morally just agenda.

More later.

And while we are at the Bush agenda, here’s an interesting article by Kathleen Parker arguing that it is very unlikely that Bush is about to turn the US into a theocracy as many would believe. It seems to me that the clear-minded man of convictions is more dogmatic in areas where he knows that Americans will follow him, such as the War on Terror and tax cuts. Bush, as Parker argues, will tread carefully in areas where there is no broad-based support for items from the social conservative agenda. We therefore can see some some awkward compromises (like the one on stem cell research) or, as I would see it, more of the tendency to throw a bone to some particular interest group in order to please and return a favor. Bush is a radical pragmatist and not about to gamble away his legacy on a controversial and highly divisive issue.

Good discussion in the Rolling Stone on why Bush won the election by Ruy Texeira, Peter Hart and notably David Gergen who has some intelligent and sobering analysis, as usual. On the challenge in front of the Democrats he argues:

The Goldwater coalition was in a deep, deep hole. They were a distinct minority, but they could build from the ground up. The Democrats are in danger of sliding down. They haven't won a majority of the white vote since 1964. They haven't won fifty percent of the national vote since 1976. And in the last six congressional elections -- starting with 1994 -- they haven't cracked 48.5 percent of the national vote. This is a party that needs to have some deep rethinking -- not simply go out and turn a few dials.

In other words, rebranding the party with a new face just won’t cut it, a point Gergen reiterates a few times. The panel also has some sound analysis on the impact of the ‘value vote’ and why it is more likely to be the result of a short-term tactical shift and that on a long-term basis voters may well move away from socially conservative positions. Read the whole thing.

It's been on my bedside table forever, Rudy Giuliani's Leadership, but I finally had a chance to read and finish it. It pretty much confirmed what I have been thinking about him for a long time: a fiscal conservative, a foreign policy hawk and a liberal in the social department. Some call that purple, some call it an eagle. Looking at what the former Mayor says and does I would cast him as the one to take care of and expand Ronald Reagan's legacy. But what's equally - maybe even more - important and that is something that comes through in the book very clearly, he's a man of character, honesty and integrity. That's why he's the favourite for 2008, for the Republicans and probably for many centrists and liberals as well.

Yes, the last President to capture a majority of the popular vote was Bush Sr. in 1988. His son has now been given a solid mandate by the American voter, especially if we include the majority in Congress Republicans now enjoy. Still, there's a likelihood to have a divided nation in the next four years. Bush will have to use this phenomenal amount of capital wisely in both foreign and domestic affairs and in so doing secure his place in the pantheon of great American presidents. History is not very kind to controversial dividers and the challenge to steer a united nation through a war, economic and cultural upheaval is his.

UPDATE: It's interesting to see how Bush opponents view the new world, it goes from outright fear to a realistic assessment that there probably isn't that much that will change from the past four years.

It looks like the final score is Bush-Kerry 286 - 252 with a popular vote margin of 3.1%. James Joyner and Stephen Green were exactly right with their prediction for the electoral vote. Check out Les Jones to see how everyone else did.

I wasn't that far off: 290-248 with a 3.8% margin for Bush. Let's see how the Normblog Pundit event panned out, Norm won't release any results until all votes are counted.

A little earlier than I expected, but the right move anyway. We'll see some interesting speeches later.

That's my assumption going to bed. With a popular vote margin of 3.5% any successful Kerry claim to an electoral college win would be a terrible outcome. For Bush, for Kerry and for America. It's too absurd to contemplate hence my conclusion that Bush II is last night's outcome. In my mind, given the numbers and expectations beforehand, a decent win. More analysis later today.