Predictable enough

It turns out Republicans weren't keen on President Obama's inaugural speech.

President Barack Obama’s inaugural speech was supposed to be one of the great inaugural addresses of all time. It was supposed to encourage us, to inspire us. Instead, it deflated us.

Obama’s inaugural address deflated us because it perfectly crystallized the quandary America now finds itself in: we wanted our faith renewed through a “transformational moment” -- but now we’ve got a faithless man for president.

Ben Shapiro, "Obama’s Inaugural: Hubris Will Bring Him Down"

President Obama's Inaugural Address?

Clichéd, surprisingly dull, naive, and memorable only insofar as it was forgettable.

Wynton Hall, "An Army of Clichés Marching Across the Presidential Palate"

Obama's speech was a carefully crafted self-contradiction, with a beginning and end that could have been delivered by a conservative and a middle that envisioned government unleashed from constitutional restraints.

Terence Jeffrey, "We the Government"

It was more somber, just listening to it and looking at the occasional crowd shots, the occasion seemed to be more somber than anybody was led to believe. All this is surprising to me, that there was very little inspiration, that there was soaring phrases that just weren't there. Now, it was said that Obama was writing this himself. And that was the news that we got. Obama was going to write this speech himself. He sequestered himself for two days and didn't want to be interrupted with anything while he worked on this. If that's true, it was said that he was writing it himself, the results show that he probably did, because most of his speeches are written by David Axelrod. But this was buzz kill for the assembled billions out there. This was buzz kill. This was no buzz. There was bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz. You'll have to forgive me if this offends you, folks. I'm just sharing with you my honest reaction to elements of the speech.

Rush Limbaugh, Yesterday's Show.

To be fair Thomas Sowell and George Will were largely complimentary towards the speech.

What is the Role of Congress?

This is going to be an odd little post; I am going to praise George Will's latest article. It's very sharp, and highlights some of the logical inconsistencies of modern conservatism.

1. After railing on liberals for decades for interpreting the constitution in light of the society we live in, the insist on reading in expanded powers for the Executive in light of, well, the post 9/11 society we live in.

2. If the President's interpretation of the Authorization for Use of Military Force is accepted, no president ever need congress to declare war or authorize military force again (so long as the president can invoke terrorism on the part of our enemies).

3. Why does the President press for the passage of the patriot act when he clearly feels he already has the right to pretty much do whatever he wants to fight terrorism?

Good points, all of them. Will does support the passage of a Patriot Act, on the grounds that it would both define and limit the President's power.

But 53 months later, Congress should make all necessary actions lawful by authorizing the president to take those actions, with suitable supervision. It should do so with language that does not stigmatize what he has been doing, but that implicitly refutes the doctrine that the authorization is superfluous.

Yeah, but can't President Bush just attach a signing statement saying "I will interpret the suggestion that I am not all powerful in light of current conditions, i.e. I am all powerful and screw you congress!"

Still nice that some conservatives are catching on to how much power President Bush has taken unto himself.

Is the Future going to be Rosy?

Maybe not, according to George Will. In an article today, he talks about how supporters of the current war against Iraq have downplayed the potential difficulties of this war with Iraq. "Now, when the country needs the chastening sobriety that should be conservatism's contribution to the national conversation, it has been getting a whiff of something oxymoronic--conservative triumphalism. There has been much breezy confidence that the war will be painless and the aftermath--replacing Iraq's regime--easy. This has made the public susceptible to mood swings.

Unrealism in the public--the military has shown none of it--about war is an understandable byproduct of the ease of the 100-hour ground war in Kuwait in 1991. And of the Kosovo campaign in which there were no NATO combat deaths. And of the applications of new technologies to the projection of American power. Furthermore, because this is a war of choice--a wise choice, but a choice--those who were eager for the choice to be made had an incentive to minimize expectations of inevitable unpleasantness."

Huh. So Rush Limbaugh saying over and over again that all military concerns were overrated might backfire? Conservatives sold America on a quick and cheap war, and now that it turns out to be expensive and lengthy it might not be as viable a product?. Well, I guess that's the way things go. But wait a second, could overselling of the war have negative consequences down the road?

"Sometimes American conservatism seems to suggest that freedom is defined merely by the absence of things--particularly, bad government measures. The radical inadequacy of that idea will be clear once Saddam Hussein's regime is destroyed. A free society is a complicated social artifact. It is in no small measure an artifact of government, which must create the laws and foster the mores that sustain markets, including a market for political power through a multiparty system.

The president has put the country on a necessary but problematic path favored by conservatives. Now conservatives should explain why conservatism, with its wariness about uncontrollable contingencies and unintended consequences, suggests that the coming triumphs will be more difficult and less complete than we wish."

This article would have been a nice moderating force a couple of weeks ago, but now it's just the beginning of the cop out. Its George Will saying that all that stuff about bringing liberty to the Iraqi people and helping them become a modern society - that's just too hard. So if we kill Saddam Hussein, we should count it a victory, and forget all about the Iraqis.