Assessing the President’s Speech

Read the Full Transcript

• JIM LEHRER:

  And now we want to get our closing thoughts on this evening, from Mark Shields and David Brooks, as well as Richard Norton Smith, Michael Beschloss and Meena Bose.

  Meena, why don't you go first? First of all, let's start — take one go-around just about tonight, what the president said and what you thought he needed to say and what he actually ended up saying and then we'll take another go-around on this final — on the week, the entire week. Meena, why don't you go first?

• MEENA BOSE:

  Jim, well, this was a sobering night. We started with some images of 9/11 that I think evoked painful memories for us all, made clear that — the president's speech made clear that this campaign won't be about a return to normalcy. He said it will be about liberty and the continuing danger of terrorism, and I think laid out a lot of specific details in domestic policy but devoted the bulk of this speech as expected to national security.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Richard, your thoughts on the speech?

• RICHARD NORTON SMITH:

  Well, I thought it was a fascinating hybrid, Jim. It was sort of a state of the union address, plus an inaugural address, it had a lot of policy but it was also very personal. The president tried to present himself as an agent of change, which is a challenge for any incumbent, needless to say. He also presented himself as a defender of unchanging values. There was a Clintonesque cluster of domestic initiatives, although we didn't hear anything about the budget deficit, but it was also ultimately I thought a Reaganesque speech in the optimism, in looking to the future.

  He kept talking about the path to the future, and I was reminded of the ubiquitous bridge to the 21st century. I thought it was a very powerful speech. We won't know for two months whether it worked or not, but it certainly worked tonight.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Michael did, it work tonight?

• MICHAEL BESCHLOSS:

  I think it did in certain ways. You know, one is that, you know, there's no chance that he's going to be accused of having failed to present an agenda for the second term, a very long list of domestic proposals.

  The whole speech was four minute short of Bill Clinton's in 1996 when he was running for reelection, but I thought the more important thing is this. There's one line that I think is at the heart of George Bush's, you know, effort to tell Americans, vote for me for a second term, and that is in the speech he says "We're staying on the offensive, striking terrorist abroad so we do not have to face them here at home" and I think this is going to be an election, a campaign, fought very much like those Cold War Republican campaigns from 1972 through 1988 where the Republicans are saying we're the party that's stronger, we can keep you safe. We're going to be more aggressive. We know how to handle the military, and the Democratic side is too weak in certain cases and too indecisive.

  And the interesting thing about that formulation is that if you do it that way, then Americans who are worried about terrorism are going to be inclined to say I want the party that's more aggressive about that, even if it involves things like Iraq about which many Americans don't agree.

• JIM LEHRER:

  All right. Thank you, Michael. Mark, the speech?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Jim, I thought the speech was consistent with the week, and the week was to make this election about terrorism, to re-invoke — remind us, our collective memories, of 9/11 and of probably the shining moments of the president's presidency when he was transformed in most American eyes into a strong national leader at a time when there was just remarkable national unity and now we're at a time of total division, political paralysis, as well as polarization, and to sort of rekindle that, and re-invoke it, but really I guess the week was about terrorism.

  The speech was about terrorism, and more than anything else, I guess I did not see the future agenda in that dramatic fashion, but this is what he wants the election to be about and 'you ought to be afraid and I can make you safer.'

• JIM LEHRER:

  Did you, David, you wanted a wonky future speech, did you get it?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  I got it. First I should disassociate myself about the joke from the New York Times editorial writers, which I heartily disapprove of, but the rest I thought was powerful, and excellent and great. I really loved the speech.

• JIM LEHRER:

  So everything was great, except that one line about the New York Times?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  That one joke — it was really completely out of line, I thought actually.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Okay.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  I thought at some points it rose above a political speech. It really was like some of the best speeches he's given in his presidency, sort of a stirring comment on our historical situation. I thought, you know, going backwards, the character point he hit that well. It's summarized — you know where I stand. That's sort of the essence of the character point.

  Then going back to the foreign policy point which was about probably a third of the speech, which he expressed the core insight of his presidency which the United States has a calling to expand freedom and we have got to do that in the Middle East — because we were attacked — to keep our people safe.

  But finally on the domestic policy side, which was 50 percent of his speech, I disagree with Mark about this. I think there was a ton of stuff there. You know, the president's aides always say this guy is a transformational president. That was an exaggeration until tonight. What he laid out was really a domestic policy agenda which is different from the Republican Party's domestic public policy agenda for the past 30 years. It really — it combined the tax cuts and the stuff that we're used to with some new and more positive uses of government.

  I wrote down just a couple, increasing funding of community college, increasing fund of basic science, increasing funding for health insurance accounts for poor people, community health centers, hybrid cars, expanding AmeriCorps, expanding Pell grants, expanding Teacher Corps, these are just a bunch from us, but they have given us the agenda.

  This is not your traditional 'get government off our backs' domestic agenda, so this is something new that I think the Republican Party is going to have some trouble digesting but I think it's exactly what the country needs.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Now back to Yes. I just —

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Just one quick point to David and that is, Jim, it's hard to take any of those initiatives seriously when the president has pledged to cut the deficit in half, and, you know, where is the spending going to come from and the biggest hand he got all night domestically was I'm going to make permanent the tax cuts so, I mean….

• JIM LEHRER:

  He didn't mention the deficit.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  No.

• JIM LEHRER:

  He didn't mention — just in passing reform of Social Security and Medicare, no remnants of —

• MARK SHIELDS:

  The transition costs are enormous.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Michael, anything you want to add from the total of the week? What do you think the message was and how do you think it probably projects George W. Bush from this convention?

• MICHAEL BESCHLOSS:

  The message was very strong all through the week from the beginning to the end and that is we are in a war, a fight for our lives; I, George W. Bush, I'm the one who can keep you safe, John Kerry can't for all sorts of reasons. And if people believe that they are likely to forgive a lot of things they don't like about George Bush, even domestically. If people see it that way he's going to win the election.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Meena, what do you say about the whole week?

• MEENA BOSE:

  I would agree that this campaign made clear, this convention made clear, that this is a campaign about national security, about the fight for liberty, the fight for terrorism. The president concluded with saying that it's a time for hope — actually somewhat Clintonesque so trying to bridge the gravity of the events with optimism for the future.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Richard, the president said that he wanted everybody to understand the differences between him and Sen. Kerry. Do you think somebody who had watched this entire convention, as well as entire convention in Boston and was neither — was not a committed person to the party or to either person, would come away from these two conventions and say, okay, at least I know what the differences are?

• RICHARD NORTON SMITH:

  I think, you know, that's a very good question, Jim. I think they certainly would have a much greater sense of what the Republicans want you to think the differences are as a result of this convention than was the case in Boston, where much of that week you had a feel that there was an attempt to blur those differences, with all of the generals and all of the flags.

  I have to say — I think David is on to something. I think the core of this speech is actually very ambitious, an attempt to recast the Republican Party and conservatism generally, almost along Thatcherite lines. You know, I think of Margaret Thatcher when you hear about the "ownership society." That's more than a slogan, potentially. That's a fairly radical redefinition of conservatism.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Mark, when Richard Norton Smith and David Brooks agree, what do you do?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  I say — I say cheer, cheer. And that's good. I'm glad we've finally closed these terrible tensions and fault lines in the conservative movement.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Do you see a new Republican Party here tonight?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  I didn't.

• JIM LEHRER:

  This week, I mean?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  No. I think David lists a laundry list of interesting ideas, Jim. If any of them comes to pass, I will be astounded.

• JIM LEHRER:

  What about — how would you answer the question I asked Richard about do you think the choices, at least at this stage, are fairly clear between the Republican ticket and the Democratic ticket?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  I think they are, Jim. I think the Democrats had a single theme in Boston, which was national security, commander in chief, this is — we understood that this was a threat in this time.

  The Republicans, I think, if anything, can be said about their convention, is that their speakers were more disciplined in making the message and the case for George Bush. I mean, even Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, they served a purpose for him. I thought John McCain made a far better case for the American war in Iraq than the president did. The president said faced with believing a mad man, what should I do, I attacked. I mean, this was a preemptive war that was based on weapons of mass destruction which were nonexistent and which people feel very let down about.

  I add to that, that this president, in addition to that, made a — they brought a theme that the Republicans had, that the Democrats were shooting for the middle, trying to perhaps shed the liabilities of their liberal reputation and their liberal traditions. In many respects they have become unpopular. This was a Republican effort, in my judgment, all week, to make this an election that appealed to their base. I'm not sure what was done here….

• JIM LEHRER:

  You didn't see the same things that David and Richard did in terms of…

• MARK SHIELDS:

  I'll be interested to see if the initiatives really worked with undecided voters.

• JIM LEHRER:

  David, the choices question: Do you think that an average undecided, intelligent voter who watched particularly our coverage would come away from these two conventions and say, ah, this is what George W. Bush will do if I vote for him, this is what John Kerry will do if I vote for him?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Actually on the — on what they will do, actually I think to be honest I think the Republicans gave the viewer a lot more substance. I think the Democratic Party did a lot of the Vietnam stuff, a lot of the Kerry character stuff but not so much of the substance. You'd have to go to the Web site It's there. You'd have to go to the Web site. I think that was the biggest mistake they made in Boston.

  But you would have a different sense of where these two parties think we are historically. They describe two different realities, let's face it, and I think the choice that would be made there, the choice that would be uppermost in viewers' minds is not what would each party do, but which reality best describes my think that would probably influence the choice.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Are these people in the same world I'm in?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Are they looking at the world I'm looking at? I think that would be there.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Just one little thing, Jim. If you really want to look at it from the most positive way for the Democrats, look at the two parties through their keynote speakers. Barack Obama, young, positive, future oriented. Optimistic, unified nation. Zell Miller, an angry, sour, embittered man.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  That's not fair. The keynote speech happens to be a speech. I think if you take the speeches we saw this week, they were easily equal to the speeches, just as political acts, the Giuliani, McCain, Schwarzenegger, Bush, those were outstanding speeches. I agree, Zell Miller is not quite up there at that level, but I mean I think both parties had successful conventions. They had very good speeches.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Each party has a keynoter. And that's what it was.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Fortunately you all are going to have an opportunity to discuss this election again, and as somebody said, in fact, the president himself said, 60 days from today is Election Day. And we'll see how both of these things play. There are several other events still to come.

  For now, I want to thank you Richard, Michael and Meena for being with us, and you David, and you Mark. It's been an interesting week — as the week in Boston was before.

  That does end our coverage of the Republican National Convention here at Madison Square Garden in New York. We'll be back tomorrow and every weeknight, possibly forever more on our regular NewsHour time and online. But for now, from Madison Square Garden, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.