The best analysis I’ve seen on the President’s speech last night is from John Podhoretz in the New York Post. So many analysts (Ron Brownstein, David Sanger, Susan Page) are takings shots at Bush for down-sizing his agenda, but many of these are the same critics who beat up on the President for failing miserably at his ambitious Social Security reform attempt last year.

At The New Republic, Ryan Lizza (whose analysis I normally like) writes:

First, we witnessed the death of the great-man theory of Bush. The Bush presidency, in the minds of its most fervent supporters, has been built on the idea that Bush is a visionary with bold ideas that he forcefully pushes even when they sacrifice his own popularity. But the bold agenda is gone. His "addicted to oil" line will garner lots of headlines, but his actual oil-independence plan is so modest--tens of millions of dollars in a two trillion dollar annual budget--that it is barely worth mentioning. Instead of re-arguing the case for his Social Security plan, he called for another Social Security commission. The much-hyped health care proposals were mentioned in passing. His fancy American Competitiveness Initiative--a research and development tax credit and more money for math and science--seems reasonable but forgettable.

Valid criticism, but politically Podhoretz is more on the mark:

Politically it had two virtues. First was the Hippocratic virtue: Nothing he proposed last night will do any harm to him. Whether Commission A or Initiative B is welcomed or rejected by Congress, it won't matter much.

Its second virtue was that it allowed him to spend a good deal of time reassuring a nervous public that he was focused on the primary tasks at hand.

The caution on display marked a change from last year, when Bush learned the cost of aiming too high in a State of the Union Address. He used the 2005 speech to launch his Social Security reform effort, a political calamity that came home to him last night when he was greeted with jeers and laughs from Democrats upon speaking the words "Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security."

That's putting it mildly. The president gave his opponents a stick with which to beat him and his poll ratings down for six months as he toured the country telling people disaster was on the way — which had the unfortunate consequence of convincing Americans that the economy was still in wretched shape when it was in fact in fifth gear.

Bush despises "small ball"; that has led him to advocate dramatic and visionary policies abroad and at home. Last year, he seemed to forget for a time that it ain't "small ball" to focus on implementing his visionary policies, to see them take root and bear fruit.
Securing the future in Iraq, working to prevent terrorist attacks at home and seeing to it that his tax cuts become permanent — that's pretty big ball right there. His mistake last year was imagining that he should add Social Security reform to that heavy load.

So what we saw last night was Bush the Calmly Determined in place of Bush the Visionary. His delivery was low-key and assured, just the right tone for a speech intended to assure the American people — or at least those Americans willing to consider his words with an open mind — that he knows where his responsibilities lie and what he needs to do to meet them.

Podhoretz is right in the sense that Bush has recalibrated expectations and is in a position to follow through on many of the big agenda items that are already in motion (the war, tax cuts, reshaping the courts) and he is putting the GOP in a position to run as well as possible in November.

I’m surprised at some of the post-speech punditry that suggested Bush was trying to cozy to the middle or moderate his tone, because on the most important issue - national security and the War - he threw down the gauntlet to Democrats. Following through on Rove’s speech with his own message -- This isn’t going to be 2005 where I spent months droning on about Social Security and let you guys (the Democrats) beat up on me about torture, Iraq, etc… --  you better get ready for a street brawl on wiretapping, the Patriot Act and Iraq in 2006. 

In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil....

Our country must also remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home. The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us. Fortunately, this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives, protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks.  They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime -- so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot Act. 

It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

That’s a simple, straight-forward message that every American can understand and Bush made it clear Democrats better get ready to hear it over and over again between now and Election Day.