COURSING THROUGH THE post-SOTU cable news chatter last night, I notice that most “analysts” are “struck” by the extent to which “this president,” agree with him or not, has “become” a “decisive” leader. What’s all that striking about it, I wonder? That Bush, even now, halfway through his first term, still manages to provoke such condescension, that so many professional observers still get him mixed up with Dan Quayle–it’s surely one of his greatest strengths. He repeatedly covers the spread: He always demonstrates more self-confidence than his critics believe him entitled to, and he confounds them twice over by doing so persuasively. This time two years from now, most “analysts” will no doubt be “struck” by the fact that such an obvious lightweight could have gotten himself reelected president.

A few technical quibbles: Substantive conviction is one thing, performance mechanics are another. This is an eccentric opinion, I know, but as a rule, I think Bush delivers formal, Telepromptered speeches better than any president in modern memory. Better even–no letters on this, please–than Ronald Reagan. Not last night, though. Was anybody else out there . . . well, “struck” by the number of times the president got tripped up on some otherwise perfectly innocuous, non-tricky word or phrase, especially as the evening wore on? He didn’t seem entirely comfortable with the text, it seemed to me.