FLY AROUND GOOGLEEARTH WITH THE SPACE NAVIGATOR: Video and a review, here.

JULES CRITTENDEN offers a State of the Union response. It’s not much like Jim Webb’s.

And Arnold Kling comments on Bush’s health care proposals.

JONATHAN CHAIT ON THE NEW YORK MONEY PEOPLE: “We could argue about whether Clark’s analysis is anti-Semitic; I think it is. But I don’t see how you can say it’s obviously true.”

A QUESTION for Yale. (Via The Corner).

EUGENE VOLOKH: Does your love life comply with state regulations?

I’M ONE OF THE WEB CELEB 25, according to Forbes. Tellingly, I found out via Power Line.

STEPHEN GREEN SUMS UP:

Overall tonight’s SOTU was Bush’s best. I’ve been (more or less) drunkblogging these things for five years now, and they’ve almost always left a bad taste in my mouth. One, I’m happy to say, easily remedied by another sip or two of vodka. However, Bush’s best SOTU will also prove his least effective. The best he can hope for out of the new Congress is that the Blue Dog Dems help him maintain our tax cuts. Other than that, this Presidency is domestically done.

Foreign policy is all Bush has left – all any seventh-year President has, really. Tonight he said the things he always says, but will he follow through this time? Will he use his lame-duck status as cover to get things done, or will he just be lame?

Indeed.

There’s loads of stuff on the SOTU, and Webb’s response, at The Corner, too.

John Hinderaker was surprised: “In contrast to his ‘surge’ speech a week or two ago, I thought President Bush was back on his game tonight. . . . It was a good night for President Bush. Will it matter? I doubt that very many people who are on the fence were watching. But for the President’s long-term supporters and for all who are serious about winning the war that has been thrust upon us, it was an inspiring, confidence-renewing performance.” Bush’s supporters needed that about now.

MCCAIN, interviewed on the surge: “It’s a change in strategy, not just a surge.”

He adds, “A few weeks ago, Senator Reid said he would support a short-term surge. I’m sorry he changed his mind.”

OVERALL TAKE: Everybody’s acting more grownup than I had feared. That’s good, as these are serious times.

JIM WEBB: Opening with the 400th anniversary of Jamestown? Er, okay. Comes across as stiff and awkward — not surprising, as the “response” format is awkward and unnatural.

Oh, hell, I was going to liveblog this, but Dan Riehl has already blogged it based on the released text, and Webb seems to be following that.

But Webb clearly wants to sound tough on terror while advocating withdrawal from Iraq. He does that about as well as anyone could. Quickly jumps back to the economy and talks about Teddy Roosevelt.

Domestically, Bush will fill that bill in the next two years, I suspect. Now he’s invoking Eisenhower, again.

What, are there no Democratic Presidents Webb admires? (LATER: Michael Oliver emails: “Glenn, he did mention Andrew Jackson early in the speech. Maybe it’s just 20th century Democrats he doesn’t like.” Good point.)

A better-than-average SOTU response, by the low standards of those.

UPDATE: Everyone’s a critic:

They’re saying Jim Webb wrote the Democratic response himself. Maybe he should get a speechwriter. Where a normal person would say the parties have “disagreed” or “differed,” he says they’ve “stood in contradiction.”

I guess novelists are use to this sort of complaint. And a reader emails:

Jim Webb told the Air America/Randi Rhodes lie that the majority of the military doesn’t support the effort.

So once again, it seems Democrats get to lie without consequence or question.

There’s not much support for that notion — it’s certainly not what Michael Yon just reported from the front — and it suggests that for Webb’s generation it will always be Vietnam. [LATER: CNN has the same problem: Check the photo caption.]

MORE: Jonah Goldberg: “I’m still kind of a two cheers for Jim Webb kind of guy, but I just don’t think he did a very good job at all (contrary to the Fox panel’s collective opinion). It was definitely more interesting than a lot of Democratic responses (or GOP responses in the 90s). But it was, I thought, something of a mess.”

He, too, wonders where Webb got that “majority of the military” bit.

MORE STILL: The poll Webb is probably relying on, and why it’s rather dubious, discussed at Callimachus. I know that the Pajamas Media folks talked with Mark Blumenthal and other pollsters about polling military attitudes and concluded that it’s effectively impossible to get a reliable poll. And, in fact, the “poll” doesn’t purport to be scientific. But if you’re going to take it seriously, see what military people say about the media . . . .

STILL MORE: And here’s more on that poll at The Mudville Gazette, though as far as I know it’s only conjecture that this was Webb’s source.

I NOTICED that Nancy Pelosi quickly started applause when Bush delivered the line about crossing the aisle when there’s work to be done.

She jumped to her feet when Bush mentioned balancing the federal budget, too. But not when he said “we can do so without raising taxes.”

Boy, the earmark thing is right up front. Cool. (Stephen Green: “Even Congress applauded Bush’s promise to halve earmarks by the end of the session. Yeah, let’s see where that goes, Mr. Reid.”) (LATER: Jon Henke emails from Sen. McConnell’s office: “It is, frankly, a major feather in the cap of Porkbusters and the blogosphere. It was bloggers who brought this to public attention and into the President’s State of the Union address.” That’s nice. Let’s watch for follow-through.)

No Pelosi applause for school choice! But she leaps to her feet for “affordable health care.” Not for private insurance, though.

Pelosi rockets to her feet for reducing gasoline consumption 20% in the next 10 years. But Charles Grassley looks overjoyed at “renewable fuels.” Pork marinated in ethanol?

Pelosi doesn’t jump up for Bush’s recognition of “the serious challenge of global climate change.” Why not?

Terror: On “We must take the fight to the enemy,” it’s Cheney who jumps up. (He can do that?) Pelosi follows much more slowly.

On terror, Bush’s understated delivery, quoting Zarqawi et al., is pretty effective, especially for him. Pelosi jumps to her feet again at the end of this section; I wasn’t expecting that.

Bush’s “root causes” section (“free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies”) seems like the part he’s most into. Cut to Condi looking pretty intense, too. His discussion on Iran’s response to 2005 elections by fomenting trouble in Lebanon, etc., is the kind of spelling-out the Administration should have been doing all along.

He does a good job of spelling out the consequences of losing in Iraq. Cut to shot of Joe Biden looking bored. (Who’s picking these crowd shots — I’m watching ABC — Karl Rove?) Unfortunate Bush smirk during applause.

Best line: “Whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure.” Pelosi rockets to her feet when he asks Congress to support the troops, and those on their way.

What’s a “volunteer civilian reserve corps?” Not very clear, even after he explains. (Meghan Hammond emails: “volunteer civilian reserve corps ‘sounds like the first step to the draft’ says my brother” — I don’t think so, but this is the price Bush pays for not being clearer.)

Lots of applause for not allowing Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Stephen Green criticizes: “All this ‘surge’ talk strikes me as unnecessary and probably unwise. I don’t remember any stories about FDR talking up D-Day before the fact, and trying to weasel support out of Congress for it.” FDR had a different Congress.

Bush on Africa: Asks for a lot. He’s done a lot, but won’t get much credit, for fighting AIDS and malaria there. Lots of applause, though.

Big windup on “the spirit and character of America.” Not bad, and mercifully brief.

Sum-up: Not bad, especially for Bush, who’s no great shakes as a speaker. His recent speaking events have been weak even by his standards, but this was one of his better speeches. Will it help him? Not so clear. He seemed more comfortable and cheerful while working the crowd than he’s seemed lately, too. [LATER: Charlie Gibson thinks the same thing.]

On substance? The war on terror stuff was good, but his speeches on that are always good, on substance if not delivery. Follow-through has been the weak point. Domestically? He’ll be the best Democratic President since Bill Clinton.

UPDATE: Robert Mayer says that Bush is bringing back democracy as an element in foreign policy.

And Justin Beckley emails: “Is it just me, or does it not look great for America when a coach at Georgetown converts an aspiring med student into a basketball phenom?”

Mary Katharine Ham: “All right, so the best part of the night, by far, is the candid shot Fox has of Bush shaking hands after the speech. The audio’s really good, and you get to hear all the butt-kissing up close. Dennis Kucinich leans in again. The Nutroots will make you pay, Dennis.” [LATER: The netroots noticed.]

MORE: Reader Debbie Eberts emails in response to Justin Beckley: “The reader who was cranky about Dikembe Mutombo becoming a basketball phenom instead of a doctor. Um, did he not read the whole paragraph – ‘Mutombo’s foundation has funded a large portion of a $27 million dollar hospital opening in Kinshasa, which will be the first new hospital in the Congo in 40 years.’ Maybe Mutombo can do more good for health care as a well-paid and famous basketball player than he would have as a doctor. Frankly, I think that speaks very well of America. Lighten up.” He probably didn’t read that, because I added the link so that readers who didn’t watch the speech would know what he was talking about.

MORE STILL: Dean Barnett liked the actual speech more than his SOTU FAQs linked below predicted.

My favorite SOTU is still the one where I was shacked up with the Insta-Wife at a secure, undisclosed location and missed the speech entirely. By that standard, Bush has slipped. . . .

STEPHEN GREEN is now liveblogging the State of the Union.

UPDATE: More liveblogging here.

Also, Andrew Noyes at Beltway Blogroll will be liveblogging, and so is Captain Ed.

I’m watching my first State of the Union in HDTV. So far, I have to say, it’s not making that big a difference . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: Mary Katharine Ham is liveblogging, too.

And actually, HD is pretty kind to Bush, but not so kind to Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, or John Kerry. Cheney, strangely, looks exactly the same. Mike Chertoff looks sickly. And a lingering shot of Ted Kennedy “resting his eyes” was just scary. Hillary Clinton, like Cheney, looks no different.

SOTU FAQS from Dean Barnett. “The President is acting a lot like Clinton did after the ’94 elections. He’s moping around, trying to somehow convince people that he’s still relevant.”

Clinton’s presidency was saved by a terrorist attack. Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat.

A PLAME BOMBSHELL involving David Gregory?

BUSH IS REPORTEDLY GOING TO PUSH BATTERIES and plug-in hybrids tonight. This may help:

The company boldly claims that its system, a kind of battery-ultracapacitor hybrid based on barium-titanate powders, will dramatically outperform the best lithium-ion batteries on the market in terms of energy density, price, charge time, and safety. Pound for pound, it will also pack 10 times the punch of lead-acid batteries at half the cost and without the need for toxic materials or chemicals, according to the company.

I hope it’s true, but I’ll need a bit more convincing. (Via Slashdot).

STEPHEN GREEN WILL BE LIVE-BLOGGING THE STATE OF THE UNION: “Cocktail-enhanced, of course.”

Of course.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Earmark reduction will figure in the State of the Union Address. From the pre-release:

Earmarks are provisions included in legislation that are often not subject to legislative or public scrutiny and that often lead to wasteful Federal spending. Earmarks have tripled in number over the last decade and have increased spending by billions of dollars. The President applauds Congress’ progress in requiring the disclosure of the sponsors, costs, recipients, and justification for each earmark, and calls on Congress to go further by enacting comprehensive earmark reform that brings greater transparency and accountability to the Congressional budget process, including:

* Stopping the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language instead of placing them in the actual language of the bill.

* Cutting the number and cost of all earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

N.Z. Bear is pleased, and plans to send over some PorkBusters mugs. Perhaps the President can offer Trent Lott a cup of coffee in one the next time he visits . . . .

LISTEN TO THE GENERALS: Gen. Petraeus on the surge:

Sen. Edward Kennedy asked him why an extra 21,500 would make a significant difference.

Petraeus replied that the important factor was how extra troops are used, not their numbers.

Here’s what I said: “I don’t think the number of troops is nearly as important as what we’re doing with them.”

Will we be doing the right thing? I’m not sure, but I suspect Petraeus is a better judge than me on that topic.

UPDATE: At least me and the General have our stories straight, which is more than you can say for some . . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: Interesting milblog comment:

Seems you can’t walk five feet in DC without somebody proclaiming the mission in Iraq a failure. Ok, that’s all fine and good, but I’m struck by what seems to be an utter lack of perspective regarding the distinction between “failure” and “success.”

Those opposed to the war (both old-school opponents and the new ones) often talk derisively about how optimistic supporters of removing Saddam were. Trotting out sarcastic references to the claim that we’d be greeted as liberators (we were), and that the push into Baghdad would be a “cakewalk” (it largely was), those opponents now are the first to cite to our current efforts there as failure.

What would a “well-run” occupation and creation of a sovereign civil gov’t look like? How long would that [take]? Even if the administration did all the things its critics say it should have, Shiia would still be in a newfound position of power and Sunni/Baathist would be relegated to minority status. Al Qaeda and other foreign fighters would still be coming into the country, and attacks would still be occurring. Would they be occurring less frequently? Perhaps. Or alternatively, they’d not be as centralized around Baghdad.

Either way, to think that a “well-run” occupation would have eliminated these problems is just ignorant and belies an unserious approach to what we’re actually doing in Iraq.

It certainly didn’t prevent problems back during Reconstruction.

ANOTHER HOME INVASION THWARTED:

The victim reportedly heard the squealing of tires outside of his residence on Marlette Avenue, north of Bethany Home Road,about 5:20 a.m.

He noticed a man peeking through his window and grabbed his gun to investigate, where he found a man in body armor in the yard, police said. He also found flashlights, masks, gloves and a semi-automatic handgun scattered around the yard.

The victim held the man at gunpoint until police could arrive. Monti Lyle Jackson, 20, was taken into custody on suspicion of home invasion, according to officials.

I guess this is more of that “vigilantism” that Robert Spitzer was talking about.

HEZBOLLAH IS RIOTING, AND BEIRUT IS BURNING: Michael Totten has the scoop.

I LINKED TO THIS BEFORE, but linked to the wrong Amazon page, one that told people it wouldn’t be out for months. But now Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: Rights and Liberties Under the Law is actually out, and this link actually works.

I’VE SAID BEFORE that hard news is the “killer app” for big media, since it’s something they can do that bloggers can’t do as easily. But not everyone agrees:

The Boston Globe is closing its foreign bureaus as part of the newspaper’s efforts to trim costs, editor Martin Baron said today.

The move follows the recent decision by the New York Times Co.’s New England Media Group, of which the Globe is the biggest holding, to offer buyouts to employees to cut some 125 jobs, including 19 in the newsroom and editorial pages. In a memo to staff, Baron said shutting the foreign bureaus avoids cutting about a “dozen or so” additional newsroom jobs.

I said earlier that the Blogosphere has more reporters in Iraq than many major media outlets. And certainly more now than the Boston Globe.

HERE’S MORE on Steve Cohen and the Congressional Black Caucus. Tennessee political blogger A.C. Kleinheider is offended.

Better watch out. If they treat our Tennessee representatives too badly, we’ll send ’em Stacy Campfield. . . .

UPDATE: Bob Krumm:

Usually, these caucuses are little more than the congressional equivalent of high school clubs. But ask yourselves, would your high school allow a club that purposefully limited its membership to whites? Of course not. So why should your tax dollars be used to support a group with a racist membership policy?

Other caucuses are less restrictive in their membership:

The Congressional Croatian Caucus does not require Croatian ancestry, the Congressional Entertainment Caucus is not limited to former entertainers, the Congressional Internet Caucus does not mandate that its members maintain a blog, the House Cancer Caucus is not just for cancer survivors, and veterans aren’t the only eligible members of the Reserve Components Caucus.

I’ll bet that if Bill Clinton were a House member they’d let him join.

PATRICK HYNES: Hats off to Hillary. Talk about Strange New Respect.

THE KERBALA ATTACKS AND IRAN: Omar has a report.