But then I'm in the Na Na Hey Hey crowd that thinks Bush's exit was the most important event of the day and appreciated the language of restoring science and respect for liberty, transparency, and the rule of law. You can put me down for no mixed feelings about that.

Contra the Post piece, I do not think it is "partisan" to mention some general goals as Obama did. Mr. Ehrlich is confusing his ideologically-based disagreements with the President being "partisan". I disagree with the President as well, but he won the election handidly with his "government can fix it" plans for the economy so he has every reason to be talking some about what he intends to do. That's just sane governance.

I've been disappointed with the New Majority writings of Frum himself. I had expected something more like the loyal opposition you have here, but instead it may as well be an extension of NRO's unhinged polemics, parsing the speech as if various missing details and explanations were significant flaws. (Such as not mentioning nuclear power, when one of the biggest items on his agenda is dealing with Tehran's "civilian" ambitions, or quibbling that he didn't enumerate which aspects of the market he thought were out of control). It was historic speech for Pete's sake, not a policy whitepaper.

By contrast I've enjoyed the thoughtful analysis I've read here so far. You people seem to understand the art of the possible, what a President can and can't be expected to do and say as he works within real-world constraints. It's refreshing compared to the usual hackery from partisan outlets.

Please carry on with this earnestness. Keep striving to provide forthright analysis, as you've been doing, rather than scrambling or dabbling in ways to tear the administration down politically, as most other right-of-center folks like those you just linked to have done. If you stay on the track you've set for yourselves I'm sure your work will reach some of the new staffers and help avoid catastrophe of the nature Aaron described below.

In a way I agree with you Chris, yet in a way it's good to see some straight talk. Most of the people he were speaking to are people who at least believed that they were voting for some sort of change (the scale of which remains to be seen).
Given the resources and brainpower that went into the speech, I would have to assume that any lack of manners was somewhat deliberate.
Overall, the tone was probably one of realism, in that many current problems will take time to fix. I am having a hard time separating rhetoric from real, actionable ideas, but time will tell.
That being said, I probably would have felt better had he taken a few of your word choices, vs. what was actually used.

Did anybody else notice that the guy announcing names as people walked out said most everyone's full name (esp. former presidents), but said "H" instead of "Hussein?"

I had no qualms with the rhetoric Obama employed in his inaugural address. All of the points he addressed were accurate (the denigration of science in policy making, the disrespect for the constitution, and so forth), and he named no individuals with respect to any of these points. It seems to me that it was in part an effort to preempt arguments that potential opponents of his policies (and advocates of the Bush/Cheney approach) might make going forward. That's how I took his references to "not big government or small government, but government that works" and on the need to "closely watch" (and carefully regulate) the markets. More generic rhetoric like George W. Bush's constant insinuations that God was on his side and that unfettered markets and less government are almost always good is in its own way divisive, as it acts as if those who think otherwise aren't even worthy of serious consideration. So, let's watch Obama as he goes along; but he needs to set down some markers now, and to the extent that his address did that, I think it is on target.

I feel that after four years, "restore science" is the right phrase to use since even the scientific community feels that is has been ignored and repressed by the Bush Administration:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/22/america/science.1-413296.php

In a world where science stands to be objective truth, and a President tries to politically suppress that, it does not seem out to place to say that a reverse of that policy would be a restoration of science. It acknowledges that under the previous administration, science was not respected.

I whether such an attitude is blunt is very fair to ask, but it is far too common for speeches and political rhetoric to be dulled down to the point where there is nothing substantive. I think that part of Obama's success is that he bucks that trend, at least slightly.

All you lefties in the comments just can't be civil to the people you disagree with. I studiously avoided every spec of inaugural coverage but my wife, a deeply non-partisan person who wants to believe the best about Obama, was half listening to his speech and was struck by his statements and the tone in which they were delivered. She made a point of talking about how inappropriate and classless it all was with some vehemence that night. This was shocking to me as she is never moved to anger by politician's speeches.

As for the "respect for science" canard, what a joke! I have an advanced degree in engineering from a prestigious technical university and spent over a decade in research there and find this to be more politically motivated denigration of people who don't go along with the left's pseudoscience. From the lies about stem cell research (there is no loss of progress from banning fetal embryo research) to the looming and completely predictable crack up of the entire global warming Big Lie. Keep building your stupid, self righteous sand castles and hope that the public won't remember who said what fatuous hysterical nonsense.

I never expected anything better out of BO than the usual liberal partisan tripe, but millions of Americans bought his "New Way Hopey Changey" BS. They are not going to enjoy their disillusionment when the truth becomes clear.