Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska is a low-key, conservative gentleman. You never see him on cable, throwing knives at Democrats. Instead, he quietly goes about his work, mixing his flinty, Midwestern values with a keen understanding of the Beltway — before coming to the Senate, he was Pres. George W. Bush’s agriculture secretary and before that, governor.

I spoke with him this morning to get his take on the State of the Union. Johanns tells us that he sees the speech as a “missed opportunity.” On most issues, he thinks the president misfired in his approach. “This was a chance to really talk about the debt and spending, to set a difference course,” he says. “But the only concrete thing I could pull out of it all was the five-year freeze on discretionary spending. That is a half-hearted response to our deficit problems. After ramping up spending throughout the government for two years, this won’t even chip away at that. It will be a gesture that’s lost in the mountain of debt.”

“House members and senators, in a very bipartisan way, were ready for some stout medicine,” Johanns says. “There were plenty of open minds about how best to attack this deficit. Yet the president walked out of the room leaving all of us feeling cold about that part of his speech. And I say this very respectfully, but I think that his speech will be panned in that regard. The president did not come to grips with what the real numbers are all about.”

In terms of the overall structure of the speech, Johanns was a bit perplexed. “As he was talking, I was writing down individual items he was touching on. I got up to about a dozen things then put down my pen. What was happening was that we were losing the theme of the speech. It was almost like it was disjointed. He was bouncing from item to item to item. In the end, it was hard to figure out what that State of the Union stood for. To be kind here, after putting it on the shelf last night, I don’t think that this speech will advance any cause very much. It came across like a speech written by a committee in the White House and in the federal government.”

While Obama may be able to coast on some of his national themes, Johanns predicts that Senate Democrats who are up for reelection in 2012 will not be able to win by simply espousing similar platitudes. “That’s the challenge the president has with his own party. President Obama’s policies and words may be good politics for him, but they’ve been brutal for his fellow Democrats. That’s not going to change — this health-care bill and the debt do not improve with age, they get worse. Next time, the president can run nationally, but the rest of them have to go home to their districts or their states. I see tough politics ahead for those who bought into the stimulus and the health-care plan. Back home, they’re likely to still pay a price.”

On the positive side, Johanns notes a couple areas of interest. “I was pleased that he mentioned the repeal of the 1099 tax-reporting requirement [within the health-care law]. I am encouraged by that. As of last night, we had over 50 senators signed on as co-sponsors. With the president’s support, I think we’re in good shape to get that repealed,” he says. “Secondly, there was at least an acknowledgment that our corporate-tax rate has put our country in a difficult position, from a competitive standpoint.”

Turning to Rep. Paul Ryan’s GOP rebuttal, “Congressman Ryan was definitely the adult in the room last night,” Johanns says, in terms of frankly addressing the fiscal situation. “He said, ‘Look, this is serious and we can’t ignore it.’ That is so appreciated.”