January 29, 2008
Questions for a questionable Prez
Well, he went and did it again. Our Fine President gave his final State of the Union Address last night and like any good showman, he held his signature punchline until late in the show. Just when the crowd thought he wouldn’t tell us just what state the union’s in, bam, he hits us with,
“So long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure and the state of our union will remain strong.”
Whew, that was a load off my mind, I was a bit worried that the state of the union was kind of untidy at best and jolly well fucked at worst. I guess he’s got a different idea of a tanking economy, diminishing world standing and relevance, divided populace and deteriorating environment. We can’t all see things the same way.
In case you haven’t guessed, I disagree with the man on a few more of his statements from last night, so here’s another of my unfair rebuttals where I get the last word and that’s that.
“Seven years have passed since I first stood before you at this rostrum. In that time, our country has been tested in ways none of us could have imagined.”
Except for maybe the intelligence analysts who tried to tell you that Bin Laden was determined to attack the U.S.
“We faced hard decisions about peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens. These issues call for vigorous debate, and I think it’s fair to say we’ve answered the call.”
This got a big a laugh and all, but sadly, it’s completely untrue. There’s been little debate about the decisions that have been made in our name and when there has been, Our Fine President has ignored it all to do what he wanted to in the first place.
“As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. America’s added jobs for a record 52 straight months.”
That’s good…
“But jobs are now growing at a slower pace.”
That’s bad…
“Wages are up,”
That’s good…
“but so are prices for food and gas.”
That’s bad…
“Exports are rising, but the housing market has declined.”
…
Does anyone else’s neck hurt after that little bit? He accentuates the positives, so of course he fails to mention that job growth isn’t keeping pace with workforce growth and thus unemployment is also up. Oh yeah and the wage growth is perilously close to falling behind inflation. That kinda takes the good out of a few of his positives now doesn’t it?
“I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential. Together, we’ve expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let us apply the same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools.”
Hey look, it’s vouchers under a different name. This attempt at federal funding for religious schools isn’t even clever or well disguised. His proposal seems to be just straight up vouchers and I wonder if retired Democrat Claiborne Pell would approve the appropriation of his name?
“To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow.”
He’s always dreaming of that Jetsons future where technology cures all problems. Every year Our Fine President tells us about how the new inventions will fix all our problems. It’d be nice if he’d try to fix them with the things we have now and then applied these breakthroughs when they came about.
“I’ve laid out proposals to reform these programs [Social Security, Medicaid & Medicare]. Now I ask members of Congress to offer your proposals and come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital programs for our children and our grandchildren.”
Did he just say, hey I’ve got no ideas, but fix this? That might actually be my favorite of his proposals. I kinda like the I’ve got no ideas, so you come up with something approach from this guy. It can’t end worse than the ideas he usually puts forth.
“Building a prosperous future for our citizens also depends on confronting enemies abroad and advancing liberty in troubled regions of the world. Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace.”
I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again, when in the history of humans have things actually played out according to his premise? There’s been war and oppression in just about every society and civilization and ours is certainly not the exception or an example to all others.
“We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear. Yet, in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on. In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny.”
Have they said that? I can’t recall seeing them make any statements agreeing with his premise. They talk about destroying our country and all, but it’s usually about reducing our influence in their Islamic world and such. Our enemies are not fighting against freedom or any other abstract concept, they’re fighting against and killing human beings.
“When we met last year, many said that containing the violence was impossible. A year later, high-profile terrorist attacks are down; civilian deaths are down; sectarian killings are down.”
Actually, I believe most of the criticism was that the reduced violence couldn’t be sustained when troops were removed and that the surge’s accompanying political and social reconciliations wouldn’t come about. The verdict is still out on both of those, and even if they work out for the best, that still doesn’t address the issue about us never really needing to start the war in he first place.
“A free Iraq will deny Al Qaida a safe haven. A free Iraq will show millions across the Middle East that a future of liberty is possible. A free Iraq will be a friend of America, a partner in fighting terror and a source of stability in a dangerous part of the world.”
Again he ignores the fact that Iraq wasn’t an Al Qaida safe haven before we got there, and assumes he knows how a “free” country will vote. Didn’t the Palestinians have a free vote and choose the bloodthirsty militants of Hamas as their leaders?
“On the homefront, we will continue to take every lawful and effective measure to protect our country. This is our most solemn duty.”
Really, lawful and effective? I guess he’s finally catching on that all his illegal and ineffective tricks weren’t all that helpful.
“Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We’ve had ample time for debate. The time to act is now.”
OK, so isn’t the fact these companies need this immunity kinda an admission that the government’s and their actions were likely illegal?
Yeah, I guess I’ve got a lot more questions than answers after that speech. I’m even wondering if Our Next Fine President will be just as puzzling an orator one year hence?