The Devil is in the Details

I just forced myself to watch Bush's State of the Nation speech. Ordinarily I wouldn't watch him do or say anything but I decided it would not be entirely fair to comment on his speech if I hadn't actually witnessed it. It was, of course, entirely predictable and for him I guess it was okay. He didn't manage to mangle the language entirely, didn't seem to make any really blatant mistakes, didn't appear to be under the influence of either drugs or alcohol. And he did and said mostly the right things. He was kind to Pelosi, and he finished his speech with acknowledging some American heroes. Did he accomplish anything? I don't think so. Oh, he said all the right things about what we have to do: he started by saying we should "spend wisely" (he has run the national debt up to totally unprecedented heights), he said we should not pass on our problems to the next generations (which he has done like no one else in history). He said our economy was strong and wages were rising (the new Democratic House just passed the first raise in the minimum wage in the past 10 years, something his Republican colleagues have resisted for that many years).

Bush went on to suggest we need to do something about universal health care (he is still touting private accounts for this purpose). He says we should do something about Social Security (he touts private accounts for this purpose). He says we need to do something about immigration (he wants to protect the interests of business, of course), he insists that No Child Left Behind has been a success (very questionable) and needs to be continued (thus privatizing education). He wants to reduce our use of oil by 20% by 2020 (I think that was his figure) and seemed to favor ethanol and nuclear energy (both highly questionable means). And, of course, he insisted that we should send more troops to Iraq (which virtually all sentient beings think is a bad idea).

In any case, my point here is simply that whenever he mentioned any of these goals (medical, Social Security, Immigration reform, etc.), there was great applause as obviously these goals are indeed commendable. But it was obvious that those who knew what his solutions were supposed to be just sat on their hands. In short, he might just as well have said nothing at all. It wasn't the worst of speeches, it wasn't the best of speeches, it was like no speech at all.

McCain is now blaming Cheney for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Cheney is now being blamed for outing Plame. He is also being blamed for turning Iran into a problem it need not have been. Will Cheney pay any attention to these "nattering nabobs of negativism?" Don't bet the farm on it. But the plot surely thickens and the arrows of accusation have certainly found the proper direction. Could it be that just once justice might prevail in these nightmare years of the 21st century?