House of Eratosthenes

Up until now, I have been nauseated by the spectacle of presidents — from either party — who do one thing, for a whole year, and then when the time comes to get up behind that big ol’ rostrum, say something different. This is not the kind of behavior we’re supposed to be seeing in that job. The office is not built for complicated men; it’s built for a simple dude, someone who is about one thing all the time. He gets up and delivers a report to Congress and to the nation on the state of the nation and what he intends to do about it, and from that, we have an executive agenda going forward.

Now, far be it from me to contradict the 92% who I’m told approved of the speech. I understand how this is supposed to work, we figure out what we’re “all” thinking and then we repeat it as if it is our own idea. But this has always bothered me. Obama spends money like it’s going out of style; this turns out to be unpopular, and so He gets up and delivers a State of the Union asking for more more more more more…and then says…oh by the way, we gotta do some belt-tightening around here. Presto chango, He becomes Mister Fiscal Responsibility.

This year I’m bugged by something different though. There is this meandering odor that we’re so lucky to have a president who happens to be this kind of duplicitous weasel. This doesn’t explain the 92%; that is an effect and not a cause.

But I remember this from during the Clinton SOTUs. Every now and then Bill Clinton would get up and extoll some conservative virtues…and there would be a palpable sense of…Hey! He’s really going to sock it to those Republicans now! This guy is so awesome, just so slick and greasy. Can’t be attacked because he can’t be defined. This is wonderful! …kind of like going to trial, and finding out the lawyer who represents you is the son of Beelzebub himself. One does not relish being so close to the Prince of Darkness, but hey, you want to win don’t you.

Let us speak with one voice.

We need to get this budget under control.

God bless the United States of America.

Those are three values, three priorities, three visions…to which, in His actions prior to last night’s speech, President Obama has been stridently opposed. Now He gets to throw them out there and get credit for them.

I don’t care if you’re a Republican or a democrat, or which side you want to see “win.” This is not how the presidency is supposed to work.

I actually see a ray of hope in that 92% thing, and that he’s getting “credit” for making noises. They could mean that the public is just stupid and easily distracted — which is my default assumption — but they could also be a big collective sigh of relief. After all, this is Chairman Zero. President “I Won.” The guy who thinks that at some point you’ve made too much money. Etc. Etc. At least he didn’t talk about banning the internal combustion engine, decommissioning all our nukes, and solving our fiscal woes by corralling a herd of skittle-shitting unicorns who will balance the budget through the power of rainbows and gumdrops.

It could’ve been a lot worse, in other words. And tell me true: didn’t at least a part of you expect this peevish prick to start harping on Tea Parties and Giffords and the failed policies of the previous administration yet again? That he actually made a semi-dignified speech consonant with the duties of the office is a big win as far as I’m concerned….
- Severian | 01/26/2011 @ 10:44
I consider polls to be pretty much bullshit. Almost every time one has been dissected, it’s come to light that the sampling skewed liberal/Dem by significant margin, so I just ignore them now.

And I do not think the Left see the Presidency anything like we do. For them, it’s merely a vehicle to implement their twisted dreams.
- KG | 01/26/2011 @ 15:45
Good point, KG. I heard the guys on the radio griping about the imperialistic, or maybe royalistic, tone the State of the Union has taken in recent decades. “MISTER SPEEEEEAKER, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!” (Yay!) That is central to my gripe here. It should look like the President or General Manager of a business enterprise, responsible for the day-to-day management but not necessarily holding a controlling share of the equity, reporting out to the shareholders what the vision is going to be in the months ahead. Here are the things that are important to us — and, here is the one thing for which we are willing to sacrifice all other things. This is the direction we’re taking.

This is looking more like a Satrap or a Sultan holding court. Fetch me my jester, fetch me my slippers, my pitcher of wine, my concubine, my flying monkeys…now then, the rest of you, here are some ideas for you to put into your empty heads.

According to the latter vision, the guy in the high chair gets to peel off with whatever suits the moment. According to the former one, it is an occasion for being held to account. Is the speech consistent with the actions we see in the year behind us? Are the actions in the year ahead of us, going to be consistent with the speech? This would be where the job gets tough…if it worked that way. It would be one of the many reasons why Obama makes more $$$ than I do. It would make the position something of a challenge…as opposed to imperial privilege.
- mkfreeberg | 01/26/2011 @ 16:18
As the SOTU is mostly theater, and mostly, let’s admit it, a big steaming load of BS, regardless of the officeholder, would it not be a wonderful thing to cut the crap and go back to a written SOTU?

“But my lord, the people, the people, they expect it.”

Yeah, too much to hope for.
- HoundOfDoom | 01/26/2011 @ 16:35
Morgan, you should check out the conversation over at RWN:

http://rightwingnews.com/2011/01/liveblogging-the-state-of-the-union/?comments=show#comments

Gotta tell you, that D-Vega fellow is a real hoot. He refuses to respond to the charge: that Obama is not only a hypocrite on fiscal issues, he’s actually talking out of both sides of his mouth in the same damn speech! Instead, he sits there demanding to know when the GOP was worried about this.

I told him…since forever…and whenever I hear the Democrats bring it up, it only seems to be when the topic at-hand is tax cuts or defense. The speech last night is exactly what I’m talking about: we can’t “afford” to let the successful keep their own money (by not letting the tax cuts lapse) because the country cannot afford that. Naturally Vega doesn’t want to address that point; like any good lefty, he just wants to throw mud and talk about the evil spendthrift Republicans.

I wish I could get through to these people something very, very important – if the GOP throwing money around is bad, why is doubling-down on that (during the Obama Administration and Democrat Congress) supposed to be better?
- cylarz | 01/27/2011 @ 00:15

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Two State of the Union Speeches Later…Wednesday, January 26th, 2011

Two State of the Union Speeches Later…
Wednesday, January 26th, 2011