I took notes during Bush’s Big Speech the other day, but I’m only now reporting on it. The wheelbarrows full of cash that I regularly get from the NRA for parroting their extremist (pro-Liberty) politics aren’t nearly enough to keep me interested in blogging on other subjects in a timely manner.

I did not count the number of applause lines (most of those clapping probably weren’t listening anyway. They only notice that the nodding drunk sitting next to them is clapping for something, so they follow along). I did count the number of times Dubya used certain terms. Thankfully, he went light on his usual equating of democracy with Liberty– that’s always bugged the hell out of me. Not that I think he’s figured anything out– he just had other things to say, namely that he buys fully into the man-made “Global Climate Change” racket. Smartly, he avoided using the term “Global Warming” favoring the more universal “Climate Change” instead.

He used the term “Liberty” eight times, which is eight times more than your average Democrat would use it in a whole career of public speaking. “Freedom” was used fully ten times, but then, a Marxist will speak of “freeing” us from corporate tyranny, and such. Bush used the term in the correct sense pretty much every time, which is odd considering that he was at the same time adamant in his assertion that the path to technological progress starts with government subsidy and proceeds from there to more government subsidy, where it finally arrives at a level that qualifies for a whole big bunch of more government subsidy.

“Bipartisan” was used twice, and in the Left-Speak sense only. He was referring to the “no child’s behind left alone” act and something thoroughly vague about “entitlement solutions”, which brought the most brilliantly unenthusiastic, apathetic, if not contemptuous, applause imaginable. Quite impressive. Throughout the speech, this wasn’t the sort of disingenuously enthusiastic applause you gave at the Kremlin, or during one of Saddam’s speeches in the hope that you wouldn’t be taken out and shot a moment later. No, this was true, unguided, unmotivated, wandering, bored, limp, listless, hollow, comfortable apathy, the depths of which are seldom seen in the faces of ordinary men– some of the scarce honesty seen that night.

The word “victory” was not used– too “divisive” to speak of American victory I suppose. He did mention “defeating” the enemy in the War On An Emotion 4 times, so there’s that.

One of his genuine moments was when he was honoring the servicemen and servicewomen, and their families. This is in sharp contrast to our last president, who saw these people as a means to his self aggrandizement. There was some genuine applause there too, and they deserved more.

“Purpose” was used twice, but without defining the particular “purpose” he had in mind, if any. It’s a potentially nice word. Marx and Lenin had a “purpose” though, too.

Bizarrely, he used the “O” bomb (Oath) once. That could come back to bite him– he indicated that he may have been aware of the meaning and purpose of the Oath of Office, so any violations must hereafter be considered willful, and any tolerance of the violations of others must be considered complicit.

“Unity” was never used. Good choice that. Who wants to be “unified” with one’s enemies? Likewise, he only said “change” once and in reference to his course in Iraq– not in the Change to More Socialism sense use by the Left. That was for us to infer from his many calls for subsidy and restriction.

Our president promised one executive order– a requirement that all earmarks be debated in the open, and voted on, outside of committees. That’s a teeny weeny start– sort of like a starter’s pistol that was never loaded and just goes “click”. Congress is now spending three trillion of our dollars per year, as opposed to the 2.2 trillion they spent when Bush took office (That’s now a hair under 10 thousand dollars from every man, woman and child in this country, per year, or 40 thousand for a family of four, and rising fast. That’s more than the total incomes of most working people around the world). I’ll clap a few times when I see that total number drop for eight years in a row. Until then, republicans are to be seen as a slower path to pure socialism, compared to the faster path offered by Dems.

Watching Pelosi chewing something in the background was a little funny, and a little sickening (I felt I was back in jr. high school all over again, and I didn’t like it the first time). Watching the Congresscritters on the floor was amusing and instructive. When Bush said something about terrorist surveillance, the floor was split perfectly down the middle– Dems sitting and Repubs standing. Same when he mentioned tax relief– no Democrat would ever even USE the term, much less recognize it when a Republican uses it. If anything, “tax relief” to a democrat would be relieving people of their money by taxing them. Republicans recognize that when tax rates drop, we get more productive and they get more of our money to spend. Democrats hate productivity altogether.

I liked the part where he told anyone who thinks their taxes should be higher that the IRS accepts checks and money orders (maybe he never heard of cashier’s checks, which are good for much higher amounts). So send it in, bitches, and shut yer yaps!

When Bush called for up or down votes on court appointments, the Dems sat down. Yeah– screw the Constitution if it means we can’t have what we want. Who’s gonna do anything about it?

Probably the stupidest thing he said all night (and this is amazingly, stunningly, monumentally stupid, such that historians and psychoanalysts will marvel at this phenomenon for generations to come. It will be in textbooks as a demonstration of the lemming-like nature of human group-think) was that “We” need a “Lawful Way” for foreign workers to “come and support our economy”. Either Bush is a blithering idiot, he hopes we’re all blithering idiots, or I am wrong in believing that the U.S. has always had multiple “Lawful Ways” for foreign workers to come here and support themselves, which, in turn, helps to support the economy. Which is it? WTF? Hello? No one picked up on that, so I’ll have to allow that I may be wrong– maybe this country never has had any means by which people could come here legally to work. And maybe I’m a lemming. Apparently no one knows for sure. Apparently, no one in Congress has ever read one of their own bills– you know, the immigration bills they’ve been passing for the last, oh, 219 F>@*ing years and then forgetting– the ones they pass with zero expectation of enforcement. This is a stupid party wherein people have been overdosing on stupid for so long that they’re addicted to stupid and will apparently get the cold sweats and die if deprived of regular, heavy doses of stupid.

In the end, Bush had used many very nice terms and cute words and phrases (still can’t pronounce nuclear– hasn’t anyone told him? Dude, it’s NUKE, LEE, ERR, OK? Say it!) all carefully contrived to throw a little bone to this and to that disparate interest, as if to satisfy everyone. It didn’t work. It never works. It only shows that he is without solid principle– that every mutually exclusive interest to which he panders (thinking himself clever in the process) will see him correctly as a political push-over, lost, a fake, and a hypocrite, searching nervously for the next buzz-phrase to quell our suspicions– to find the dimmer switch for that light-bulb over our heads and turn it down. In other words, a typical, run-of-the-mill Republican.

But to be a part of the spectacle. That much they have.


One thought on “Spectacle

  1. I remember hearing W pronouncing nuclear as nuke-lee-ur one time. It was the first time he used it in that speech, and I think he even broke out into a little sweat. No, really. He was very strained and careful about it. Of course, once he got that out of the way he proceeded to use the word a few more times and always pronounced it nuke-you-lur.

Comments are closed.