The Dish

… but I thought this speech lacked a real focus, and rehashed thoroughly exhausted tropes and phrases. The speech’s key attention-grabber was the "addicted to oil" line. But after five years of being the oil-president, he needs to add a lot more substance to back up the counter-intuitive headline. On the critical question, Iraq, he said all the right things; and I believe he deserves support in navigating the path ahead, however twisted the path to this point. But I’d like to see more meat on those bones, and clear evidence of political progress and improved security. I guess, on this subject, I’ve just learned to follow what he does, rather than what he says. The calls for bi-partisanship, on the other hand, and for an entitlements commission, for Pete’s sake, sounded … well, desperate. Bottom line: this speech will rise without trace. And be remembered by almost no one.

It’s great he mentions it, and great he cares. I don’t doubt it. His record so far is immeasurably better than his predecessor’s. But one question: How can he speak of Africans with HIV having dignity in the eyes of America when none of them is legally even able to enter this country? Does he know this?

It’s great to see the president acknowledge the healthy direction of so many social indicators. Good to see his optimism on the social front. Sad he seems to believe that it’s only activist courts who want to include all citizens in the right to marry. The movement is far deeper and broader than that. But then he won’t meet with any openly gay people, and so he wouldn’t know. If he met us, if he listened, he might hear our stories, and how we want to be a full part of our families and take up the personal responsiblity he speaks of. But we are the only people in this country he won’t publicly meet or speak with, and, as president, has never publicly met or spoken with. We’re always the objects of his policies, never people whom he represents.

Why am I not convinced? I guess whenever someone mentions "ethanol" as a solution to our energy problems, my eyes roll involuntarily. Coal, nukes, wind and solar. Sure. But the only way to get the private sector to really innovate is to make gasoline more expensive. But maybe he has some real proposals that could make a real difference. Cheer … but verify.

The man has added over $20 trillion in fiscal liabilities to the next generation. And he brags about alleged future savings of … $40 billion. He makes the line-item veto the criterion for fiscal responsibility, knowing it will never pass. He says his proposal last year was designed to "save social security." But it had no long-term impact on the costs. To deal with the entitlement crunch, after five years in office, he proposes … a commission! And urges Washington to avoid "partisan politics." I’m sorry but this is duplicitous when it isn’t pathetic.

… on illegal wire-tapping. But the "statute" to which he refers specifically sets up a court for the kind of warrants he says he doesn’t need to ask for. Classic Bush: ignore the actual criticism; set up a straw man; and then whack it with a big baseball bat. And you know what? It worked extremely well. "We will not sit back and wait to be hit again." Great line. Best defense. Avoids the basic issue. Keep going …

… extremely predictable. And not terribly interesting …

We must not allow our differences to "harden into anger." Anyone who tells me not to get angry … pisses me off.

Money quote:

"America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world‚   The best way to break this addiction is through technology."

It’s the president tonight! Yes: this president! George W. Bush. I repeat: George W. Bush. He thinks we’re consuming too much oil. I’m not making this up. Promise. They just sent me an email.

And look: I know, I know. But the only sane response is to cheer and check the details. Five years too late … but better late than never. Now, how about that gas tax?

A reader writes:

Use of the word "Christianist," and not being sure of its meaning, led me to Google the word. Among several links that popped up was a very helpful one from the Christian Science Monitor. For a while I’ve wondered why you used "Christianist" when "Christian" would be so much easier to use. Reading how "Christianist" came into use, and of its true definition, helps me realize what a damning word it is, and how very different it is from "Christian."

Yes. I mean by it the complete conflation of Christian faith and secular politics of the hard right. I don’t see why I should concede my faith or my politics to those who share neither.