The president made a speech of Castroian length last night. To his right sat a man paid to make approving nods practiced in advance. To his left sat a woman paid to clap on cue and glare at those who didn't. The mood was one of a wake rather than a pep rally. From a man accustomed to hysteria, the forced enthusiasm of his partisans, and occasional laughter from his detractors, must have been a bitter pill to swallow. Nobody fainted, nobody shouted "You lie!," and everybody was bored.

The state of the union was a delusional address aimed at wishing away the disastrous year one of the Obama Administration. "We all hated the bank bailout," said a man who voted for it in the senate and administered it as president. "Let me repeat: we cut taxes," announced a politician who oversaw the increase in the top marginal rate from 35 to 40 percent. "It begins with our economy," explained the primary booster of a socialistic health care scheme that sacrificed all other priorities, including the economy, to the Moby Dick of the Captain Ahabs of the American Left. The stimulus bill "helped save jobs," insisted its creator who has presided over the loss of millions of jobs.

Mouthing Democratic boilerplate on "green jobs" was perhaps the grandest hallucination in the delusional sermon. "The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy," President Obama said with a straight face. The fact that the president called for "passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America" was a tacit admission of the unprofitability of "green jobs." Sound businesses do not need government subsidies to turn a profit.

"We still need health insurance reform," but since the president needs health insurance reform to go away, he neglected to mention this until 9:43 p.m. EDT. Obama declared: "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people." This from a man who wasted a year of his life pushing, and pushing, and pushing this bad medicine on an unwilling patient. Mr. President, take this as a compliment: it wasn't the messenger, it was the message.

Interspersed with passive-aggressive blame classlessly heaped upon his unnamed predecessor, the 44th president gave lip-service to placating the changing mood in the electorate. He expressed willingness to drill for oil and open new nuclear power plants. He supported a repeal of capital gains taxes on small business owners. And he pushed a freeze on government spending--to start next year and to exempt the vast majority of government spending (defense, social security, medicare, etc.).

The speech's Rosetta Stone phrase: Americans "don't understand why.... Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems." For Ronald Reagan, government was the problem; for Barack Obama, government is the solution. The message of Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts was clearly lost on the president. Caution: Iceberg ahead!

President Obama would benefit from reading Sir Francis Bacon on false idols; the president's defense of the Stimulus Package was a case in point. Here, President Obama defended the bill by pointing to the examples of people who benefitted from it; but, as Bacon would point out, the wise man asks "But what of those who lost their jobs in spite of--or because of--the stimulus package?" I don't know if people are naturally more affected by positive things than negative things, but politicians certainly hope so.

Just two words: duplicitous fraud.

Dan, what is your take on the controversial supreme court decision?

And putting your politics aside, what do you think Obama should do given the current political climate and reluctant, divided congress?

I am an independent and I can't help but read in both conservative and liberal blogs the same criticisms. He's too right, he's too left, etc... I mean, he can't actually be both unless there is some political posturing involved.

For instance, there is great flow in this post, but statements that state he "... presided over the loss of millions of jobs" seems a bit unfair since jobs are typically a lagging indicator, and I don't think there is an immediate causality between his term in office and the ten percent employment. It is much more likely that the policy of the last eight years played a more significant role.

I mean, we were in a recession before he took office. We can agree on that, right? So if the fiscal policy of that time wasn't sound, why would half the country be trying to keep the status quo. And if we don't reform health care now, then when?

At some point solutions have to happen, regardless of who gets the credit. I don't think younger people in this country think in terms of right and left like previous generations. We just wonder why this system doesn't work. Why isn't government more like science, with a bit more objective truth?

Think of it in terms of Conan O'Brian's ratings. His ratings were down, not just because intrinsic problems with his show, but because of many other factors. The audience was split by keeping Jay on the air; people are watching cable stations; the audience is more fragmented, etc...

Similarly, America is in trouble, not because of the stated reasons, but because of globalization and lack of innovation. I drive a Japanese car for a reason. It's better.

Make me "not cynical" right now. Is there a way believe in government and the media anymore?

Hey Dan,

As you probably know Howard Zinn just died. Didn't you write an article on him? Where is it?

Jack

Dan,

Great show tonight and I loved your passion. First time I've heard you less than pragmatic and actually animated and truly pissed off on a topic! Apparently, O's SOTU kabuki got to you too.

A word about Patrick's policies. I do some part time consulting work for the State. And not only is the State not cutting costs and saving OUR money (surprise), but DP's ongoing rule no matter what the financial burdens are is to spend, spend, spend. In particular, the department I'm in has added layer upon layer of useless, expensive middle management that is the Peter Principle in action.

And with everything Deval, there is the obligatory minority slant to hiring and filling positions that didn't exist before his government intrusion.

I'm listening to this 'Man Crunch' thing as I write. Basically, hetero adverts are bad but homo ones are ok and apparently acceptable to combat their aberrated agenda.

Their path is to convince everyone that we all harbor homo tendencies so that makes it ok for them to convince themselves that they are normal and are just like everybody else.

But, that's not the case. Is it.