THE STATE OF THE UNION

So how’d you like to be Gary Locke this morning? If you don’t know who that is you’re in the majority of Americans, even after last night’s State of the Union address. Locke, governor of Washington State, had the unenviable task of following up a war-time president’s most momentous address, on the apparent eve of war, with what amounted to pre-written boilerplate criticism from the political opposition. Tellingly, though there are currently 6 or 7 Democrats who have declared themselves presidential candidates, it fell to Locke, who isn’t among that field, to deliver the SOTU rebuttal. He came across as weak and unprepared for the big moment, and on camera at least, utterly alone, with those aforementioned presidential candidates nowhere to be found. Such examples of leadership and courage these Democrat candidates offer.

As for the address itself, the one Locke had to try and refute, it was fair on the domestic side and damning on the international side. The first half of the speech, the domestic issues section, was standard fare for SOTU speeches—lots of programs, lots of nice themes, lots of little ideas designed either to toss a bone to your supporters or to toss a rock at your opposition. Or to blunt that opposition’s ability to attack you, by co-opting their themes. President Bush’s domestic agenda followed that theme, but did include some interesting things here and there. Nothing earth-shaking, though. I did like the pro-life rhetoric, and the AIDS in Africa effort. We’re the richest nation in history; surely we can help save a few lives. I didn’t like the big government stuff, but I recognize it for what it is: a garlic ward against Democrat mischief and bombast. I hate the prescription drug stuff, for reasons I’ll explain some day.

But no one was really watching last night’s address for the domestic program. We may be going to war soon, and President Bush had the task of laying out exactly why we’re in the fix we’re in. He did that, and did it well, laying out the evidence of Saddam Hussein’s perfidy, his untrustworthiness, and his slyly evil ability to subvert international law and endanger his region and the world. President Bush made it clear that while the US would prefer a peaceful solution to the Iraq dilemma, we would be willing to use force, and that while we prefer a coalition of the willing to help out under the UN’s aegis, we will go it alone if we have to. He stated his case plainly, authoritatively, and exhaustively.

Had 9-11 never happened, President George W. Bush might have gone down in history as a mediocrity, a decent president with a modest agenda but with no special claim to greatness. That’s still a possibility, but after more than two years on the job, it has become apparent that Bush is a president who rises to the occasion, and when the occasion demands greatness he delivers.

*this post is so late to the game because Blogger is often useless