Dakota Beacon

It seems like only yesterday in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Obama gave his famous “Words, Just Words” speech. That was February 16, 2008.

“Just words. Just speeches. It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems, but what is also true is that if we can’t inspire the country to believe again, then it doesn’t matter how many plans and policies we have.”

That was then; this is now.

A week ago, on Tuesday, January 25, President Obama delivered his State of the Union Speech (SOTUS). Dust settled on the SOTUS kerfuffle and appropriate analyzes made. What is said is said. All that remains is to comment on the commentary.

Judging by the applause, “lackluster” aptly describes Tuesday’s SOTUS performance. Once or twice VP Biden attempted to start a round of applause, but no one took his cue. The president’s speech was short on content and anything but inspirational.

Obama stressed “winning the future” but he had little to say about the current two most critical issues facing America – a no-growth economy and a crushing national debt. In fact, many North Dakotans may have done a doubletake when Obama attacked the oil industry.

Rep. Paul Ryan, Chair of the House Budget Committee, gave the Republican response predictably calling for spending cuts. He was criticized for lack of detail. Compared to what? Detail in Obama’s SOTUS was not exactly his long suit.

Since Rep. Michele Bachmann was not given a seat at the House Republican leadership table, The Tea Party Express asked her to give a response, too. Except for CNN, no major TV news outlet covered her speech. In an unseemly display of incivility, MSNBC attacked CNN for giving her equal time.

Ignoring White House calls for greater civility, the dominant liberal media zeroed in on their much despised and maligned target, Sarah Palin. She accurately paraphrased Obama's SOTUS as follows: “The era of big government, it's here as long as I am, and I'm gonna find a way to make you pay for big government.” That, in a nutshell, is what Palin took away from the show. No prizes for her.

You would expect Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin to challenge the SOTUS on grounds that the underlying theme spoke of even more aimless and redundant government programs. But liberal objections? How can that be?

No prize for the National Organization for Women, either. NOW expressed discontent with the SOTUS because Obama did not include their pet projects in his spending laundry list. According to Terry O'Neill, NOW is peeved at no mention of bringing women into parity in vocations requiring science, technology, engineering and math skills. These are male-dominated fields. Until women gain parity in the physical infrastructure jobs, O’Neill said, government largess must be redistributed to human infrastructure work such as teaching, nursing, social work and other women’s work. This places liberals in the awkward position of justifying economically ridiculous windmills and other “green” infrastructure over traditionally women-dominated fields.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took umbrage with Obama's SOTUS message on earmarks. Reid dismissed Obama's opposition to earmarks as "an applause line." Reid told NBC News on Wednesday in no uncertain terms that the president should "back off" (Reid’s words) and let lawmakers continue to direct spending to their home districts. Where is Reid’s civility?

“Entertainment Weekly” chimed in with a brief but objective observation on the SOTUS. Their succinct statement cited the SOTUS Nielsen Ratings. The SOTUS drew 43 million viewers, down 11% from last year's show and down 18% from the 2009 SOTUS. In first place Fox News drew 5 million viewers followed by CNN with 3 million. MSNBC ranked third with 2.5 million viewers.

The “Washington Times” noted that using Sputnik metaphors was a bit risky. After all, Obama forced NASA to kill its planned return to the moon even while China vigorously pursues it’s own lunar leap. Many of NASA's other programs were scaled back in favor of “green” research.

Obama proclaimed “this is our generation's Sputnik moment” which was puzzling to say the least. Anyone less than a half century old probably did not get the connection. His was a clumsy metaphor.

To be sure, the SOTUS avoided depth and appealed more to people's feelings with flowing rhetoric and smooth platitudes. In that case, one may wonder if there is any difference between the SOTUS and Superbowl beer commercials.

SOTUS 2011 quickly fades. Words. Just words. Does anyone even remember them now?