I disagree....

George W. Bush is not a lame duck president. I don't think he'll be a lame duck till the next president is elected.

Lame duck (politics), an elected official who has lost political power (Wikipedia)

George Bush has political power, arguably more than the entire dare I say.... lame duck congress.

(disclaimer: the following is not a endorsement of a largely corrupt, and debatably, an incompetent administration, rather it is just giving credit in an instance where it is due, AND is arguing against any claim that the Democratic controlled congress and the news media have our best interests at heart.)

There is a vacuum of leadership in our legislative branch. The newly elected "American Majority" as the democrats like to call it, is too busy trying to make the president look bad by proposing uncompromising legislation that will not even be considered for approval. Nancy Pelosi even tried to undermine the Iraq war last year by strategically inciting Turkish-American tensions. This legislature is possibly even more morally and ethically bankrupt than the twisted administration that they were elected to fight against. The American public is well aware too (click link for a range of congress job ratings).

While the news media downplayed the State of The Union tonight (msNBC strategically talked about the presidential primaries instead with "State of the Union" still written on the bottom of the screen.... CNN and FOX were a little less blunt in their attempt to warp viewers minds) I was struck by several points of Bush's speech. In fact contrary to the pundits claiming it was a "rehash of prior State of The Unions" I felt it differed starkly. The fiscal conservative spirit of the GOP was back, and it wasn't just a "I'll ask congress to... blah blah blah" it was DO THIS OR ELSE. Let me outline:

First in regards to the expiring tax cuts, which more than likely will expire because Democrats will refuse to take it up, Bush boldly said this will amount to a TAX HIKE.

"Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who will see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders." -From transcript

This was followed by laughter, applause from myself, and then the following:

"Most Americans think their taxes are high enough. With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about the federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There is only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: Make the tax relief permanent.
Members of the Congress should know, if any bill -- raises taxes reach -- reaches my desk, I will veto it."

The commentators, namely Brit Hume, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews poo pooed Bush's budgetary items calling them insignificant. However I think they were purposefully ignoring it, and in the next few months I anticipate several vetoes.

"Next week, I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion. The budget that I'll submit will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012."

The CBO sees $219 billion deficit in 2008. That being said 100(18/219) = 8.2% of the budget. I would call that a significant cut, for example tax cuts tend to be 1-2% or even fractions of a percent. An 8.2% budget reduction, well lets look in history.

In 1993 the NY Times heralded Clinton on his reduction of The U.S. Deficit, any guess on the reduction?

U.S. Deficit Drops 7.1%
Now this was the fiscal year, which is different than the actual year which was listed below.

In 1993 the deficit had gone from 290.3 to 254.9 billion between 1992 and 1993.
100(35.4/290.3) = 12.2% reduction

This was the monumental shift in direction which would one day bring us to budgetary surpluses once again. Yes it was more than 8.2% but keep in mind the United States is fighting 2 wars, bailing out the sub prime mortgage crisis, still rebuilding New Orleans and dumping large sums of money into a beefed up post 9-11 "Homeland Security".

Back to the State of the Union...

"American families have to balance their budgets; so should their government.
The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks, special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. committee reports that never even come to a vote.
Unfortunately, neither goal was met.
So, this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I'll send it back to you with my veto."
(Who is this guy... and what did he do with George Bush?)

Wait for it... there's still more!

"And tomorrow I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress.
If these items are truly worth funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote."

Seriously... I'm wiping away tears at this point, it is as though the guy awoke from some sort of coma. Perhaps he had been under some sort of voodoo spell conjured by Ted Kennedy from back when they partnered on "No Child Left Behind".

So according to the news, the vetoing of spending increases & pork spending, encouraging an 18 billion dollar budget cut amounting to 8.2% of the projected deficit, and an executive order to ignore earmarks that weren't voted on.....which could I might add bring about a Constitutional debate, all of this is INSIGNIFICANT, compared to a decrepit drunk (thought to be a murderer by some) endorsing Barack Obama.

Continuing......

"Our shared responsibilities extend beyond matters of taxes and spending. On housing, we must trust Americans with the responsibility of home ownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market.
My administration brought together the Hope Now alliance, which is helping many struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.
And Congress can help even more.
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages."

I am going to end dissecting and arguing with the claims of the media here. This last point is also key, and Chris Matthews went on and on about how Bush ignored the mortgage crisis. He wanted Bush to teach us all about fixed rate vs. adjustable mortgages.... which probably would be a good lesson for the masses to learn, but I hardly think the "State of The Union" is the time or the place to conduct such a lecture. Anyway, as you see Bush did NOT ignore the mortgage crisis.

And of course, there's the surge. While it didn't achieve it's goal of helping Iraqi's create a stable government, it has helped them stabilize the Nation. I was a naysayer myself, but the "surge" has helped and things are looking up. There is an opportunity build upon this progress.

I stand by the idea that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, and a horrible foreign policy blunder. That being said, we have a chance to potentially try and do good by our mistake and hopefully this country can rise to that occasion rather than abandoning Iraq into an anarchy which could catch like wild fire and spread to neighboring nations.

The suggestions of potential "fiscal responsibility" much like Bush's "Surge" and adjusted battle tactics (securing newly cleared out areas in Iraq rather than merely moving on and leaving them unguarded) are excellent examples of things Bush should have been doing ALL ALONG. These items are a few among many things that have made him a lousy president. But I suppose better late than never.......