Uh - what?

Asked to explain something about his policy on Social Security, Our Only President said on Monday

"Now, the temptation is going to be, by well-meaning people such as yourself and others here, as we run up to the issue, to get me to negotiate with myself in public," Bush told the questioner. "To say, you know, 'What's this mean, Mr. President? What's that mean?'"

Actually, that's a damn good question. What the hell does that mean? The charitable interpretation offered by the boot-licking media is that it's a different way of saying "No comment." To me it sounds more like an admission that he has no clue what the blazes he's talking about and is just making it up as he goes along.

It is, however, significant that this gobbledy-gook comes up in reference to Social Security, where Shrub and the gang have pointedly refused to say what they would do with the system beyond some actually vague references to private savings accounts. Indeed, he's even said that his intent is to convince Congress that there is a "crisis" - which does not exist - and only after that will he offer any real details of a program to deal with said "crisis."

This scores high on good politics and low on decency and honesty, but then again that's nothing new. If Shrub and the Shrubberies succeed in stampeding the public and Congress into accepting that there is a "crisis" that demands immediate and dramatic action, any plan the White House vomits up after that will get compared to other proposals for radical change - but not to the current system, since the decision that it is untenable would already have been made. In fact, defense of the current system would virtually be pushed off the table and proposals for adjustments could be dismissed with sneers of "inadequate fiddling." The fact that the few hints of its intents the administration has offered so far do not stand up well against the current system is why they want to avoid those comparisons being made - and being vague and evasive about what they have in mind serves that purpose.

The Dummycrats, of course, for all their supposed "toughness" and "resolve" are already acting mushy.

Some Democrats are saying, behind the scenes, that the party cannot simply oppose change. They are aware of how much the "obstructionist" charge worked against Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the departing Democratic leader, who lost in his re-election campaign.

Oh, jeez. The battle is only being joined and already they're thinking about how to surrender gracefully. A mass of big wet wimps.

You want to fight? Then stop cowering in fear of what someone might say about you! Stop thinking that the way to deal with a bully is to duck and cover for fear you might get hit - because you'll get hit anyway! In boxing, in chess - and in politics! - you have to try to think of what your adversary might do so you can be prepared for it when it comes. Why is that so hard for these people to figure out?

"They call me obstructionist? Damn straight! When they try to destroy rather than build, I will obstruct them! When they try to undermine rather than support, I will obstruct them! When they try to steal your future with deceptions and distortions, I will obstruct them! There is no crisis in Social Security - Social Security is not going to go bankrupt, it is not going to disappear - and make no mistake about it, they are lying to you - they are lying to you - when they tell you otherwise.

"Does Social Security need some minor adjustments to protect it far, far into the future? Probably. But I say again, there is no crisis! And whether you are 60-something or 20-something, Social Security will be there for you when you need it. That is, unless they get their hands on it. Because they are like people who will look at a house with a few broken windows and propose burning it to the ground. And if someone stands in front of that house and says 'Why not just fix the windows?' they will cry 'Obstructionist!' Well, I say that in a case like this, in a situation like this, faced with their deceit, 'obstructionist' is a label I will wear with pride - because I would rather be an obstructionist than a destroyer."

Footnote: On a related issue,

Bush, asked about the need to address Medicare's funding problems, said those issues were tackled when the prescription drug plan was added.

"It introduced market forces for the first time, provided a prescription drug coverage for our seniors, which I believe will be cost-effective," Bush said. "I recognize some of the actuaries haven't come to that conclusion yet, but the logic is irrefutable."

Ah, the joys of being part of the faith-based community. The logic is irrefutable - so it doesn't matter if the facts don't match up, because truth is not found in facts.