State of the Union

Nick Gillespie | February 2, 2005

From USA Today's account, here's what to expect when Bush starts talking:

Bush will spend the first half of his speech on Social Security and other domestic issues. He will talk about keeping the economy growing by giving workers better education and job training, passing an energy plan that reduces dependence on foreign oil, and limiting liability and medical-malpractice lawsuit awards to hold down business and health care costs.

He will repeat his pledge to cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2008 and will propose that spending on things other than defense and homeland security be limited to an increase less than 1%. That means some domestic programs would be reduced or eliminated.

He will repeat a controversial call for immigration reform that would establish a guest-worker program for legal immigrants. He'll talk about creating temporary-worker status for some of the millions who are in the country illegally.

The second half of the speech will be devoted to foreign affairs, primarily Bush's assessment of progress in the war on terrorism, efforts to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians and the work toward stability and democracy in Iraq. He will say the Iraqi elections show his policy is working.

Whole thing here.

The speech reportedly ran 40 minutes in rehearsals, sans applause, standing O's, etc. So it could be quite long...

Comments

|2.2.05 @ 9:05AM|#

Is anyone planning on watching it?

|2.2.05 @ 9:06AM|#

And for those who wish to play along, the SOTU 2005 drinking game.
http://www.drinkinggame.us/

Given how many times he used the term 'freedom' in his Inaugural speech, this one rule may have to be eliminated for lightweights.

Yes, this night could be very long...

|2.2.05 @ 9:08AM|#

"He will repeat his pledge to cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2008 and will propose that spending on things other than defense and homeland security be limited to an increase less than 1%. That means some domestic programs would be reduced or eliminated."

Yeah, wouldn't want to cut military spending, nosiree. I mean, they're running on a shoestring budget already.

"He will say the Iraqi elections show his policy is working."

I liken the elections to a flywheel in a car. Sure, the car needs the flywheel to run, just like a representative democracy needs free elections to run. But if I open up the hood of my broken-down old car, and manually spin the flywheel with my hands, does that mean that the car itself is working? Not really. Bush's logic is rediculous, but not unexpected. His track record speaks for itself. "Mission Accomplished". The whole "we found WMD's! I was right all along" episode. Etc., etc.

|2.2.05 @ 9:14AM|#

At least it won't get held up by a standing ovation for his immigration reform..good luck with that one, GWB, I'm rootin' for ya.

Warren|2.2.05 @ 9:25AM|#

The tyranny of the second half of his speech is of course already in place and faces no serious opposition to it's growth.

The emancipating vision of the first half remains a political fantasy. One that regularly receives lip service and at best, short term victories that are soon trampled under subsequent assertions of centralized power.

This is so fucking depressing, I think I'll watch it at the bar.

|2.2.05 @ 9:48AM|#

Because as Gillespie knows, the only thing worse than a long Clinton speech is a long Bush speech. The "obviously reading this" Bush factor nips the Clinton "extreme bathos" at the line.

|2.2.05 @ 9:58AM|#

I think he is doing a good job. After 9-11 he went right after the iraqis to show them that they will not get away with it this time.

|2.2.05 @ 9:58AM|#

Ay Caramba!

|2.2.05 @ 10:19AM|#

All the problems what we got in this country be because of the white mans descrimination.

|2.2.05 @ 10:23AM|#

"So it could be quite long..."

...and in important news, did y'all hear that Phil Jackson may be coming back to the Lakers?

|2.2.05 @ 10:29AM|#

What, no Mars mission?

Shouldn't the rate cuts from 2001 have boosted federal revenues enough to cut the deficit by now?

|2.2.05 @ 10:30AM|#

"He will repeat his pledge to cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2008 and will propose that spending on things other than defense and homeland security be limited to an increase less than 1%."

If he repeats this pledge and makes that proposal, it won't even be funny--it'll just be insulting.

sage|2.2.05 @ 10:31AM|#

Hey tyrone the troll, that's old already. Come up with some new material.

|2.2.05 @ 10:31AM|#

...and in important news, did y'all hear that Phil Jackson may be coming back to the Lakers?

Maan ... that be cool!

The tyranny of the second half of his speech is of course already in place and faces no serious opposition to it's growth.

Yup, I thinks he done gonna tell us that a hole lot a bad shit is gonna like fuckin go down man.

|2.2.05 @ 10:44AM|#

Republicans have released (or it has been leaked) a "playbook" on Social Security. The playbook is over one-hundred pages long. Here is the link.

|2.2.05 @ 10:54AM|#

SOTU addresses, just like every other public utterance of the POTUS, are not supposed to be taken for truth. They are exercises in legitimating discourse directed at the masses and providing themes for intellectuals in the service of the regime to parrot. The POTUS is not going to say anything interesting, but he will be able to frame issues in a manner which permits the regime to obscure what it is really up to. My fear is that the current POTUS might actually believe the things his speechwriters come up with him to say.

|2.2.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution simply requires that the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient". Nowhere does it say that it has to be an actual speech -- a written report would more than likely suffice.

Now, around the time of the Clinton impeachment, there were a number of people who suggested that he do exactly that. I only wish that he had, and that it would catch on...

|2.2.05 @ 11:10AM|#

Whatever one might think of the person giving the speech and the things he's saying, I've never been able to tolerate the tone of the speech and the constant applause lines. Stephen Colbert did a great imitation of a typical SOTU speech a few years ago.

"I'm going to eat a burrito. It will be meaty. It will be spicy. (Voice now rises as his fist shakes and the words come out slowly with equal stress) And it will be delicious."

And then they show footage of Congress applauding.

For every President it's the same act. They have it down to an art form. No matter what they say, as soon as they start up that rhythm, applause becomes inevitable.

We could put a stoner hippie up there in a suit, and as long as he hit that rhythm the whole Congress would applaud.

"This whole speech thing is groovy man. It seems so phenomenal. It's totally rad. (Voice rises as the next sentence comes out slowly with equal stress on each syllable) And I need a toke to commemorate it!"

(Congress applauds)

|2.2.05 @ 11:15AM|#

So if Bush comes out tonight and sees his shadow, does that mean at least six more weeks of bad speeches?

|2.2.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Not interested in anything Bush has to say. Maybe I'll just turn down the volume and say rude things when his lips move.

|2.2.05 @ 12:15PM|#

The best thing to do is to not watch it. Reading it afterwards is perhaps the best way to tackle the issue.

|2.2.05 @ 1:06PM|#

Evan Williams repeats an error that has become an anti-Bush rallying cry. joe did the same a few days ago.

The Mission that was Accomplished was the defeat of the Iraqi military forces. It went really well, and the warriors had something to be proud of (at least within their world). It was not the accomplished end of all struggle in the universe, or however the lefties want to extend it.

The flight-suit carrier landing was a public relations blunder, not a misunderstanding of the world situation.

|2.2.05 @ 1:27PM|#

That argument is less compelling, Dynamist, when you consider that the post-war "plan" for actually accomplishing the mission amounted to a breezy certainty that the political and security goals of the mission would solve themselves, quickly and with little effort on our part, once the Iraqi military was defeated and the Baathist regime toppled.

|2.2.05 @ 1:30PM|#

I didn't realize a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished" could cary so much subtlety and nuance!

|2.2.05 @ 1:34PM|#

Dynamist,
What you say is true, but you didn't see FDR popping the bubbly after winning in North Africa or making peace with Italy or even D-Day. Well, at least not in some big public ceremony.

There's a slight disconnect between saying this fight will be long and difficult and then landing on a aircraft carrier with a big Mission Accomplished banner. This is the same Iraq war, correct? Just because we're done with Saddam's army doesn't mean the war is over. There are a whole more worthy benchmarks between beating the Iraqi army and world peace. Heck, I'd say last Sunday was a more worthy event to celebrate. It's just that the one Bush chose to comemorate was among the easier ones (winning a traditional war in the desert).

|2.2.05 @ 1:34PM|#

Dynamist,

Quite. The forced confusion surrounding this issue is a bit tiresome, but deserves to be occasionally confronted. The mission that had just been completed and that the crew of USS Abraham Lincoln had been primarily involved in was the completion of the first of several military objectives in Iraq - ending the regime of Saddam Hussein.

For those that have forgotten:

"The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom.htm

|2.2.05 @ 2:09PM|#

"Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution simply requires that the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient". Nowhere does it say that it has to be an actual speech -- a written report would more than likely suffice.

"Comment by: Miles at February 2, 2005 11:09 AM"

Thomas Jefferson didn't like to give speeches so he gave written State of the Union messages. The next president to do them in person was Woodrow Wilson, who was proud of his speaking ability. (You would think Lincoln and TR would have given killer spoken SOTU addresses).

|2.2.05 @ 2:10PM|#

cthus:

In light of the events surrounding the war, that list reads like a comedy sketch script.

However, what truly amuses me is that Dynamist was able to so easily shift the entire discussion off on some tangent that focuses on a single contested statement that I made. The funny part is that the meat of my original statement regarding the elections was never really responded to...meanwhile, I see 5 posts with rather long average lengths all dedicated to the "mission accomplished" banner.

So, how about his assertion that the elections prove his policy is working? And how about the other example I threw out there about his "we found the WMD's!" declaration? Anyone care to discuss the actual topic of my post, instead of a tangential rant?

|2.2.05 @ 2:10PM|#

Bill Clinton, on his best day, couldn't spout bullshit so.

For those of you who don't remember, when the President landed on that carrier, it was a publicity stunt. The whole spectacle was intended for the American people.

|2.2.05 @ 2:32PM|#

Evan,

I posted before you, and not a single person discussed the drinking game. People post on what the like, this is not a strict forum debate, it's a comments page. But to indulge you a bit.

I'm unfamiliar with the Bush declaration of, "we found WMDs." offer a quote-link and I'll be glad to discuss it. It seems unlikely that that was said as the BushCo line of NOT finding expected stockpiles of WMD has been used as part of the most common criticism of the war.

As for your analogy it works somewhat for an illustrative device, but it breaks down at a key level.
"I liken the elections to a flywheel in a car. Sure, the car needs the flywheel to run, just like a representative democracy needs free elections to run. But if I open up the hood of my broken-down old car, and manually spin the flywheel with my hands, does that mean that the car itself is working?"
Had Bush or the military cast all of the votes in the election, then you could liken it to them manually spinning the flywheel. This was not the case and the election itself was run in no small part from internal mechanisms. While the military did play a role in -keeping with your analogy- stopping the neighbors from taking an axe to the flywheel, the Iraqis themselves cast the votes without guns to their head (and despite threats and bombs to stop them).

As for Bush (potentially) stating that the success of the elections shows that his policy is working (note: not, has worked), this is obviously an arguable point and only time will indicate if it was correct or not. You could certain put forth an argument to counter this, but your limited analogy simply doesn't suffice with most people outside of your choir. In the future, an anology is a good device to help exoplain or support an argument, but it in and of itself is not a very strong argument.

|2.2.05 @ 2:51PM|#

"In light of the events surrounding the war, that list reads like a comedy sketch script."

I would disagree. Stating it doesn't make it so. War is a chaotic situation and many things do change. Still, much can be learned by looking back at original plans and objectives, and seeing how they were changed/affected by events. Let's take a brief look at each.

First, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein - Done, mission accomplished.

Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton - Ended/suspended, very few found (about three dozen shells, mostly old mustard gas), this task was easier than expected on the military end, though the process of searching was rather extended and did cost lives. The mistakes here seem to be on the intelligence end rather than the military end.

Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country - Ongoing, while some success has occurred, significant influx of additional terrorists (estimates of about 5% of insurgency are foreign terrorists) has made this task more difficult.

Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks - Ongoing, though much of the work left to do is in translating documents. The continued terrorist presence in Iraq has led to additional oppurtunities to collect intelligence.

Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction - Ongoing, similar to above, though notable success here in disrupting AQ Khan network.

Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens - The first part is complete, sanctions are ended. The second part was not as necessary due to lack of large refugee situation, but still ongoing on a smaller scale in places like Fallujah.

Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources which belong to the Iraqi people - Oil fields largely secure, though pipeline attacks make this ongoing.

Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government - Ongoing, with one major step completed this past Sunday.

|2.2.05 @ 2:59PM|#

"For those of you who don't remember, when the President landed on that carrier, it was a publicity stunt. The whole spectacle was intended for the American people."

Yes, I agree; and it hurt him a small amount in the political arena later. But also remember that the crew of the USS had just completed 10 months out at see where they took part in the mission to remove Hussein's regime from power. Their mission, and the first major mission of OIF, was accomplished. The Navy came up with the poster idea, the WH agreed, had it made and flew it out there. These two things, both of which I rmember well, are not mutually exclusive.

Again, it was a bad PR move for Bush that the WH likely wishes they got to do over, however, it is not a very effective criticism of the war itself.

|2.2.05 @ 3:01PM|#

That all said, isn't anyone else playing the SOTU drinking game? Come on, you know you want to. Take Thursday morning off.

|2.2.05 @ 3:28PM|#

Evan: I was making a tangetial comment. I object to the continuing logical fallacies of anti-war or lefties (righties and stasists, too). Propagating a misunderstanding over the banner is likely some combination of ad hominem and poisoning the well.

If you understand the banner was about the military campaign, and to recognize the troops, then your continuing use in this context seems to be "lying" by the definition as applied to Our Fearless Leader.

|2.2.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Mo: In those cases, military campaigns were ongoing. We did celebrate the hell out of VE Day before VJ Day was achieved. I guess some people were irrationally optimistic...? :-)

|2.2.05 @ 4:17PM|#

The military campaign was NOT accomplished, Dy. The enemy just adopted a different set of tactics. Claiming that the mission had been accomplished was not a lie, so much as a symptom of the misunderstanding this adminstration had (and continues to have) about Iraq and the War on Terror in general.

|2.2.05 @ 4:34PM|#

joe,

The entire campaign was not accomplished, but the mission of removing Hussein's regime from power was. The fact that parts of that regime faded away in order to come back and fight, does not mean they are back in power. That we weren't ready for the extent with which this happened is indeed a legitimate crticism of both BushCo and the military command, and to a lesser extent CIA (for lack of intel on this plan).

While this has certainly made accomplishing some of the other goals in Iraq harder, those goals were not part of the mission in question with regard to USS Abe or the sign involved in the PR blunder.

|2.2.05 @ 5:52PM|#

We could put a stoner hippie up there in a suit, and as long as he hit that rhythm the whole Congress would applaud.

That would be really cool, man.

|2.2.05 @ 7:00PM|#

chthus: Well said. Pick on BushCo for their actual mistakes, not the ones we imagine they made. The shrillness of ABBs marginalizes them just as bellowing marginalizes neocons.

joe: I wish I could be Lady Dy. Take that any way you like...

|2.2.05 @ 7:04PM|#

Come on! Did anybody really think that removing Saddam from power was going to be anything but a cake-walk? Toppling the Baathists was about 10% of the job. A little early to patting each other on the back.

|2.2.05 @ 7:15PM|#

Arguing over the banner serves no purpose. The banner was a decoration. The event was a celebration. (Now my voice rises and my fist shakes) And the celebration was for our brave men and women in uniform!

APPLAUSE!!!!!

I know that emotions run high on this forum. Many people care passionately about their opinions. (fist starts shaking) But we cannot let these minor things divide us.

APPLAUSE!!!!!!

My fellow slackers, I ask you to look into your hearts and put aside your differences. Save your energies for the important issues, like Jean Bart's true identity. Together, we can continue to find new and ever more creative ways to waste time on this fine little corner of the Internets. God bless you, and God bless Hit and Run!

APPLAUSE for at least 5 minutes.

|2.2.05 @ 7:20PM|#

|2.2.05 @ 7:21PM|#

Hmmmmm "" HMTL for secert messages?

|2.2.05 @ 7:49PM|#

Thoreau,

I resent that slacker comment. I'll have you know I had a full and productive day multitasking from home. Not only did I fail to make much progress on my thesis and increase my advisor's aggravation, but I also engaged in lengthy and meaningless discussion on several internet sites, while simulataneously coming across various ridiculous internet sites like hasidicreggae.com to forward along to others.

And if that wasn't enough, I then went out for coffee and copious newspaper reading, followed by a trip to the bar for happy hour where I engaged both friend and stranger alike in conversation on topics ranging from old music we couldn't identify to just what that smell was.

Now on to the SotU drinking games; I'm working from home tomorrow as well.