State of the Union Address : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Manning Has Something to Say | Main | Why I Was Right »

State of the Union Address

Posted on: January 23, 2007 4:52 PM, by Ed Brayton

Tonight is the state of the union address, one of the dumbest and most ridiculous rituals of modern political discourse. It doesn't matter who is in the White House, this event is so mind-bogglingly inane that I can't imagine why anyone would willingly subject themselves to it. The President will deliver a 20 minute speech full of idiotic platitudes that will take an hour to deliver because the audience of legislators will interrupt him 1457 times to mindlessly applaud some absurd proposal that neither he nor they has the slightest intention of actually making a reality. By the end of the speech, the president will have promised to put a chicken in every pot as well as to heal the sick, comfort the downtrodden, free the oppressed, win the war, bring peace to the world, paint the house and do the laundry. No one in the audience actually believes any of that, of course, which makes the spectacle afterward, wherein a couple dozen talking heads gather together on the cable news shows to parse every frame of the speech like the Zapruder film, all the more ridiculous. The whole event couldn't be any more pointless if the president stood at the podium and read from My Pet Goat like he does to schoolchildren; that is precisely the level of discourse in the speech anyway and deserves to be taken about as seriously.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

I heard an unintentionally funny piece on NPR this morning, recapping all the times Bush has pushed his "guest worker program" in the State of the Union. We need a new acronym: SSDSOTU.

Posted by: Jim Anderson | January 23, 2007 5:14 PM

And don't forget he was reading 'My Pet Goat" upside down!

Posted by: Keanus | January 23, 2007 5:32 PM

By the end of the speech, the president will have promised to put a chicken in every pot as well as to heal the sick, comfort the downtrodden, free the oppressed, win the war, bring peace to the world, paint the house and do the laundry.

The real Hell of it is, Bush Jr. is too lazy even to make that many outlandish promises, and too stupid and immature to enunciate what promises he does make to sound convincing on TV. At least Reagan cared enough to go the extra mile to sound convincing to the people.

I'm almost afraid to watch the thing -- do we really need to see how he disgraces a great country next?

The good news is: Jim Webb will be delivering the Democratic response. Hopefully he won't disgrace his party.

Posted by: Raging Bee | January 23, 2007 5:32 PM

I admit to having listened to only one of Bush's SOTU speeches, partly because his deliver gives me fits, and partly because his content gives me fits -- and the two together push me to the liquor cabinet.

But this is a grand ritual, even if the current haunter of the White House is bit of a cold fish who blows the opportunities for good rhetoric.

I think you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, Mr. Brayton.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 23, 2007 5:46 PM

The good news is: Jim Webb will be delivering the Democratic response.

Why should the Democratic response be any more meaningful than the speech itself?

I've been speculating lately (to myself) about whether any president will ever say something other than "The State of our Union is strong" or some variant thereof. I would be pleasantly surprised if GWB's successor, be it a Democrat or Republican, threw in a little qualifier about how the country is going to rebound from the Bush administration under the new executive leadership.

Wishful thinking, of course...

Posted by: FishyFred | January 23, 2007 5:50 PM

Ed Darrell said:

But this is a grand ritual

I wholeheartedly disagree. A papal coronation is a grand ritual. A Superbowl halftime show is a grand ritual. My 4 year old daughter tying her shoes is a grand ritual. The SOTU is nothing but a bunch of ridiculous politicians cheering for another ridiculous politician that they either love or hate. And then more ridiculous politicans talking about how great or awful it was.

Hearkening back to Raging Bee's comment, I think Reagan could still sound more convincing that Bush today.

Posted by: Jason I. | January 23, 2007 5:56 PM

Want something even more ridiculous? MSNBC [or CNN?] is doing a six-hour run-up to the speech, with countdown clock and all. Six hours speculating on and commenting on what it is expected the President will say in a half hour speech, and on What It All Means, if he actually says it. Unbelievable.

Posted by: flatlander100 | January 23, 2007 6:23 PM

Here is the beginning of FDR's State of the Union in 1934:
"Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Senators, and Representatives in Congress, I come before you at the opening of the regular session of the Seventy-third Congress not to make requests for special or detailed items of legislation; I come, rather, to counsel with you, who, like myself, have been selected to carry out a mandate of the whole people in or order that without partisanship you and I may cooperate to continue the restoration of our national well-being and, equally important, to build on the ruins of the past a new structure designed better to meet the present problems of modern civilization. "

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/fr32/speeches/su34fdr.htm

"Build on the Ruins of the Past" would be a good line for the next president. 8^)

Posted by: KeithB | January 23, 2007 6:28 PM

Clinton did a good one even during the Lewinski thing. They don't have to be as inane as Bush makes them.

Posted by: Dave | January 23, 2007 6:28 PM

No, I didn't get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I have said the same thing for as long as I can remember and I stand by it. And no, it doesn't matter who the president is. Bush is a lousy speaker while Bill Clinton was a great one, but that only meant that a ridiculous speech was well delivered rather than badly delivered. There is nothing grand about this ritual. It is nothing more than a string of first-grade level cliches and platitudes, interrupted a gazillion times as grown up and presumably intelligent adults applaud lines that would sound hokey on the Andy Griffith show.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 23, 2007 6:53 PM

This one, with much postering for the cameras among the 12 or so presidential candidates in the audience and all the narrow-win Republican House members with one eye on Bush's poll numbers and the other on the freight train that is 2008 bearing down on them, might be good theater, if nothing else. It could be instructive to just turn the sound off and watch the body language.

Posted by: John Pieret | January 23, 2007 6:54 PM

But you have to admit it makes for fun drinking games.

- JS

Posted by: JS | January 23, 2007 7:18 PM

I long for the good old days when the president just sent a written report.

Posted by: Tulle | January 23, 2007 7:19 PM

I'm going to be channel hopping furiously to see when each broadcaster dumps George in favor of something that will actually turn them some revenue, rather than waste airtime by giving it away for free.

The last Little Georgie gigglefest was ignored by two channels in the Los Angeles area right from the outset.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | January 23, 2007 7:32 PM

But Tulle, then the talking heads couldn't spend hours parsing the significane of who was sitting with the First Lady during the speech, and who was not, who was introduced from the podium by the president [or at least acknowledge] and why. You wouldn't want to pass on that, now, would you?

Posted by: flander100 | January 23, 2007 7:44 PM

Huh. I thought all of our rituals were silly if ever exposed to a bright light. We make promises we don't keep at our weddings, we say things we don't mean at our funerals, we celebrate holidays by buying things we don't really need. Maybe the SOTU is just an extension of the solstice celebrations to cheer up the light-deprived with a little flag-waving.

Posted by: TW | January 23, 2007 7:55 PM

Bill Clinton a great speaker? Um, have you forgotten his 41-minute nomination of . . . whoever it was?

Point taken.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 23, 2007 8:08 PM

The problem is that this speech or something like it is constitutionally required. So the politicians have figured out how to take this constitutional requirement and turn it into something that will help their career and/or legacy.

The loophole... the grand loophole is: The constitution only says the speech has to be made. It doesn't say the speech has to actually *mean* anything. So... that's what it turns into.

Posted by: Russell Miller | January 23, 2007 8:28 PM

the president will have promised to put a chicken in every pot as well as to heal the sick, comfort the downtrodden, free the oppressed, win the war, bring peace to the world, paint the house and do the laundry.

Too bad he isn't promising to heal every chicken, give pot to the sick, comfort the free, oppress the downtrodden, paint the workd, win the laundry and ... or, like... whatever...

Posted by: doctorgoo | January 23, 2007 8:30 PM

It won't be on Animal Planet, so I'll watch that.

Posted by: twincats | January 23, 2007 8:43 PM

It won't be on Animal Planet, so I'll watch that.

"Pandemonium on Capitol Hill today as a chimpanzee was let loose in the House chamber. The chimp proceeded to inform those gathered that the state of our union was bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S."

Posted by: FishyFred | January 23, 2007 8:52 PM

Here's the likely text of the final speech: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2f.htm

Here is the response: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2w.htm

First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes.

I am NOT watching this.

Posted by: FishyFred | January 23, 2007 9:06 PM

I only tuned in briefly, long enough to see Dikembe Mutombo sitting next to the first lady, and about died laughing. If only there were a god, instead of standing up and waving he would have stood up and did the finger wag.

Posted by: Matthew | January 23, 2007 10:09 PM

DIKEMBE MUTOMBO.

Posted by: FishyFred | January 23, 2007 10:17 PM

I just finished watching the speech, Webb's response, and the commentary on PBS with Jim Lehrer plus Shields and Brooks. Webb said more in less than ten minutes with more power, logic, and common sense than Bush did in 50 and he was especially powerful on Iraq. Now, if Dubya would only listen to and heed Webb's advice, he might actually redeem himself, at least partially. But I'm not going to hold my breath. He's too dense to comprehend Webb's adult syntax.

Posted by: Keanus | January 23, 2007 11:05 PM

While I agree in general that the address has become more theater than anything else, I still try to watch if only to hear another Yale graduate say 'nuk-u-ler'. I also agree with keanus that Jim Webb was clear, concise, and incisive in a way Bush couldn't even understand, let alone match.

As a humorous side note, my wife, who pays little attention to politics to the extent that she had to confirm with me a couple of days ago that George Bush was a Republican, was lying half asleep next to me during the whole thing. When Bush said something about urging Congress to approve a bipartisan commission to study the Iraq problem, she rolled over and said, "Hm, I thought they did that already and he ignored them." I was somewhat shocked, to say the least. I replied, "Yes dear, it was called the Baler-Hamilton Commission, and he did ignore them." With that she was done for the evening. Sweet dreams honey!

Posted by: chris | January 23, 2007 11:19 PM

That's Baker-Hamilton, of course.

Posted by: chris | January 23, 2007 11:20 PM

Jesus, did he really ask for a bipartisan commission on Iraq?

Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 23, 2007 11:30 PM

The Constitution requires the president to report periodically on the state of the nation. It does not require him to do it via a speech, and many presidents, if not most [though none lately] have fulfilled the requirement by sending a report, not giving a speech I think.

Posted by: flatlander100 | January 23, 2007 11:36 PM

Jesus, did he really ask for a bipartisan commission on Iraq?

Below is the snippet from the transcript posted at whitehouse.gov (not .com):

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. It's why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us.

I could have sworn he said "Iraq", but then again, he's been saying all along that the war in Iraq is the war on terror.

Posted by: chris | January 23, 2007 11:54 PM

Here's another groaner:

A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of our citizens across our nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. We have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty, as well, to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. (Applause.)

I wonder if ol' Sammy Brownback was one of the ones applauding?

Posted by: chris | January 23, 2007 11:57 PM

Wow. My pet cockatiel is more coherent than Bush, and all he does is fly around, growling, pooping and singing.

I was referring to my pet at the end there. Bush cant sing.

Posted by: Baratos | January 24, 2007 12:15 AM

One West Wing episode (in season 3 I think) points out that the President could fulfill the constitutional requirement to inform Congress of the state of the union by buying them a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.

I watched Veronica Mars while Bush was on, then watched Webb. Felt like Webb's delivery was pretty dull except when he was talking about the war. Would have loved to see one of the Democrats' best orators, like Obama or Edwards, to really highlight Bush's sheer lack of public speaking skills. But I guess it would have been unfair to give either of those guys the opportunity when they're running for president against each other. Hmm... maybe they should have asked Bill Clinton to do it!

Posted by: Tom | January 24, 2007 12:40 AM

Well it seems as if his speech came out on par for the man.

But I read to day that Bush's "War on Liberty" has opened up a new front in Australia on tshirt slogans

Posted by: mc2 | January 24, 2007 1:47 AM

Don't compare the SotU to that book! I'm pretty sure that "My Pet Goat" actually does help people (young ones) -- to read, of course.

PS: I think the "upside-down" thing refers to a different book, and I'm not sure if it's doctored or not. But the funny thing is that it's a book about America -- fitting that this prez should be portrayed as having f'd it up.

Posted by: Daniel Morgan | January 24, 2007 6:41 AM

The Constitution requires the president to report periodically on the state of the nation. It does not require him to do it via a speech

As I recall, Jefferson wrote out all of his addresses himself, but then handed it over to the Clerk of the House to deliver. Don't have time to get a cite this morning.

Posted by: kehrsam | January 24, 2007 8:37 AM

It was cool to see Mutombo. I thought he was going to hit his head on the House ceiling.

Posted by: Lish | January 24, 2007 8:49 AM

I heard on the radio this morning that last weekends football game was viewed by 47 million people, the last American Idol episode had 40 million viewers and the State of the Union address had 12 million. OK, it is a long drawn-out mindless fluff of a speech to be sure, coming from a man that cannot speak well or be trusted to mean what he says, not to mention that it is delivered to an audience that appears to be a giant squad of cheerleaders, but it appears to me that trivializing the speech tends to trivialize the current state of affairs. Honestly, American Idol 4 times better? Bush is now on record stating what he thinks, he is accountable for what he says, so we listen and hold him to it, we listen and attack him where he is wrong. This is an opportunity (every year) to dream big for a few days and wonder what we can do better next year or what could be done with 200 billion dollars spent on the war in Iraq. I am sure it sounds cheesy (and I know I sound like a 12th grade civics teacher), but I think it is important for everyone to listen and participate in these types of events. Not everyone will understand iron triangles, habeas rulings and complicated foreign policy decisions, but this speech I dare say nearly everyone can have an opinion on (even if that opinion is that it is a dumb, boring meaningless speach).

Posted by: MG | January 24, 2007 8:52 AM

Why did anyone bother to watch it at all? The summaries, transcripts, interpetations, reactions and everything else is posted on CNN.com and every other major news website.

You get the same info without seeing all the butt-kissing applause.

Posted by: doctorgoo | January 24, 2007 9:15 AM

As I recall, Jefferson wrote out all of his addresses himself, but then handed it over to the Clerk of the House to deliver. Don't have time to get a cite this morning.

Yep. TJ thought it smacked of royalty appearing before Parliament for the President to appear before Congess. That set a precident of written reports until Wilson, who revived the speech. Then it flipped and flopped depending on the President until FDR established the modern procedure.

Posted by: Dave S. | January 24, 2007 9:28 AM

I still try to watch if only to hear another Yale graduate say 'nuk-u-ler'.

I liked vee-HICK-el.

Bush did admit that there was "global climate change." I forget, is that supposed to be something different than "global warming"?

Posted by: John Pieret | January 24, 2007 9:30 AM

The Constitution requires the president to report periodically on the state of the nation. It does not require him to do it via a speech, and many presidents, if not most [though none lately] have fulfilled the requirement by sending a report, not giving a speech I think.

In this modern era, it might be more appropriate for the President to deliver his report via text-message:

"YO CNGRSS R U THERE? TEH UNION RAWKS!"

Posted by: Alex | January 24, 2007 11:24 AM

MG wrote:

OK, it is a long drawn-out mindless fluff of a speech to be sure, coming from a man that cannot speak well or be trusted to mean what he says, not to mention that it is delivered to an audience that appears to be a giant squad of cheerleaders, but it appears to me that trivializing the speech tends to trivialize the current state of affairs.

No, it trivializes the idiotic soundbites about our current state of affairs, soundbites that everyone knows he doesn't mean.

Honestly, American Idol 4 times better?

I can't imagine why anyone would watch American Idol either, but that's a whole different column.

Bush is now on record stating what he thinks, he is accountable for what he says, so we listen and hold him to it, we listen and attack him where he is wrong...I am sure it sounds cheesy (and I know I sound like a 12th grade civics teacher), but I think it is important for everyone to listen and participate in these types of events. Not everyone will understand iron triangles, habeas rulings and complicated foreign policy decisions, but this speech I dare say nearly everyone can have an opinion on (even if that opinion is that it is a dumb, boring meaningless speach).

Well if you just mean that the speech is at the level that most of our ignorant population can understand, I fully agree. But that's precisely why it's not worth listening to for anyone who isn't an ignoramus and who actually has the ability to think. To someone who can think, it's not just stupid it's offensively stupid, 45 minutes of empty words that everyone in their right mind knows he doesn't mean (and not just Bush, no president ever means them). I fully agree that not everyone can understand habeas corpus rulings while everyone can understand "we have a duty to get America moving again." But the fact that they can understand the latter doesn't mean it actually means anything or is worth listening to. Indeed, the fact that such inane blather is aimed at those with no ability to understand issues like habeas corpus is precisely why the speech is so pointless.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 24, 2007 11:53 AM

I noted that in the speech Bush omitted mentioning any, that is any, red-meat issues. He didn't refer to Terry Schiavo. He completely skipped over abortion. Faith based initiatives were nowhere to be found. Gay marriage was wholly absent. He forgot about abstinence education. And stopping stem cells didn't rise to significance. The only reference--if one can call it that--was closing the speech with his usual "god bless." (I haven't checked but I'll bet the xian websites are burning up this morning with tirades over the omission of their unifying bullet points.) I'm sure the omissions were a conscious decision, but it would be interesting to know why. Was it because he wanted to be conciliatory and bipartisan? Or did he read the results of the November election and decided red-meat wasn't a winner? Yet, I'm sure he was lobbied fast and furiously to put the red-meat agenda front and center, the Iraq war be damned.

Posted by: Keanus | January 24, 2007 12:05 PM

This was Bush's best state of the union speech ever.

I have photographic proof.

Posted by: Zeno | January 24, 2007 12:28 PM

That's the best description of it I've ever read. Humorous and brutally true, you've described the exact reasons I don't watch all the pomp and circumstance. I get more consequential information--and a better use of my time--by reading the "do not remove" tags on my mattress.

Posted by: jason | January 24, 2007 12:43 PM

Mr. Brayton,

I think one of the differences in our opinions may be environment. As you state, someone in your position has the luxury of disregarding this event because you are on a level well above the usefulness of such a speech. You are probably surrounded by people of similar intellect and abilities as well, making it quite easy to dismiss the entire thing. I do not believe this is the case for most people (especially myself). Most of the political discourse I have with people is on a level not much above this speech. I would like to know the percentages of liberals and conservatives that understand the difference in progressive and regressive taxes. My guess is it is surprisingly low, but even Chris' half-asleep wife who cares nothing for politics can aptly point out how dumb it is for the president to ask for a bipartisan commission to review the ongoing struggle in Iraq. I can see how you could dismiss it entirely, but I think there are many out there (including myself) who may find some merit. I watch preseason football. The starters barely play, the teams don't try that hard to win and compared to the Super Bowl it stinks, but I still watch it. To say that because it is on a sub par level is true, I just don't know that I can go so far as you in my derision.

Posted by: MG | January 24, 2007 4:10 PM