On The State Of The Union

Or rather, on the speech about it, I agree with George Will (and Bryan Preston):

Between Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson, no one delivered this in person. They sent the report to Congress in writing. But, now we’ve turned this into this panorama. In which an interminable speech, every president, regardless of party — tries to stroke every erogenous zone in the electorate and it becomes a political pep rally, to use the phrase of Chief Justice [John] Roberts last year. If it’s going to be a pep rally with the president’s supporters of whatever party standing up and bringing approval and histrionic pouting on the part of the other, then it’s no place for the judiciary, no place for the uniformed military, and no place for non-adolescent legislators.

I wonder what the reaction would be if the president didn’t make the speech? Not that this president would ever pass up an opportunity to make a speech, of course. It’s his only area of semi-competence.

[Update a few minutes later]

SOTU Prom Night:

The Republicans who agreed to take part in this are like hacky sacks: easy to kick around and they get played by liberals.

I was never into proms myself, but I can see how a politician would be desperate if he couldn’t get a date.

23 thoughts on “On The State Of The Union”

  1. I wonder what the reaction would be if the president didn’t make the speech?

    To be fair, I believe Obama did pass on giving what could have been his very first SOTU in 2009.

  2. My, my, look at the disgraced little creature that’s slithered out of the shadows to jeer at the “filthy little hobbits” again…

  3. I’m sure the fact that Jefferson was renowned for being a terrible public speaker due to a speech impediment, and the fact that the speech had to be delivered unamplified into a room with poor acoustics, had nothing to do with his decision to send the report in writing.

    And your point would be…?

  4. In the Manifold Administration, the SotU will again be delivered in writing … followed within 48 hours by a joint session of Congress, at which a pop quiz will be administered.

  5. So Jefferson’s speech impediment and bad acoustics is the only reason all presidents didn’t used to give the speech in person?

    Yep. And Jack-in-the-Box sandwiches do talk, like Wilson, so they deliver the address in public. It all makes sense now.

  6. My point is that sometimes traditions get started for not-very-good reasons.

    Gerrib could have saved time and embarrassment by just agreeing with Rand and George Will. After all, that was their point as well.

    Titus; Bush called his address a SOTU in 2001. So did Clinton in 1993. Obama didn’t, but otherwise I accept your point.

  7. Leland – actually, Rand and Wills’ point was that giving a speech was a bad idea. Which, if your political opponent is good at making speeches, trying to silence him is a good idea.

  8. No one is trying to silence the president. We are entitled to think that SOTUs are pointless in general, regardless of who is president. But as I said, I can understand why it’s so important to someone whose only life skill is giving speeches.

  9. I’ll just read the text afterward. He’ll probably do a good job (assuming his backup teleprompter saves him in case his primary fails.)

    Here’s the beer game. Spot the lies, take a sip. We should all then be in condition for the aftermath (and two more years.)

  10. I’ve never in my life heard so much pre-analysis of a SOTU. I was sick of hearing about it by Saturday afternoon, and won’t be watching.

  11. Rand and Wills’ point was that giving a speech was a bad idea.

    Yes, because it wasn’t necessary for much of the first century of the US. Then Wilson started a tradition based on a bad idea. It has lasted ever sense.

    Apparently it has to be spelled out for Gerrib, but alas he’s still an idiot. Nobody is trying to silence Obama. If only 48 million people listened to the 2010 SOTU, then over 250 million US citizens thought it was a waste of their time. Count me with the silent majority.

  12. Leland – well, George Washington and John Adams thought it was necessary.

    See, this is the problem with the “we must be like the Founding Fathers” argument – the various Founders had different ideas about what was and wasn’t important.

  13. Chris Gerrib Says:

    48 million people watched the 2010 SOTU. Must be a lot of “political whores” in America.

    It could be, but then there are millions of Americans who think politics is the be-all and end-all of existence. They see everything in life and death through a political prism. Those people are the political whores. They’re also incredible bores to people who lead a real life.

  14. See, this is the problem with the “we must be like the Founding Fathers” argument – the various Founders had different ideas about what was and wasn’t important.

    Perhaps that true. I haven’t considered it, since nobody actually has made such argument. Is your point, “look at my straw, see how it burns?” Indeed, your straw burns very well.

  15. The song stylists of the professional SOTU speech writers comes with several selections. The “I did it MY way” which would imply some ego-centric notion that the president single handedly created some sort of economic growth however miniscule. The ever popular “We are Family” which implies, we are all going down on the same sinking ship.(everyone knows the words to this tune.) My favorite however is “She’ll Be Commin Round the Mountain When She Comes” *LOOK OUT* You’ve been warned time and again and you just don’t get it!

  16. Very nice Babs. Speaking of dances reminds me…

    In eighth and ninth grade I was in the Jr. Beta club and we hosted a few dances at the school. Getting called sir by some of the members of the bands we brought in was a bit weird. We asked a seventh grader if he danced with any girls and how was it? He said “sure, all I did was when they started to wiggle I just held on.”

    That still tickles me.

Comments are closed.