My Fellow Citizens;
If you’re like me, that whole speech last night is a bit of a blur. In fact, it was almost blurry enough. Almost. If Bush wins the election, next year I’m going to have to resort to some of those harder drugs that the kids have apparently stopped taking these days. Facile lies and unkeepable promises are so much easier to take when they come out of the mouth of a seven-foot tall magenta lizard.
Anyway, I’ve prepared this partial guide to what was said and what wasn’t last night. Annotation was a tougher task this year - after last year’s contretemps over all those really detailed references to certain weapons programs, this SOTU address strenuously avoided names, numbers, and - when possible - nouns:
“Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities…” - This line will be quoted quite a bit in the coming months, and you have to admire the carefulness of its construction. For instance, note that Bush didn’t say “weapons of mass destruction programs-related activities.” Word order is important - he’s talking about activities in programs related to weapons of mass destruction. There’s a difference. In this construction, the Iraqi Beaker Manufacturing Collective’s annual softball game would qualify. [By the way, the final score was The IBMC All Stars 17, Saddam’s Sluggers 12 (Kay Report, page 6711).]
“Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands — (applause) — Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. (Applause.)” - Even a Democrat like myself has to acknowledge that this is a nifty bit of presidential sarcasm. Amazingly, all but one of our 35 allies (Britain) managed to avoid any fatalities whatsoever until long after the war had ended! Given the enormous breadth of the coalition, that’s pretty impressive. One can only hope that US military commanders can pick up some pointers from their Macedonian and Latvian counterparts while they have the chance.
“Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)” - Remember: When gays start marrying people, only married people will be gay. Or something like that. The point is, we’ve had 27 amendments to the Constitution, and not a single one has involved excluding a group of people from something. That’s a little embarrassing. This one would finally fix that problem.
“In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. (Applause.) This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people’s money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years. (Applause.)” If you’re like most Americans, you’re not quite sure what limiting the growth of discretionary spending to 4 percent means, though it does sort of sound like a way to reduce the deficit to some extent. If you’re an economist, you are crying. It’s roughly the same as saying that the coming year will see a massive reduction in budgetary spending-related program activities.
“And tonight I pledge that we are going to track down and capture the man who planned the 9/11 attacks, the man who founded and to this day leads the Al Qaeda terrorist network, Osama bin Laden.” - Oddly, this line wasn’t actually in the speech. TelePrompTer error or something, I guess. The President did mention Saddam Hussein by name five times, though, and September the 11th three times. So that’s something.
__________________________________
All-in-all, the State of the Union Address served its purpose and also managed to break some new ground. This year’s speech, for instance, featured the first sarcastic applause break in SOTU history (”Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. (Applause.)”). That, at the very least, is progress.





35 comments
Landis
January 21, 2004 at 1:33 pm
1I’ve heard this quote several times in relation to a marriage amendment and I’m always left wondering what we should consider the 18th amendment:
That being said it’s hard to believe he actually came out and said it. The idea of an amendment to this effect is very scary.
I didn’t get to play the drinking game last night, but I sure felt screwed like the Future. I really hope he’s not around come next January or I’m going to have to seriously consider asking temporary asylum in Canada.
Greg
January 21, 2004 at 2:06 pm
2Bravo, and thanks for the drug tip. But that doesn’t always work. There’s nothing soothing about a reptilian Condi Rice.
Hillary
January 21, 2004 at 2:23 pm
3the drinking game was great.
my two favorite moments were when (on CBS) they caught Hillary rolling her eyes at something and when they got some representative sleeping. The expressions on the “representative service members” faces were also amusing.
Bob
January 21, 2004 at 2:47 pm
4[By the way, the final score was The IBMC All Stars 17, Saddam’s Sluggers 12 (Kay Report, page 6711).]
Which would explain why the All Stars vanished shortly after the game.
Leftbanker
January 21, 2004 at 2:56 pm
5I watched the address with a German friend of mine. Although he speaks fairly faultless English it was necessary for me to translate Bush’s cynical speech almost line-for-line. Example: Sure, the economy is better–if you own capital (preferably a defense contracting firm). I wasn’t paying attention closely but didn’t he say “nuke-you-ler?”
tess
January 21, 2004 at 3:08 pm
6tbogg certainly caught the “nu-cyu-lar” as did his daughter who called bush a moron. i managed to miss the entire thing because i was at work late again without overtime because i’m considered a white-collar worker. the upshot was that i dont’ have a raging hang-over right now, or an aneurism from listening to our preznit talk.
tim
January 21, 2004 at 3:45 pm
7Tom Brady was there! Go PATS!
Oh, and Bush said a bunch of stuff. Whatever.
Chicory
January 21, 2004 at 3:56 pm
8How about this?
“All of us — parents and schools and government — must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children.”
“The culture”? Whose? Parents, schools, government, all of us ARE the culture. Duhuh!!! When will Shrub start doing his part?
sly
January 21, 2004 at 4:53 pm
9My girlfriend didn’t want me to watch the speech because she hates it when I yell at the TV. I’ve had to resort to reading it, which doesn’t give Bush’s smug sum-bitch delivery it’s due, but is a little easier on my blood pressure. I would have liked to have heard the sarcastic applause, though.
Murray
January 21, 2004 at 5:53 pm
10And for all of its instantly apparent lies and stupidity, at least half of Americans ate it up.
I guess that more people than you think played your game and got sh*t faced, or perhaps sh*t brained. That would explain a lot.
drew
January 21, 2004 at 7:36 pm
11Yeah, Chicory, that line’s a keeper:
“All of us — parents and schools and government — must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children.”
“Yes, America is home of the bravest, hardest working, most idealistic, bestest folks in the world… God save our children!… as we lead the world into a bright and hopeful tomorrow!”
But to be fair, W’s doing his part. By not mentioning Osama, he’s further buried into oblivion that country song that rhymes “forgotten” with “bin Laden.” Thanks, W, for your contribution!
aaron
January 21, 2004 at 7:56 pm
12You damned liberals are all the same.
“Bla Bla Bla Bla, Bush can’t pronounce words” or “Bla Bla Bla Bla, he’s wrecking the environment to put a few more bucks in his friends pockets” or “Bla Bla Bla Bla, he never caught Osama and wants the country to forget about him and blame 9/11 on Iraq, who had nothing to do with it.”
Even YOU guys have to at least admit he was dead-on about the steroids thing, right?
gazould
January 21, 2004 at 8:24 pm
13Landis–alcohol isn’t people.
My friend Andy is too smart to watch the SOTU, but when I told him about weapons of mass destruction-related program activities he immediately realized that those activities would also include DISMANTLING weapons of mass destruction-related programs. So I guess the statment was accurate, but I wish I had thought of that.
Ananna
January 21, 2004 at 8:30 pm
14Yea, I’m tired of those steroid-enhanced NASCAR drivers!
Landis
January 21, 2004 at 8:36 pm
15I would say that the 18th amendment would “exclude a group of people from something.” The group: people residing in the US. The exclusion: alcohol for consumption.
But anyway….
Actually Bush was dead-on about steroids, and on the need for health care, and on the need for education. It’s just that his deeds and his words seldom seem to jive. It’s one thing to say something, it’s quite another to actually do it.
Mike Z
January 21, 2004 at 8:48 pm
16Re: exclusion in the amendments.
I think what Adam meant was that there is no constitutional amendment that excludes one sub-group of Americans but not others. Indeed the 18th amendment excluded the large “Americans” group from a certain activity, but don’t all (nonbiased) laws do that?
Brian C.B.
January 21, 2004 at 8:58 pm
17I started drinking before the speech. I found that this strategy made watching it much more tolerable. By the way, did this guy seem as though he was giving a similar speech back at the DEKE house summarizing the past year of panty raids and keggers, or what? As for the “international alliance” in Iraq, I was appalled. Currently, we’re begging the UN to return. Also, a real alliance would include more countries with defense budgets. The UK is practically the only ally that has a real army, here. The whole of the Australian military is something like 50,000 regulars. Spain and Italy are probably about the same size. If Tuvalu sends a couple of medics, should I feel a lot better?
Bob
January 21, 2004 at 10:04 pm
18“All of us — parents and schools and government — must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children.”
You mean it takes a village to raise a child? Man, Limbaugh’s going to be all over Bush like a cheap suit for that one. Unless he’s a partisan hack, of course.
Rusty
January 21, 2004 at 10:21 pm
19One item that caught my ear was shrub extolling Americans as being the most productive, hardest workers in the world. I’m not convinced that is a positive image. I see a lot of overworked parents with latch-key kids working their asses off because they are scared to death of losing their jobs. Being the most productive and hardest working must put US workers somewhere slightly above slavery but a hair below serfdom.
Chris
January 21, 2004 at 10:41 pm
20I loved the line on tax cuts (paraphrasing): “We need to put more money back in the hands of the American people. The American people know better than the government how their money should be spent.” I had just watched a West Wing episode (the presidential debates one) in which Gov. Richie of Florida had said *the exact same thing*. This was just the hour before Bush spoke!
Elliott
January 21, 2004 at 11:21 pm
21“I loved the line on tax cuts (paraphrasing): “We need to put more money back in the hands of the American people. The American people know better than the government how their money should be spent.”"
I love that line because we are just putting the money borrowed from financial institutions worldwide into the hands of the people who get the largest share of this payoff (or tax cut in the republican lingo). My children will be paying for this a**hole’s policies for years to come.
Anonymous
January 22, 2004 at 1:12 am
22No, ther’s no amendment stating that people couldn’t do anything, but there is one that says that a negro is worth (for both taxation and representation purposes) as three-fifths of a person. This held for essentially a hundred years, until the Dred Scott decisiion in 1856. We fought a war to get everybody on the same page.
My point is kind of to remind people that though our Constitution is pretty solid, it was written by men, and can be changed by men (the whol prohibition experiment). It’s ahrd to change it, so luckily enough the whim of the week maynot cause much damage (the “repeal the 2 terms and out amandment” Republicans tried with Reagan, and the “why you gotta be born here to be Pres” rumblings that people are throwing around with for the Gover-nator. the election of Bush should teach us something, we did misunder-estimate him, and need to be vigilant and smack our representative government around some adn remind them of the “for the people” part of their promises.
MisterB
January 22, 2004 at 2:29 am
23Hey, the Governator becomes President sometime in the next few years. I saw it in that movie “Demolition Man” so it must be true.
Seriously, though, has a State of the Union speech ever been full of such crap as the last two have been? I know it’s an election year, but honestly… Guess he learned his lesson from last year: Don’t say anything definite about anything and you won’t get caught making any factual errors that might get more than 500 American soldiers killed.
Landis
January 22, 2004 at 11:04 am
24You know, as long as the amendment issue was brought up, I’ve wanted to bring up my own. How about changing the presidency from a possibility of two 4-year terms to one 6-year term?
I know that those of us who don’t like Bush would be stuck with guys like this for an extra two years, but avoiding ever having to deal with presidential re-election politics might very well be worth it. Any way we could get this going? Are their major flaws in this theory that I’ve overlooked?
Georgettethegood
January 22, 2004 at 12:15 pm
25Six More Years! Six More Years! ?
I can hear the chants now.
The mind boggles, and remembers that once there’s a breach in the wall, it can be made wider.
(shudder)
Horrible to think of anyone …(exept maybe Aragorn) in a twelve year term …
Landis
January 22, 2004 at 12:30 pm
26Uh, no…. I said a single 6-year term.
No chants of any “more years”.
No pushing through an agenda that may not be best for the country because it will help get you re-elected. (Just pushing through an agenda because it will help you get a better funded retirement package from the companies you can “work for” later - hey, it’s not perfect but better than re-election politics.)
Evan
January 22, 2004 at 12:31 pm
27Landis–Jimmy Carter proposed that exact amendment in 1979.
I think folks are just too used to four-year terms to want to change them, but I do agree the idea has some merit.
Murray
January 22, 2004 at 1:28 pm
28I don’t know about you, but I wish that Clinton had the ability to run again. Despite his flaws he was a great president and if he were running again, would mop the floor with W. I don’t mind that FDR had 4 terms. If a guy is good why arbitrarily remove him?
A single 6 year term means he is a lame duck as soon as elected. His power is diminished if he can’t come back. All of these things are good and bad depending on who is in office. We want to free our choices to do good and limit or enemies from doing bad things.
Virginia has such a limit on their governors. I doubt that it is a benefit.
Chris
January 22, 2004 at 3:08 pm
29‘A single 6 year term means he is a lame duck as soon as elected.’
Hmm? He would be there for the next 6 years, guaranteed, and that would make him a lame duck how? I’m not disagreeing, Murray, I just don’t understand your argument.
Diana
January 22, 2004 at 4:54 pm
30so if the sanctity of marriage must be preserved from these liberal judges - why not make adultry illegal (with fines and jail time) after all a marraige is between a man and a woman not a man, a woman and the au pare.
Murray
January 22, 2004 at 6:17 pm
31Chris,
As an outsider, what I believe the pundits mean is that during an election the head of the ticket can help carry the others. So a president can campaign with representatives who then owe him big time. This promise or the threat of not helping can do a lot to keep those pesky congressmen in line. Also if you know that a president can’t serve beyond a certain time, it means that you can wait him out on judicial appointments. To be honest it is not a terribly strong argument. I guess I’m guilty of parroting the pronouncements of popular pundits.
I can see good and bad in each system. It just seems unlikely that if something as detrimental as the Electoral College is retained because of tradition, a 6 year single terms would not have much chance.
Ken
January 24, 2004 at 8:24 pm
32I don’t know about you, but I wish that Clinton had the ability to run again. Despite his flaws he was a great president and if he were running again, would mop the floor with W.
My friend had this idea (and with a glance over the constitution, I think it’s legit):
Whoever gets the Dem nomination selects Clinton as vice president. After the victory party, he resigns, Clinton takes the top job and selects the retiree as replacement VP. Then he turns to the camera and says, “Hey Rush and friends, Na Na NaNa Na.”
Sharoney
January 25, 2004 at 12:39 am
33When Preznit Short Order Cook talked about the sanctity of marriage, did he point out Britney in the visitor’s gallery? I must have missed it.
Ellen
January 26, 2004 at 8:05 pm
34Isn’t the rule actually 10 years? Theoretically, Clinton could be reelected but would have to step down after two years.
Or something. It’s been three years since I took high school politics.
Student
January 26, 2004 at 9:52 pm
35I love Bush’s Mom and Apple Pie Tactics…
Let’s reinforce traditional marriage (because marriage is all about a penis and vagina, not love or committment)! Let’s get our kids off steroids (because that’s a problem that no one’s been addressing for the past 50 years)! Let’s go to the moon (because I wish I was a part of something actually meaningful)! Let’s improve nationwide education (even though in our Federalist system of government, that is the province of the states)! Oh yeah, and let’s fix that economy…sometime…somehow…magically…
You’d think that if he wanted to give some money for going to the moon or to Mars, he’d give a little more than the