The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The State of the Union Thread For Discussing the State of the Union
ElJeffe
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Hello.
This is a thread for discussing the State of the Union. Here are some guidelines:
1.) Discuss the SOTU. Do not discuss things that are not the SOTU. Proper topics before the SOTU begins include "What will be in the SOTU?" or "Here's what I hope to hear in the SOTU!" or "Here are things commonly discussed in the SOTU!" They do not include "This is a policy Obama should mention, here is a 2000 word treatise on why it's a good policy" or "Let me tell you about how congress sucks." Here is a tip: if this page hits page 15 before the SOTU begins, you're probably doing it wrong.
2.) Do not be assholes.
3.) If someone is breaking guidelines 1 or 2, use the report button. You are not a mod. Unless you are Will or Jake or Elki, in which case: hey dudes, 'sup, you guys are totally mods.
This thread will persist after the SOTU for as long as it manages to not be terrible. So, you know, probably a good fifteen minutes. If you guys break this one, you ain't getting another one, so don't fuck it up, kthxbi.
This is a thread for discussing the State of the Union. Here are some guidelines:
1.) Discuss the SOTU. Do not discuss things that are not the SOTU. Proper topics before the SOTU begins include "What will be in the SOTU?" or "Here's what I hope to hear in the SOTU!" or "Here are things commonly discussed in the SOTU!" They do not include "This is a policy Obama should mention, here is a 2000 word treatise on why it's a good policy" or "Let me tell you about how congress sucks." Here is a tip: if this page hits page 15 before the SOTU begins, you're probably doing it wrong.
2.) Do not be assholes.
3.) If someone is breaking guidelines 1 or 2, use the report button. You are not a mod. Unless you are Will or Jake or Elki, in which case: hey dudes, 'sup, you guys are totally mods.
This thread will persist after the SOTU for as long as it manages to not be terrible. So, you know, probably a good fifteen minutes. If you guys break this one, you ain't getting another one, so don't fuck it up, kthxbi.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+10
Posts
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
pleasepaypreacher.net
<do not shill your stuff, duder>
unless anybody knows a better one.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
There will now be four GOP responses to the President's State of the Union.
This seems to me like it will be to the advantage of the real speech. A fractured opposition and the greater scale of the actual SotU should lend greater perceived importance (and rightly so) and gravitas to his speech.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
man that's going to piss some of their base off.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Is it conventional wisdom at this point that Obama will be purely focusing on domestic issues in a bid to maximize any sense of urgency and purpose to spur congress to do something, or will he be mentioning any of the goings on in other places?
If I remember right, they had one last year, but it was Rubio doing it in addition to the official R response. I assumed it was the same speech, just in Spanish, but in thinking more about it now, it was probably fairly different.
I know they want that sweet prime time slot but it just seems kind of late for the east coast (large portion of population ya know). Guess I'm lucky being mountain time, but those responses are going to be late and I'll probably go to bed before getting through them.
Earlier on my blog, I went through the history of opposition responses- or more to the point, who gave them. Spoilered for big, because the list goes back to 1966:
1967: Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Gerald Ford (R-MI)
1968: Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Charles Percy (R-IL), Howard Baker (R-TN), Hugh Scott (R-PA), John Tower (R-TX), Peter Dominick (R-CO), Robert P. Griffin (R-MI), George Murphy (R-CA), William Steiger (R-WI), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Poff (R-VA), George H.W. Bush (R-TX), Robert Mathias (R-CA), Charlotte Reid (R-IL), Albert Quie (R-MN), Melvin Laird (R-WI)
1969: No response
1970: William Proxmire (D-WI), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Scoop Jackson (D-WA), Ed Muskie (D-ME), Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Yarborough (D-TX), Philip Hart (D-MI), Donald Fraser (D-MN), Patsy Mink (D-HI), Carl Albert (D-OK), John McCormack (D-MA)
1971: Mike Mansfield (D-MT)
1972: William Proxmire (D-WI), Frank Church (D-ID), Thomas Eagleton (D-MO), Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX), Leonor Sullivan (D-MO), John Melcher (D-MT), John Brademas (D-IN), Martha Griffiths (D-MI), Ralph Metcalfe (D-IL), Carl Albert (D-OK), Hale Boggs (D-LA)
1973: No State of the Union
1974: Mike Mansfield (D-MT)
1975: Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Carl Albert (D-OK)
1976: Ed Muskie (D-ME)
1977: No response
1978: Howard Baker (R-TN), John Rhodes (R-AZ)
1979: Howard Baker (R-TN), John Rhodes (R-AZ), Bob Dole (R-KS), Barber Conable (R-NY)
1980: Ted Stevens (R-AK), John Rhodes (R-AZ)
1981: No State of the Union
1982: Jerry Brown (D-CA), Don Reigle (D-MI), James Sasser (D-TN), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Gary Hart (D-CO), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA), Alan Cranston (D-CA), Tip O'Neill (D-MA), Al Gore (D-TN)
1983: Robert Byrd (D-WV), Paul Tsongas (D-MA), Bill Bradley (D-NJ), Joe Biden (D-DE), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Barbara Kennelly (D-CT), George Miller (D-CA), Les AuCoin (D-OR), Paul Simon (D-IL), Timothy Wirth (D-CO), Bill Hefner (D-NC), Tip O'Neill (D-MA)
1984: Walter Mondale (D-MN), Joe Biden (D-DE), David Boren (D-OK), Carl Levin (D-MI), Max Baucus (D-MT), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Clairborne Pell (D-RI), Walter Huddleston (D-KY), Dante Fascell (D-FL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), William Grey (D-PA), Tip O'Neill (D-MA)
1985: Bill Clinton (D-AR), Bob Graham (D-FL), Tip O'Neill (D-MA), Robert Byrd (D-WV)
1986: George Mitchell (D-ME), Harriett Woods (D-MO), Charles Robb (D-VA), Tom Daschle (D-SD), William Grey (D-PA)
1987: Robert Byrd (D-WV), Jim Wright (D-TX)
1988: Robert Byrd (D-WV), Jim Wright (D-TX)
1989: Jim Wright (D-TX), Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX)
1990: Tom Foley (D-WA)
1991: George Mitchell (D-ME)
1992: Tom Foley (D-WA)
1993: Bob Michel (R-IL)
1994: Bob Dole (R-KS)
1995: Christine Todd Whitman (R-NJ)
1996: Bob Dole (R-KS)
1997: J.C. Watts (R-OK)
1998: Trent Lott (R-MS)
1999: Jennifer Dunn (R-WA), Steve Largent (R-OK)
2000: Susan Collins (R-ME), Bill Frist (R-TN)
2001: Tom Daschle (D-SD), Dick Gephardt (D-MO)
2002: Tom Daschle (D-SD), Dick Gephardt (D-MO)
2003: Gary Locke (D-WA)
2004: Tom Daschle (D-SD), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
2005: Harry Reid (D-NV), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
2006: Tim Kaine (D-VA)
2007: Jim Webb (D-VA)
2008: Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)
2009: Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
2010: Bob McDonnell (R-VA)
2011: Paul Ryan (R-WI)
2012: Mitch Daniels (R-IN)
2013: Marco Rubio (R-FL)
2014: Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA)
The takeaway is that it's not necessarily a guaranteed trainwreck. There are five future Presidents/VP's in there: Ford, Bush 41, Clinton, Gore, Biden. It makes sense to look at what they did.
What all five of them did was partner up with someone. Most of the time, they partnered up with a whole mess of someones. At bare minimum, Ford had Everett Dirksen by his side, but all five of them gave at least one response where the group was at least four people, and four of them (Clinton excepted) gave a response where the group was at least 11 people. They went in with backup, lots of backup. They had blockers running for them; Ford and Bush were even part of the same 1968 response. If they needed a drink or something, just cut to the next guy. Have friends. Have a unified voice. Have people to cover your weaker rhetorical points, your quirks. Have someone to shoulder some of the blame if the response goes wrong. Going in solo means if you fuck it up, you go down in flames alone.
Problem is, the 1986 response has been the last one to have more than two people, and since 2006, every response has been solo.
I sort-of find it odd. "This is how I have run the country so far. Isn't how I have run the country so far great? Glad you agree. Vote for my party."
Not many countries really have something identical to it (there's always the usual political tug of war throughout the year, but making a special occasion for the head of state to talk about how awesome his administration has been strikes me as, well... kinda masturbatory).
It's not like any administration is ever going to actually go on TV and say, "Yeah, we kinda fucked this thing up, didn't we? Vote for the other guy next time," (as hilarious as that would be).
It's a good thing because the bully pulpit is one of the President's best tools. Telling everyone what he wants to accomplish gives the country something to rally behind or oppose.
If nothing else, it gets people talking about the things the President wants them to talk about.
Article 2, section 3 of the Constitution requires it. "He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
Was a just written statement for a very long time though.
Oh man. I find that a lot funnier than I probably should.
Was that written in the original document, or added later?
I just have this image in my head now of a crusty old Jefferson scrawling that out while giving his colleagues sideways glances. "Alright. You know what you fuckers need? Self-assessment reports."
Or more precise, Jefferson thought it was like the King talking to Parliament (and didn't want to give speeches), so he just sent it over written down, and Wilson started talking again.
If it was added later, it'd be an amendment. It's part of the basic package.
NO
BAD
DO NOT DO THIS
i don't imagine it started as a 'Vote for me/my party' type deal, but rather would be the one time that the President could address all the the nations representatives at once. with the nation being so large and travel times what they were in until fairly recently* setting a date on which everyone was/is expected to be present makes a lot of sense.
*in the grand scheme of things
Better, probably, but also less controllable and less focused. I can see it being perceived as too risky.
on that note, could a President decide to do more than one a year? could he just waltz down there in say September and be all 'Listen up cause there's some shit i want you to do'?
more risky than letting multiple members of your party come up with and give their own separate response? surely having a single unified response from the opposition party is a better bet, even if it does take 11 people to deliver it.
There's a great West Wing line about this. Toby says that the president could "buy Congress a subscription to the Wall Street Journal" and fulfill the Constitutional obligations.
It's funny because it's true.
Depends on how you package it. I present you with the 1985 response, the one that involved Clinton. They ran it pretty much like an infomercial.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
We do this up here.
It's crap, honestly. Instead of a bunch of individual speeches, you get a frustrated 'moderator' who can't actually moderate anything because, hey, these are political leaders, and each person just takes a turn saying, "Guy/girl over there is a liar. Now listen to me try to compress my political platform into a marginally comprehensible 5 minute blurb."
I'm mostly a fan of Ye Olde Media and just buy Politician X's book (or get it from the library) if I want to know where they stand. Televised speeches feel so fake to me.
Nine so the West Coast can be home from work in theory.
The president can damn well schedule this thing so it doesn't interfere with watching Dr. Who/Community with my wife once the kids are asleep.
I think I'll do my usual routine of skipping the SotU and watching interesting bits archived on YT later. Mainly I'm interested to know how the administrations feels (or wants to present itself as feeling, or whatever) regarding the ACA roll-out.
...SotU speeches generally aren't used to fire shot at the opposing party, right?
They're statements of purpose.
In all seriousness, I hope that one of the themes will be the growing divide between the haves and have nots, Middle Class stagnation and how the poorest in America need to be able to have the opportunity to get to the top, given sufficient ability and drive. I realize that that will lead to cries of CLASS WARFARE and BIG GOVERNMENT from a fair number of pundits, but Obama's not running for re-election, and if the Democrats can sell his spin on it, they could use it to help win the vote in 2014. Being able to stabalize and reverse the growing class divide in America is probably Obama's best hope for a strong, positive legacy IMO.