Well, parts of this post have been percolating for less than a week, and others for several months...or maybe a couple of years. So bear with me.
Tuesday night was the State of the Union: that speech that, for me, is of such great constitutional moment that it is not to be missed--regardless of who the President is. This year's address, like the other twenty-odd SOTU's that I've seen (not that I remember the first few), was a mixed bag. I found myself oscillating between yelling "yes!" and "no!", between smiling and grimacing, at my computer screen as I watched the NBC webcast (definitely one of the "yes!" factors).
And now, as promised explicitly to Victoria, and probably implicitly to others, are some of the highlights, lowlights, and "ohnoyoudin'ts" of this years State of the Union:
"Thank you all. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, members of the Supreme Court and diplomatic corps, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens: Today our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King." Of course the opening is always the same, but I do think it was both wise and fitting to remember Mrs. King at the top.
There was of course, much said about the war in Iraq. No real surprises here. A valuable, if begrudging, acknowledgment that criticism from Congress has affected the Administration's approach. Again, the President is pushing for reauthorization of the Patriot Act. At the very least, it needs to be seriously reworked, limited--certainly not made permanent. Delaying the vote for reauthorization past the new year to allow themselves time to alter it appropriately (or decide whether they want to reauthorize it at all) is one of the better things that Congress has done of late.
Then, annoyingly, the President tried to defend the domestic surveillance program: "So to prevent another attack –- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority." Here, President Bush clearly misses the point. This sort of surveillance, from what my reading tells me, must be done with a warrant in order to be constitutionally and statutorily acceptable. Warrants are issued by a federal judge in a special proceeding (not public). President Bush completely bypassed this requirement, authorizing warrantless spying. Warrantless. THAT is the main problem. [If any of you guys have a clearer understanding of this issue, please comment about it--this is just the best I can make of it at the moment.] But as we've discussed here earlier, President Bush is a big fan of expanding presidential powers. This is not limited to one party or the other, because President Clinton engaged in the same sort of activity. It might be inherent to holding the office, although it works best when the President is from the same party that holds the majority in at least one house of Congress.
Let's turn to some better things. Take the Advanced Energy Initiative. Alternative fuels are good, right? Of course, I do have concerns. For instance, why are a bunch of government researchers in this area being laid off? And among the "alternatives" were zero-emission coal-fired plants. Um...coal is a fossil fuel, and a non-renewable resource, just like natural gas, and just like oil. We can't ignore the larger problem here: coal is only a band-aid fix, and those can get ripped off. Let's remember how dangerous coal mining is. Solar, wind, and nuclear energy also have their down sides, but I feel like there is more potential for progress as a result of research in these areas. Because wouldn't it be great to figure out some safe way to use/dispose of nuclear waste? I'm also a fan of increasing research for hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen-fueled cars, and ethanol. At least in the case of ethanol, I don't think we've figured out how to make it efficiently (more energy output from the fuel than input in making it). We need sustainable methods, after all. Maybe this deal would be a start, though.
Calling for Hamas to "disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace" was a good thing. Remember the last time militant Islamic fundamentalists were democratically elected in a country's first elections? Yeah, technically I don't either, but I think maybe it was Algeria, and I feel like maybe we attacked them and they ended up with non-democratic, oppressive government that was nevertheless not as intent on hating the U.S. I feel like the whole "trying to get Hamas to set up a government that the international community might eventually accept as legitimate" thing could be a better plan than bombs. But that's me.
Okay, a couple more domestic highlights, and then I'll identify the number one moment in the SOTU (which I know you've been waiting for with bated breath):
First, the President asked for his tax cuts to be made permanent. With the amount of things that are constantly changing in our economy, the domestic disasters that come up (like hurricanes), and the uncertainty on the international scale, we just aren't very certain about how the government's monetary needs will change from one year to the next. I'm just not sure "permanent" tax cuts fit with fiscal responsibility any better than bridges to nowhere, besides the fact that I'm not sure how meaningful permanency is in this context.
Secondly, the President wants the line-item veto. Clinton wanted it too. It's unconstitutional. Get over it. I was actually speechless at this point: who in his right mind would announce his desire for Congress to engage in unconstitutional activity with the American people as the audience?! Makes you wonder if he knows something about the new Supremes that got lost in the confirmation circus...
Thirdly, the guest-worker program is a smoke and mirrors show. The President emphasizes this idea in election years when he knows Congress isn't going to do anything beyond the most essential bill-passing. He did mention it in last year's SOTU, but do you remember hearing about it since then? Me neither. "Serious legislative efforts" on this front last occurred two years ago: an election year.
Fourthly, there's the plan to save Social Security. Here, as you know if you tuned it, Democrats gave a sarcastic standing ovation when the President mentioned that Congress had failed to act on this plan last year. This made them look like idiots. My favorite part was the next day when a bunch of them jumped in front of TV cameras to complain about how the President hadn't taken enough action in the past five years. Take a look in the mirror, guys. If Bush's ideas are so bad, come up with something worthwhile and get it passed. Otherwise, do yourselves a favor and avoid advertising your gross incompetence. You are handing Bush the imperial presidency on a silver platter when you do this, and losing your own votes at the same time.
Finally, more education stuff: "Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science....We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country." Any of us familiar with a) schools and b) NCLB knows the second part of this statement is a bunch of huey. Also, as important as math and science are, I prefer well-rounded children, don't you? What about the humanities? What about the arts? Hmmm...
And I felt like the ending was a little weak. When you hear a statement that begins like this, "Before history is written down in books, it is written in...", you expect something profoud. The last word was "courage." Maybe I'm just overly picky about these things, but that just didn't quite do it for me.
And now, what we've all been waiting for: the number one moment in SOTU 2006:
"The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.
"Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran."
Praise be, he called on the people. He should have been doing it for awhile now. This was a cheering at my computer screen moment. But I'm not going to explain it to you now, because you have already been reading this post for 1.7 years, and have perhaps missed SOTU 2007. And so I will end for now, but my next post will be on Iran.
