Watching another State of the Union last night has convinced me once and for all that it has outlived its usefulness. Once a year, the President is "required" to come before Congress and report on the "State of the Union", as if we didn't already know. Once he is up there in front of the teleprompter, he can say whatever he wants. No matter who is president, Democrat or Republican, they all sound pretty much the same. Even a master orator like Obama is reduced to a somnalent drone much like Norman Finkelstein.
Who is Norman Finkelstein, you ask? You don't wanna know.
"I don't think that's funny."
Last night was no exception. It is all pretty much like a combination of the Oscars and the run-up to the Super Bowl. All fluff and no substance. It is pretty sickening to watch all those back-slappers and ass-kissers otherwise known as senators, congressmen, and congressbabes standing on the aisles and getting themselves on camera as they mob the president. What a sorry spectacle. Then there are all those standing ovations every 20 seconds that prolong the speech into over an hour. That's not counting the opposition response, which, in this case, the mad-hatters over at MSNBC are going to rip to shreds anyway.
Of course, this year, the dopey Republicans threw away their chance to show off their House majority to the nation when they agreed to sit next to the Democrats. One of the few entertaining aspects of these circus performances is watching one party stand and cheer while the other sits on their hands. (Poor old David Dreier had to sit next to Maxine Waters. They had announced that they would dress in a color-coordinated fashion. Unfortunately, David's bright red suit was at the cleaners. ) Was Hillary wearing her usual pant suit to hide her "shapely legs"? All I remember was she was dressed in some bright blue something or other. Anything she wears looks like a circus tent or the Minneapolis Metrodome anyway.
But seriously, do we really learn anything from these speeches? It's just the administration's spin on everything from world affairs to Joe Jones' dry cleaning store in Bullsnuts, North Dakota. The SOU is clearly an expenditure of time, money and attention that we no longer need. It merits about as much attention as some show Sports Center would put on while the other guys are showing the NFL playoffs, you know something like a women's billiards tournament or a full-hour TV ad showing you why you need the Handy-Jack.
What's a Handy-Jack, you ask? You don't wanna know.
So let's make a change we all can really believe in. If it takes a constitutional amendment, bring it on. No more State of the Unions.
And no more equal time responses from Handy-Jack.
"Now that's funny!"
8 comments:
Okay we can do away with the "state of the union" address so long as we still get to hear Michelle Bachmann tell us about how the founding fathers fought tirelessly to end slavery.
The speech remains a good source of video clips that repeat that we are going to have transparency in government, do away with earmarks, reduce the debt, etc.
Obama remains a good teleprompter reader but the refrains are repetitive and hollow. Like statists everywhere, he finds crises everywhere and proceeds to "do something" about each of them ... regardless of the cost, the effectiveness, or the consequences. They all cost money, increase the size of government, and limit liberty of the people.
Someone counted close to 50 new agencies that would be created if we followed his proposals just from last night.
.
I can think of nothing more important to occupy the attention of two thirds of both houses of congress and three quarters of the state legislators than passing a constitutional amendment relieving the president of the duty to provide congress with a report on the state of the union.
Hoa about a quick voice vote by acclamation?
The Tea Party wouldn't stand for it. There is no constitutional provision for amending the Constitution by acclamation.
Before Woodrow Wilson's presidency, most presidents delivered the State of the Union as a written report.
Then came radio and TV, and now we have the annual pep rally. (hey, shouldn't we excuse the military and Supreme Court from the event?)
In a document not widely covered or taught in American schools, the Constitution requires that
"He [the president] 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."
Ok, I propose that Mr. Obama skip the speech in 2012 and instead publish his remarks on the White House Facebook page.
From "... time to time..." could also be once every 3 or four years, especially for Mr. Obama. We would all be better off if both he and Congress stayed in recess more of the time. They seem compelled to make up exaggerated disastrous situations and then "DO SOMETHING" about it... which always makes things worse in the long term. Of course this is an exaggeration, but we get things involved with economics fixed sooner and better when you get out of our way and leave us alone.
.
It could be every week Miggie. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
You can't blame Wilson's decision on TV, and Roosevelt made use of radio far more often than the "State of the Union" required.
But I agree, an informative report would be better than a public speech. On the other hand, when is the last time you read a wide-ranging report on a subject as large as "the State of the Union" that was informative?
Post a Comment