The State of the Union address is required by our constitution. Only the constitution specifies "from time to time" and the whole spectacle has evolved into a once a year political grandstand that is more notable for the gossip and festivities surrounding it than the actual speech.
To this end, some notes and tidbits on the 2006 State of the Union Speech so that "history" shall not be forgotten.
The Speech as delivered by President Bush was not so remarkable as I saw it. The very best SOTU speech I remember was delivered by President Clinton the January after he was impeached. In a knock-down, drag-out, scream-it-out speech meant to show the world Clinton wasn't going to take such treatment lying down, Bill waved his arms and promised free lunch for everybody, two puppies in every Christmas stocking and a chicken in every pot. While unbeknownst to us some fellow named Osama Bin Laden was deep in plot to kill our citizens and attack our buildings with our own airplanes.
President Clinton was a fine speech giver although he never said much of anything. Then again, I'm not convinced speeches are meant to do much of nothing, especially those SOTU things.
Came across this little bit of history, concerning the SOTU address and was intrigued.
George Washington gave the first state of the union address on January 8, 1790 in New York City, then the provisional U.S. capital. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson discontinued the practice of delivering the address in person, regarding it as too monarchial (similar to the Queen's Speech).
Instead, the address was written and then sent to Congress to be read by a clerk until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson re-established the practice despite some initial controversy. However, there have been exceptions to this rule. Presidents during the latter half of the 20th Century have sent written State of the Union addresses. The last President to do this was Jimmy Carter in 1981. . For many years, the speech was referred to as "the President's Annual Message to Congress." The actual term "State of the Union" did not become widely used until after 1935 when Franklin D. Roosevelt began using the phrase.
Prior to 1934 the annual message was delivered in December. The ratification of Amendment XX on January 23, 1933 changed the opening of Congress from early March to early January, affecting the delivery of the annual message. Since 1934, the message or address has been delivered to Congress in January or February. Today, the speech is typically delivered on the last Tuesday in January, although there is no such provision written in law, and it varies from year to year.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - RogerMDillon
MSNBC has a different heading for your Sheehan photo, which seems more accurate on appearance.
"Antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan is directed by security personnel to her seat in the House chamber Tuesday in Washington for President Bush's State of the Union address before her arrest."
"Cindy was allegedly given a ticket by...Lynn Woolsey."
No allegedly about it according to Woolsey herself. "I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight."
"If she had been arrested"
She was. That's why the unlawful charge was dropped. See MSNBC link above.
"77% of the respondents liked the speech while only 32% thought anything would come of all the grand promises."
So some who liked the speech didn't think anything would come from it? If so, then why did they like it? Seems rather odd.
2 - Pat Fish
Hmmm. That picture was on the FreeRepublic site and indicated it was Sheehan shown out. But it does look like inside a building to me.
It wasn't clear if Sheehan had been arrested when I wrote the article. I did know the "charges" were dropped so one would assume there had been an arrest.
I don't know that it's unlawful to be arrested for not moving when told to. But hey, Cindy's going to sue so let her have her day in court.
It doesn't take great insight to figure out they wanted to get her out of there.
As for the poll about the speech I don't think anybody thinks anything will come of SOTU speeches. I gave that up the year Clinton promised everybody free Cadillacs in their garages and free gas for life.
Doesn't mean you can't like the speech though.
3 - Bing
Patfish...how dare you insinuate that Bin Laden began planning 911 while Clinton was in office and Clinton somehow should share the blame.
Next thing we know you will be saying that there really wasn't all that much peace in the "peace in prosperity" days of Clinton because of the 93 WTC bombings, the USS Cole, the bombing of American embassies, Kosovo, and Oklahoma City.
You're so niave Patfish. It's obvious you're not an "enlightened progressive." Don't you know that Bin Laden and Al Queda loved us until the day we put George Bush in office and that's when they started planning 911.
And as for social security we all know that it's ok for the Dems to not have a plan to save it as long as they don't let George Bush "steal" it by allowing people to invest a small portion of it themselves.
4 - Michael J. West
Next thing we know you will be saying that there really wasn't all that much peace in the "peace in prosperity" days of Clinton because of the 93 WTC bombings
I wonder if I should insinuate that the '93 WTC bombings would necessarily have to be planned while Bush Sr. was in office and that Bush Sr. should therefore share the blame.
Naaaaaaaaah. Too obvious. Bing would never admit it anyway.
5 - Silas Kain
...And as for social security we all know that it's ok for the Dems to not have a plan to save it as long as they don't let George Bush "steal" it by allowing people to invest a small portion of it themselves.
Has anyone ever considered the fact that the majority of Americans don't have a snowball's chance in Hell if they're allowed to invest some of their Social Security deductions? Most of us can't add, write a simple sentence or vote. Why should we trust them to invest? Perhaps, after real education reform, we can begin to see whether Americans are up to the challenge. Until then, forget about it.
6 - Bing
"Has anyone ever considered the fact that the majority of Americans don't have a snowball's chance in Hell if they're allowed to invest some of their Social Security deductions? Most of us can't add, write a simple sentence or vote. Why should we trust them to invest? Perhaps, after real education reform, we can begin to see whether Americans are up to the challenge. Until then, forget about it."
Silas so you're saying we should stand by idly and watch as Social Security goes down the tubes?
Disagree with Bush's plan if you want but at leat he has a plan. What do the Dems intend to do about the problem?
As for you Mr. West......of course Bush Sr. is partly responsible if the 93" WTC bombings were being planned on his watch which they most likely were. That's not the point. Liberals like to spread the idea that when Clinton was president everything was honky dory and he never did anything wrong and then when Bush took office everything went bad. This sentiment is absolute horseshit. Clinton sat on his hands while 911 was planned and he lobbed a couple of missiles into Iraq during the last days of his presidency to take attention away from his impeachment hearings.
Both Bush and Clinton share responsibility for 911.
7 - Pat Fish
Silas,
I did payroll and was an ersatz Human Resource person for over thirty years.
And yet people regularly, and intelligently, invested in 401-K's and/or Tax Sheltered Annuities (non-profit).
Now understand that most of them, at least in my experience, were pretty dumb about how it all worked.
But guess what, Silas? They have entire mega-industries to handle all that! Sure, those companies get a profit but I've worked for large hospitals with majority minority employee bases and small accounting firms. In every instance the employees walked off richer and far better off than they'd ever have been were these tax-deferrence plans never implemented.
Now if you're arguing that our education is not as good as it should be, then no argument here.
But if your basis for not allowing individuals to invest some of their own SS money is because they are too stupid to do it, wow, is this a stretch.
Good old American ingenuity and the lust for a profit will take care of that. And Americans will be forever better off when they get to invest their own money rather than put it into the hands of the government. No matter how stupid the populace might be.
8 - Silas Kain
No, Bing. I'm saying that we should not have all this faith in rank and file Americans. This country has completely, miserably failed in providing quality education. We're a country of Stepford Patriots. We walk the walk but have no clue on comprehending the talk. Insofar as the President's so called "plan" is concerned, I have no faith whatsoever in anything generated by this Administration. You're free to blindly follow Mr. Bush, Bing. It just proves my point on education.
9 - Pat Fish
Silas,
Nobody's "blindly" following Bush and just because someone doesn't agree with your take doesn't mean they are a product of our failed education system.
You might find this hard to believe, but there are people in this country desperately struggling to understand it all and wanting it all to turn out fine.
Although that bit about the failed education system is true enough. I'd argue that it is the mighty teachers' unions that had and will continue to have a hand in that.
Teachers' unions that contibute mega bucks to, guess which political party?
Hint...it's not Bush's party.
10 - Dave Nalle
Has anyone ever considered the fact that the majority of Americans don't have a snowball's chance in Hell if they're allowed to invest some of their Social Security deductions? Most of us can't add, write a simple sentence or vote. Why should we trust them to invest? Perhaps, after real education reform, we can begin to see whether Americans are up to the challenge. Until then, forget about it.
Silas, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to pick a random mutual fund from a short list of those approved by the government, or to just put the money in a money market fund - mine is currently earning 4.38%, which is infinitely more than the nothing which social security money earns right now. Even someone illiterate can point at a list and grunt, or mark an X in a random box.
Dave
11 - Bing
Gee another attack on Bush with no specifics Silas.....how surprising.
From what I understand about the plan Bush proposed it was to allow Americans to take a small portion of what they would normally pay into SS and invest it in mutual funds. What exactly do you object to about this plan Silas?
Also insteadf of bashing Bush in his plan again when you next post Silas, why don't you comment on some ideas the Dems have offered to solve the SS problem.
As for you assertion that most Americans are too dumb to invest money.........I agree that there are some Americans who may be too dumb to do this but that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't have the opportunity to.
As far as lack of quality education goes it seems that Bush favors vouchers so parents can choose to send thier kids to better schools and it's the Dems who are beholden to the NEA and want to continue throwing money at the failed public school system.
Can you do me a favor and try and keep the generalized Bush bashing in your next post to a minum and answer my questions Silas?
1. What specifically is wrong with Bush's plan?
2. What ideas do the Dems have to solve the SS problem?
12 - zingzing
bing: "honky dory." i don't know what this says, but whatever it's saying is everything it needs to say.
oh yeah, and bing, as far as this goes: "Can you do me a favor and try and keep the generalized Bush bashing in your next post to a minum and answer my questions Silas?" PLEASE DO THE SAME YOURSELF. i once asked you to point out your specific problems with basic liberal/left ideals, like what's so wrong with protecting the environment, etc, and you failed to even consider answering.
what's wrong with bush's plan? look at the name social security. what's that second word? security. that's right. now think of an 80-year-old granny trying to play the high-risk stock market with all she has. not so safe, yeah? even if it's just part of her social security benefit (which will be reduced already in bush's plan), it may be that bit which, when she loses it, means she can't afford her house anymore and is living off of cat food and regurgitated coffee cake.
what ideas do the dems have? don't know. raise taxes? stop diverting the overflow payroll taxes to other gov't functions? we've got a few years to work on this, so let's not hurry into just any hair-brained foolish idea.
13 - Bing
Oh and for all of you decrying what happened to Cindy Sheehan I have a question for you.
If all Cindy Sheehan was going to do was go inside and peacefully protest and you believe she should have been allowed to do that wouldn't it also make sense that peaceful pro-life protestors should be allowed to go inside Planned Parenthood clinics and protest?
If you say that Cindy has the right because it was a govt building and pro-lifers don't because Planned Parenthood clinics are private I say to you Planned Parenthood recieves milliosn of dollars in American tax money so I would argue it's one in the same.
14 - Bliffle
""Has anyone ever considered the fact that the majority of Americans don't have a snowball's chance in Hell if they're allowed to invest some of their Social Security deductions? Most of us can't add, write a simple sentence or vote. Why should we trust them to invest? Perhaps, after real education reform, we can begin to see whether Americans are up to the challenge. Until then, forget about it."
True. It's a difficult path for the amateur investor. Aside from the normal problems of making wise investments, there's the increasing frequency of crooks. Even sober-sided brokerage houses commit crimes. Even the famous "Smith Barney" commits crime, the old-fashioned way, by cheating their small investors in favor of big investors. They've paid millions in fines to the SEC. Which does not indemnify their cheated clients.
The little guy needs someone he can actually trust to actually carry out his end of the deal.
15 - Bing
That last post by me was supposed to be on another topic not this one. Please disregard.
Zingzing.... Bush's plan never intended for SS money to be invested in stocks. He intended for people to invest it in low risk mutual funds which would have given them a greater return than the current SS system so please learn a little more about Bush's plan before you make statements like the 80 year old granny in the stock market.
Raise taxes? That's the Dems answer to everything. I don't see how the Dems would agree to use overflow payroll taxes for social security at the expense of thier other beloved government programs. They'd say they were going to do it and then just raise taxes anyway. It's what they do best. And no Dem has even suggested this. They are totally devoid of ideas to remedy SS.
16 - Bliffle
Well the Bush SS investment plan included a 'select' list of investments that people could make, and there was nothing to say that the selectors couldn't select low-yield and failure prone investments. Looks like a honey pot for criminals to me.
Mutual Funds are neither especially safe or especially profitable. Many of the well-known mutuals have had to pay huge fines to the SEC for illegal activities, usually cheating small investors in favor of their big investors. Small investors are shooting ducks.
Even large institutional investors are poorly protected against the machinations of the modern officer-dominated BOD. The California pension fund, CalPers, which includes members throughout state offices as well as county, city and schools, thus making it the largest institutional investor in the world, was getting returns of around 20% per year! Whoopee! Guy named Shaughnessy was running it with no scandals. But he started checking out what the BODs were doing and voting CalPers shares to improve the company and couple executive compensation to performance. So they got Schwarzenneger to fire him.
In case you haven't figured it out, large US corps are overripe and are being harvested by parasites for their blue sky and retained earnings. Witness GM, etc.
This makes it a dangerous world for the small investor as well as the small capitalist who has to compete against them.
17 - Dave Nalle
Bliff, they could just make it a list of bond funds and people would do better than they are doing under social security. And bond funds always return a moderate amount and never go under. And the idea is that the government is smart enough to hire a good board of investment advisers who could pick a list of conservative and reliable funds. It's not difficult to do.
Dave
18 - Silas Kain
Teachers' unions that contibute mega bucks to, guess which political party?
Patfish, I could not agree with you more. The education system in this country has failed not because of any single political party or union. It is a huge combination of factors which ha sleft every child of public education behind.
Insofar as your take on my stance with the blind Bushites, let me make one thing very clear. I find Bing's support of this President to be nothing short of blind faith. I don't believe that all Bush disciples are blindly following him. However, I do believe that extremism on either side is blind to the many hues between black and white. I'll venture to say that the majority of Americans really just want us to go along and do the best we can. Sadly, our best includes more active involvement in the political process.
Silas, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to pick a random mutual fund from a short list of those approved by the government,...
Sorry, Dave. We have collective ADD. I just don't believe that most Americans are even remotely prepared to make these kinds of decisions. Dave, you're a remarkably intelligent guy. You see to it that your offspring are given proper educations -- at home.
Even someone illiterate can point at a list and grunt, or mark an X in a random box.
And that statement, in and of itself, should not be acceptable on behalf of any United States citizen.
Bing: Gee another attack on Bush with no specifics Silas.....how surprising...
How much more specific do I have to be, Bing? Look at the facts and figures. Government over-spending is rampant. The quality of education continues to decline. We are in a civil discourse which is creating a greater divide than we've known since Lincoln. I don't put all the blame on him; however, a leader falls upon his/her sword. That's the way it is. If he could inspire and rally us without the use of hyperbole and threats of mass destruction, imagine what great things we could accomplish. What surprises me is that you refuse to come close to admitting that there's a problem on your side of the aisle. I, on the other hand, have freely thrown blame where it belongs.
Bing: As far as lack of quality education goes it seems that Bush favors vouchers so parents can choose to send thier kids to better schools and it's the Dems who are beholden to the NEA and want to continue throwing money at the failed public school system.
I'm conflicted on this one. I think that education should be standard across the board. The NEA's power can be crippled in two ways:
- Render impotent the lobbies and special interests. Tear down K Street's wall of shame! Drive out of office any Senator or Representative who has been a beneficiary of the NEA's cash machine.
- Give teachers the tools they need to carry out their duties including wage parity, ongoing training and performance based initiatives. Give teachers the support they need and expect much in return. As long as we continue to believe that teachers aren't worth the investment, we'll get what we've been paying for -- a WalMart education.
If you think the Dems are the only ones to blame then you have completely proven my point about America's lack of education.19 - Bliffle
Bond funds? Now is not a good time for bonds, since bond face values go DOWN when rates go up, thus atrophying ones capital. Are you contrary enough to think rates will go down soon?