The State of the Union....

Cross posted from:http://mwprogressive.blogspot.com/


Okay...for the "uninitiated" SOTU stands for State of the Union, which, of course is the title of the address that the President of the United States is required by The Constitution to deliver annaully to Congress. Strangely enough, The Constitution doesn't require that the State of the Union Message has to be a speech or delivered in person. Indeed, some Presidents simply sent a written message to Congress rather than appear personally before them but modern practice has been to make it a media event for the incumbent President to out outline his legislative agenda to the public and also use the support of his political party to demonstrate support to that agenda.

That's the way it traditionally works.....

But tonight is going to be a bit different.

Tonight, for the first time in his six years of office, George W. Bush will walk into a chamber that he does not control. His party has been soundly defeated in the midterm elections and as Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post put it:

After six years of striding onto the House floor like a conqueror, President Bush will arrive for Tuesday night's State of the Union Speech deeply unpopular and politically crippled.and (snip):The pomp of the State of the Union address and the deference given to Bush's office will prevent the night from turning into an outright rout.But as a defensive measure, White House speechwriters are said to have crafted a speech that avoids the traditional laundry list of proposals and applause lines that would almost surely have fallen flat -- or even led to boos and groans -- given Bush's new circumstances.

Actually , I don't expect to see a "chastened" George W. Bush address Congress tonight.

Nor do I agree with a lot of pundits who expect that the speech will be low-key, unconfrontational and, in a word, BOOOORIIING!

Nope, I don't expect that at all. It's not George W. Bush's style.

I have to agree with the unnamed blogger who once characterized Bush's political tactics to those of a bar-room drunk who, challenges everybody in the bar to a fight and then, after he gets knocked to the floor, gets us and asks the person who just cleaned his clock, "Had Enough? Want Some More?" And that's what I expect to see tonight.

(prognostication is always dangerous, but what-the-hell, you only go 'round once, eh?)

I totally expect Bush to come out swinging tonight. I expect he will attempt to justify the "surge" (escalation) once again, and try to a political/foreign pollicy "twofer" by blaming all the trouble in Iraq on Iran.
Glenn Greenwald over at Unclaimed Territory also expects something different, but is nonetheless concerned that villanization of Iran is a top proirity of the Bush Administration. He optomistically believes the National Media will apply more critiacal analysis to any claimes against Iran than they did against claims about Iraq. (There is also a very disturbing development in his update..may be worth an entire blog entry later today)
I am told by "experts" who have been briefed that Dubya will dedicate most of his speech to domestic issues and the early leaks indicate that he will come up with another off-the-wall health care proposal that will tax "expensive" health care programs. Here's a laundry list of his proposals on the "domestic" side.

Some other things to watch for:

Watch Nancy Pelosi tonight. She is going to be literally looking over Bush's shoulder. Historic Actually, first time EVER...the Doorman of the House of Representatives will announce (loudly)" MADAM SPEAKERRRRRRRRR! The President of the United States!"

Watch/listen to see if Bush does another "shout-out" to Lieberman. He seems quite fond of doing that. (Idoubt if he'll give another kiss although some have "recommended" itsnark, snark, snark)

Tune in tomorrow and see how many of these I got right. Comment....complain...chastise...whatever......
e

oh, puuuuullleeeeeeeezzzzeeee....

I'm expected to take this seriously?

Really?

Frank Luntz, the man who taught Republicans how to lie so the public would believe them (he even wrote an instructional manual of words to use to "frame" the debate), is now offering advice to Democrats.

No, as he says, "Seriously". Here's a small, small sample from his Huffington Post guest blog:

snip

For two years the Republican Party was adrift in meaningless messaging to support meaningless reform - and have communicated absolutely nothing for the past three months. By comparison, the Democrat majority that took Congress in November was remarkably disciplined and effective in promoting change, reform, and accountability in the weeks following their historic election.

But alas, power does strange things to Democrats: put a gavel in their hands and a camera in their face and they revert to the name-calling that kept them from the majority for a dozen long years. Sure, it's easy to land rhetorical jabs on a staggering opponent - but that doesn't make it effective. The message from the electorate in November was 'work together and compromise.' You need only look at the incumbent governor of California who won a lopsided landslide in an otherwise Democratic sweep. Cooperation works. Compromise wins. But over-heated rhetoric says to the world that you are no different - and no better - than what you replaced.

If there's anything at all to admire about Luntz, it's that he's well-educated, absolutely brilliant in the arts of linguistics and propaganda. This post is a masterpiece of his works.

Remember a week or two ago I referenced a post from Digby that confirmed what I had suspected since the election. That post said that the well-coordinated message coming out of the great Republican Wurlitzer was that the elections wasn't about Republican Corruption, Rejection of George W. Bush, or even a repudiation of the war in Iraq....no...it was none of these, the Novemeber election (and subsequent Democratic Party landslide) was ALL ABOUT BIPARTISANSHIP....got it? In the Huffington post blog, Luntz "kindly reminds" Democrats of this (even if it isn't true) and then goes on to point out case after case where Democrats behaved "badly" or in a partisan manner. He skillfully draw parallels that aren't there to make stir the image, again to FRAME the topic in an unacceptable posture so you will think that the Democrats are just one vote shy of murdering our own troops. Look a this snip and pay attention to the high-lighted sections.



The list goes on. Speaker Pelosi callously suggesting that President Bush is moving quickly to "put troops in harms way" is a short jump away from suggesting that the President is deliberately trying to get our soldiers killed. Likewise, Senator Kennedy saying that U.S. troops are like "police officers in a shooting gallery" smacks of sound-bite flippancy and expediency of the worst kind. We need an intelligent debate, not a sound-bite contest.

It is "a short jump away from suggesting that the President is deliberately trying to get our soldier killed." only because Frank Luntz has now told us it is so. It is a tool of his trade to place the thought in the mind; to paint an indulible image with his words to that perceptions are created and imprinted on the mind. He is doing so masterfully and under the guise of offering "serious" advice to the Democratic Party.

I also high-lighted "We need an intelligent debate, not a sound-bite contest." because the irony is so rich. Here is the man who taught Newt Gingrich and his jolly band of pirates to talk in soundbites who is now telling us we need an "intelligent debate". I'm sorry Frank. I don't believe you.

Your faux centrist crap may be swallowed hook, line and sinker by some but as for me, I "ain't buying it".

The real message of November was "We're Mad As Hell and We're Not Going to Take It Anymore". Democrats need to learn that message and act on it. Fix what has been broken in the last 12 years by the Republican kleptocracy and especially what George W. Bush has broken on the last 6 years. Put an end to the corruption and bring the law-breakers to the justice they so richly deserve.

One of my first political mentors chided me because I was trying to be "politic" in my approach and he hit me with the old, political maxim, The Only thing you find in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and dead skunks!" They're right of course. If you stay in the middle of the road, you're a coward and you're likely to get run over by those who actually have principles......Democrats must follow the words of Shakespeare's McBeth,

Lay on, McDuff! And damned be he who first cries, Hold! Enough!

So "liberals" MUST be nice....

I got a little inspiration from the Book Salon going on over at firedoglake tonight....the guest happens to be Cliff Schecter who has earned his "bones" in the land of Left Blogsylvania by actually standing up to Right wing pundits on National Television. Currently he's working on a book and also collaborating with Glenn Greenwald on a new blogsite dedicated to "The Real John McCain".

If you pop on over to fdl (as us ....ahem regulars ....call it) you'll see that Cliff is no fan of McCain's and this new blogsite is going to be brutal.....

But the discussion is actually deeper than that....here's a snippet....

.... For those of us who cringe at the mealy-mouthed equivocations of most liberal pundits, for those of us who shout at the television every time we watch another spineless lefty wither under the torrent of incoherent abuse that spews out of Ann Coulter like bilge-water, for the people in the audience who wanted to throttle John Kerry for knuckling under to the character smears of the 2004 campaign, Cliff Schecter is a ray of hope. A tiger in a tea room. A bomb in a china shop.

I have long maintained that it is incumbent on the left to present arguments and narratives that are as metabolically exciting and visceral as the arguments put forth by the right. Again and again, I see left wing pundits and politicians bring knives to the right-wing gun fights and get their asses handed to them by the fast-talking, interrupting, belligerent conservative Opinionati. In a political environment as highly charged and combative as the one that the Republicans have been constructing since Newt Gingrich reared his ugly head in 1994, it's political suicide to cling to some kind of outdated notion that liberals have to be "nice", passive, and accomodating. We all just want to hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah, right? Get naked and shake our dreadlocks at Bonnaroo, but that's after we all have a long, long talk about our feelings over a pot of fennel twig tea because Everyone's Viewpoint is Valid to a Certain Extent, right?

Yeah, right.

Do you know who Alan Colmes is? He's the "liberal" half of the Fox News Network show "Hannity and Colmes". If you've seen the show you know that the only reason that Colmes is there is to be the foil/whipping boy of nutcase Sean Hannity. It actually took me a while to figure it out because (silly me) I thought the whole idea of the show was to give both sides an equal shot at the issue....it isn't...and Alan Colmes is on that show not to be really liberal, but, instead to play what Fox News and Sean Hannity THINK a liberal should be.....that is,

weak
mealy-mouthed
defferential
easily cowed into submission.

Now, in all fairness to Alan Colmes, he may be none of those things, but he is playing a role...much like Bob Denver played Gilligan on Gilligan's Island, or, Alan Alda played Hawkeye on M.A.S.H......Alan Colmes plays a LIBERAL ON TV...or at least what we've been stereotyped as....

That's what makes Schecter so special....he breaks the mold..as our friends at FDL say, "...he's a shark in the kiddie pool..."

We need more of these.....

Think about this a moment....One of the few reasons people still like anything about George W. Bush is because he's combatative and stands up for what he believes...even if he's wrong....maybe the public would respect Democrats more if they behaved like Schecter. ..take the Republican attack dogs head on and bite them back...

good to think about...

Can somebody explain this to me?

There are a log of contradictions going on in the Administration's policy on Iraq and I'm looking for somebody to "break it down" for me.....

Let's start with this:

Iraqi President Maliki is being supported in office by the Shiia majority.
The leader of the Shiia majority is cleric Al Sadr
Al Sadr controls the most effective private militia in Iraq, the Mahdi Army
The Shiia Militia populate virtually all the Iraqi security forces (including the police)
The Shiia are allegedly behind most of the "death squads" killing Sunni
The Shiia are supported by Iran
The Sunni are retaliating for the killings AND retaliation againt being thrown out of government.
The Sunni control Al Abnar province through militias there
Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni.


So then:

We're supporting Maliki against the Sunni...

but...

We're moving against Sadr's militia leadership....Sadr's army threatens to attack us if we continue the "crackdown" on their forces.

We're moving troops (4000) into Al Abnar province (Fallujah) to fight Sunni militia


There were 21 of our troops killed in Iraq yesterday.....(13 in a helicopter crash) but the distrubing part was this from Informed Comment

The killing of US troops in Shiite Najaf and Karbala has been a rare event since hostilities ending in late August 2004 between the American military and the Mahdi Army of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The resurgence of lethal hostility in this Shiite area almost certainly has to do with the ongoing US crackdown on the Sadr Movement.(extra emphasis is mine)

So what's going on here? What little semblence of order there is is maintained through Maliki's government which will collapse if he loses the support of the militias...so we attack the militias...AND the Sunni at the same time?

This is a plan?

Somebody explain this to me. Please.

Slow news day...open thread time?

Somebody asked last night if just a few of us (meaning locals) are using this blog site. The answer appears to be "yes" but it can (and should) be more of us.

If you want an invitation to become a "team blogger" just post in comments and let me know how to email an invitation to you....We have (I think) six on the team but there are now only two of us who jump in from time to time. The "statcounter" however, says that a lot of you...average about 29 per day...are "bopping in" to see what's happening.

If you're not a "team blogger" you can still leave a comment by clicking on the "comments button" and then signing on as anonymous. Leaving a name is optional....either way your opinion is welcomed.

So about that slow news day....

Sort of a letdown after:

Bill O'Reilly was on Stephen Colbert's show last night. A lot of blogs/websites in Left Blogsylvania say that Colbert "hammered" O'Reilly but I watched it (and the reruns) and I think "Bill-Oh" held his own. He knew Colbert's "schtick" and played it pretty well.

Senator Pat Leahy went ballistic on Attorney General Roberto Gonzolas , Glenn Greenwald did the blow-by-blow on the link. I saw that video too and the reports on this one appear to be far more accurated than the Colbert reports. Levin had him stuttering at the end. Click on the link. That's Senators Leahy and Feingold to the right.....from the hearing..another account of it is here.

Jane Hamser is out of surgery and in recovery. It will be days before we know what (if any ) further trreatment she will need. Get well Jane.

The Rude one (The Rude Pundit) observes quite correctly that Bush has no sense of Irony. If he did he wouldn't have had the nerve to declare Sunday, National Respect for Life Day. (sigh.....)

So if you had 15 seconds to speak to the President, what would you say? What would you "whisper" in his ear?
Somebody asked that the other day and I had to think about it. I finally came up with this (which I saw somewhere but can't remember where) which is all too appropriate:

Mr President, you know that book by Orwell? You know, 1984? Well, sir, it's supposed to be a WARNING not an instruction manual.

Tell me, in comments what you'd tell the President if you had 15 seconds.

Quick Reminder(s)

Wood County Democrats Monthly Meeting

Tonight 6:30P.M.

American Legion Hall

Pittsville, Wisconsin

Note: Executive Committee Meeting at 5:45 in the basement of the Legion Building...

Also, for the "bloggier" among us...stop over at firedoglake and leave a comment, prayer or best wishes for our good friend in the liberal/progressive community, Jane Hamser. Jane is undergoing surgery for cancer today. It's her third battle against this unholy beast....our prayers are certainly with her..... below is a picture of Jane (on our left), Former President Clinton (in the middle) and Christie Hardin Smith aka "The Redhead" and also of firedoglake (on the right).

Some more perspective....

Prof Cole at Informed Comment gives us some perspective on the bombings, kidnapping and killings that have taken place in Iraq in the last 24 hours or so....the media hasn't carried much about it and to some extent, neither has the blogosphere...It has, however, been terrible....a quick rehash:

125 killed

"Hundreds" wounded

4 GIs Killed

?

Why?

Why is the violence increasing?

Juan Cole's explanation makes sense.

We should be clear why these bombings are taking place. It is because
Bush's policy in Iraq was total victory, along with his Shiite and Kurdish
allies, over the previously dominant Sunni Arabs. Bush did this thing as a zero
sum game, one where there is only one pie and if one person gets a bigger piece,
someone else gets a tiny sliver. The Sunni Arabs-- among the best educated and
most capable people in the country-- were offered the tiny sliver. They won't
accept US troops in their country for the most part, and won't accept reduction
to a small powerless minority. They have succeeded in provoking the Shiites to
form guerrilla groups and engage in reprisal killings, as well, as a way of
destabilizing the country. Bush's allies won't share power and wealth with them,
and Bush himself keeps pushing for what he calls "victory." Today is what his
victory looks like after nearly 4 years, and it is highly unlikely to look
different any time soon.

Zero sum game?

More like 80% solution "sum game". Bush has allied himself with the Shiia and, consequently the Shiia Militia...that's bad news for the Sunni.

What I don't understand, is why Bush would alaign himself with Shiia when that will only serve to antagonize our traditional ally, Saudi Arabia, which is overwhelmingly Sunni. The only immediate explanation seems to be that the Shiia are, from Bush's perspective anyway, the ONLY GAME IN TOWN. Nevermind that the Shiia are natural allies with our other "Axis of Evil" sworn enemy, Iran. Nevermind that it creates more bloodshed, rekindles centuries-old rivalries and ignites more blood revenge.

Stupid.

Absolutely stupid.

e