First of all, Rob, is you want to move this over to a more appropriate forum such as Dunrobin's Rants, it's fine w/me.
Second, I think it would be cool to have Rob submit his own State of the [Stooge] Union message concerning his website and kindred affairs here.
Now to the point of this post, or rather the lack of point.
I wish there were some way to formally protest the President's State of the Union address. What is its point nowadays? The Constitution provides for a formal accounting by the President to us citizens, though not on an annual basis (from what I remember, there's no time basis mentioned), but merely as one of those checks to keep the presidency from assuming the tendencies of a monarchy. In fact, the British Monarchy gives a regular address which is far franker and more honest than any US State of the Union speech has been in my lifetime (the Queen generally gives a year-end summation; I clearly recall the year - 97 or 98? when she gathered the year under the rubric of an "annus horribilis" for her and the rest of the royals).
I can tell you exactly what the President is going to do. He'll make a long entrance to prolonged applause. (For what? He hasn't done anything but show up! I.e., he's done the least he can do as our national leader). Then he'll blah blah blah for an hour and you won't hear anything about the State of the Union. If he touches on inflation, war in Iraq, natural disasters, anything, it'll be in his usual campaigning tone. Doesn't this guy ever stop campaigning? I know he won both times by narrow margins and probably some finagling with the Electoral College, but can't he at least knock off the campaign trail rhetoric? And if he can't, what is the point of this address?
Until fairly recent times I believe the State of the Union speech was seldom delivered by a Presidential appearance. It was read to Congress by a subordinate. Now it's become just another photo-op extravaganza full of homilies and patriotic appeals, and further demonstrates how out of sync the president is with society.
I am sick to death of the constant stumping for approval by this president.
In Canada, of course, his government would've been turfed out of office after a No Confidence vote, as happened this fall with the Paul Martin gov't. The Liberal gov't of Canada is just as rife - perhaps less so, having amassed a less considerable track record than Bush after the Iraq war intelligence fiasco, the failure of intelligence pre-9/11, the awarding of plum contracts to Halliburton, and the ongoing Abramoff scandal, etc. In Canada, party patronage as exhibited by Bush resulted in the entire government being toppled within 2 months. (I was in Canada when Parliament returned the vote of No Confidence in late Nov and set the election date for Jan. - they don't waste time throwing corrupt politicos out with no backspin).
Bush could raise himself slightly, maybe a couple millimeters, in my estimation of he just skipped any TV presentation. Send the address over to Congress by courier, have someone read it. Or else make some effort to be honest about the state of the nation. No electioneering and vague-sounding plans. Admit you've f'ed up. When I f'd up in forestry I didn't get to stand in front of the crew and make vague promises about how I would address the issue of my inability to plant trees correctly. I was sent back to dig the trees out and replant them. I didn't get paid for replanting so it behooved me to get it right the first time, never mind the personal embarrassment of admitting to the rest of the crew that I was holding up the contract.
That's what true accountability is, not lofty remarks which only show how out of touch this president is and how his entire presidency has been built around press opportunities and contrived efforts of relevance to national emergencies.
