>
>Organization: Lying Socialist Weasels
>From: The Big Weasel <zepp at finestplanet.com>
>
>
>The State of the Union
>In a word, lousy
>
>by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>01/28/03
>http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Politics/sotu2003.htm
>
> Back in the nineties, it used to be fun watching Republicans
> during Clinton's SOTU speeches. Clinton
>would quite often leave the teleprompter, and wing it for five or ten
>minutes at a time, presenting a dazzling
>array of knowledge and statistics, and never, ever making a mistake. It
>was a virtuoso performance by a
>political master, and the more adversity Clinton faced, the better and
>more stirring he became, and the longer
>the Republican faces grew.
>
> I could understand how they felt. Back in the decade before,
> Reagan could also take his political
>opponents and make them his bitch on the last Tuesday in January. He often
>enjoyed a bounce in the polls of
>five or ten points, even as such catastrophes such as Beirut, Iran/Contra
>and the Challenger explosion swirled
>about him.
>
> Such a gift for seizing the opportunity has not been vouchsafed
> to our boy George. Oh, they have worked
>with him on his delivery, polishing it a bit. I noticed that his habit of
>pausing after each recitation, and
>gazing about the chamber with that trademark smirk had been quite reduced
>Last year, when he was still milking
>9/11 for all it was worth, a lot of people noticed that smirk and
>wondered, many for the first time, if there
>was any link at all between the man's words and his inner thoughts and
>feelings, if any.
>
> I noticed that the Congressional response was, by SOTU standards,
> lackadaisical. One reason Presidents
>love the SOTU is that not only do they get the biggest television audience
>of the year (outside of national
>emergencies and tragedies), but they do so in front of a audience where at
>least 40% of the participants are
>going to cheer him even if he spins around and drops trou at them.
>
> Putsch started out on the right track, playing to his party,
> lauding tax cuts and how the rich were to
>American happiness.
>
> Announcers dutifully noted that he had received 75 "ovations"
> during his speech. If that seems a little
>low, it is. Most presidents break 100, and Clinton often got 125
>(Granted, Clinton was a windbag who often
>went for 80 or 100 minutes, too). Even more disconcerting to his handlers
>is that none of the ovations went
>more than 30 seconds, and only a few seemed to have any real enthusiasm.
>
> The fact is that Putsch didn't give the Republicans much to cheer
> about. In hopes of boosting interest,
>the White House had leaked a report to the dutiful media that Putsch would
>be disclosing new and damning
>information about the situation in Iraq. That backfired. He
>didn't. Instead, it was the usual laundry list of
>complaints that the administration has been making, complaints given, as
>always, without hard evidence, and
>laced with absurdities and glaring omissions. One of the more absurd
>claims was that Saddam was blocking U2
>flights over Iraq. How's he doing that, George? The man barely has the
>capability to shoot down a kite.
>Missing from George's exposition of Damning Evidence was the one that was
>entrenched most firmly in the
>public's minds; the "chemical weapon casings" which turned out to be
>nothing more than 122 mm artillery shells.
>
> He spent the first half of his speech on domestic issues, largely
> omitting discussion of the economy
>save only to proffer it as a rationale for...ta da...faster and bigger tax
>cuts! Republicans cheered, but it
>wasn't very wild applause. I suspect a lot of them are hearing from their
>constituents, and a lot of them are
>dismayed to learn that most of their constituents oppose the tax cuts
>Putsch has proposed.
>
> One of the more cynical moments came when he spoke in favor of
> developing hydrogen fueled cars. This is
>the same man who eliminated federal funding for that very purpose. The
>motive was obvious; he had to say
>something to show that he wasn't just a puppet of big oil. It didn't work.
>
> On medical care, he reaffirmed his notion that the elderly should
> get prescription coverage, but only if
>they drop out of Medicare and enrol in an HMO. He managed the neat trick
>of doing this without mentioning the
>magic letters, "HMO". (In a hilarious sequel, Bill Frist, appearing in
>the friendly confines of Faux News, was
>asked if the plan meant seniors had to join HMOs. He replied firmly, "It
>means they are being given a
>choice." That undescribed "choice" being "join an HMO or no prescription
>coverage." But Bill, part-owner of a
>major HMO and familiar with the public perception of them, wasn't about to
>say that particular combination of
>letters either.
>
> One of the more awkward moments came when he talked about
> increasing funding for drug addiction care by
>$600 million, which he claimed would save 300,000 addicts over three
>years. (Let's see, that works out to
>about $40 per addict per week. Wow, must be some program.) It became
>clear that he was talking about giving
>the money to churches and religious "rehab clinics" where various
>god-struck sorts would presumably pray at the
>addicts and make them all better. A lot of Republicans looked like they
>wished they didn't have to choose
>between being this type of Christian, or being Americans, loyal to the
>Constitution. The applause was
>noticeably attenuated and strained.
>
> He made the arresting assertion that "al Qaida isn't a problem
> any more" claiming that they had rounded
>up most of the important members. (No trials you would think he would
>want the captives in the news to show
>that Something Was Being Done About Terrorism, but apparently that isn't
>the case). Then he spent the next 25
>minutes talking about how America had to continue to be vigilant, be
>strong, and throw away all freedoms in the
>fight against terrorism.
>
> He got the most applause when he praised American virtues, both
> real and imagined. Playing to the
>audience for cheap claps, and that's what he got, and most viewers
>probably sensed it. He actually described
>America as "gods' gift to the world." No, really. I'm not making that up.
>
> After the speech, I grinned and went over to Faux News. If any
> outfit stood prepared to make a silk
>purse out of this sow's ear of a speech, it would be Rupert Murdoch's boys.
>
> Fred Barnes was game, as were his guest commentators, but it was
> pretty obvious that Putsch had given
>them little to be happy about. Fred remarked about how detailed the
>speech was, and how he seemed to have a
>wide array of facts and figures at his fingertips (no further away then
>the teleprompter, anyway), a remark
>that always caused marveling when talking about Clinton. Here, it just
>reminded everyone that Putsch was no
>Clinton.
>
> I then went over to Cspan and listened to the call-ins for a
> bit. Normally, right wingers swamp the
>lines after a significant even like the SOTU, but this time, they seemed
>muted. Most of the callers didn't
>agree with Putsch's speech, and those that did were reduced to the right
>wing boilerplate of injured outrage
>that the right wing is always ready to manufacture when they can't think
>of anything concrete to say.
>Democrats hate America first, Saddam is a madman who only wants to kill us
>all, and we need to get terrorists
>or lose. Yeah.
>
> They didn't have anything to say about any of the elements of the
> speech, though.
>
> By morning, there probably will be a flood of praise from the
> right for the speech, one that will avoid
>specifics, and people will still be asking, "Why are we going to war with
>Iraq?" and "How does handing over the
>national treasure to the super rich benefit the country any?"
>
> For some reason, Putsch didn't address those particular questions.
>
> Whatever it was his handlers set out to do tonight, they failed.
>
>
>
>Community URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weasel
>Community File Area: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weasel/files
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>weasel-unsubscribe at egroups.com