Skip navigation.
The Texas Blue
Advancing Progressive Ideas

State of the Union: The Liveblog (with Democratic response)

* Links to the full text of both the SOTU and the Democratic response are at the bottom.

8:09 The President of the United States makes his way to the podium. Anonymous handshaker's comment: "Mr. President, I am saying a prayer for your success." At least the applause is loud. Sounds like Keith Olbermann caught that quote too -- he just commented on it. (That, or he's reading our liveblog.)

In case you missed it, by the way, I did a quick prequel to the SOTU, with some comments on the press briefing earlier this morning. Read that if you want to know what to expect.

8:12 Speaker Pelosi introduces the President. Applause, applause.

8:13 The President gives props to Speaker Pelosi as the first woman Speaker of the House. Friendly handshake. Also a shout out to Sen. Tim Johnson and Rep. Charlie Norwood.

8:15 Congratulations to the Democrat -- not Democratic -- majority.

8:16 "Our citizens don't much care what side of the aisle we sit on, as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there's work to be done." Wish he'd said that 6 years ago.

8:17 Mentions our strong economy. 7.2 million new jobs, rising wages. "Economy is on the move, and our job is to keep it moving, not with more government, but with more enterprise." I'll be checking those numbers later, of course.

8:18 We can balance the budget. We can do so without raising taxes. A (partial) standing ovation. The budget he will submit will balance the budget in five years.

8:19 Ending earmarks -- "expose every earmark to the light of day," cut the number of earmarks in half. Leaves half too many, if you ask me. The language is straight out of this morning's press briefing.

8:21 A Republican is talking about fixing Medicare and Medicaid and saving Social Security. Somebody pinch me. Oh, wait -- that was *also* straight out of this morning's press briefing.

8:22 Talking about the success off No Child Left Behind. Also want to give students going to failing schools "the right to choose something better." Vouchers, anyone? Asks for NCLB reauthorization.

8:23 All our citizens deserve affordable health care. Pelosi stands and applauds.

8:24 "For [the impoverished] Americans, private insurance best meets their needs." Some applause. Pelosi stays seated, doesn't clap. I don't imagine many Democrats do.

8:25 Explains the tax savings we'd get from his plan if we buy overinflated private insurance. More half-the-room applause. Pelosi still seated.

8:26 Funding to help states cover private insurance for the underprivileged. HSA's, association health plans, better information technology to reduce medical errors, price transparency, and medical liability reform. Standing ovation from half -- make that just over a third -- of the room. The R side, of course. Pelosi's looking *really* ticked.

8:27 Make sure that medical care is not controlled by companies, but by doctors. *That* got applause.

8:28 Immigration. Ways for employers to verify status of their employees, so they have no excuses. Upholding the great tradition of the melting pot with immigration reform. Dealing with those currently here without animosity.

8:30 Energy. He throws out the "dependence on oil makes us more vulnerable to terrorists" bit. We need a variant of Godwin's Law for that line. Expand biodiesel. New methods of producing ethanol (there's his switchgrass pledge!) Wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural waste. Reducing US's oil usage 20% in the next 10 years. Standing ovation.

8:32 Plan will reduce dependence on foreign oil, but not enough. So step up domestic oil production, double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. SUV owners stand and applaud.

8:33 Dealing with energy and environmental issues will help us deal with "the serious issue of global climate change." Standing ovation again. Shouts of "Flip-flop!" sadly absent.

8:34 Expediting the appointment process through the Senate. Huh? That wasn't in the briefing.

8:35 Now we're back on terror. What happened to not dwelling on this? "We have to take the fight to the enemy." Hesitant applause. Pelosi claps. Eventually.

8:36 Successes in the war on terrorism. Stopping a hijacked plane from crashing into the tallest building in the West Coast, stopping an Al-Quaeda cell that was developing anthrax, a number of other things attributed to better intelligence and not to the Iraq War (but don't tell him that). "Debt of gratitude" to our soldiers -- now that's damn right. Standing ovation, of course. The least we can give them for sending them to an unnecessary war.

8:38 Al-Zarqawi's quote about "killing our dreams." Video of that's out there on the intertubes, I think. A Bin Laden quote as well. He also names Hezbollah as terrorists -- nice that he finally noticed. Standing ovation on "finding the enemies and protecting the American people."

8:40 "Decisive ideological struggle of our time." I note this, because I'm sure this must be in *some* SOTU drinking game out there.

8:41 Stating the case for Iraq that they said he wouldn't cover in the press briefing. MSNBC cuts over to Condi, looking pissed serious.

8:42 Applause for the 12 million who voted in Iraq.

8:43 Bringing up Lebanon's Cedar Revolution. Again, glad he noticed. I couldn't tell before today. And brings up the blowing up of the Golden Mosque in Samarrah, stating the purpose of inciting retaliatory violence from Shi'a. Never mind that this has already been debunked, as Shiite death squads were killing people a year before this happened. Link after I quit typing my fingers off here.

8:46 "We didn't drive the terrorists out of Afghanistan... only to let them set up a safe haven in a free Iraq." No, we'd much rather them set up shop back in Afghanistan. Maybe Pakistan, too; that sounds good.

8:50 Minute 15 of reiterating the defense of the Iraq War. I think they told the press this wouldn't happen just so they'd actually show up. And yes, of course he brought up 9/11. We need *two* new Godwin's laws. Some Dems applaud that, simply because they want their constituents to see them clapping when defense of 9/11 is brought up. Pelosi stays seated. Way to stay strong, Nancy.

8:50 And then he brings up supporting the troops. Everyone obviously agrees with that -- I guess that's Bush's take on "bipartisanship?" Standing ovation.

8:51 Asks Congress to increase active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next 5 years. Wow, MSNBC is clever. They cut to some random Army officer, who doesn't clap until he realizes a camera is on him. Nice catch! And apparently, he wants to create a civilian army-for-hire. Big red flags on that one.

8:53 Preventing Iran from getting the bomb. Bringing peace to the Holy Land, and forming a Palestinian state. Keeping the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. Freedom in places like Cuba, Burma, saving the people of Darfur. Standing ovation.

8:54 "American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy." Though lately, it's been less than "war and diplomacy" -- anyone seen the latter? Helping the AIDS/HIV situation in Africa. Also wants $1.2 billion to combat malaria in 15 African countries. But remember -- we're going to balance the budget without raising taxes. Funding the Millenium Challenge Account for emerging democracies. Expanded trade and debt relief.

9:56 Apparently, Dikembe Mutumbo is a fan. Bush gives a shout out to the upper gallery, where he sits beside Mrs. Bush. Mutumbo built a hospital in his hometown with his NBA bucks. Standing ovation for Mutumbo as a US citizen.

8:58 Next shout out -- founder of Baby Einstein, used her bucks to for some charitable children's foundation the name of which I unfortunately missed.

8:59 Shout out #3 to Wesley Autry, who saved a guy who fell into a subway line by holding him down between the rails as a train passed above his head. Cool. But it is feeling a little like we've jumped the shark.

9:01 Sgt. Riemann (sp?) took bullets to the chest and arm to protect his gunman, and after that repelled a grenade attack. Got the Silver Star. Standing ovation.

9:02 "...our cause in the world is right, and tonight, that cause goes on. Good night; God bless." Showing the confidence in our cause that our country doesn't have. That's the end of the speech. Keith Olbermann's immediate take: "Not a bad speech, not a particularly good speech."


9:13 A couple of notes on the analysis before the Democratic response -- Brokaw mentions that George Bush actually used the phrase "global warming;" I only heard "climate change" -- I specifically thought GWB was avoiding the phrase.


9:15 Democratic response. "Wouldn't be useful to rebut the President's message in this short amount of time, nor would it be useful." Hope the President is serious about immigration and energy reform; work together on healthcare. Points of contention: performance of the economy, and Iraq foreign policy.

9:16 The economy: "as if we were living in two different countries." Yes, the stock market is at its all-time high, and corporate profits are at record highs. CEO salaries now at 400 times the average worker. Real wage down, college tuition off the charts, work being outsourced. Destroying the middle class; white-collar workers also noticing, as their jobs start to disappear as well. But must measure the economy not at its peak -- the numbers out of Wall Street -- but at its base -- its effect on the middle class.

9:19 Foreign policy: many warned ahead of time not to go into Iraq; now we're held hostage by the situation we created. Webb's bit on his family and how they served "not for political reasons, but because we loved our country" starts the best rhetoric of the entire evening. Look for it in the full text. Democrats looking not for a weak withdrawal or surge, but an immediate diplomatic effort that can create the situation where troops can begin to leave.

9:23 Teddy Roosevelt urging his Republican cohorts to act against the "robber-barons" hurting the middle class; Eisenhower moving to end the Korean War -- Presidential examples Bush should follow. Heeding the voice of the American people: If he listens, Democrats will follow; if he doesn't, they'll show him the way. MSNBC's take: Webb 1, Bush 0.


Josh has responded to the State of the Union address in an open letter to President Bush.

Full text of the State of the Union, 2007: here.
Full text of the Democratic response: here.

Don't forget - it's about the American Spirit!

WE'VE GOT SPIRIT, YES WE DO! WE'VE GOT SPIRIT, HOW 'BOUT YOU?!

Oh man

Jim Webb stomped on the terra.

Almost got this in on time...

8:16 "Our citizens don't much care what side of the aisle we sit on, as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there's work to be done." Wish he'd said that 6 years ago.

Oh, he did. He just didn't live up to it. Hope you're not surprised.

8:17 Mentions our strong economy. 7.2 million new jobs, rising wages. "Economy is on the move, and our job is to keep it moving, not with more government, but with more enterprise." I'll be checking those numbers later, of course.

Yeah, he's been touting a strong economy since he's been in office. Unemployment is indeed down, and nominal wages have risen. Real wages have also actually gone up too, but at a dramatically reduced rate than pre-Bush. Then again, real coporate profits have risen dramatically, meaning Bush can also claim a strong business environment.

[EDIT: Just to help you check those numbers:
http://bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=43&FirstYear=2001&LastYear=2006&Freq=Qtr]

Oh, and GDP is also growing healthily. Sure, there are lots of strikes against the claim of a strong economy, but he has some ground to stand on, too.

8:18 We can balance the budget. We can do so without raising taxes. A (partial) standing ovation. The budget he will submit will balance the budget in five years.

It was balanced before he got into office, only to be screwed up his first year in. You mean he's going to try to fix his mistake?

8:19 Ending earmarks -- "expose every earmark to the light of day," cut the number of earmarks in half. Leaves half too many, if you ask me. The language is straight out of this morning's press briefing.

Some ear marks are actually useful. Just, very, very few.

8:21 A Republican is talking about fixing Medicare and Medicaid and saving Social Security. Somebody pinch me. Oh, wait -- that was *also* straight out of this morning's press briefing.

It's almost too good to be true. Though, there isn't any evidence that Social Security needs saving, just a lot of conjecture. Republicans like scare tactics. Still, this kind of talk would have been nice six years ago.

8:22 Talking about the success off No Child Left Behind. Also want to give students going to failing schools "the right to choose something better." Vouchers, anyone? Asks for NCLB reauthorization.

... And, ignoring the utter failure of NCLB, and the fact that it's almost universally hated by every teacher's union across the country. But, who listens to teacher's unions? Sadly, no Republican or Democrat. How about we choose to end NCLB and to actually give money to schools that need it?

Oh, and teacher's unions also hate vouchers. But, going into these reasons would probably warrant its own article.

Looks can be deceiving

(See, this is what you get when you take so long to join! My own flesh and blood, too...)

Sure, there are lots of strikes against the claim of a strong economy, but he has some ground to stand on, too.

Well, not really. Real wages are actually down in the past 4 years for most workers (I don't use the past 6 years, as that gives him credit for the momentum from the strong economy through the 90's). And when gauged against the rising CPI, the picture is bleaker still.

Sure, GDP is strong, and corporate profits are up. Nothing new. The point is, while the economy may look strong to corporate CEOs, the view for the vast majority of America is weak -- and they know it.

Some ear marks are actually useful. Just, very, very few.

Any earmarks that are useful can simply go into their own bill, so the earmark process is not necessary. And abuse is too rampant to excuse them.

But, who listens to teacher's unions? Sadly, no Republican or Democrat.

Well, he proves that Republicans don't. Then again, Democrats have been against the NCLB unfunded mandate and anti-voucher for years. No surprise, as Democrats are historically pro-union as well.

I'm not the one that wears contacts ;)

(Did you know your own flesh and blood is studying Economics? Also, not studying HTML--how do you do those nifty blocks?)

Well, not really. Real wages are actually down in the past 4 years for most workers (I don't use the past 6 years, as that gives him credit for the momentum from the strong economy through the 90's). And when gauged against the rising CPI, the picture is bleaker still.

Sure, GDP is strong, and corporate profits are up. Nothing new. The point is, while the economy may look strong to corporate CEOs, the view for the vast majority of America is weak -- and they know it.

I'd really like to see where you get your numbers from because according to my numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real personal income has been growing at an average of 2.22% over the past four years (2003 was a slow year at only .86%, so if you want to talk about the past 3 years, the numbers are stronger still).

Regarding your view of the majority of Americans--this may or may not be true, but the strength of your argument isn't in falling real wages. They simply don't exist. Have they been increasing at the rate they had been pre-Bush? I haven't run those numbers yet, and I might guess you have a point there, but I'm not saying your point is wrong, just your numbers. And numbers is what Bush's "strong economy" statement is standing on.

(The nominal rate is easier to find, though, at 5.25% over the past four years, and inflation has sat just under 3% in that time span, though it has been rising. I assume you know that CPI has increased every year since the 40s, so I'm not sure why you mention it--real income already takes CPI into account.)

Any earmarks that are useful can simply go into their own bill, so the earmark process is not necessary. And abuse is too rampant to excuse them.

I've seen people on 'both sides of the aisle' tout the benefits of earmarks. There are good but small issues that would never make it on an agenda that become earmarks. The process is easily abused, of course, but it works for both sides. I think eliminating them completely might be a mistake, but neither of us can do more in that regard than speculate at what would be the greater evil.

I'm certainly not well-versed enough in the many earmarks that go into politics, and their wide-spread effects (and, I imagine, there isn't any hard data that discusses this, as such an experiment would probably be near to impossible to conduct).

Well, he proves that Republicans don't. Then again, Democrats have been against the NCLB unfunded mandate and anti-voucher for years. No surprise, as Democrats are historically pro-union as well.

Well, there are a number of Democrats and Republicans against NCLB, even if the Republican party hasn't been. So, some Republicans do listen to teacher's unions. I'm just trying to avoid a misleading generalization here.

It's a shame the Democrat's Chris Bell didn't have a stronger education platform--teacher's unions didn't support him either, they supported Strayhorn.

_____________________________
Not a Republican, not a Democrat; I think for myself.
Talk hard.

tsk, tsk...

Y'know, there's a whole other rant here on applied sciences without the context of the application. Economics without political science is being handed a ruler, but not knowing what you're supposed to measure with it.
Real personal income is not real wages. Real personal income includes wages, but also includes stock dividends, interest from funds or investments, and a number of other things where the top 1% can skew the number. You don't want to pull from the BEA, who tracks aggregate and thus personal income -- you want the BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who tracks wages. Not only do they track wages, they're smart enough to calculate real wages based on the CPI and not on inflation -- two numbers that should technically match, but never do. Most recent summary report I could find is here. Hope that helps. (Funny how we all seem to end up gravitating toward economics... just wait 'til you get to grad school .)

Not to be all down on economics, mind you. Just want to clarify that the phrase "there's lies, there's damn lies, and there's statistics" came about for a reason, and that reason was that people can cite numbers that *sound* accurate based on a particular metric that isn't actually indicative. So a surprisingly deep knowledge of those metrics is required to properly analyze statistics based on those metrics. You are most definitely not the first person to point to real personal income as a metric for how much the average American is making compared to price increases, and most people don't know it's an inaccurate metric, so you definitely won't be the last. But it's important to know not only the value you have measured, but what specifically you are measuring, when applying statistics to a real world problem. And of course, we all make that mistake. It's just more an issue of trying to catch it, or vetting with others who may catch it (as here).

Well, there are a number of Democrats and Republicans against NCLB, even if the Republican party hasn't been. So, some Republicans do listen to teacher's unions. I'm just trying to avoid a misleading generalization here.

It's a shame the Democrat's Chris Bell didn't have a stronger education platform--teacher's unions didn't support him either, they supported Strayhorn.

Yup -- just wanted to show off my l33t html skillz again. Outside of that, though, education was *the* primary platform Bell ran on. Teacher's unions supported Strayhorn early -- against their constituents' wishes, the reaction from which made the news for quite a while -- because Bell didn't have as much name recognition that early on. Endorsing that early is a mistake I'm sure they've learned to regret.

And "there are Republicans against the NCLB, so Republicans listen to teacher's unions" is a non sequitur. Republicans against the NCLB are usually harping on unfunded mandates, not teachers' wishes. Though I'm sure you can somewhere find a Republican that's pro-union -- maybe -- that doesn't change the fact that the Republican party -- "Republicans," in common parlance, which does not apply the group generalization to an individual case (as that would be a logical fallacy) -- is and always historically has been strongly anti-union.

Syndicate content