Time to abolish the State of the Union Speech
The State of the Union report to Congress is part of the constitutional obligations of the President of the United States. It is in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. Though it is a long time coming, President Biden’s latest presentation demonstrates that the Speech no longer serves its intended purpose.
What the Founders called for was a serious report from the President to Congress — not necessarily a speech. In fact, early Presidents sent their report over to Congress in written form. It was not a widely reported event. It was meant more as an insider report meant largely for congressional consumption.
George Washington provided the report in written form – to be read to Congress by the clerks of the respective chambers. The first President to give his report in person – in the form of a speech – was Woodrow Wilson. That tended to change the report from a summary of the condition of the Republic, vis’ a vis major issues, to a lobbying speech for the President’s legislative agenda.
Over time – and with the introduction of radio and television – the State of the Union Speech became a major political and social event. It evolved from a rather dignified speech by the nation’s chief executive into the circus we see today. Yes, I said circus.
Biden took it to a new level – and I do not mean a higher one – with the most strident partisan speech in history. But that was only incremental. The State of the Union Speech had been succumbing to reality show buffoonery for years.
While past presidents were announced and walked solemnly and silently down the aisle to the podium, the new entrances rival professional wrestling events with back slaps, high fives and cheering. Members of Congress who once may have nodded politely as the President passed, now approach him like teenagers at a rock concert – visibly giddy. They seek autographs and take selfie phone camera photos.
In years past, the chamber remained largely silent, with only a few interruptions for applause. Never cheers, boos and outbursts. I can recall past vice presidents and speakers of the house sitting like statues behind the President. Today, we had Vice President Harris jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box or a high school cheerleader. Applause is no longer limited to a few notable statements but has become a numerical contest to be reported by the media. How many times a President is interrupted by applause is now a scoreboard statistic.
And then there are all those folks in the gallery to be props for specific issues. Like all slippery slopes, the recognition of a person in the gallery in the past was limited — maybe one or two people with heroic stories worthy of national recognition. Today, it is a half dozen folks – mostly with highly partisan personal stories.
Rather than an informative event for Congress – or even we the people — the State of the Union address has become the annual political Super Bowl — but with only one team on the field. Rather than provide the President with an opportunity to explain the state of the American Union, it has evolved into a personal and partisan platform for an incumbent president’s political agenda – a rally with all the over-the-top antics and theatrics. In election years, the Speech descends into the depths of political depravity.
So … you may think my preference is to return to the more sedate State of the Union speeches of yesteryears. Not so. Oh, I would prefer it over the current carnival, for sure. But … If I had the proverbial magic wand, I would choose a totally different approach. I would amend the Constitution to completely do away with the annual State of the Union dog-and-pony show and replace it with the British system of the “Prime Minister’s Questions” to be held at least four times each year.
If you are not familiar with the British system, the Prime Minister comes before the Parliament to make a brief statement of policy matters and then stands for questions from members of Parliament – all parties and factions. Tough questions. Issue-based questions.
And what I especially like is that the members can react to every answer. They hiss, boo and groan – even stomp their feet – when they disapprove of an answer. Conversely, those who like the question or the answer sound their approval with a course of “Hear! Hear!” Some individual voices can occasionally be heard yea-ing and nay-ing.
But, the responses are generally brief and are not intended to disrupt the proceeding – simply to register an opinion. When the body becomes more aggressive in its verbal responses, the Speaker pounds the gavel repeatedly demanding “Order! Order!” – which is restored within moments.
The Prime Minister’s Questions is lively even entertaining — but more importantly, a highly informative event.
What I like about the system is that it provides a public forum for the discussion of a wide range of issues important to the people of Great Britain. The Prime Minister is challenged to answer in specific terms very hard-hitting questions. And by having several sessions each year, the public is better informed on a more frequent basis. In watching those televised proceedings, the people of Britain learn far more about the state of their union than we do from what has become a political charade in America.
Imagine if the President of the United States were to stand in the well of the House and be made to answer specific questions from his political allies and adversaries in a single event repeated several times a year. There would be no long partisan speeches with no opportunity for questions. There would be no teleprompters. No staged theatrics. No human props in the gallery.
The questions would come from the representatives of the people – not the press or handpicked audiences. Rather than having a few legislators break the rules in Washington by shouting responses, the responses would be built into the event itself.
The weakness in the American system is that we do not have a way to force our leaders to face the public – or even face our elected representatives. That has enabled American presidents – especially the current one – to run and serve insulated from public scrutiny. Bob Costa, the harshly anti-Trump sportscaster, called for Biden to step down – describing the President as being “bubble wrapped.” To a lesser degree, that applies to all presidents. The British system ensures that their leader has to appear outside the bubble wrap on occasion.
I understand it is a pipedream, but wouldn’t it be lovely?
So, there ‘tis.
The speech by retard joe had nothing to do with the state of the union. It was an opportunity to chew ass and campaign. It’s time to get out from under the obligation to deliver a report by speech. Joe only made it clear that he hates the SCOTUS and everyone who opposes his stupidity. And the guy lied repeatedly about the economy and the jobs report was greatly exaggerated. But what can we expect from a moron?
And it didn’t bother you when the previous President did it almost daily!
Ruth … whataboutism is not the point. You have to remember that most folks never wanted either of them as candidates. I would be more interested in your assessment of Biden and his speech as the subject … not distracting. And THIS commentary is not even about Biden or Trump, but the Speech as an institution .. and how we can improve it as a means of communicating on critical issues.
I do not know why the most frequent Republican answer to fixing things is to ban them? Instead of making things better, just do away with it. Don’t say gay, ban the books, abortion bans, trans bans, now ban the SOTU. Whatever happened to making things better, making things right?
The same thing could be said about gun grabbing cashiers.
Meant to say assholes. My computer is getting senile like Joe. By the way Frank, I’m glad that you made it to work today. You have been hired for a very important job. George Soros is depending on you. You are on line every day all day preaching about what’s wrong with the country. But you have no solutions. But don’t give up. Some brain dead morons might pay attention
Frank, I agree. What you just expressed was my first thought exactly! Why dispose of it? Why not improve it? I seem to remember Trump speeches were pretty heavy on criticizing Dems and seemed like political stunts as well. I bet neither party would vote to modify the SOTU address.
Actually….I noted Trump’s 2020 mentioned “predessesors” six times; Biden rolled with 13. That tells me Horist is probably off with his most-egreggrious campaign speech ever. I would gather those roll around every four years or so…… Horist never looked, he just winged it based on his “experience.”
Tom you may not like Soros politics; I don’t like the Koch Bro’s, one left now, either, but I do respect both for stepping up, and while I am really not sure about Soros returns on the funding, I think the Koch’s can own the Tea Party and should take partial responsibiity for the current Trumpian Party, but only as an unintended outcome.
While I agree with Robin’s conclusion, I don’t know where she comes off saying “drug-addeled?” Like Trump isn’t hopped up all the time —- have you seen his doctor? And hate filled? Lady needs to walk a mile in our shoes…..
FYI — circus? We know who comes dresses as a clown…. STS — brilliant, you have found your muse.
Darren, there’s plenty of good news out there once you step away from MSNBC, FOX, and the other opinion stations. There’s even a chart, a picture, to guide you…… I agree the media is propping him up on this one, but fact is they beat him down the same exact way by propping up Trump LIES. And your comments on the military are lies and uncalled for. So prove it or STFU. But I do agree, fix, don’t destroy. And will add, the British method is even funnier, I would not suggest that. I mean you guys, in the House, went for British style vote-of-no-confidence. How far did that get you? Least production House ever.
Frank, just for the record, I do not like the Koch bros either. They are as bad on the right as Soros is on the left. Both have done quite a bit to divide this country. Maybe we can ban both of them!
Tom … You are suggesting a ban? You seem to have already forgotten what your bromantic partner Frank said about bans above — to which you gave the perfunctory “Frank, I agree.” .Apparently, you misplaced that page from your song sheet. LOL
Tom …. You are starting to sound like Frank’s Ed McMahon. What happened to your self-proclaimed independent objective mind? Your memory of Trump’s past speeches is irrelevant to the commentary. Most observers — left an right — saw that Biden Speech as the MOST political in history. I had alluded to the long evolution of the Speech that led to that nadir. But you compare it to Biden where as I draw a through line to the worst ever. I did not absolve previous SOTU speeches as you seem you imply.
And Horist, Tom and I are not partners, we have no bromance except in your addled mind where anyone who disagrees with anything you say must be on “the other side” joing forces in your paranoid anti-Horist conspiracy.
We are about ideas and issues; you are about personalities since you cannot debate the issues and ideas contraray to your fake resume.
That’s right folks, anyone who agrees with me is in a bromance as my sidekick, Ed M. It’s the best Horist can do, go for the person, not the issue or idea.
“Most observers — left an right — saw that Biden Speech as the MOST political in history.” You can’t prove this.
And I compared it to TRUMP because you say: “Biden took it to a new level – and I do not mean a higher one – with the most strident partisan speech in history.” And when I took a look, a comparison, to the fucking DOOR that you opened, you feign offense, once again the poor victim, and avoid responding to the fact that, as I said, “I noted Trump’s 2020 mentioned “predessesors” six times; Biden rolled with 13. That tells me Horist is probably off with his most-egreggrious campaign speech ever.”
Now if you have actual proof, actual facts, to refute my facts, let’s have em. Toe the line, face to face, fact to fact instead of the consistent, continual personal attacks as the best you can muster.
I do not have Tourettes. I do not have a bromance with Tom; I do have many with others. I have no obsession with you, I just like learning about the issues and writing about them. And I am certainly not stupid. I’ve been tested. You are just really low hanging fruit, a throwback to a past era and error we dealt with in the 70’s. And here you come again, and that’s OK. But issues, ideas, facts, if you can muster. But the personal stuff: you’re not even good at it.
Please desist with the personal stuff. And if you think I’ve done it to you, call it out. Quit being a dick IOW.
Frank Stetson …. Off the mark again. I did not ban the speech as much as reform and replace the Presidents report to Congress. And of course, you go of on one of Tourette’s Syndrome tangents. The whole commentary was about making things better. Is it your obsession to disagree with me or is it a real reading comprehension problem?
Horist, yes you did offer an alternative as you BANNED the SOTU as we know it.
Frank Stetson … Nice try but no cigar. A ban ends something … period. Replacing is not a ban by any rational definition. But that explains your rebuttal.
A distinction without a difference Mr Horist.
Yes, I am “working” here today unlike the 30% of the RNC that Trump, I mean Trumpbitch fired. Maybe later we can do a little more RINO hunting. I just love hunting endangered species to extinction. What funny to lessen diversity. You know, Horist has done a few Trump push backs, I wonder when they will sink to that level on THE LIST?
George Soros has retired smart guy, you need to move on to Alexander who is going out with Huma Abedin which ought to really knot your knickers. It was announced about a year ago and may have just taken effect.
George Soros is worth under 7B having given 32B to charity making him probably the largest wealth percentage donor in history. Trump stole from his charity foundation, was fined, and had to close it down. Tis the charity, run by Alex, where the donation money is.
I have offered many solutions; I think the four indictments, plus civil cases, against Trump are very good solutions to allowing the voter to see what exactly they are voting for. But I have offered many others. You are wrong on that.
And this ain’t work, it’s breaks.
Frank, I am not a George Soros fan and much of his giving is for political influence returns. But I understand the thrust of your counterpoint, that Soros handles his charities much better than Trump. Trump handled his charity very poorly, including having the charity buy Tim Tebow’s football helmet for his personal collection! BTW, I do not think Wampler considers anything a solution unless it aligns with his political point of view.
I disagree with getting rid of the State of the Union address. We need to get back to the initial purpose of the SOTU address without the partisan side shows such as Nancy Pelosi tearing up the SOTU and Biden turning it into a campaign speech. We learned nothing about the actual SOTU from Biden’s speech. In fact, we came away a bit more stupid about the State of the Union before Biden made his drug addled, hate filled speech. The SOTU address needs to be line item facts about the State of the Union.
Robin, I respect your opinion that you feel more stupid, and it may well be true that you are more stupid. But I did not come away more stupid. I learned how deeply divided lobbyist money has gotten us. I learned what Biden would not cut, and what Trump would cut. I learned the direction of both men and their vision for our country.
You learned nothing. You are just a partisan hack like Frank (all hat, no cattle) Stetson. In other words, another loser.
Stop The Spin rating STS-2 due to 1) Dems did not create the circus, this was done by GOPs – they were the ones screaming and booing. 2) Apparently Larry did not remember how often GOPs stood to clap for Trump, including Pence. 3) Larry does not remember how many jabs Trump took at Dems. 4) Disagree with the conclusion that Americans learned nothing about the state of the union. We did. We learned the stark differences between the two parties. We also learned things Biden will not cut entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, (Trump has said he would cut all three – get ready Larry because its one of your primary sources of income!), we also learned the direction Biden is heading. Trump will cut entitlements so he can find more tax cuts for corporations and wealthy persons. 5) GOP is “ban-happy”, maybe we should call them the “Ban-anas Party! 5) This article could easily apply to both parties. 6) This article sounds like a script for a sequel to the hit movie, “Grumpy Old Men” which Larry uses as a training video!
Larry, why does the GOP always seek to ban, with the exception of dangerous guns, over-priced drugs, and tax cuts for corporations and wealthy persons? Why not create legislation to do exactly what you say. For some reason the GOP does not suggest this, why? Maybe have the POTUS submit a written report on the status of all twelve funding bills (which means they must get them approved on time, instead of what we have now) and just maybe we would have found out quicker how Trump paid for that 2 billion tax cut using national debt! And cover three spending bills as first part of a quarterly televised meeting agenda, with House able to ask questions. I agree with your feeling that Americans should be able to learn the “State of the Union” but banning it all together I cannot agree with as an Independent.
Tom … your are doubling down on your own stupidity. I only use that term because you insulted Robin with it. Sanctimony and hypocrisy are not a good matches. Actually, Social Security is not my primary source of income. You speak from stupidity. Why do you create phony insults that you obviously cannot know about me? have you taken up Frank’s stupid obsession? And again you use the “ban” word when I did not propose banning the SOTU speech but only to reform it for better communication. You say you learned things from Biden’s one-sided campaign speech. I think you did not learn much — other than absorbing the one-sided narrative. That’s stupid. Whew! I guess I have exhausted your stupid stupid comment. Time to put it to rest for now — at least until you again engage in childish insults. LOL
I must say I do not agree with doing away with the SOTU Speech. The times we live in call for more
direct answers and speeches from the President. The news no longer reports the facts so watching an inept person
might be the only time the American People can view their DICTATOR Biden.
I just wonder when the Chamber will be filled with A I and the only one there in the President or will
he be A I as well.
Count on NO debate from this old fool and the media props him up like the guy behind the curtain on the Wizard of Oz.
This may be the only time he speaks between now and November.
The State of the Union speech is supposed to embark an issues facing the people of this country.
Biden did not go into detail because he alone in the reason we have issues in this country.
The ones applauding did everything but yell Sieg Heil.
Just because this old drooling old fool can not make a SOTU speech in no reason to eliminate it.
After listening to it you have to ask yourself, why would anyone join the military and defend this kind of thinking?
Is apologizing to murderers the next day worth dying for!
Only GOP politicians and presidents should be allowed to attend. The democrats are only there to mug for the cameras and shoot off their mouths Why should we true patriots have to even see the American hating bastards
Certainly I believe you are entitled to your own opinion, and as a veteran (we are the true patriots) we risk our lives so you can have that entitlement. But we get really upset when you confuse lying, insurrection, using legal systems for personal gain, and obstructionist behaviors as “true patriotism”.
You are more than a bit confused there Bucky. It is not an entitlement; it is a right! You damn Rats always use the legal system to muddy up the water to what is actually going down. And by the way, there was no insurrection in the real world, only a stupid riot, probably started by Rat troublemakers.
“Why should we true patriots have to even see the American hating bastards.”
How do you plan to acheive that Harold? Your very statement shows how little about patriotism you even know.
Mug for the cameras? Who wore the clown suit advertising and shilling for votes for the orange-haired devil on the floor of Congress? When have you ever seen a political sign board in Congress except from Republicans? And the speaker didn’t even have the balls to enforce his own rules.
Let me guess; you probably think the 1.6 capitol breach was a patriotic act by true defenders of the Constitution?
The 1/6 bullshit is coming unglued as we speak. At least for Trump for now. Evidence has been discovered showing that Trump requested the national guard to stop the capital assault. But don’t worry. WHEN Trump is re-elected he will pardon the so called perpetrators. I can’t wait for that to happen. And lizzy Cheney might end up in jail. Probably not. The left could shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it. But don’t worry Frank. You’re not on anyone’s radar. Yet.
Unglued? Harold, OMGoodness — you have a hot one and just fumble the write-up. Congrats on the timely sleuthing, but where are the facts, sources, whatever. And you had it…..
Problem is that it’s your House and your House is prone to trial-by-media, and deliberations based on fire, ready, aim, investigations. Comer shot down on Biden impeachment, pedo-coach Jordan blown away on Hunter, and gosh knows where weaponization and deep state investigations launguish. Witnesses indicted, witnesses leave town, these boys don’t hunt. At least not well.
Yes, the Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk brought out a not-disclosed 1/6 interview with Trump Protective Detail Secret Service Lead Anthony Ornato who somehow after 1/6/2020 and 1/21/2021 became White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato. I hope you can see where I am going with this source and quid-pro-quo.
In the transcript Ornato claims Trump offered 10K guardsman to Mayor Bowers and was turned down. There was no order, the message was overheard by Ornato as delivered, not by Trump, but by Meadows, Bowers said she requested, and got 340 for traffic control, but no news YET on her turning down Meadows/Trump. Basically, the committee did not believe Ornato over the other evidence.
Loudermilk, OMG –I think I worked with his relative, needs to do the work instead of letting The Federalist wag the tail in the media. Get Ornato, Bowers, Trump, Meadows, in deposition and let’s find out. If they already don’t have it.
On the record, Trump did nothing for over three hours. Trump never issued any order to add guardsmen, it just takes a pen. Loudermilk needs to get out of the news and into an investigation. Quit the fire, ready, aim…..
Bottom line: hey, he’s got some “new evidence,” so run a real investigation with all the witnesses I mentioned and more to find the truth, under deposition, from all witnesses. Then, if this looks valid, verified, and true, —— pull the 1/6 committee under the spotlight to find out 1) did they fuck this up and 2) if so, what else might have been spun. But, to date, you got a guy talking about hearing a guy who is talking for another guy, Trump, about what Meadows said to Bowers without hearing from Bowers except as a NO. So far. So, Loudermilk, do the job.
As far as potential future pardons, not even of my radar screen for priority issues
– Trump will go RINO hunting well before he goes for me, Horist should be more afraid than I
– Trump will hollow out the Federal Government of any Democrat he can legally fire well before he goes for me. Well I have a few relatives at risk, but they are lawyers
– As far as I am concerned, they will have served enough time for me, at least all but eight. Many have already blamed Trump, they probably won’t get the pass.
Just a couple things Darren. 1) The folks that were applauding did not yell Sieg Heil primarily because that is the official salute of the folks who were not applauding. They most recently did it by getting the call from their leader and promptly being good minions by disapproving the most comprehensive border security bill in US history. Maybe it was not perfect, but it was the best right now. I come from a world where the word “ban” is rarely used and in my world we at least do something that is along the right path, then we analyze results, then we make modifications to what we originally did to make it better. Instead, to put it into your words, the GOP “”sieg Heil’ed ” the bill.
Now with regard to the military, it is a great organization. To answer your question, we serve our country out of a sense of duty, not out of politics. We serve to protect all those that do not serve so that they can call our leader a “drooling old fool” without getting thrown in Jail. Do you know that in China, publicly calling or writing about Xi the same thing will get you up to fifteen years in prison? By the way, you will also get prison time in Hungary (Trump’s friend) for doing the same thing. We serve so that you can have a vote, a say, in your elected officials and that there can be robust political discourse. We serve that you can assemble and protest when the government does something unpopular. We serve so that if you have a problem with the government you can address it in a court of law that is fair and get justice. We serve so that you will not have to deal with unreasonable searches and seizures. We serve so that all people of all colors, religions, political alignment, personal pronouns, and other statuses can all have the same freedoms and rights. We serve to protect our citizens around the world and shield them from harm. We also serve because it is a great way to get additional training and skills and use them to serve your countrymen and women and its – and have a great job in society when you are done serving the people.
Notice all of the reasons I stated for why we serve. None of them are political. I hope this answers your question.
I said they did everything but yell Sieg Heil.
That the part you get upset and disagree about?
Tom … you actually raise a question, Is there no end to your self-flattery and puffery. You are either a god that descended from heaven or a person with out a modesty gene in your body. I think you should be listed as one of the definitions of pomposity. You may be under some delusion that it enhances your credibility. Au contraire. LOL
“Is there no end to your self-flattery and puffery. You are either a god that descended from heaven or a person with out a modesty gene in your body.”
Has anyone read Hoirist’s resume?
Have you seen the saucers?
” According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” And that reader was named Larry…. :>)
Frank Stetson … Why do your resort to outright lies to attack me? FYI …I did not make up the Krauthammer comment. You are not only obsessive, ignorant but a bald face habitual liar. And those are your best traits….LOL In fact, your evergreen claims of truth an accuracy are are mostly lies. And when called out, you whimper “I was only joking.” Pathetic. Fortunately, your influence does not go past your favorite foursome.
You can’t take or tell a joke if it smacks you in the face. How such an old man can be such a baby.
And face it, I was being kind about your resume.
You can laugh at yourself Horist, everyone else is. And once again, I was trending real light re your personal attack on Tom.
Good discussion, I learned about your deeper thoughts on the issue of Tom.
Larry, coming from you, the comments about Tom are totally laughable (almost as laughable as saying trump has an IQ of 156-but not quite). You are about the biggest pompous ass I have ever run into (and an ignoramus as well…). So there tis….
Frank it’s been in the news that the select committee withheld evidence that was favorable to Trump. Yes, Fox carried it and other news outlets have been reporting it Just a word of advice. Don’t try stealing this election. Just saying. I know what would happen but let’s wait and see
Jim,
First, you got this guys testimony, the 1/6 discounted it because the guy seemed to lie against all the other evidence, not to mention a strange career path from ss cop to Deputy Chief of Staff for the White House, for a week I guess. But while your head is busy up your ass, I said:
“Bottom line: hey, he’s got some “new evidence,” so run a real investigation with all the witnesses I mentioned and more to find the truth, under deposition, from all witnesses. Then, if this looks valid, verified, and true, —— pull the 1/6 committee under the spotlight to find out 1) did they fuck this up and 2) if so, what else might have been spun. But, to date, you got a guy talking about hearing a guy who is talking for another guy, Trump, about what Meadows said to Bowers without hearing from Bowers except as a NO. So far. So, Loudermilk, do the job.”
Basically, you got some dumbass kissing Trump for a promotion who says shit with no confirmation or additional evidence and you once again accept Trial by Fox instead of trial by a jury of peers, or even a House investigation. Most other, if not all other, 1/6 testimony did not confirm his story, and many disagreed. And the story came from The Federalist, everyone else, including FOX, ran with it without any additional sources, info, or facts. The Federalist has mixed factual reporting with an extreme hard right bias according to most bias/fact checker organizations.
I am not saying the guy is wrong, or the guy is a liar. I am saying Loudermilk, do your job and quit condemning people in the press without a proper investigation. If you are right, you have got vindication for Trump and complete failure of the 1/6 committee —- that’s a real feather in you cap. FOX has already been tagged for lying to support Trump for many, many, millions in fines.
What is it with you and your warnings on an anonymous web site to a fictional poster? No one wants your erection and the fact you know what will happen means less than nothing.
Darren … In your first sentence you hit upon my reason for suggesting a Q and A format. To allow for more questions on issues from all sides. Instead of calling it the State of the Union SPEECH, we can call it the Quarterly State of the Union Questions. Although that makes for a terrible acronym — QSTOTUQ. In Washington-speak, that is probably enough to kill the idea. LOL
He should be fined for every LIE he tells I million for each LIE, that way he can pay for the illegals.
I agree with the lie fine Good Luck. This will mean Trump will owe the government many billions of lies since all fact checkers agree that Trump spun and lied some form of lie 72% of the time! Maybe if politicians had to pay a $1 fine for each partial or full lie or grotesque spin, we could wipe out the national debt! :>)
That’s good, Luck. What’s Trump up to in fines now, like $480 million?
WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH
When the democrats are all gone