Wulfie's Wurld

Let's hope this gets posted correctly. It took a week for the last ones to finally display as they should.

Editorial: State of the Union

When did it become such a dog-and-pony show? I'm talking about the State of the Union address, the annual communication from the president to congress as required by the Constitution.

I tried to watch one a few years back (it's been on television since 1947). It wasn't about what state the union was in. It was a photo-op stretched out to interminable length. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was correct when he discontinued delivering the speech in person and began sending it in written form. If we were to do that today, we'd all be able to read it and judge it solely on what the content was. Jefferson thought delivering it in person was too much like the Speech from the Throne, something our Founding Fathers were trying to get away from. Should we curse Woodrow Wilson for making it a circus again?

Perhaps not. People in bars can have fun throwing popcorn at the screen and heckling what is said. Others can wave their flags and salivate. The Administration gets the chance to maybe squeeze out a dead-cat bounce in the polls. Clinton delivered an address in the middle of impeachment proceedings. Bush definitely needs help in the polls right now, coming off his worst year ever.

Is there any content to the speeches? Whatever became of the Axis of Evil? One of the evil triune became a bit of a quagmire similar to Johnson's Vietnam or Carter's poorly planned and executed hostage rescue. The other two are going their way without even sanctions imposed. Perhaps they aren't so evil after all. Let's not mention the infamous "16 words" of the following year. Oops, too late.

What will be the subject of discussion this year. Hurricane relief? Exit strategy? Wire-tapping? Iran's Nukes? Social Security? Medicare? Will we hear the usual rhetoric about "doing what it takes to protect the American people from terrorists?" We'll have to wait to find out.

During the speech, while waiting for substance, there's a little game you can play to keep your mind occupied. It's called "Count the Standing Ovations." You see, every time the president says a sentence, sometimes only a clause, certain members (okay, the majority) of Congress will leap to their feet and applaud wildly as though Moses has just returned with the tablets. They'll be up and down more times than they are when they're with their mistresses. This is probably a good thing, since it may be the only exercise many of them get.

Still, I have to wonder, can anyone watch this circus and walk away with the warm and fuzzies about functional checks and balances? What kind of balance can we expect from a Congress that wildly endorses every sentence of a president no matter what the content?