Live-Blogging The SOTU 2014

US-POLITICS-STATE OF THE UNION-OBAMA

10.22 pm. The metaphor of the soldier slowly, relentlessly, grindingly putting his life back together was a powerful one for America – and Obama pulled off that analogy with what seemed to me like real passion. One aspect of his personality and his presidency is sometimes overlooked – and that is persistence. He’s been hailed as a hero and dismissed as irrelevant many times. But when you take a step back and assess what he has done – from ending wars to rescuing the economy to cementing a civil rights revolution to shifting the entire landscape on healthcare – you can see why he believes in persistence. Because it works. It may not win every news cycle; but it keeps coming back.

If he persists on healthcare and persists on Iran and persists on grappling, as best we can, with the forces creating such large disparities in wealth, he will look far, far more impressive from the vantage point of history than the news cycle of the Twitterverse sometimes conveys.

This was True Grit Obama. And it was oddly energizing.

10.17 pm. Why the fuck do I have tears in my eyes? Because what our servicemembers have sacrificed must never be forgotten. I saw “Lone Survivor” with Mikey Piro last night. Mikey, as some Dish readers will know (listen to the podcast here) served as a commander in Iraq, and now struggles with and overcomes PTSD each day. I was under my seat most of the movie. It’s a brutal combat picture. Mikey was fine, until the very end as the real-life photos of lost soldiers were displayed. Then he sobbed a little. I’ve heard several presidents invoke military heroism in their speeches. I cannot recall one so moving.

unnamed

10.12 pm. Another Obama-supporting reader bucks up a bit:

Does Obama’s shift in tone and confidence on the ACA signal that this could be a mid-term issue that Democrats will run on, not from? Did he intentionally let the Republicans endlessly call for repeals without much fanfare, so that Democrats can hoist them by those votes?

Maybe. But the idea that running on universal health insurance is an inevitable loser has always seemed dumb to me. What the Democrats need to do is stay simple: tell the human stories of those finally getting the care they need; capture the emotion and relief; appeal to a common decency. And demand that the GOP offers an alternative. When they do – and a whole lot of it looks a lot like Obamacare – this debate could turn.

10.10 pm. A reader writes:

This speech tonight reminds me why I voted for Obama.  I think the GOP made a ghastly strategic error in choosing to stand only for obstruction, and Obama is driving them into the mat on it tonight.  He’s clearly channeling the sane middle in the US electorate.  The 47 percent of the nation inside the Fox bubble won’t change their minds.  But Obama is reminding the majority that voted for him just why they did.

10.04 pm. Obama is now channeling his inner Eisenhower who understood better than any neocon the limits of American force. This is why I supported him in 2008:

We counter terrorism not just through intelligence and military action, but by remaining true to our Constitutional ideals, and setting an example for the rest of the world.

This is the money quote on Iran:

These negotiations do not rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.

9.56 pm. This is the strongest defense of the ACA I’ve yet seen him give before a large audience. It’s about time. I don’t think he can still achieve what he wants to achieve without strongly making the case for universal healthcare: morally, economically, ethically. Bringing in the Kentucky governor was a nice touch, and goading the Republicans to offer an alternative appeals to Independents. But you get the sense that he knows – and the Republicans know – that large swathes of the bill will never be repealed, and much of it is approved of, when you isolate any actual part of it. It may be that the defensiveness on this may begin to fade.

9.55 pm. Someone’s attention is wandering:

9.51 pm. Yes, the minimum wage is lower than it was under Reagan. In a far tougher time. What I liked about this section, though, was how it spoke of the private sector as leading the way, and demanding that Congress follow. Announcing his own decision to raise the minimum wage of federal contractors also got out of the dynamic that has the president begging Congress to act. He still is. But not so pathetically.

9.48 pm. The speech is gaining momentum. This is powerful on the minimum wage:

Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty.

9.46 pm. He’s not giving up on the gender gap either, is he? Money quote:

This year, let’s all come together – Congress, the White House, and businesses from Wall Street to Main Street – to give every woman the opportunity she deserves. Because I firmly believe when women succeed, America succeeds.

9.44 pm. Arne Duncan got some serious mileage this year, didn’t he?

9.40 pm. That letter from Misty DeMars puts the best possible gloss on the duty for government to help those in need. It also put a female face on it – and a mother’s. No accident either that the example of educational achievement was a young Latino man.

9.37 pm. If you are just tuning in to see how this president looks and feels, this performance must surely give the impression of executive energy, and some new, second term confidence. If you thought Obama had been rattled by that tough fifth year, you might be reassessing your assessment. That challenge to the Congress on expired unemployment insurance was strong. There’s passion in him tonight.

9.33 pm. Finally, some necessary, strong, emphatic dismissal of climate change denialism:

“The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”

That’s more like it.

9.29 pm. The theme so far is practical, specific and optimistic. Of course, not much is likely to come of it. But reframing his second term as a renaissance of the American economy is not untrue and breaks out of the rubric that he’s a lame duck going nowhere. But it’s also kind of dry, and listy. But I guess that’s what these always are.

9.27 pm. The tax reform push comes first – another bipartisan nod. This is not the angry go-it-alone populism we were led to expect.

9.25 pm. Money quote: “Here in America, our success should depend not on accident of birth, but the strength of our work ethic and the scope of our dreams.” And a nice gracious nod to John Boehner. Classy and powerful. And then Boehner reciprocates. That may be the full extent of the bipartisanship this year, but it was lovely while it lasted.

thumbs-up

9.21 pm. Opportunity. Action. All the usual optimistic tropes so as not to be too much of a downer when talking about wage stagnation and economic inequality.

9.18 pm. A crisp, different, upbeat start. I like the way he begins with the people of the United States, and then pivots to asking if the Congress will let them down. A Reaganite beginning with an Obama-style end.

9.16 pm. That was just a boast about getting a poor kid some asthma treatment. Why that rather simple and powerful argument in defense of the ACA is not deployed more often I do not know. I guess the Democrats are too easily intimidated.

9.01 pm. I still get a bit of a thrill seeing an African-American First Lady enter the chamber. Even more of a thrill to see Chuck Hagel. He’s still alive!

Obama’s Shrinking Agenda

David Graham expects Obama to go small tonight:

Don’t tune in looking for a sweeping vision for transforming America: The White House has been telegraphing that this speech will feature the familiar litany of policy proposals but few grand ideas. (If it’s anything else, the White House has faked the press out very effectively.) That’s a recognition of reality. As the death of gun control and immigration reform show, Obama can’t force his ideas through a Republican House, and he can’t rely on getting anything past a filibuster in the Senate, either. Add to that jittery lawmakers facing voters in November’s midterm elections and you get a recipe for smallbore ideas.

Kilgore dreads tonight’s speech:

This year’s SOTU will likely represent an agenda of items the president thinks he can accomplish on his own, perhaps with a shout-out to an immigration reform contingency that Republican feel compelled to entertain as a possibility, perhaps a defiant defense of the Affordable Care Act, perhaps the long-awaited peroration on inequality (though the latest buzz is that Obama will return to the less threatening language of “opportunity,” which suggests some extensive focus-grouping). The president will be subject to vast exercises in armchair psychology as his mood, his energy-level, his “resolve,” are evaluated by way of how he delivers a rehearsed prepared text.

Sargent explains Obama’s executive-action plan:

Scott Wilson has a must read on what’s really driving the new thinking. Short version: Obama advisers have concluded that he’s coming across as too much of a prisoner of the Congressional stalemate that has resulted from GOP obstructionism.

Resorting to executive authority is also about resetting the prism through which the American people evaluate the president’s performance and his engagement with them — by conveying a sense that he has a plan to move the country forward, and he’s acting on it.

John Dickerson goes into more detail:

The president and his team say he will take executive action on the environment and the economy, with a special emphasis on improving social mobility. This may require a smaller definition of action and promoting a longer timeline for results than administrations usually use. An aide described one of the president’s proposed actions as merely “starting a conversation.” Or, the president might simply try to cajole CEOs of private companies.

Sometimes the president will hope to just plant a program he hopes will grow in other administrations. Earlier this month the president announced the creation of a manufacturing hub in North Carolina to spur innovation. It’s a tiny version of a larger program he proposed in last year’s State of the Union address. It won’t have a big effect on the economy, but if the program succeeds perhaps it will create the appetite for developing it further in later administrations.

Ambers zooms out:

As much as Republicans are carping today about the president’s imperial power grab, which apparently consists of recess appointments and strongly worded missives, the importance attached to the State of the Union says as much about the evolution of the presidency as it does about the president in power. Our political culture does not really recognize three equal branches. Only one gets the opportunity to set an agenda. (The “response” doesn’t count. When was the last response that actually moved anything?) The SOTU is important to America as a ritual reminder of the president’s monarchic status, subordinated just that night to the power of the people, who invited him there, who keep him captive, just long enough for them to listen to him, shake his hand, and then send him off.

The GOP Responds And Responds And Responds

Alex Altman previews tonight’s GOP responses. The main event:

The official Republican response will be delivered by Washington Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House. A married mom of three, she is “proof that with humility, hard work and dedication, you can overcome any obstacle,” House Speaker John Boehner said. More important, she offers a visual and biographical counterpoint to Democrats’ charges that the party is inhospitable to women. McMorris Rodgers is a dull speaker, but she sticks to the script. For a party struggling with message discipline, that may be enough.

Nora Caplan-Bricker calls McMorris Rodgers the “the quintessential Republican counterpoint to the contraceptive-popping, In-Leaning feminist Democratic voter”:

Like her male colleagues, she has dismissed charges of a Republican war on women as a “myth” and a “war on reality.” But like the most popular women on the left, she has embraced gender as a defining part of her identity.

Colleagues expect her family to anchor her speech. “What better type of person than a mom, and the parent of a disabled child, to talk about what we as Americans want and need right now,” Congressman Pete Sessions, who co-founded the Congressional Down Syndrome Caucus with McMorris Rodgers, told me. “Whether it be the Affordable Care Act, or our ability to create jobs for our children, all these things are immediately on parents’, and especially moms’ wish lists. She’s personally impacted by the decisions that are made in Washington, D.C.”

Jonathan Riehl wonders whether shutdown crusader Mike Lee, who will deliver the Tea Party response, will be able to “rebrand the Tea Party image”:

Few Americans may actually watch Lee’s entire speech on Tuesday, which will be broadcast just after Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) delivers the official GOP State of the Union response. But the Tea Party faithful are likely to tune in, and that will drive activism from the moment Lee’s address ends until its sound bites show up in TV spots and fundraising letters. Rather than a hectoring Joe McCarthy-stand-in, viewers are likely to see an amiable Utahan, an average man who speaks with a heartfelt and moderate tone.

Pareene notes that Rand Paul will also be giving a response:

Rand Paul’s response won’t be on the networks, because Rand Paul’s audience isn’t everyone, and his intention isn’t necessarily to persuade the median voter. He will sit for cable news interviews after the speech, and hit up the Sunday show circuit a few days later, because he’s still campaigning for 2016 and needs as much free media as possible, but a YouTube response sent directly to people who already support Paul is mainly about energizing and expanding his list.

And that’s sort of the problem the Republican Party faces right now: For Paul, there’s not really any reason not to distract from the “official” party response with a nakedly self-serving bit of early campaigning.

The State Of The SOTU

Friedersdorf fails to see the point:

If tonight’s State of the Union address is anything like the ones that President Obama delivered in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013, here’s what to expect: a banal, risk-averse, scattershot speech that could be cancelled without any great consequence. Obama is a capable orator. It’s easy to remember some of his best speeches. He rarely gets to address America in prime time with Congress assembled. I’d like to see him focus on one issue, or even one theme, and marshal logic to persuade Americans that some substantive step or other ought to be taken.

But that would be unconventional and risky. Everyone with a pet cause that wasn’t mentioned due to the narrowed focus would be upset. That’s why the speech is likely to be broad and shallow, addressing so many subjects that nothing deep or lasting can be said about any of them.

Favreau, who helped write Obama’s previous SOTUs, defends the ritual:

Along with a few championship games and award shows, the State of the Union is one of the few annual events that tens of millions of Americans still watch together, as a country.

For a brief moment, we get to witness our system of government as the proud, democratic institution it was meant to be, not the sad, partisan spectacle it has too often become. Elected officials of both parties gather in one chamber, and (minus Joe Wilson) treat each other with civility, respect, and even warmth. Republicans will line up early to pose for pictures with President Obama, just as Democrats would reach over their colleagues to shake hands with President Bush. Sure, there are many times during the speech where one party applauds and the other does not. But there are many more times when both parties stand to cheer their president’s words: about our troops or our veterans; our children or our workers; our shared love of this country and its special, indispensible place in the world.

Jeff Shesol, another former speechwriter, wishes for a modernized SOTU:

What compels this speech to drag as it does? The answer has to be inertia, an unwillingness to challenge convention—because no principle of aesthetics, no provision of the Constitution, requires the State of the Union to take this shape. The Constitution states only that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” I’m no constitutional scholar, but I see nothing in there about shout-outs to the Interstate Highway System. When George Washington delivered America’s first annual message, in 1790, he limited himself to a thousand words. If you had suggested to him that he increase its length by six thousand words and pack it with legislative proposals that stood no chance of passing, he would have given you that look. (It was not a nice look.)

It’s time, then, to save this speech—this gas-guzzling boat of a speech—from itself.

Face Of The Day

Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi' trial

Former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi is seen inside the glass cage for the first time as the prosecutor began to read out the defendants’ names after Morsi and other defendants arrived at Cairo’s Police Academy to attend the first session of their trial on charges of breaking out of prison during Egypt’s 2011 uprising in Cairo, Egypt, on January 28, 2014. By Pool/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images.

Will The GOP Do Anything About Immigration?

As Republican leaders prepare to circulate a new “statement of principles” on immigration reform later this week, Sargent proposes a litmus test:

Here’s the question: What will Republicans demand as a condition for legalization?

If their basic principle is that legalization will be contingent on undocumented immigrants paying back taxes and a fine, and on the Department of Homeland Security producing a border security plan (as in the Senate bill), that could be a real stepping stone to negotiations and possibly even something approximating comprehensive reform.

But if their basic principle is that legalization will only happen after various border security metrics being met — such as E-Verify being fully operational, or proof that 90 percent of border crossers must be being apprehended and 100 percent of the border must be being surveilled — then that’s going to be a very discouraging sign.

Allie Jones doubts anything will come of it:

Democrats and Republicans may be able to find some middle ground with the Republicans’ new plan. While the Democrat-backed Senate bill includes a path to citizenship for children and adults who came into the country illegally, the Republican plan, which is really just a “statement of principles,” provides a path to citizenship for Dreamers only. This could possibly allay Republican fears that embracing immigration reform means handing Democrats 11 million new voters. Under the Republican plan, undocumented adults would be still be offered a path to “legal status.”

Still, the likelihood that the GOP comes to full agreement and puts this plan in action before November is slim.

The fact that the party can’t come to any consensus on the issue makes Byron York skeptical:

House Republicans are likely to remain deeply divided over legalization. And their divisions simply reflect larger divisions within the conservative world.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is solidly pro-reform. National Review is solidly against it. The Weekly Standard is split, with editor William Kristol advising Republicans “don’t even try” to pass reform this year, and executive editor Fred Barnes praising McCarthy’s decision to support legalization as a blow against the “nativist axis” and a “brave step for his party and America.”

Log On, Sign In, Drop Out

China was the first country to formally identify “Internet addiction” as a clinical disorder, according to Hilla Medalia and Shosh Shlam, whose documentary Web Junkie was recently adapted as an NYT short:

The two filmmakers discuss the global pathologies of the Internet:

[Whitney] Mallett: With this film and Love Child, about a couple who neglect their child for a computer game, there are a couple of cautionary tales about the dangers of the Internet premiering at Sundance. But your film really ends up being less about the Internet and more about rebuilding these families’ relationships. Do you think the internet is the problem, or merely a symptom of deeper problems?

Medalia: First of all, these kids are escaping something, that’s for sure. … In our premiere there was a woman who after the screening raised her hand for the Q&A and told us she has a 20-year-old who is addicted to Internet games and has been going in and out of rehab, and every time he will go through a program, when he comes back home, again the problem arises because the Internet is such an integral a part of your life – unlike heroin, where you can and should live without it. Here it’s like, how do you moderate it? And I think the fact the woman shared her story shows it’s such a global issue.

Shlam: The reason why we did it is not to show the story of China. It can be. But we add the point of view that it’s universal. It happens in China, but China is a mirror for other places.

As Medalia notes, the American Psychiatric Association listed Internet Gaming Disorder as “a condition warranting more clinical research” in its latest edition of the DSM; meanwhile, America’s first inpatient treatment center for Internet addiction opened late last year.

Dissents Of The Day

Readers counter my take on the California Bar rejecting Stephen Glass:

I’m a lawyer, and I take my obligations – imposed by a rigorous code of ethics put in place by the state – very seriously. That code of ethics is designed to protect clients, who trust in their lawyer, and David Plotz’s “buyer beware” view is antithetical to that. (I also am required to make payments into a fund used to reimburse clients who are cheated by their attorneys, and I don’t think we need to add a known sociopathic liar into that pool.) While I agree that Mr. Glass deserves a second chance at a career, I don’t think that a career in a highly regulated profession that is governed by a strict code of ethics is the right place for a known liar who has already blown through one professional code. The right second chance for a money launderer isn’t working at a bank; the right second chance for a rapist isn’t as a guard in a women’s prison; and the right second chance for liar isn’t in a position of trust.

Another lawyer agrees:

It irks me that I’ve seen commentators (with a questionable grasp of legal concepts) argue that “lawyers = dishonesty, Glass = dishonesty, therefore Glass = lawyer”. Given the public’s palpable distrust of lawyers (and by extension the law and the courts), why should we worsen that view by allowing Glass to practice law?

Another:

California lawyer here, and one who is roughly a contemporary of Glass.  I agree that the tone of the California Supreme Court decision is somewhat snide, but I do not disagree with the outcome. Even after his falsehoods as a journalist were discovered, Glass was dishonest on his application to the New York State Bar.

Later, he was not entirely honest on his application in California.  Glass had the opportunity – twice – to complete bar applications with honesty and integrity.  A lack of candor on an application for determination of moral fitness suggests the candidate has not rehabilitated himself, and should be disqualifying. End of story.

A paralegal studying for the LSAT:

Admission to a bar isn’t just about paying an obscene amount of money to a law school then passing a test. It requires a rigorous background check that ensures that each an every person admitted to that bar is a person of good moral character. If you want journalists to hold disgraced lawyers to that standard, then maybe journalists should create a licensing administration the way lawyers have. But I don’t think bars should cheapen theirs.

Others focus on the journalism side:

The First Amendment lets journalists lie (subject to libel laws) anytime they want.  If their audience is happy with it, they can even make a lucrative career of it. Mr. Glass was apparently unlucky enough to have an audience who wasn’t happy with it.

Another:

As a litigator who spent 15 years in journalism (and still freelances occasionally for the NYT), I’d like to share my perspective regarding Glass. In concluding that journalists would be more forgiving of an ethically-challenged lawyer entering the field than lawyers apparently are of an ethically-challenged journalists, I think you’re missing a very important distinction here: Attorneys are trusted with great power when it comes to monies and liberties.

I can, with a subpoena and a signature, compel you to appear in front of me and answer questions – even if you are not a party to a lawsuit. I can likewise demand you hand over most of your documents, assuming I can make a case such a request is vaguely relevant. Moreover, in many cases the attorneys on the other side provide me with their client’s secrets and, as a rule, trust me to keep those secrets.

Almost all of my time billed is on the honor system – no one knows how much I am really working except myself. I am frequently entrusted with large sums of money that I am expected to turn over to my client. In other cases, my collegues will oversee even larger sums held in trust until the beneficiaries reach a certain age.

There are many more similar points/situations I could point out to you where trust and honesty are everything in our profession. So, yes, attorneys are probably harder on prospective attorneys than journalists might be on prospective journalists.

One more:

You conclude your post on Stephen Glass with the following: “Would journalists say that of an ethically challenged lawyer seeking to write about the news? I doubt it.”

We have an interesting parallel that proves your point. Henry Blodget, whose Business Insider is backed by Jeff Bezos, is a proven fraud and crook on a scale much larger than anything Glass did.  Yet after agreeing to a lifetime ban from the securities industry (and a $2 million fine) for illegal and unethical acts that did far, far more direct and calculable damage than Glass’s misdeeds, Blodget is now considered a top entrepreneur and voice in American journalism. His rehabilitation, via Slate and elsewhere, is a real disgrace to American journalism.  In a just universe, he would be forbidden to publish or benefit financially from anything having to do with business.

The Cognitive Dissonance Of The One Percent, Ctd

A reader writes:

I think you’re almost giving too much credit to the financial masters of the universe and what they might feel “deep down” about their own failures in the past. I know a lot of these people personally, and to a man – and they’re almost all men – they truly believe that a) the financial crisis was brought about by a few bad apples and second-rate firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and that they personally had nothing to do with the crisis; b) that the big banks were forced to take the bailouts even if they didn’t need them because firms with more exposure were stupid and reckless and had to be covered for by forcing everyone to take a bailout – this has been fairly well documented, actually, as what Paulson did during the crisis – and c) the work they do is absolutely integral to a well-functioning capitalistic society, and the more money they have to work with and the less regulation there is, the better off everyone is.

Really, the best analogy is to Jack Nicholson’s character in A Few Good Men, Col. Jessup, when he gave the speech about needing him on that wall because even if we don’t like to think about how he protects us, his protection (and the “manner in which he provides it”) is vital, even if it might offend us. That’s how these guys see themselves, really, when it comes to the flow of money and capital throughout the system, full stop. No need to psychoanalyze further.

Another zooms in on Silicon Valley:

As someone who has been living for years in the Bay Area, I think many people’s analysis of Tom Perkins’ meltdown (including yours) misses a very critical element:

Silicon Valley’s relative insulation from the rest of the economy. The tech industry and its VCs and angel investors didn’t suffer much damage from the Great Recession, and in fact probably kept California’s incredibly high unemployment rate from going into space. Perkins, along with other investors in the Valley such as Y Combinator, did not have to be bailed out like Dimon and his Wall Street ilk were. These investors, along with a significant chunk of the local tech industry, have been living in a social bubble, which began to break last year in part due to significant protests in San Francisco and (to a lesser extent) Oakland.

Tom Perkins isn’t actually writing from the standpoint of the one-percent Wall Streeter who has been humbled. His angle is worse: He’s writing from the standpoint of an overreaching tech billionaire who has not been humbled, and is bemoaning the fact that the tech industry’s “disruption” of the Bay Area has not been welcomed and appreciated by native residents like he thinks it should, and fears it might lead them to being “humbled” as well. He is acting, in essence, more like Iraq invasion-era Cheney and Rumsfeld (“They would welcome us as liberators!”) than post-9/11 Cheney and Rumsfeld in general. In fact, if I dare say it, I don’t even think he is particularly talking about Obama, but rather supposed “lefties” in the Bay Area who are legitimately angry at being evicted from their homes and apartments and being unable to afford rent anywhere (let alone SF). In other words, the working class.