State of the Union
Dan Froomkin
washingtonpost.com White House Briefing Columnist
Wednesday, January 21, 2004; 11:00 a.m. ET
In a speech that previewed the major themes the president would use on the campaign trail as he seeks reelection in November, President Bush delivered the final State of the Union address of his term Tuesday night, calling the United States a "nation with a mission" that has made the right decisions to invade Iraq, cut taxes, and reshape its education and health care laws. Bush also hinted that he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
How will the State of the Union speech affect U.S. policy? The 2004 elections? washingtonpost.com White House Briefing columnist Dan Froomkin was online to answer your questions and share next-day analysis of the president's yearly speech.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Dan Froomkin: Good morning everyone! Against my self-interest, I should tell you that I'm up against Karen Hughes, who is taking (I'll bet softball) questions over on the White House Web site. But it's almost as exciting to see Karen Hughes back (see the item in today's White House Briefing column) as it was to see Vice President Dick Cheney come out from his secret lair (see yesterday's White House Briefing column). Let the battle begin!
My column today actually leads with a list of things that various people who I read this morning said were missing from the State of the Union address. Can you think of others? Does it matter?
I'm happy to hear your thoughts, and answer questions about the coverage of the State of the Union address, and take any questions you have about my new column, which launched last week. In fact, I'd also love your ideas for the column. But please try not to ask me my opinion about political things. That's not my role here.
_______________________
Rosslyn, Va.:
"A strong America must also value the institution
of marriage. I believe we should respect
individuals as we take a principled stand for one
of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of
our civilization...
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining
marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives.
On an issue of such great consequence, the
people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on
forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the
only alternative left to the people would be the
constitutional process. Our nation must defend the
sanctity of marriage."
I was confused by this discussion. President Bush
seems to be saying that it is the will of the people
that upholds the definition of marriage as a union
between one man and one woman (both
heterosexual). Does he mean that if the
democratically expressed will of the people
changed, the definition of marriage could be
changed? And what if the will of the people in one
state wanted to change the definition of marriage?
This doesn't seem very protective of the institution
of marriage.
Dan Froomkin: Already lots of questions about the marriage issue.
As Robin Toner and Robert Pear write in the NY Times, Bush really plunged into the debate about gay marriage last night. But talk about a polarizing issue. People's initial views seem to be coloring how they interpret what he said. Supporters of gay marriage are outraged because they think he basically endorsed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman; opponents of gay marriage are frustrated he didn't come right out and say it.
The loquacious blogger Andrew Sullivan has a lot to say on this issue today, as well.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Why didn't the president speak about his space plan to return moon?
Dan Froomkin: Good question. Here's what David Von Drehle has to say about that in his news analysis for The Post this morning: "The big plan floated a week ago -- to settle the moon and strike out for Mars -- never came up, having bombed in the polls and on both sides of the congressional aisle."
Sounds like his plan may go the way of this father's. (See the third item in Thursday's column.
_______________________
Wilmington, Del.:
Mr. Froomkin --
Can you define "...weapons of mass destruction-related program activities?"
Coloring books? Doodles on a bar napkin? Whatever they are, they are a far cry from the certainty implied by Bush's comments on March 18th, 2003:
"Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons."
Dan Froomkin: Those who are not disposed to support President Bush are going to have a lot of fun with that phrase, I suspect. Just like that.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.:
I did not watch it? Why? Too many interruptions with applauses. How distracting!
Dan Froomkin: Interruptions with applause are a critical subtext of the State of the Union. Some of us, especially when we have an early version of the text, study them religiously. Who's standing up? How long did it take them to stand? Did the president pause for applause and not get some? Last night, there was one pause he regrets, I can tell you that. By the way, The Post and the NY Times both counted 71 such interruptions. The LA Times counted 60. The Washington Times counted 68. Just so you know.
_______________________
Edwards, Calif.:
What's your take on foreign reaction to the speech?
Dan Froomkin: I've been too busy reading domestic reaction to answer that! But super producer Meredith Bragg (doing this remotely from New Hampshire, I might add) is going to link to some stuff he found.
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.:
I am confused as to why the "official" Democratic response to the State of the Union garnered so little interest in the post-speech analysis conducted by the major networks. Not one was asking their myriad focus groups about it.
Dan Froomkin: It never does. One of the many burdens of being the oppposition.
_______________________
washingtonpost.com:
Post correspondents around the globe offer audio reports on local reaction to President Bush's speech:
Anthony Faiola in Tokyo
Peter Baker in Moscow
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
For me, the strangest moment of the speech was Bush's attack on steroid use among athletes. What next? Marijuana use among rock stars? It has just about as much relevance to the day to day life of Americans.
Dan Froomkin: Steve Fainaru has a story about the steroid issue this morning in The Post's sports section. It was the big surprise of the night for me. But remember that Bush used to own a baseball team.
I didn't see it myself, but Allessandra Stanley in the New York Times writes that Jon Stewart, host of the "Daily Show with Jon Stewart," on Comedy Central said on NBC that he wished the president had been a bit bolder and had spoken out against "the instant replay and artificial turf."
_______________________
Laurel, Md.:
Which pause does Bush regret? Was it when Democrats applauded the rolling back of some aspects of The Patriot Act?
Dan Froomkin: Yes.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Do you know why only one Justice of the Supreme Court shows up now? It's been Breyer alone for the past two years.
Dan Froomkin: I do not know. Does anyone out there know? There were major security precautions last night, and more people officially staying away to preserve the continuity of government in case of disaster than usual. But why only one Justice, and why Breyer of all people? Good question.
_______________________
Wayne, Pa.:
And what's this drug testing for students? That just creeps me out as a parent.
Dan Froomkin: I suspect this has tested quite well in focus groups.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
A lot of people are saying this speech was more an unofficial "stump" for the '04 elections than a State of the Union address. Either way, it seemed pretty lackluster, especially for a speech that was picked over by Karl Rove. Do you think this signals trouble for the president on the campaign trail, or do you think he'll be able to tone down that smirk in time for November?
Dan Froomkin: One is generally advised not to misunderestimate Mr. Rove. Especially not when Ms. Hughes is looking over his shoulder. Chances are, they know something you don't about the public.
_______________________
Dan Froomkin: So did anyone out there actually change their mind about Bush after watching his address?
I didn't hear anything last night that it struck me was fundamentally going to change anyone's opinions about Bush, one way or the other. As Bob Kaiser said in response to a question in his Live Online instant analysis last night, even how you see his facial expressions seems to depend on your polarity. "Was he smirking? Or looking like a nice, reliable, good guy? You in Dallas saw a smirk; I'm confident a lot of others saw the Bush they like and plan to vote for."
Let's hear from you....
_______________________
Del Ray, Alexandria, Va.:
Does it strike anyone else as incredibly
ironic, considering how he came into
office, that GW Bush should rail against
"judges forcing their arbitrary will upon the
people"?
Dan Froomkin: I couldn't say.
_______________________
Dan Froomkin: Hey, I am answering way more questions than that Karen Hughes.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Freudian slip of the night: Peter Jennings noting that Vice President Cheney was "in the charge," then correcting himself to say that Cheney was "in the chair."
Or did he have it right the first time?
Dan Froomkin: I couldn't say.
_______________________
Atlanta, Ga.:
I did not hear any specific proposals for spending cuts in last night's speech. How can the president's goal of cutting the deficit in half over the next five years be met when all we hear about are spending increases (such as for the traditional state/local responsibility of education) and not a word about spending cuts?
Dan Froomkin: That does sound like an ommission.
_______________________
Gaithersburg, Md.:
Having read your column earlier I was wondering if the presidents omissions of sympathy for the many lost men and women of our armed forces might not be viewed in a poor light by even his supports?
Dan Froomkin: I couldn't say.
_______________________
Dan Froomkin: A law professor I know writes me in a backchannel to speculate on why only one Supreme Court justice showed up.
One reason could be a "separation of powers concerns: the general issue as to whether Justices should be involved in activities of the executive branch."
Another could be "appearance of conflict concerns. It looks funny not to clap for the President, and it looks funny clapping -- espeically if you may have to sit in judgment of cases involving both institutional and personal issues."
Thanks, Michael.
Of course this all strikes me as possibly overcareful considering that one Justice recently went duck-hunting with Vice President Cheney just three weeks after the court agreed to take up the vice president's appeal in lawsuits over his handling of the administration's energy task force. See the LA Times story on that.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.:
A State of the Union and nothing about Osama bin Laden? Seems to be a pretty obvious oversight. Can't imagine why the President wouldn't want to discuss that issue.
Dan Froomkin: That was on my list.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Re: Changing opinion. As an independent voter, I was glad to see Bush list ALL the countries that support the War. It showed that we are not isolated like so many Democratic candidates seem to talk about 24/7. I also liked his defense of the Patriot Act. There are a lot of good laws in that bill. Democrats might have made political hay out of it. I agree that the government should have the same powers to fight terror as they do organized crime.
Dan Froomkin: I am not entirely clear as to whether this reader actually changed his or her mind, but there you go.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
If you had to pick, what is the best single proposal or part of last night's speech? The worst? I'll accept that these are your personal views.
Dan Froomkin: I do not have to pick. I just write about what other people pick. Is this a great job or what?
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
I thought Bush really missed an opportunity to illustrate the impact of the War in Iraq when he introduced the President of the Iraqi Governing Council seated with the First Lady. Can you tell us more about this guy’s story? Was he or his family tortured by Saddam, Uday or Qusay? I thought Bush could have really hit a homerun saying something like, “Last year at this time, he lived in oppression, fear under a brutal dictator who did X, Y and Z to his family and village, and now he sits as America’s guest of honor, etc, etc. etc…”
Dan Froomkin: That was definitely one of the more dramatic moments last night. The Post's Robin Wright had a neat story this morning about the distinguished gentleman in question, Adnan Pachachi. Wright says the Iraqi Governing Council president is "the wise old man of Iraqi politics since the fall of Saddam Hussein." Pachachi also met with the president earlier yesterday.
_______________________
Brooklyn, N.Y.:
Does immigration policy's inclusion in the speech mean the White House is serious about pushing this on the skeptical House?
Dan Froomkin: Indications are that pushing hard for this policy -- or at least not giving up on it as quickly as the Mars thing -- is a key to the Bush strategy to increase Hispanic support.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.:
Dan:
I don't understand how Bush can equate tax cuts with more jobs. That doesn't seem to have occured so far. Could you explain the president's logic.
By the way -- very nice Blog.
Dan Froomkin: The nice thing about statistics is you can always find one to support your argument.
And thanks.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.:
Didn't change my opinion. I still back the President, although I may not unilaterally agree with everything he says or proposes. What I found most shocking (and amusing) were the cuts to Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, and other sourpuss Democrats. They all looked TERRIBLE. Old and bitter.
Dan Froomkin: Post TV critic Tom Shales thought
"Kennedy looked great, like he was ready to take his place next to Jefferson on Mount Rushmore," while he thought Bush had "the forced jollity of a game show host."
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Brown cloud? You said in today's column that a call to the press secretary didn't clear it up. What did they say?
Dan Froomkin: Ah, you'll need to read tomorrow's column to find out. It should be up around 10 a.m.
_______________________
Dan Froomkin: OK folks, it's been a pleasure. Sorry I couldn't get to all your terrific questions. Please look for White House Briefing every weekday on the home page of washingtonpost.com, or bookmark this URL: washingtonpost.com/whbriefing. And e-mail me your thoughts and suggestions.
_______________________
| 
