|
Politics: State of the Union
With David Corn
Editor of The Nation
Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003; 1:30 p.m. ET
President Bush delivered his third State of the Union address Tuesday night amidst brewing conflict with Iraq, persistent threats from North Korea, a struggling economy and approval ratings that have fallen in recent weeks. Meanwhile, the president continues to push his domestic agenda, from health care to taxes, and Tom Ridge, the nation's first secretary of Homeland Security, was sworn in just days ago.
The Nation editor David Corn was online to take your questions and comments on the State of the Union, Bush's performance and the Democratic response.
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.
Reston, Va.:
My question is more a statement than a question. I found it extremely irritating that the President's speech was interrupted so often by the applause from the audience. It was so disturbing that I eventually stopped watching. I think it ruins the momentum of the speech for the listener, especially those of us watching it on TV which had it's annoying shots. Is there any way that the amount of applause could be lessened?
David Corn: I am happy to join your crusade. It's all too pep-rallyish for me. It used to be that these state of the union reports were delivered in writing to the congress. it wasn't always a hyped-up speech. and until LBJ (I think) it was done in the afternoon--not a prime-time deal. But the applause business has turned in to a game--in which each party tries to make a point by clapping and shouting at the right moment. But I guess we can take care of this with TIVO, too.
College Park, Md.:
Now that the Democrats have completely caved on opposing the war that baby Bush was coronated for and rolled over on economic and social issues, do politics even matter anymore? Why should we even bother tilting at the windmills of this corporate theocracy?
Wouldn't expatriating be a more sensible option at this point, since there is as yet no interest in resistance among the vast majority of the sheeple?
David Corn: Dear Frustrated and Angry in College Park,
There has been a cave-in--though not a complete one. Some Dems are still out there raising questions, which, I grant you, is not the same thing as opposition. Kerry, Biden, Levin, Pelosi. In the house, Kucinich is opposed. And you can always volunteer for anti-war presidential candidate Howard Dean, the former gov of Vermont. I tend not to be optimistic about politics--that's my nature--but I do believe folks gotta keep on trying to get it right. As for expatriating, it all depends on a simple question: where? I wasjust on the Yucatan coast. It was quite lovely.
Seattle, Wash.:
Mr. Corn --
As a longtime reader of The Nation I appreciate greatly seeing you online at the Washington Post web site.
My question is simple: Mr. Bush has made it clear to all the world that he intends to start a war against Iraq. Placing all the issues of ideology aside - not considering imperialism, political power, exploitation of foreign natural resources through military force, etc. - Mr. Bush must ultimately convince the American people to support what he is doing.
The polling data being reported shows that fewer than two out of three Americans supports any Iraq war, period. In other words, Mr. Bush has no mandate.
What do you consider to be the longer term ramifications of an American president starting this most peculiarly unprovoked war minus a -widespread- or -overwhelming- popular mandate?
And if you have more time to answer questions, what do you consider to be the constitutional ramifications of Mr. Bush's apparent intention to use the post-Sept. 11 war powers authorization from the Congress to wage war against Iraq?
Thanks,
Your Faithful Reader in Seattle
David Corn: I do agree there are serious constitutional questions here. I believe that Congress--not the Prez--has the right (and obligation) to declare war, and that it cannot fob it off on the President, as it did so with its authorization vote last October. But that view seems to be in the minority in official Washington. But Congress long ago gave up on this front....As for war-without-mandate, that's the perogative of those who manage to get elected--or selected. Bush got COngress to give him the say-so, he has the power to order an invasion (and even to push THAT button). He doesn't have to listen to polls or anyone else. If he engages in an unpopular action--and it does not turn out well--we can hope that the market works, that is, that he will have to pay a price that in the future may cause others to think twice.
Arlington, Va.:
Was there anything in the speech you liked?
David Corn: Yep. I'm a big fan of hydrogen-powered vehicles. I'd increase the $1.2 billion in funding Bush suggested by a factor fo ten. (Heck, let's just take the $100 or so billion the war in Iraq may cost and put it into a Manhattan Project for renewable energy, including H-cars. that will create a heckuva lot of jobs.) And the AIDS in Africa initiative. Some of the budget numbers for that are a little unclear at this point, according tothe experts. (See the Post piece today quoting my next-door neighbor, Tom Hart!) But it is movment inthe right direction, given that the US has traditionally proivided less foreign aid per capita than othe Western nations.
Philadelphia, Pa.:
What was the strategy behind Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi giving a "prebuttal" to the State of the Union address on Monday. Wouldn't it have been better for them to wait until after the speech to pick it apart. I think that by doing it before the speech, they could use their best amunition and have Bush completely blow away the Democrats with his proposals.
David Corn: Part of me agress: there was something a little tacky. But, then, Bush has been so brazen of late, I find it hard to defend the proposition that he deserves to be treated politely. All in all, it might have been tactically wise to sit on their hands for a day. But the cameras were waiting....
Ann Arbor, Mich.:
How is a man who will not allow the distribution of condoms going to solve the AIDS problem in Africa?
David Corn: Excellent question. Maybe he will go door to door (hut to hut?) and explain the importance of abstinence to every single African. That would be a compassionate thing to do.
Alexandria, Va.:
Does this speech set back the anti-war movement, or will they regain their momentum once the war begins? And I know you've been critical of the anti-war movement organizers and their ties to weird political outfits. One of them called you a "McCarthyite" on NPR's Terry Gross show. How do you respond to that?
David Corn: Bush delivered the speech well. He'll get a bump for a fe hours or a few days. But the issue is evidence, not performance. Let's see what Powell has to say at the UN next week, when he is supposed to share info on Iraqi WMD AND the so-called link between Saddam and al Qaeda....As for the rest, I would expect folks who support Slobodan Milosevic and Kim Jong-Il to try to tar me with that old McCarthyite smear. It's a long story. But I've criticized some parts of the peace movement for being led by a front for the Worker's World Party, which want to smash capitalism, which supports the abovementioned tyrants, and which opposes inspections in Iraq. yeah, they're communists (or socialists). That does not win them points in my book. But my beef is not with their economic interpretations but with their foreign polciy views AND their decision to expand the messageof anti-war rallies to include such tangential items as the Mumia case. They deserve to be shunned for their wrong-headed ideas.
Virginia:
So the Nation doesn't beleive children in Iraq are tortured?
David Corn: Who says that? Hey, back in the late 80s, libs like us at the Nation, and Dems, and human rights activists were telling the Bush I admin not to do business with Saddam b/c of his human rights record. Repubs like Dole and others wanted to give Iraq credits so it could buy US ag. products.
Arlington, Va.:
As editor of a left-leaning publication, which do you find more invigorating: publishing while,
(a)Democrats have power, when your viewpoints have a shot at becoming official policy; or
(b)Republicans have power, when you can get more outraged about the inequities and foolishness of government direction
David Corn: I like Chinese food and Italian food....Actually, Clinton years we're a bit more frsutrating--though not less invigorating--because of the various splits on the left as to how critical to be of the Clintonoids. Subscriptions, though, go way up when the Repubs ar ein power--especially this republican.
New York, N.Y.:
What proof or event do you personally need before you feel striking Iraq is a good idea?
David Corn: A. Evidence Saddam poses an immediate threat (war plans, intercepted communications, convincing defector testiomny).
B. Evidence that he has maintained a significant link with al Qaeda.
And, at the same time, I would have to feel that there are no other alternatives that could work to protect.
Long Beach, Calif.:
What is your beef with Socialists?
They are the reason child labor laws and the
40 hour week exist, no? Are you a proponent
of the Red Scare of 1919-21?
David Corn: I have no beef whatsoever with socialists in theory (pun intended?). I married a Dutch woman--and they're all socialists over there. The socialists did some great things for the US decades ago, as you note. But you have to tell me what socialists you have in mind. I've told you what I don't like about the WP.
Alexandria, Va.:
Do you make anything out of the Hillary Clinton/Joe Lieberman seating arrangement? I heard one commentator explain their proximity as a "sign" -- do you agree?
David Corn: A sign of what? Are they an item?.....No, I don't.
Arlington, Va.:
What did you think of the Democratic response?
David Corn: Gave tepid a bad name....A bit lame and flat. It is, admittedly, a hard thing to do, after the Chief has done his thing. But I would have preferred to see some passion, rather than a boatload of reasonableness and feel-good, living-the-American-dream stuff. My opening line would have been, "Okay, let's get real..."
New York, N.Y.:
Good afternoon, David. Thanks for your work for the Nation. I enjoy it.
William Saletan at salon.com pointed out that Bush's only reference to the actual state of the union came in a single paragraph near the start of last night's address. It's obvious why Bush wouldn't want to linger on the state he and his administration have thus far put the union in. But I found his pledge, of sorts, to clean up after himself before the next Congress an astounding risk, considering the size of the mess, the fact that he's reducing taxes even more and planning a war whose boundaries he's made little effort to delineate in time and cost.
Do you think he is setting himself up for a major, major fall, or are the Bushists counting on the nation's short attention span to disappear this pledge into the fogs of American memory and spare Bush any consequences?
David Corn: Thanks for the thanks. I made a similar point in my web column. Go to www.thenation.com to see it toward the end.....I think war will define much of this guy's presidency, unless there is a greater decline in the economic situation....This ain't 91. Bush One's victory evaporated easily (politically speaing) b/c the first Gulf War had little to do with US security, in a direct sense. That's not the dynamic now, post 9/11. Whateverhappens in Iraq--and i'm betting it happens--Bush will still be seen as the guy wose chief job is to make sure we don't get hit again. That gives him more leeway on the domestic stuff, though not a total pass.
Falls Church, Va.:
I was struck by some moments of audacious hypocrisy in the speech. When discussing health care, Bush said that we needed to get low income Americans the help they need, and that decisions should not be made by HMOs. Yet Bush wanted to permit Medicaid to refuse emergency care coverage, and his prescription drug plan would require seniors to enroll in HMOs. He fretted over drug abusers and children whose parents are imprisoned, without advocating more lenient sentencing for non-violent drug offenders. After the admirable offer of $10 billion in new AIDS funding, Bush declared, "This nation can lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of nature." This certainly contradicts his AIDS panel nominee's belief that AIDS is the "gay plague." He patted himself on the back for federal homeland security efforts, without mentioning how the states are struggling to fulfill unfunded mandates.
Some parts had a dark humor, as when Bush said that "nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation and continued hardship" to North Korea. What does he think the country is like now?
Anyway, what part of the speech did you like best, and which annoyed you the most?
David Corn: You are an astute person. Read my column at ww.thenation.com for a detailed take on the speech and you can tell what I liked and didn't.
Royal Oak, Mich.:
I think that the anti-war rallies after that attack will make the Jauary 18 rally look like a walk in the park. Maybe some will back down but others will become enraged.
David Corn: Who knows. this war could be a nightmare going on for weeks or months. And it could be done in threee days. What happens willhave a great impact on the popular response.
Prince Frederick, Md.:
Everyone is downing Bush about today's economy. What I want to know is how come no one is addressing the fact that this is the backlash from the Clinton administration?
David Corn: The Republicans say that everyday. Check your local listings.
Washington, D.C.:
What do you make of the Democrats decision to let Gov. Locke offer the response? At a time when the Democratic Party has no central figure to define its position do you think this was the best move? Then again, I'm not sure the Democratic Party has a position.
David Corn: Nope. I think he was flat. Maybe daschle and Pelosi couldn't work it out between themselves and they had to turn to an outsider. Anyway, I think these responses tend to be not that significant. Have you ever seen one make a difference.
Washington, D.C.:
Just a comment -- I thought your response to the AIDS/abstinence question was tacky and close-minded. I don't understand why people still insist that distributing condoms will solve the problem of AIDS and unwanted pregnancy. I mean, we've been trying that for years and it still hasn't worked. I don't think access to contraceptives (or lack thereof)is the problem, folks.
David Corn: Do you mean to tell me that you don't think that providing education and condoms to millions of Africans would not in some way--to some degree--stop the spread of AIDS, or slow it down, there? The use of condoms here certainly helped slow down the spread of AIDS.
Rockville, Md.:
How would you characterize the differences as magazines between The Nation and the Washington Monthly?
David Corn: Not that serious. More a question of perspective or culture. The WM tends to be more Washington-centric. No surprise. it used to be more decisively neoliberal. But that was anotehre ra.
Washington, D.C.:
David, I'm a big fan of your work. I was disappointed at the lack of attention to domestic issues, particularly affordable housing. There's a severe shortage of affordable housing, and Bush is doing nothing to address the problem. Thoughts?
David Corn: You're right. What can I say? It's off the radar screen. W
Washington, D.C.:
I was anticipating a more detailed analysis of the evidence that is supposed to have driven this administration's proposed actions in Iraq, and instead witnessed a case for war based on evidence of "weapons of mass obstruction." Does he truly believe that this is sufficient evidence, or does he know more than he is saying? If the latter, what is he waiting for?
David Corn: You and me, too. I would like to see the evidence. Hard stuff. If he doesn't produce it, the conclusion is obvious.....That's it for me. I gotta run for a conference call with the boss. Thanks so much. I hope to see yo back here soon. Cheers to washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay Tuned to Live Online:
Israeli
Elections, 2 p.m. ET
Israeli
Elections, 3 p.m. ET
White House's Tucker Eskew, 3:15 p.m. ET
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Company | 
