Why This Democrat Wants to Ban State of the Union Addresses

[240B]

TownHall
Lauretta  Brown Lauretta Brown
Posted: Feb 06, 2018

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) called for banning the State of the Union address, during a House Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday, due to presidents giving “impossible to deliver” promises.

“The State of the Union address promised more money than I can possibly imagine,” Smith said in his opening statement that was focused on defense spending, “and as I side note I think we ought to ban the State of the Union address, and I say that for Democrats and Republicans alike."

“The main thing that it does is it gives the executive a chance to stand up there and promise things that are absolutely, utterly, and completely impossible to deliver,” Smith claimed. “And then the American public comes to expect it, and rightfully gets a little bit irritated when magic doesn’t make it happen and again that’s bipartisan.”

(more)
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2018/02/06/this-democrat-wants-to-ban-state-of-the-union-addresses-over-impossible-promises-n2445131

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

A Democrat concerned about Govt. Wasting Money?

 

[Free Vulcan]

Well Mr. Smith there's thing thing called 'Separate but Equal' government branches, so go pee up a flag pole.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The jackass does not even realize apparently that the SOU is a requirement within the Constitution.

[EasyAce]

The jackass does not even realize apparently that the SOU is a requirement within the Constitution.

@IsailedawayfromFR
If he was merely asking for doing away with the big speech version, I'd be all for it. Better to submit the SOTU in a written report -- as most presidents did until
Woodrow Wilson.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR
If he was merely asking for doing away with the big speech version, I'd be all for it. Better to submit the SOTU in a written report -- as most presidents did until
Woodrow Wilson.

If you read the article, he refers to content, not just delivery mechanism.

[Sanguine]

@IsailedawayfromFR
If he was merely asking for doing away with the big speech version, I'd be all for it. Better to submit the SOTU in a written report -- as most presidents did until
Woodrow Wilson.

Agreed.  Just another excuse/opportunity for grandstanding.  By both sides of the aisle.

[EasyAce]

If you read the article, he refers to content, not just delivery mechanism.

Which is why I made the distinction. Remember---there were probably Republicans who had the same thoughts about the SOTUs given by
Democratic presidents, even if they didn't always speak publicly about such objections.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Which is why I made the distinction. Remember---there were probably Republicans who had the same thoughts about the SOTUs given by
Democratic presidents, even if they didn't always speak publicly about such objections.

? Eh, he said in the article the content of the speech was what he did not approve of as well.

Read:  “The State of the Union address promised more money than I can possibly imagine,” Smith said in his opening statement that was focused on defense spending,

What difference does it make if verbal or written if the content is forced to be changed by a member of Congress?

He has no business changing what the Executive says or writes that the Constitution clearly indicates is an Executive function.

I do not understand what you are getting at.

[EasyAce]

? Eh, he said in the article the content of the speech was what he did not approve of as well.

Read:  “The State of the Union address promised more money than I can possibly imagine,” Smith said in his opening statement that was focused on defense spending,

What difference does it make if verbal or written if the content is forced to be changed by a member of Congress?

He has no business changing what the Executive says or writes that the Constitution clearly indicates is an Executive function.

I do not understand what you are getting at.

I'm saying that if his objection was just to delivering an SOTU speech at a podium verbally, I could hold with that. I'm well on record here and elsewhere as saying we ought to go back to the way it was done by most presidents prior to Woodrow Wilson. Just write the damn thing, send it to Congress, and have them insert it into the Congressional Record, and screw the Big Event every year.

The Congressman in question, or anyone, really, can rant his or their heads off to his or their heart's content about any content in the speech. Of course they can't change it but there's no law saying anyone must agree whole-hogger with anything said. Show me a SOTU and I'll show you someone who thinks a president is talking through his chapeau.

But it would be delicious to think of what might happen if the current or succeeding president decides to revert to the pre-Wilson practise of just writing and sending the message to Congress without going to Capitol Hill to give it as a speech and without bothering about the attendant pomp, circumstance, windbaggery, and glad-handing b.s. (I think it was Thomas Jefferson who began the old tradition of merely delivering the SOTU in writing to Congress, without giving it as a speech.) The Constitution's language about the president giving information on the state of the union "from time to time" doesn't exactly bind a president to doing it every year. Also, Herbert Hoover was the last president to submit an SOTU each year of his term in writing without delivering the speech verbally. (Calvin Coolidge gave it as a speech once after he succeeded Warren Harding, but delivered it in writing without a speech at the end of the term he finished for Harding and then all four years of the full term to which he was elected.)

[Sanguine]

I'm saying that if his objection was just to delivering an SOTU speech at a podium verbally, I could hold with that. I'm well on record here and elsewhere as saying we ought to go back to the way it was done by most presidents prior to Woodrow Wilson. Just write the damn thing, send it to Congress, and have them insert it into the Congressional Record, and screw the Big Event every year.

The Congressman in question, or anyone, really, can rant his or their heads off to his or their heart's content about any content in the speech. Of course they can't change it but there's no law saying anyone must agree whole-hogger with anything said. Show me a SOTU and I'll show you someone who thinks a president is talking through his chapeau.

But it would be delicious to think of what might happen if the current or succeeding president decides to revert to the pre-Wilson practise of just writing and sending the message to Congress without going to Capitol Hill to give it as a speech and without bothering about the attendant pomp, circumstance, windbaggery, and glad-handing b.s. (I think it was Thomas Jefferson who began the old tradition of merely delivering the SOTU in writing to Congress, without giving it as a speech.) The Constitution's language about the president giving information on the state of the union "from time to time" doesn't exactly bind a president to doing it every year. Also, Herbert Hoover was the last president to submit an SOTU each year of his term in writing without delivering the speech verbally. (Calvin Coolidge gave it as a speech once after he succeeded Warren Harding, but delivered it in writing without a speech at the end of the term he finished for Harding and then all four years of the full term to which he was elected.)

Good rant.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm saying that if his objection was just to delivering an SOTU speech at a podium verbally, I could hold with that. I'm well on record here and elsewhere as saying we ought to go back to the way it was done by most presidents prior to Woodrow Wilson. Just write the damn thing, send it to Congress, and have them insert it into the Congressional Record, and screw the Big Event every year.

The Congressman in question, or anyone, really, can rant his or their heads off to his or their heart's content about any content in the speech. Of course they can't change it but there's no law saying anyone must agree whole-hogger with anything said. Show me a SOTU and I'll show you someone who thinks a president is talking through his chapeau.

But it would be delicious to think of what might happen if the current or succeeding president decides to revert to the pre-Wilson practise of just writing and sending the message to Congress without going to Capitol Hill to give it as a speech and without bothering about the attendant pomp, circumstance, windbaggery, and glad-handing b.s. (I think it was Thomas Jefferson who began the old tradition of merely delivering the SOTU in writing to Congress, without giving it as a speech.) The Constitution's language about the president giving information on the state of the union "from time to time" doesn't exactly bind a president to doing it every year. Also, Herbert Hoover was the last president to submit an SOTU each year of his term in writing without delivering the speech verbally. (Calvin Coolidge gave it as a speech once after he succeeded Warren Harding, but delivered it in writing without a speech at the end of the term he finished for Harding and then all four years of the full term to which he was elected.)

I understand now what you mean.

You want something simply written, not written and orally given.

Back in the days you mentioned when it was prior to tv, that may have made sense; however, nowadays the spoken word, particularly on tv, is forceful. 

I do not see us ever going back to the days pretending tv does not exist where messaging can go out and actually see and hear the President in a once-a-year address.

[aligncare]

Funny, no democrat offered this objection to the SOTU when Barack Hussein Obama was president. Makes you wonder why now?

[Sanguine]

I understand now what you mean.

You want something simply written, not written and orally given.

Back in the days you mentioned when it was prior to tv, that may have made sense; however, nowadays the spoken word, particularly on tv, is forceful. 

I do not see us ever going back to the days pretending tv does not exist where messaging can go out and actually see and hear the President in a once-a-year address.

That's sort of the point - it's a big spectacle, for both sides, and tells "the people" what is deemed necessary for the spectacle. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Funny, no democrat offered this objection to the SOTU when Barack Hussein Obama was president. Makes you wonder why now?

Because the media for once did a great job panning the audience to out the members of Congress who would not applaud for obvious patriotic words like respect for the military or out anthem.

No GOP member would have done similarly when Obama was making the speech.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That's sort of the point - it's a big spectacle, for both sides, and tells "the people" what is deemed necessary for the spectacle.

The only spectacle I saw in watching it was members of Congress who apparently did not agree with words directed at congratulating our military, our anthem or agreeing it was a good thing on black unemployment being low or the economy up.

[EasyAce]

Back in the days you mentioned when it was prior to tv, that may have made sense; however, nowadays the spoken word, particularly on tv, is forceful. 

Before television, there was radio, which was pretty forceful in its own right in the years of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Between the two, Coolidge especially was friendly to broadcasting---indeed, he was once nicknamed the Radio President---but neither thought of giving the SOTU as a speech before microphones, except for Coolidge the one time he delivered it as a speech, when he was finishing Warren Harding's term. That was in 1923, the first time Coolidge was required to deliver an SOTU. He never did the SOTU as a speech again while he was president, but Coolidge took to radio so that he gave 523 press conferences that included radio reporters and sometimes live radio broadcasts. Herbert Hoover both respected radio and feared it so long as it wasn't under government control; he believed the airwaves should be government-regulated and, indeed, when he was still Secretary of Commerce, he had a big hand in getting passed what became known as the Radio Act of 1927. As president he gave several addresses carried live on the air---but never an SOTU, which he never gave as a speech, anyway.

I do not see us ever going back to the days pretending tv does not exist where messaging can go out and actually see and hear the President in a once-a-year address.

I don't think it means pretending television doesn't exist if a president elects merely to deliver a written SOTU. With all the other chances presidents in my time have had for television coverage, it would hardly put a crimp in their styles or the people's actual or alleged expectations if a president chose not to give a verbal SOTU for show with the television cameras trained on him. Presidents find television a big helpmate with a lot of things, and it wouldn't exactly hurt them or the public if they reverted to the written-only SOTU considering all their other opportunities (many self-generated) to strut their stuff on camera.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Before television, there was radio, which was pretty forceful in its own right in the years of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Between the two, Coolidge especially was friendly to broadcasting---indeed, he was once nicknamed the Radio President---but neither thought of giving the SOTU as a speech before microphones, except for Coolidge the one time he delivered it as a speech, when he was finishing Warren Harding's term. That was in 1923, the first time Coolidge was required to deliver an SOTU. He never did the SOTU as a speech again while he was president, but Coolidge took to radio so that he gave 523 press conferences that included radio reporters and sometimes live radio broadcasts. Herbert Hoover both respected radio and feared it so long as it wasn't under government control; he believed the airwaves should be government-regulated and, indeed, when he was still Secretary of Commerce, he had a big hand in getting passed what became known as the Radio Act of 1927. As president he gave several addresses carried live on the air---but never an SOTU, which he never gave as a speech, anyway.
I don't think it means pretending television doesn't exist if a president elects merely to deliver a written SOTU. With all the other chances presidents in my time have had for television coverage, it would hardly put a crimp in their styles or the people's actual or alleged expectations if a president chose not to give a verbal SOTU for show with the television cameras trained on him. Presidents find television a big helpmate with a lot of things, and it wouldn't exactly hurt them or the public if they reverted to the written-only SOTU considering all their other opportunities (many self-generated) to strut their stuff on camera.

I do not really understand why you wish television be constrained to entertainment shows and the like, and not wish to use it for broadcasting a message that is fairly important.

It seems you just do not like political theater, which unfortunately is with us always.

[EasyAce]

I do not really understand why you wish television be constrained to entertainment shows and the like, and not wish to use it for broadcasting a message that is fairly important.

I don't know where you got the impression I would prefer television to be constrained to entertainment.

There are plenty enough opportunities for a given president to be on television, and there is plenty enough serious business that television ought to be covering, never mind for the moment that it doesn't always do so objectively. I see no overwhelming mandate of necessity for the State of the Union to be one of those things; the Constitutional requirement to present a report on the state of the union from time to time can be fulfilled very well and very legitimately without the pomp and circumstance and gratuitously phony down-the-aisle gladhanding, and it ought to be done so. The SOTU has become just part and parcel of the continuing cult of the presidency, a cult that didn't begin with and won't end (more's the pity) with the incumbent.

It seems you just do not like political theater, which unfortunately is with us always.

Unfortunately, to name just three, disease, death, and football are also with us always, but it doesn't mean I have to sanction them. There is far too large a volume of political theater in our time. Time was when this nation did very nicely---maybe even more so than now---without the excess of political theater now too much a part of American life. Those who speak volumes and/or write likewise about the actual or alleged "good old days" ought to think about that one more often. For that matter, time was when this nation did very nicely---maybe even more so than now---when politics wasn't so close to the alpha and omega of American life, and those who speak or write those volumes about the actual or alleged "good old days" ought to think even harder about that.