The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

State of the Union disappointing, misses point

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Andrew Granias:

Council finally wakes up (September 6, 2007)
Incoming editor discusses future of Opinion page (May 10, 2007)
Falk, Cieslewicz should grow up (April 27, 2007)
Study mislabels students as vain (March 1, 2007)
State of the Union disappointing, misses point (January 25, 2007)

by Andrew Granias

Thursday, January 25, 2007

I couldn't have picked a more befitting way for George Walker Bush to begin his State of the Union speech Tuesday night than with the first two historical words of "Madame Speaker."

I could, however, have picked a more befitting way for him to proceed thereafter.

Being the first president to give a State of the Union address under a presiding female speaker of the house was only one of the distinct changes that gave this president an opportunity to reverse the trends of the past six years and a chance to secure some sort of favorable legacy before the country returns to competency in January 2009.

With a decidedly different looking congress and an approval rating 50 points lower than he enjoyed when giving his annual speech five years ago, Mr. Bush did the seemingly unthinkable and delivered a speech with a relatively somber tone, which focused primarily on domestic issues such as health care, energy resources and immigration. Not only that, but he also attempted to address growing environmental concerns by nearly saying the words "global warming" in his speech — words that are equivalent to "Voldemort" in the conservative vernacular. But before everyone jumps on their bipartisan bandwagons, let me remind you of the most significant factor of the speech that did not change Tuesday night: the man who delivered it.

If history is any indication of what is likely to follow the president's address, then we should probably have paid more attention to the words that didn't come out of his mouth rather than the ones that did (see below).

In his 2003 address, the president "declassified" his bogus British intelligence by telling us that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from Africa, along with potentially deadly nuclear "aluminum tubes," while holding indelible ties to the terrorist group al-Qaida. Reality? No uranium. No tubes. No WMD's. No al-Qaida. But a big mess in Iraq.

In his 2006 address, he told us (referring to Iraq): "We are in this fight to win, and we are winning!" But not long after this we saw the termination of his secretary of defense, we heard about the search for a "new way forward" in Iraq, and we finally saw an admission that we are indeed not even close to winning this un-winnable war.

In that same address last year he made a promise: "We (his administration) will fix the great city of New Orleans." Maybe he really did think Drew Brees and Reggie Bush could repair the city by winning a few goddamn football games — but the reality is that New Orleans remains the product of neglect and destruction, lagging far behind in every measurement of rebirth and reconstruction. And as for New Orleans in this year's address, he decided he didn't have anything good to say, so he wasn't going to say anything at all.

Yet worst of all came during this most recent address. While addressing everyone from presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to newest Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, President Bush failed to adequately address the most important person in the room — the 1,000-pound guerilla we call Iraq. After all, directly or indirectly, this is what we care most about as a country. We care that our surplus has turned into an increasingly frightening deficit in part because of this irresponsible neo-conservative foreign policy. We care that middle-class job wages remain stagnant while we have to pay more for education, and we care that there are still, according to The New York Times, 47 million Americans without health coverage who have yet to be presented with a viable healthcare plan. This is the sad state of the union, and it is exactly what our president failed to address by shoveling us a confused justification for a troop surge two weeks ago and a hollow set of bipartisan blabber Tuesday night.

So while I apologize for littering your Thursday morning Herald with such pessimism, I think it's far more important we realize that the most important thing about Tuesday night's speech was not what was said, but who said it.

As for your favorable legacy, Mr. President, know that it won't be found by sending Condi Rice on mini-trips to the Middle East to try and restore an array of broken diplomatic ties. You also won't secure your legacy by modestly reaching out to a new majority party that you have entirely ignored throughout the past six years, and you certainly won't secure it by bringing Dikembe Mutumbo into the gallery to be your virtual finale for a speech that had the potential to define the most trying time of your presidency.

Presidential legacies are secured by a commitment to listen to and serve all the vast array of American constituents, by a dedication to economic growth and prosperity, and by a keen ability to embrace the inherent benefits the American two-party political system has to offer, regardless of whom is in the majority. If only you had known that this has always been the state of our union.

Mr. Bush: Too little, too late.

Andy Granias (agranias@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (January 25, 2007 @ 8:17am):

Cheney is the worst president ever. Bush is only a puppet with a family legacy that was only supported politically because are no Republican Ronald Reagan Jrs. The past 6 years could not have been constructed by "the guy I'd like to share a beer with."

Anonymous (January 25, 2007 @ 8:19pm):

While I do agree with parts of your article, why did you have to swear in it? It is unnecessary and detracts from your writing. I would not write that in a paper, why did you put it in a piece of "professional" work?

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.