The State of the Union is a fascinating ritual. It brings together the entire Congress, Diplomatic Corps, Cabinet, and most intense concentration of journalists of the entire year.
I have now been a part of this ritual for more than 10 years, and each one assumes its own unique characteristics. The chamber was positively charged with expectation and static electricity as Clinton gave his first "post Monica" speech, plowing through policy and prose seemingly for hours without addressing that elephant in the room.
The George Bush State of the Union rituals have been interesting for the rigorous adherence to the Karl Rove formula of moving forward full speed ahead. I think everyone this year was curious how this Bush/Rove formula would play out in this first appearance before a Congress controlled by the Democrats, and after the American public had sent him an Election Day message about him and his policies.
More than the novelty of Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair, this was the first State of the Union – indeed the first speech of George Bush's career – when people actively in opposition were the audience (I don’t count Texas where it was often hard to distinguish some of the Republicans from the Democrats in the state legislature).
The ground has shifted. Even Republicans are jumping ship, with more and more announcing their opposition to the President’s proposals. And it isn't just the Republican lawmakers who are in opposition; the latest surveys show that up to 40% of Republican voters no longer have confidence in his policies on Iraq.
The State of the Union ritual began early in the day. Members had called "dibbs" like third graders on choice aisle seats. An hour before the session convened, the "TV real estate" along the aisle where the President and other dignitaries walk and shake hands were occupied by members in their best media finery.
At a quarter to nine a radiant Nancy Pelosi brought the house to order and the Senate was ushered into the chamber. It was interesting to see many former House colleagues, now Senators, who I knew very well – at least a dozen who might be President. In the galleries, former speakers Jim Wright and Tom Foley sat in Nancy Pelosi’s Speaker’s box, along with AFL-CIO president Sweeney, Mayors Antonio Villaraigosa and Adrian Fenty, and newly elected Governor O'Malley from Maryland (two of whom were caught sleeping, so it looked by their poses, in the next morning's Washington Post).
One of the things that you instinctively do seated on the floor of the House is gaze up at the crowded gallery to see many faces that look vaguely familiar; and they stare right back down at us, thinking exactly the same thing. It was also fascinating to watch the dynamic between Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi, making small talk, gesturing with seemingly unforced smiles knowing that their every single move throughout the night would be carefully monitored, scrutinized, and calibrated. In the back of their minds were they thinking about when they would stand, sit, and clap? Was there any awkwardness that was sure to develop, as indeed it did? Then we were on our feet when the president at least spoke about climate change (unable to utter the words of global warming).
At the edge of the chamber on the Republican side, Karl Rove standing against the wall, arms folded, craning his neck toward the Republican Senators who I think were about to be deeply disappointed. Have they read the speech? I can't believe my eyes as I scan through it: environment, healthcare, energy, and budget highlights. With the possible exception of healthcare, I see no real initiatives; just the same old stuff.
The most disturbing element is Iraq. The President is in absolute denial, offering another tired attempt to tie Iraq to terrorism and refusing to acknowledge that through his policies he had made Al Qaeda stronger and enabled it to metastasize.
I hear him utter: "we did not drive Al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq." Well, actually we did. They are operating in Iraq where they never were before. And still in Afghanistan today, as well as in Pakistan where they are deeply embedded.
Then comes his same old speech about escalating the war, again offering his rationale, "I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success." What was meant to be an applause line fell on deaf ears and produced no applause. His plea that America must not fail in Iraq ignores the reality that his policies have already failed in Iraq. What remains is the question of how much worse is it going to get.
Then he said "chaos is the greatest ally in this struggle." What were people thinking then?! George Bush has actually empowered the terrorist elements beyond their wildest dreams; divided us at home; pinned us down and stressed us out in Iraq; weakened our ability to deal with challenges in other global trouble spots, among them growing problems in Afghanistan where it all started.
"And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure," the President said. Well, actually those who voted for the war did vote for failure, the failed Bush policies and its reckless execution. I look at the people who supported their policies, and I know at least that they didn’t think they were voting for ineptitude. How it must sicken them in light of the developments that continue even this week in Iraq.
As I look up I see Dick Cheney leaning, I'm sure subconsciously, to the right away from Nancy Pelosi.
There were some potential bright spots in the speech. There is a hint that Bush may do something to rearrange some of the incentives in healthcare. Maybe this could lead to a little bipartisan traction?
One of the areas where the president's instincts are pretty good, and I think better than his party, is his understanding of our country’s immigration problems. Lines about dealing with the illegal immigrants here "without animosity and without amnesty" produced puzzled looks, I noticed, among Republicans who glanced at each trying to discern what he could mean.
When he said we need to have a "serious, civil, and conclusive debate so that you can pass and I can sign a comprehensive immigration reform into law," I felt, at last, an initiative I would like to see – and I want it to start in Oregon. Serious, civil, and conclusive discussion is long overdue.
In the end it was a speech half as long and twice as boring as those of Bill Clinton. If I was disappointed, I can't begin to imagine what the President's supporters felt like. It was a tremendous lost opportunity to set a new direction, deal with a few specifics, and attempt to bring people together.
The greatest failure of this administration is their squandering the pool of goodwill and national harmony so evident immediately after 9/11. The harmony in the United States and indeed support for us around the world has been tragically wasted, and this speech represented yet another failure to try and regain that higher ground and that traction that the Congress and American public so desperately want. For me, the good news is that with the speech out of the way, Congress and the public can build on the progress of our first few weeks in office to make some solid achievements. I'm only sorry that the administration doesn’t look like it will be joining us anytime soon.