Obama sounds "corporate and airy."

"His theme last night was wtf, winning the future," said Sarah Palin.

"I thought, okay, that acronym — spot on. There were a lot of wtf moments throughout that speech."

Watch your acronyms, people. Or the saucy ex-governor will watch them for you.

"I found last night's speech very dull, and I turned it off less than an hour into it."

From Jaltcoh, who's been a big Obama supporter for years.

The idea that we're supposed to be alarmed that other countries are making too much progress relative to us, and that this is going to be our motivation to make economic and technological progress, leaves me cold.

Is it possible to declare a "Sputnik moment"?

The President tried last night:

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation's Sputnik moment.

But how do you have Sputnik without Sputnik? The Soviets launching their satellite shocked Americans into a period of intense activity and achievement. It's nice to want to do that again, but there's not an equivalent incentivizing advance by an imposing and feared foreign competitor.

This is our generation's Sputnik moment. What is? Are we playing let's pretend? Nothing is scaring us and lighting a fire under us. In fact, it's hard for us now, with our long perspective, even to understand why Sputnik was such a huge motivation. Ask some under-50 Americans today: Why was it so important to beat the Soviets in sending men to the moon? Ask them when/if the Soviets got a man to the moon. I'll bet they can't even give plausible answers. I'll bet even the over-50s are hit-or-miss when it comes to answering the question whether the Soviets got a man to the moon.

So what on earth — or on the moon — does Obama think he will get out of the mere verbal tag "Sputnik"? If you remember how Sputnik felt — and I do — you'll probably say, but there is  no equivalent of Sputnik. There are just a lot of countries, full of human beings, trying to get ahead economically, like us — not against us. There's no race with dramatic consequences for the winners and losers, and there's no impressive physical object that signifies that bad guys are winning the race. If you don't remember Sputnik, you're like: Sputnik?

***

Bonus Bob Dylan lyric:

Well, I don’t know, but I’ve been told
The streets in heaven are lined with gold
I ask you how things could get much worse
If the Russians happen to get up there first
Wowee! pretty scary!

Now, I’m liberal, but to a degree
I want ev’rybody to be free
But if you think that I’ll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I’m crazy!
I wouldn’t let him do it for all the farms in Cuba

The morning after the State of the Union.

I hope you're feeling okay. Hope you didn't smoke too much salmon last night. Here's the video of the whole thing, in case you missed it... or forgot it... or just want to relive every scintillating moment of it...

ADDED, THE EVENING AFTER... I embedded last year's SOTU. So... quite a morning after for me. LOL. Delete.

Man! Getting Nancy back. That's quite an aftereffect!

Here's where I blog everything about the State of the Union address that doesn't involve the text.

I've already blogged the text. That's done! No more fretting over typing out what the Prez is saying in real time. Been there. Done that. This post is for everything else. What are they wearing? Who's falling asleep? What was that funny look? Where did he stumble over the text? All style and no substance, except to the extent that style is substance, baby.

UPDATE: Thanks for keeping this going in the comments. I don't have much to say about the visuals. The House fixtures looked surprisingly shabby on HDtv. Obama spoke slowly, had some gray hair, and made stabbing gestures with the pinched-together fingers of his left had. The mixing of the Democrats and Republicans in the audience really did — as critics warned — have the effect of making it look as though everyone supported him, but perhaps the demonstrations of support were a bit more toned down than they would have been if the parties had kept separated. 

UPDATE 2: Instapundit has a grim screen capture. Was O's suit that blue?!

AND: As for that look, I think that's the Boris Karloff look.

CONFESSION: I slept through parts of it.

The text of the State of the Union Address from a Democratic insider who has violated the White House embargo.

Via the National Journal.

UPDATE 1:

With their votes, [the people] determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all – for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

But the challenges were "bigger than party, and bigger than politics" before, when you "move[d] forward" on your own, with only your party. Now, you're into togetherness, and it's togetherness with the party that isn't into "moving forward."

At stake right now is not who wins the next election – after all, we just had an election. 

Ha. What a lie! The next election is completely at stake. As for the last election, some of us think it was really important. But you're saying: Eh, it's over. Let's turn away from electoral politics. But we know damned well you're working on 2012, and you opponents want some attention paid to what just happened last November.

UPDATE 2:

Many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or a business downtown. You didn’t always need a degree, and your competition was pretty much limited to your neighbors. If you worked hard, chances are you’d have a job for life, with a decent paycheck, good benefits, and the occasional promotion....

When was that true? Who is he talking about? I'm 60 and I don't remember that ever being true.

That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful. I’ve seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories, and the vacant storefronts of once busy Main Streets. I’ve heard it in the frustrations of Americans who’ve seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear – proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game....

Proud... and bitter, clinging to their guns and religion. 

What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook....

Edison? Can I have my incandescent light bulbs back?

UPDATE 3: I'm skipping a ton of stuff to get to health care:

Now, I’ve heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.

What I’m not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

He'll work together with Republicans, but only if they offer little tweaks to the big overhaul he rammed through, with no consideration for their opinion, when they didn't hold the seats in Congress.

UPDATE 4: Hey! I'm just noticing that Obama never says "The state of the union is [?]."

And now, what will I do when the actual speech comes on television? I don't know, but I feel so liberated! I'll just give you some chit-chat about whatever strikes me. The visuals. The screw-ups. The intonations. The hints of gray...

UPDATE 5: I've put up a new post for all the real-time style-over-substance chit-chat.

"Ann, any drinking words proposed for the SOTU?"

Asked Fred4Pres.

Florida said, 2 are enough: "investment" and "competitive."

Scott M suggested: "Let me be clear" and "together."

"Together." That's my favorite. But help add to the list. And plan to join me for some hot live-blogging tonight.

ADDED: You know what I would like to hear? (And if this is a drinking game, I will stand up, give a toast, and down my glass.) I would like to hear a few words of respect and admiration for George W. Bush.

"It is clear that the moment we now face demands a vision for how we as a people will win the future."

Says Obama in an email titled "Winning the future." It came with this video previewing the State of the Union address (he's "still workin' on it"):



ADDED: No sooner had I watched that than I got an email from an anti-Obama group with this picture:



What a crappy graphic! I don't know what primal emotions that was supposed to stir up or what it stirs up in other people, but it makes me feel: These people are mean-spirited and unfair.

Paul Ryan — of Wisconsin — will give the official GOP response to Obama's State of the Union address.

The NYT reports:

In previous years, members of the minority party have turned to new, young governors to present a fresh face to the country during the brief response that is shown on television after the president’s speech. But that has not always worked.

Example given: Bobby Jindal, last year in 2009.

Instead, this year, Republicans are turning to one of their senior members who has been given broad authority by Mr. Boehner to use his new position on the budget committee to drive the Republican fiscal agenda through the House.

What's so bad about shuffling Republicans and Democrats together for the State of the Union Address?

The Washington Times hates the idea:

A letter to congressional leaders signed by proponents of this exercise in musical chairs claims...

Musical chairs? Clearly, the Washington Times has never played musical chairs. Musical chairs would be quite funny: Make the Congresspeople scramble for what are too few chairs, and kick out everyone who can't find a seat. Where's your kinder, gentler more civil politics then?

... "the choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room - while the other side sits - is unbecoming of a serious institution. And the message that it sends is that even on a night when the president is addressing the entire nation, we in Congress cannot sit as one, but must be divided as two." [Senator Mark] Udall is clearly focused on the wrong problem. Presumably orgiastic clapping, not sitting stonefaced, is what offends the seriousness of the august institution.

I don't know much about the Washington Times's sex life, but I think it's got orgasms wrong too. I'll bet, if you did a scientific study, you'd find that, during orgasm, remaining stonefaced is much more common than applause. But I do agree that it would offend the seriousness of the august institution if the President's admirers really acted like they were having orgasms.

Shifting the seats around will not alter the president's applause lines. Democrats, wherever placed in the chamber, will still faithfully rise and clap at the appointed times. If such demonstrations are what Mr. Udall believes are "unbecoming" to the Congress, then Democrats should instruct their members to refrain from such demonstrations, similar to how the NFL has tried to promote civility by cracking down on post-touchdown celebrations.

I think the Democrats should instruct their members to show a little more NFL-style enthusiasm:

If clapping isn't banned, the primary effect of the seating change would be to distribute standing ovations across the chamber, making it appear that the president enjoys more congressional support than he does in fact.

That's the theory that's going around, but I'd like to see how it really would look. When the cameras can't zero in on a clump of idolators and must show the President's friends next to his enemies skeptics, we will see exactly what is going on: We've got a partisan Congress. There are a lot more Republicans than Democrats these days: The disproportion may be more likely to look obvious if they are all mixed up. And the juxtaposition of fans and sourpusses will be more amusing in close-up shots.

I say mix it up!

Justice Breyer on the right way for a Supreme Court Justice to: 1. interpret the Constitution, and 2. deal with the President of the United States criticizing him in the State of the Union Address.

Back to that interview Chris Wallace did with Justice Breyer. The earlier post got overlong dealing with the Second Amendment. Now, having taken a break to deal with the new federal court decision invalidating the individual mandate, let's get back to the Breyer interview, beginning here, where he is talking (yesterday) about the as-yet-unreleased case. How can the Supreme Court resolve such a politically hot matter without losing the public's confidence in the legitimacy of the Court?

BREYER: The way not to do it -- hold your finger up to the political winds. That's not the job of the judge. The judges are not politicians... [W]hat we do is we look to the text, the history, the traditions, the precedent, the values that underlie the particular constitutional phrase, and consequences that if you decide this way, does it further the values or does it undermine the values.

There, that's his theory of interpretation, summarized.  The key is identifying values underlying the text and the real-world consequences of the decisions. That may seem to give the judge a lot of leeway, but Breyer's effort is to convince people that this is real judging, even though the stricter textualists say it isn't. If people accept this argument, then they see that the liberal Justices — like the conservative Justices — are doing something that isn't some sort of covert politics and they'll have confidence in the courts.

This brings up the topic of the Justices at the State of the Union address. Wallace shows the video clip of Obama scolding the Justices — who were sitting right in front of him — about the decision in Citizens United. There's also a clip of Chief Justice Roberts saying that he's troubled by the "image... of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering, while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless." Breyer disagrees. It's good for the Justices to hear from people who think different things: "It doesn't bother me and part of me says, 'Good.'"

"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there."

The video of John Roberts, talking about the SOTU, is now available:



WaPo says:

Wednesday, Senate Democrats followed up with pointed criticism of Roberts, and at a hearing on the decision, a leading Democrat said the American public had "rightfully recoiled" from the ruling [in Citizens United]....

A Democratic strategist who works with the White House said the fight is a good one for Obama, helping lay the groundwork for the next Supreme Court opening. "Most Americans have no idea what the Supreme Court does or how it impacts their lives," the strategist said. "This decision makes it crystal clear."

Ha. I think very few people understand the case. The ones that think they do are probably wrong (in that they don't realize it's not about corporations contributing to candidates). So, yeah, "crystal clear." I think there are Democrats — including Obama at the SOTU — who are trying to get people to think something that is crystal clearly false.

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering..."

"... while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.... I'm not sure why we're there."

Chief Justice John Roberts opines on the State of the Union.

Justice Thomas presents the notion of First Amendment freedom for corporations in a sympathetic light.

"If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association. If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association. But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?"

Why wasn't here there at the State of the Union address, mouthing "not true" along with Justice Alito?

I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there. There’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.

One of the consequences [presumably of Alito's display] is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.

"If you thought those were ironic smiles and hoots of approval in the Congressional audience, you were right."

Ah! So now irony may be hooted. In Congress.

***

I'd love to witness a hooting Senator wearing an acid-washed denim suit and affecting the stylish air of JFK.

"This reminds me of the final scene in the movie Titanic."

Lefauxfrog leaps over the mental block I had when I saw that picture on the White House Flickr page:



It's a spoiler, of course, but the main character in "Titanic" has died and is entering the afterlife:



Eerie!

Samuel Alito and John Roberts experience ecstasy, each in his own way.

Alito, so serenely beatific and floating in the moment ...



Roberts, beset with inner turmoil and straining to keep himself clamped in ...



... as the President arrived to deliver his State of the Union Address:



And so it would be not be the model of judicial restraint, Chief Justice Roberts, whose personal reaction would break the solemn decorum of the holy chamber. It would be Justice Alito, in a moment of selfless abandon, whose spirit would burst forth — open the floodgates — in a harrowing crisis of faith — the dark night of the soul that says not true.

Glenn Greenwald flails absurdly in a lame effort to take down Justice Alito.

Really, it drives me crazy to try to plow through the unedited dreck that Greenwald writes, but I feel compelled to defend Justice Samuel Alito who, when affronted by President Obama's accusation that the Supreme Court violated judicial norms, simply shook his head and mouthed (apparently) "not true."

Greenwald accuses Alito of "a serious and substantive breach of protocol that reflects very poorly on Alito and only further undermines the credibility of the Court." Further! Presumably, you're already against the Supreme Court, and Greenwald isn't using this post to bring you up to speed.

It has nothing to do with etiquette and everything to do with the Court's ability to adhere to its intended function.

There's a reason that Supreme Court Justices -- along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address. It's vital -- both as a matter of perception and reality -- that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars. 

Uh, yeah, which is why Obama's words were such an affront. Obama called the Citizens United case a "wrong," that is, a legal outrage of some sort, but, obviously, Alito's position is that the Court decided the case according to the law, that it said what the First Amendment means, and that its legal expertise is entitled to respect.

Alito's response didn't signify political disagreement. It was simply self-defense — a defense of the Court. It meant: We decide cases according to the law. That is apolitical.

Justice Alito's flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten [the Court's] decline.

Shaking one's head and mouthing 2 or 3 words is "flamboyant"? Alito was sitting in his seat and he evinced a subtle reaction to a severe political attack. That doesn't make what he did "highly politicized." If anyone was "highly politicized," it was Obama. Alito's response was more of a reflex, and it was, I would assume, grounded in a belief that the Court does what it is supposed to do — decide cases according to the law.

On a night when both tradition and the Court's role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow -- a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President...

Oh, bullshit. He's a sideshow because he flinches when hit? He's modestly human and not a mannequin. I remember when Obama expressed a desire for Supreme Court Justices with a more sensitive emotional response. Empathy.

Obama is an elected politician in a political branch and has every right to express his views on such a significant court ruling. While the factual claims Obama made about the ruling are subject to reasonable dispute, they're well within the realm of acceptable political rhetoric and are far from being "false"...

But shouldn't Obama have shown some respect for the members of the third branch of government who honored him with their presence? What is the "acceptable political rhetoric" when one person has the microphone for over an hour and everyone else is supposed to listen respectfully? Really, if it were known in advance that Obama wanted to use the occasion this way, the Supreme Court Justices should have stayed home. Or send over 1 or 2 that do opinions that the big man likes.

While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either. 

The link goes to Tony Mauro at The Legal Times, who says that this kind of talk is "almost unprecedented." "Almost unprecedented" = "far from unprecedented"? Come on, Glenn. Your sleaziness is showing.

[Alito] unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well. 

Huh? Alito flinched at a surprising jab. The President told the Justices to their face that they were, essentially, power abusers. It's not "Republican" to believe that your work is dutiful and honest. (Is it?) Alito's gestures meant nothing more than that.

Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin documents that roughly 25% of Franklin Roosevelt's 1937 State of the Union address was devoted to criticizing the Supreme Court and various rulings which struck down his domestic legislation. 

Roosevelt's attack on the Court — quoted by Balkin — was, at the most severe point: "We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good." Think about how much more respectful that was toward the Court than the blow that made Samuel Alito flinch last night.

Greenwald concludes:

Whatever one thinks of the one paragraph of Obama's address devoted to the Citizens United ruling, it was not "unprecedented."

Who is he quoting there? Balkin doesn't say "unprecedented." Is it Mauro's "almost unprecedented"? For all his annoying verbiage, Greenwald can't get anywhere in this effort to show that Obama was just fine and Alito did something outrageous. Pathetic!

Justice Samuel Alito mouths — it appears — "not true."

See for yourself:




Obama is saying:

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

Obama is getting a lot of criticism. But is Alito? Alito didn't yell out his words, the way Joe Wilson did last year, and "not true" is mellower than "you lie." One expects such rigid decorum from the Justices on these occasions that it's really striking when a Justice is anything other than a statue of a Justice. I think that if they knew they were going to have to listen to that kind of in-your-face disrespect, they wouldn't have done the President the honor of sitting there, providing the scenery. But they were there, and I'm not going to criticize Alito for moving his lips and letting us see a silent defense of the judicial branch of government.

I'm reminded of all those articles, back at the time of Alito's confirmation, that said that Alito was less "polished" than John Roberts:

[H]e will never be as polished and camera-ready as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was at his own hearings a few months ago.

"He is not going to be the well-manicured nominee," said one participant in the rehearsals, known as murder boards, at which Republican lawyers have played the roles of interrogating senators. "That is not to say it is going to be worse. It is just going to be different."...

But two of Judge Alito's supporters who participated in the murder boards... said they emerged convinced that his demeanor was a political asset because it gave him an Everyman appeal.

"He will have a couple hairs out of place," one participant said. "I am not sure his glasses fit his facial features. He might not wear the right color tie. He won't be tanned. He will look like he is from New Jersey, because he is. That is a very useful look, because it is a natural look....

What is more, this participant said, Judge Alito displayed a "street smart" New Jerseyan's willingness to talk back to his questioners....

Yeah. It was different. He came from New Jersey, he looked natural, and he was willing to talk back. Silently. But we heard it. Good.