Last-minute decision to host a thread tonight on President Biden’s State of the Union address. Join us for analysis on the President’s speech and the GOP response, and to share your own thoughts!
What do you hope to hear from the President tonight?
Every time Biden says "I get criticized for this," you know the next line is going to be like "I like puppies. Puppies are great. I'll take the hits for this, but...I'm pro-puppy."
On Sunday’s podcast episode (#52) I put my wish out there that POTUS would have a robust climate change section, touting global leadership, so I will take these couple of paragraphs! -Melissa
"A blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America." We're going to be hearing that line quite a bit over the next two years...put it on a poster now. Buy the url.
A speech like this really does demand governing like it...Can't give a speech like this, and then have political machinery and campaign that is focused elsewhere.
“The 50,000 foot takeaway from Biden's speech tonight so far, and its tone: he will not be out-populismed by Donald Trump in 2024. He is aiming hard at blue collar Democrats who have slipped from the coalition. A key piece of advance positioning to note.” Jeffrey Blehar // Boom.
I felt like Congress shouting about their support for Ukraine while continually ceding any sense of developing a coherent foreign policy to the executive branch seems to be one issue not talked about. $60 billion for a conflict that we have no declaration for? This is not a new problem, but it seems we have had a series of administrations who more or less get to decide foreign policy on a whim with little congressional deliberation. The progressives retracting their own letter demonstrates that the anti-war left has no national voice currently. Can we not both support Ukraine while also taking meaningful steps to avoid a global catastrophe?
So interesting to hear your thoughts on this! You are 100% correct in that this is not a new issue and progressives are fighting two things on this front: history/precedent in FP being often decided in the executive and losing the House and therefore the ability to continue to deviate from the rest of the Democratic Party in support for Ukraine. I do think, however, more than most other major FP events of the past couple of decades (barring Syria, Obama gave Congress a lot of decision making power), Congress has had more say over the US’s approach with authorizing spending and pursuing oversight. But I see you use the word “deliberation” and steps towards nuclear nonproliferation (I think that’s what you’re saying towards the end of your comment?) and yes, those two things are less apparent right now, for absolute certain. And with the New START treaty looking quite vulnerable right now…we definitely need renewed talks with Russia and progressives could definitely start the conversation on prioritizing nonproliferation if they wanted to. -Melissa
I think there is a distinct difference between a president giving Congress decision making power and Congress exercising the power that is theirs in the first place. I agree that they have been able to engage on the end of spending and oversight, but what does the end goal look like? Biden did point in Poland the "need" to remove Putin, which aides later attempted to walk back the comment. Rubber stamping financial and military arms packages with no timetable nor parameters as to how to draw back or negotiate. Ever since the Cold War we have not defined any particular policy of engagement, other than the "War on Terror," which I use loosely. I would go farther to suggest that we are operating off the same general parameters of policy that we have since the end of the Second World War. Progressives in particular could collaborate with those on the other side who have expressed their own concerns, especially with the START Treaty being in play and armed conflict looking to becoming prolonged. I hope the president will own the language that he referenced at the SOTU about working together on key things to carve out a more definitive policy, while also looking for ways that we can deescalate the current conflicts, such as Ukraine and now the concerns regarding China and Taiwan. Oh, and yes, I was referencing nuclear nonproliferation, thanks for picking up on that!
First substantive reference to VP Harris is on small businesses, which is striking as it highlights an aspect of her portfolio that has not received as much attention as voting rights/immigration reform/other big progressive items.
President Biden's collegial asides are really scorned by disciplined comms staffers and political strategists, but a) it just is who Biden is b) Biden believes in the power of it relationally c) it's disarming for many voters.
As always, recent events affect SOTU in ways that wouldn't have typically been planned, and so we'll see how law enforcement, China and natural disasters fit in this evening.
Reporting has suggested President Biden will bring back the "Unity Agenda" theme. I criticized him for the lack of energy and seriousness behind his appeal to such an agenda for his SOTU last year...as we've emphasized, he is now somewhat freed up for a unity agenda because he no longer has to primarily negotiate against and among his own party in Congress.
As we discussed in Wear We Are this past weekend, the Biden White House has put up some trial balloons on some topics/themes for tonight, including a focus on big tech/social media and its impact on kids...I expect we'll hear some of that tonight.
Late to the thread but came here to say that the tone of this SOTU was really impressive. It set clear goals, didn't cede to opposition but made room at the table for anyone who wanted to join. A sort of confident pluralism in action. And maybe it's just me but I'll be reflecting on the notion that "equal protection of the laws is a covenant we make with each other." Not sure what I make of it but it's a novel piece of civic religion.
I got a bingo, folks! -Melissa
Every time Biden says "I get criticized for this," you know the next line is going to be like "I like puppies. Puppies are great. I'll take the hits for this, but...I'm pro-puppy."
On Sunday’s podcast episode (#52) I put my wish out there that POTUS would have a robust climate change section, touting global leadership, so I will take these couple of paragraphs! -Melissa
"A blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America." We're going to be hearing that line quite a bit over the next two years...put it on a poster now. Buy the url.
A speech like this really does demand governing like it...Can't give a speech like this, and then have political machinery and campaign that is focused elsewhere.
Check out National Review's live thread of the SOTU: https://t.co/YsKD59feRM
“The 50,000 foot takeaway from Biden's speech tonight so far, and its tone: he will not be out-populismed by Donald Trump in 2024. He is aiming hard at blue collar Democrats who have slipped from the coalition. A key piece of advance positioning to note.” Jeffrey Blehar // Boom.
I felt like Congress shouting about their support for Ukraine while continually ceding any sense of developing a coherent foreign policy to the executive branch seems to be one issue not talked about. $60 billion for a conflict that we have no declaration for? This is not a new problem, but it seems we have had a series of administrations who more or less get to decide foreign policy on a whim with little congressional deliberation. The progressives retracting their own letter demonstrates that the anti-war left has no national voice currently. Can we not both support Ukraine while also taking meaningful steps to avoid a global catastrophe?
So interesting to hear your thoughts on this! You are 100% correct in that this is not a new issue and progressives are fighting two things on this front: history/precedent in FP being often decided in the executive and losing the House and therefore the ability to continue to deviate from the rest of the Democratic Party in support for Ukraine. I do think, however, more than most other major FP events of the past couple of decades (barring Syria, Obama gave Congress a lot of decision making power), Congress has had more say over the US’s approach with authorizing spending and pursuing oversight. But I see you use the word “deliberation” and steps towards nuclear nonproliferation (I think that’s what you’re saying towards the end of your comment?) and yes, those two things are less apparent right now, for absolute certain. And with the New START treaty looking quite vulnerable right now…we definitely need renewed talks with Russia and progressives could definitely start the conversation on prioritizing nonproliferation if they wanted to. -Melissa
I think there is a distinct difference between a president giving Congress decision making power and Congress exercising the power that is theirs in the first place. I agree that they have been able to engage on the end of spending and oversight, but what does the end goal look like? Biden did point in Poland the "need" to remove Putin, which aides later attempted to walk back the comment. Rubber stamping financial and military arms packages with no timetable nor parameters as to how to draw back or negotiate. Ever since the Cold War we have not defined any particular policy of engagement, other than the "War on Terror," which I use loosely. I would go farther to suggest that we are operating off the same general parameters of policy that we have since the end of the Second World War. Progressives in particular could collaborate with those on the other side who have expressed their own concerns, especially with the START Treaty being in play and armed conflict looking to becoming prolonged. I hope the president will own the language that he referenced at the SOTU about working together on key things to carve out a more definitive policy, while also looking for ways that we can deescalate the current conflicts, such as Ukraine and now the concerns regarding China and Taiwan. Oh, and yes, I was referencing nuclear nonproliferation, thanks for picking up on that!
Not many references to VP Harris.
Is it normal for foreign policy to not be mentioned an hour in?
Yes! Id say especially when we don’t have boots on the ground -Melissa
Did not expect this fraud section
Paid 👏 Family 👏 Medical 👏 Leave 👏
I've never seen such a back and forth during the SOTU
wild.
Live debate on the debt ceiling
My husband and I are here and playing bingo!
I’ve got four crossed off, I saw a little Harris giggle 🤭 -Melissa
Bernie is wearing a mask! Really hurting my bingo card. 😂 We're counting that for "We've lowered prescription drug costs"
I counted it too AND WHY DIDNT I THINK HED BE WEARING A MASK?! An unbothered man 🤣
Neither of us got bingo but we got close. A smile from Bernie would have done it for both of us!
Oooo thank you for deciding to do one!
What do you think so far?
It could be an email 😬. So far it feels expected and standard to me. Does it for you?
kind of jarring to have such heavy economic/manufacturing focus
a good thing, I think
I'd like more specific union discussion, but blue-collar biden is high on my list of favorite bidens.
Oh interesting. I guess, but somehow it felt expected for him to address it.
Very, very quick section on social issues.
Because it’s bedtime…
First substantive reference to VP Harris is on small businesses, which is striking as it highlights an aspect of her portfolio that has not received as much attention as voting rights/immigration reform/other big progressive items.
Reminder that Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders will be delivering the GOP response this evening.
Biden mentions burn pit legislation early on, which was a personal mission of his.
President Biden's collegial asides are really scorned by disciplined comms staffers and political strategists, but a) it just is who Biden is b) Biden believes in the power of it relationally c) it's disarming for many voters.
It was the most casual start to the SOTU I can remember.
As always, recent events affect SOTU in ways that wouldn't have typically been planned, and so we'll see how law enforcement, China and natural disasters fit in this evening.
Reporting has suggested President Biden will bring back the "Unity Agenda" theme. I criticized him for the lack of energy and seriousness behind his appeal to such an agenda for his SOTU last year...as we've emphasized, he is now somewhat freed up for a unity agenda because he no longer has to primarily negotiate against and among his own party in Congress.
As we discussed in Wear We Are this past weekend, the Biden White House has put up some trial balloons on some topics/themes for tonight, including a focus on big tech/social media and its impact on kids...I expect we'll hear some of that tonight.
Melissa developed a BINGO card to have a bit of fun as you watch along tonight. You can access it here: https://t.co/gN1HVoW7zH
um, regarding bingo...can we clarify the Wear household drink of choice?
we're split like Congress on this one
Some Wegmans wonder water for me 🥲 (this is Melissa, of course)
waiting for vital information about the other Wear adult...
Late to the thread but came here to say that the tone of this SOTU was really impressive. It set clear goals, didn't cede to opposition but made room at the table for anyone who wanted to join. A sort of confident pluralism in action. And maybe it's just me but I'll be reflecting on the notion that "equal protection of the laws is a covenant we make with each other." Not sure what I make of it but it's a novel piece of civic religion.