Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
PowerBlogging the State of the Union
PowerBlogging the State of the Union
Mar 28, 2026 5:24 AM

I’ll be watching President Bush’s final State of the Union speech tonight and PowerBlog readers are invited to react and respond in ments section below.

I’ll be updating this post throughout the night (below the break) for those of you interested in the mentary. For now, let me just add this spoiler: the State of our Union is strong!

And for those of you who subscribe to SIRIUS Satellite Radio, I’m scheduled to discuss the speech at 10:40 PM Eastern on The Catholic Channel, channel 159. The conversation will focus especially on the proposed tax rebates, the federal budget, and tax cuts. Update: The audio of the interview is streaming here (download MP3 here).

Here’s a brief primer on what to expect tonight.

I think I’ll be watching NBC’s coverage, off the strength of their American Gladiators prelude.

NBC’s presidential historian reminds us that the President’s approval ratings are historically low. A bit later, Tim Russert notes that the President’s are at 31%, while Congress’ are at 18%.

Prediction: The perception of George W. Bush’s legacy will improve with age. People on both sides of the aisle will point to his leadership in a time of national trial.

9:12 PM: The President says we must “trust people with their own money.” That sounds about right. This is clearly a reference to the importance of passing the stimulus package quickly. Only in Washington does “immediate” action mean something finally happens four or five months later.

9:14 PM: The President starts strong on taxes, following up on his stress on the economic stimulus package. He says he will veto any bill that crosses his desk that raises taxes.

9:15 PM: The President promises a balanced budget by 2012, just about the time the next President’s first term will be ending. He’s right that the government needs to be accountable for how it spends the citizens’ money. Tax cuts without a balanced budget seem prima facie irresponsible.

9:17 PM: He will veto any bill that doesn’t cut earmarks in half. How about just eliminating them? Check out Citizens Against Government Waste.

9:21 PM: On education, Bush reiterates the legacy of No Child Left Behind, calling it a “bipartisan” achievement that needs to be strengthened. Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy are sitting next to each other.

9:22 PM: “Pell Grants for Kids” sounds like a public school voucher system.

9:26 PM: On energy, the President wants to fund carbon-capturing technologies for coal plants. It’s simply a fact that attempts to make the US energy independent will have to take advantage of coal, at least in the short- to mid-term, since it is so readily available domestically.

9:28 PM: Time and again the President is equating increased government funding with “dynamic” innovation in technology and science. I’m with Arnold Kling on this question, preferring privately funded innovation prizes over “trying to work the political system.”

9:32 PM: Speaking of the President’s legacy, one of the things he has done that will have lasting effects is bring entitlement reform onto the table. He never got anything passed, but he did a lot of the heavy lifting necessary for true reform by bringing these “pressing” issues into the public consciousness.

9:34 PM: He’s also taken a lot of heat over his attempts to find a moderating position on immigration. He’s right that we need a “humane” solution.

9:35 PM: “People when given the chance will choose a future of freedom and peace.”

9:50 PM: The last fifteen minutes or so have focused on the war on terror, particularly on Iraq: “We will not rest until this enemy has been defeated.”

9:54 PM: Transitioning from a discussion of a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine (two “democratic” states) and the threat of Iran, the President starts to discuss domestic security. I am thankful and frankly amazed that we have not suffered another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

9:57 PM: The President is outlining prehensive plan to advance both American foreign interests and meet the demands of our conscience by creating a more passionate” foreign policy focused on increased foreign development aid.

10:01 PM: The President concludes with a bit of history, noting the change in language from the Articles of Confederation, “We the undersigned delegates…”, to the Constitution, “We the people…”, which was ratified on September 17, 1787.

10:04 PM: Tim Russert called the speech the “minimalist agenda of a lame duck President.”

As appropriate in a time of war, the bulk of the speech focused on the war on terror in its various fronts. Given the “lame duck” status of a relatively unpopular President, it is an open question how much influence, beyond the “veto” threat that was raised more than once in this speech, President Bush will have over the next year on domestic policy.

10:06 PM: David Gregory points to the President’s “bitterness” over his inability to pass either entitlement or immigration reform. Again, these two issues, especially the former, is likely to be one of the important legacies of his domestic work. History will vindicate his argument that Social Security needs radical reform.

I think it’s an interesting question as to what sort of tone this speech has set for any potential Presidential successor of either party. Was this used at all as an opportunity to try and set up the agenda of the next President?

10:16 PM: Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius delivers the Democratic response.

10:18 PM: Sorry, that’s the “American” response, focusing on the economy. “A temporary fix is only the first step,” referring to the stimulus package.

10:21 PM: On a number of domestic issues, from raising the minimum wage to “going green,” the governor asks the President, “Will you join us?”

Here’s a link to the full text of the 2008 State of the Union address.

It looks like action on the economic stimulus package might not be so immediate. The WaPo is reporting that the Senate version to be taken up tomorrow has some rather significant divergences from the plan agreed to by the President and the House leadership.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Obama’s Remarks At National Prayer Breakfast
The National Prayer Breakfast, a D.C.-event going back to 1953, was held this morning. The keynote was USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, and President Obama added remarks. Obama chose to focus on religious freedom, calling it a matter of “national security,” menting that he was looking forward to his trip to the Vatican next month to meet with Pope Francis. Obama also said, Yet even as our faith sustains us, it’s also clear that around the world freedom of religion is...
Obamacare and the Laffer Curve Napkin
During a meeting in a restaurant with two officials from the Ford Administration — Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld — a young economist sketched a curve on a napkin to illustrate an argument he was making. Arthur Laffer was explaining to the policymakers the concept of taxable e elasticity—i.e., taxable e will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation. By 1974, the idea was already ancient. Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Muslim philosopher, wrote in his work...
‘Finally, a Conservative Leader’
Acton’s Director of Research, Samuel Gregg, recently wrote a special report, Finally, a Conservative Leader over at The American Spectator. Last year, a reporter asked Gregg who the current “outstanding center-right head of government” is. He responded that Margaret Thatcher was his first thought, though Australian Prime Minister “Tony Abbott is the real thing like no one since Margaret Thatcher.” He goes on, “thus far Abbott has matched his open adherence to distinctly conservative convictions by implementing policies that reflect...
What Liberal Evangelicals Should Know About the Economic Views of Conservative Evangelicals (Part 2)
Why do liberal and conservative evangelicals tend to disagree so often about economic issues? This is the second in a series of posts that addresses that question by examining 12 principles that generally drive the thinking of conservative evangelicals when es to economics. The first in the series can be found here.A PDF/text version of the entire series can be foundhere. In my first post, I covered the first four principles (#1 – Good intentions are often trumped by unintended...
Raise Your Own Minimum Wage
Over the past few months I’ve e obsessed with the idea that economic principles and arguments need to be explained more intuitively. I’ve assumed that the best way to approach that task would be to create robust metaphors that can be intuitively grasped. But a short parody video by Julie Borowski on the minimum wage has made me realize that sometimes all we really need is to show the obvious conclusions of policy positions. Borowski’s presentation is silly, her style...
Why Natural Law Arguments Are Necessary
A few weeks ago I asked why natural law arguments more persuasive. Natural law advocates intend for such argument to persuade both believers and non-believers, so how do they account for the relative ineffectualness of such arguments? Why don’t more people find them to be persuasive? In response to my question (as well as questions and criticisms from others), Sherif Girgis proffered a defense and explanation: Yes. Over the last few years, my coauthors and I have heard from many...
The Mirage of Disability
Annette Gabbedy is a business ownerand expert designer andgoldsmith. She was also born without fingers, a disposition many might consider a “disability,” particularly in her line of work. Yet, as you’ll see in the following video, having created and traded her wares for 23 years, Gabbedy sees no reason for this to inhibit her creativity and contribution to society. As Gabbedy explains: I tend to really look at people with fingers and think: Well, how can you manage with fingers,...
The Boring Work Of Development
Helping people get out of poverty is hard, dirty work. It isn’t glamorous. Most of those involved do not get to wander around the developing world wearing cool blue shades and giving sound bites. In fact, the Campaign for Boring Development is so insistent on this, they’ve written a manifesto to drive home the point: development work can be…boring. Development Does Not Photograph Well. Watching a family till their land does not make for riveting video. It’s just plain ole...
It’s Not Only the Poor Who Need Moral Leadership
“Oral histories often paint a rosy picture of the moral fiber of previous generations,” write Anthony Bradley and Sean Spurlock in this week’s Acton Commentary. “But close attention to history reveals the truth about human condition: that regardless of our social status, everyone is in need of moral formation – and thus it has always been.” In Britain and elsewhere, as the contrast between the publicly held moral code and private behavior became clear, the code itself was discredited. The...
Religion & Liberty: An Interview with Fr. James Schall
In the editor’s notes of the new issue of Religion & Liberty, I mentioned Time magazine’s iconic 1964 photo spread “War on Poverty: Portraits From an Appalachian Battleground.” Appalachia was a major target of America’s war on poverty. Today many of those same problems persist despite the steady stream of federal dollars. Unfortunately, unintended consequences from government spending, has expanded many of the problems, as Kevin D. Williamson covered so well in the piece “The White Ghetto” for National Review....
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved