SOTU Superlatives
From the extensive coverage in the media of the January 23 State of the Union address and aftermath, Media Matters for America culled the most noteworthy statements and moments in each of several categories. Included in those are examples of the media's attributing significance to otherwise mundane or incidental events, with these purportedly relevant observations having the effect of advancing factually dubious, pre-existing storylines about Democrats -- including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) harboring animosity toward Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for seeking the Democratic presidential nomination -- or making thinly-veiled personal attacks against Democrats.
Least profound observation
CNN's senior national correspondent John Roberts imparting significance to the seating arrangements in the House of Representatives:
ROBERTS: There was a couple of other interesting things to take note of as well, Wolf [Blitzer, host], the fact that [former House Speaker] Dennis Hastert [R-IL], who always sat up there right behind the president, right beside the vice president, was third row from the back tonight.
And, also, over on the Democratic side, Barack Obama had a better seat than Hillary Clinton. He was in row four. She was in row five. Wolf.
Runner-up: MSNBC's Chris Matthews, asking former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw about Vice President Dick Cheney's smile:
MATTHEWS: Tom, let me ask you about the energy. You're right, I think it's amazing for him to take such a strong position as a Republican, which is generally a pro-business position, to come out to modernize fuel efficiency standards for cars. And yet, when he was doing that, when he was going through how tough he's going to get on fuel efficiency and his acknowledgement of the global warming issue, maybe it's a coincidence, maybe I shouldn't be reading this into it, but the vice president seemed to be smiling broadly during that. Did you catch that?
BROKAW: Uh, no, I would -- I'd be the last person who would try to read Dick Cheney's mind.
Worst analysis based on the least profound observation
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank on the January 24 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition:
RENÉE MONTAGNE (co-host): And, of course, Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], as speaker [of the House], may be one of the few Democrats not running for president, who --
MILBANK: That's true. By my count, there were 10 in the chamber there. And, in fact, Hillary Clinton was situated immediately behind Barack Obama, making it easier for her to actually place the knife into his back, if that's what she was trying to do.
[Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] a few rows up, [Sens.] Chris Dodd [D-CT] and Joe Biden [D-DE] a few seats down. Then, on the other side, you had [Sens.] Chuck Hagel [R-NE], and John McCain [R-AZ], and Sam Brownback [R-KS]. You know, people watching their every fidget. You know, the only time you could definitely count on them all being very enthusiastic in their applause was when Bush mentioned ethanol, which, of course, plays well in the Iowa caucuses.
Most misleading question
NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory during an interview with Obama on the January 24 broadcast of NBC's Today:
GREGORY: You -- you've seen, in just the first week of your campaign, some of the ugly side of politics: a report surfacing this week that you attended a radical Islamic school in Indonesia. Reporting has since emerged that that school was no such thing. I wonder how you think your -- your political enemies will try to capitalize on your background overall, including, quite frankly, the fact that your middle name is Hussein.
OBAMA: Well, you know, when I was in Illinois running for the U.S. Senate -- Barack Obama's not your typical name, and everybody questioned how voters would respond, and we ended up winning 70 percent of the vote. So I'm not unaccustomed to this.
Contrary to Gregory's suggestion about Obama's "political enemies," it is often the media themselves who raise the issue of the senator's background and name. Gregory's colleague at MSNBC, Chris Matthews, was apparently the first to mention Obama's middle name in a political context in November 2006. Others, such as CNN senior political analyst Jeff Greenfield, have used Obama's middle name to attack the senator and question whether he could be elected president. More recently, Fox News' John Gibson and others have touted a story on InsightMag.com that smears both Obama and Clinton, alleging that Obama attended a madrassa in Indonesia as a child and sourcing the report -- without further substantiation -- to "researchers connected to" Clinton.
Most flagrant recycling of White House spin
Fox News Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume, referring to the "gold-plated policies" Bush had described days earlier in laying out his new health care proposal:
MORTON M. KONDRACKE (Roll Call executive editor): Every Democratic official that I've heard quoted -- or every member of Congress -- has been very negative about this idea. [Rep.] Pete Stark [D-CA], who's the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee that does health care, said that it's DOA -- dead on arrival.
HUME: Yeah. He said that he won't even hold hearings on it.
KONDRACKE: Right.
HUME: And Harry Reid [D-NV], the Senate majority leader, has been critical of it. And practically across the board, it's been dismissed as a -- as something that helps people who have insurance, punishes some people who have insurance --
HUME: Who have gold-plated policies.
KONDRACKE: Exactly. And, well, that includes union members, who are a major constituency of the Democrats.
Most gratuitous attack on a female Democrat
In addition to Milbank, whose knife-in-the-back smear earned him recognition in a different category, on-screen text on the January 24 edition of Fox News' The Big Story With John Gibson, purporting to analyze Clinton's alleged "State of the Union scowl," asking: "What was she trying to convey?"

Runner-up: MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle's 9:26 p.m. entry on MSNBC.com's "Hardblogger":
Math has never been my strong suit. And I have difficulty balancing my check book. But you don't have to be Stephen Hawking to figure out that A. Nancy Pelosi's outfit cost more than the average American paid for their first home and B. there is a pretty high degree of difficulty involved in balancing the federal budget yet the leader of the free world just told us, "We can do so without raising taxes." And half the people in the hall -- Bush's half -- stood and cheered.
Worst effort at "balance"
Fox News for hosting former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to respond to Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) response to the State of the Union address:
HUME: We've now heard a Democratic reaction to the president's comments. Let's get a Republican reaction from none other -- down in the state of Florida tonight -- the former mayor of New York City and a current Republican presidential hopeful, Rudy Giuliani. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Welcome.
GIULIANI: Good evening. How you doing?
HUME: I'm doing well, thanks. Your thoughts about this speech and this night?
GIULIANI: Well, I thought the speech was a very good one, and I thought it did what the president had to do, which was to get us kind of beyond Iraq, meaning there are a lot of other things we have to concentrate on.
Fox did not feature a Democratic response to Giuliani's response to the Democratic response to Bush's speech.















Does anyone even take Brit Hume seriously? He is a hack not a journalist.
Okay so here are my observations. Bush was insincerely gracious considering his reference to "Democrat" majority. Cheney looked like he was chewing his cud. Some of his domestic proposals sounded interesting. He of course lost me when he started asking for Congress to give his surge a "chance." NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF NEW ORLEANS AND KATRINA. And some of the Congress people looked like they were falling asleep.
Webb on the other hand, SLAM DUNK!
Missed all the fauning. Going back and forth between profressional wrestling on TV and college basketball on the radio. Looks like I missed...nothing!
No Mention of Katrina AT ALL!
I caught that too.
President Bush is right though. Everyone deserves a 7th chance.
What was she trying to convey?
Uhhh... she trying very hard not to fall asleep like everyone else. Either that, or she was trying to keep a straight face while Bush babbled... Maybe she was thinking about what she had for dinner?
Man...
Maybe trying to eject a piece of food from between her teeth? It sort of looks like that in the three screen shots...but, aren't you glad it's not your job to be the underpaid wonk who needs to spot all that?
- balancing the federal budget..."We can do so without raising taxes." And half the people in the hall -- Bush's half -- stood and cheered. - Barnacle
Right on the beam...just another example of why democrats are perceived as the party of higher taxes. That's a great catch by Maloy.
Nonsense. This is manufactured 'evidence'. Bush deserves no ovation.
I'm sorry, but why didn't Bush give any explanation on how to do it without raising taxes? They didn't stand because he's dumping the entire issue on the DEMs with false expectations from a lot of the population. We have an ongoing war and a huge deficit, how do we balance the budget without a tax increase?
Yep. Also, let's not forget how the Republicans 'forgot' or could not finish this year's budget. Dumped right in the lap of the Dems. That's wonderful.
C'mon Greek, be fair.
How are the 'Pubs supposed to balance a budget when they only work 100 days a year and 3 days a week?
It's hard. Hard work, I'm tellin' ya.
/ sarcasm, in case you missed it.
True, true... it's all "hard work". lol
- how do we balance the budget without a tax increase? - monk
For starters...stop spending federal money like drunken sailors. It's a spending problem.
That alone won't do it and what gets cut out of the budget. Getting rid of all of the earmarks is good and all , put it won't really make a dent.
But, since you gave us a "for starters", would you care to give us some further insight into this grand plan? Maybe you can win me over to the dark side.
Last year republicans submitted a budget proposal to balance the budget by 2011 without the need for increased taxation.
The RSC Proposal
The RSC budget would reduce FY 2007-2011 federal spending 2.8 percent below the baseline. Rather than spend $14.213 trillion over that period, as projected, Washington would spend $13.821 trillion. Federal spending would still increase every year, albeit at a slower rate
The RSC proposal would keep tax rates at the current levels that have helped the economy expand. Instead of forcing Americans to send more money to Washington to fund wasteful and outdated programs, the RSC would:
What were the "150 programs"?
Reference please.
Right in front of you...clearly stated. The RSC, Republican Study Committee.
No, I'd like a link. Want to see for myself (if you don't mind).
[link to www.house.gov] />
That's great...but, I got "The requested page could not be found".
[link to www.house.gov]
Okay...here's a link of my own that talks about said RSC Budget Committee proposals.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-6-06bud.htm
My guess is your comments came from a link similar to the (if not the same) one as below...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm452.cfm
That's just a guess.
Nope...wrong guess...but the link is great...some highlights:
The RSC budget sets priorities by fully funding the President’s defense and homeland security requests, while calling for a 1 percent reduction in the rest of the discretionary budget.
The RSC budget includes instructions to reduce non-Social Security mandatory spending by a modest 1 percent. Given that the government’s own auditors have identified over $100 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse in entitlement programs, lawmakers should not consider unreasonable these savings of $7.7 billion in the first year.
the RSC budget would require a stand-alone vote to bypass any of its restrictions. It would also make it more difficult for lawmakers to bypass their spending ceilings by labeling regular spending as “emergencies.
Yea... nice try. Wesley's posted comments are from The Heritage Foundation, folks. Anyone interested in an opposing viewpoint should check the first link I posted from The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities... their stated mission...
"The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation’s premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals."
Sound pretty good to me. I'm just saying...
WESLEY:
Any idea why SIX YEARS with a GOP majority in BOTH houses of Congress, able to pass ANY spending/tax bills they pleased, and a GOP president able to sign any such "balanced budget" proposal into law ... SIX SOLID YEARS to make the proposals you suggest the GOP approves the law of the land ... and they took NO action on any of those proposals? WHY WHY WHY should we listen to the GOP NOW, when they obviously disapproved all these ideas when they had every chance in the world to pass the bills that would enact those ideas?
The FACT is, the GOP are frauds with any new proposal, and the economy is JUST THE WAY THEY LIKE IT now ... with ALL the advantages going to the very wealthiest, and the rest of America sent begging with lost jobs, lost manufacturing, lost pensions, lost health care, stagnant wages at best, and higher costs for energy, gas, prescription drugs, tuition, and other necessary expenses.
The GOP is the TOP DOWN party, and the DOWN is optional. Any proposal they make will be GREAT for the already very rich, and BAD for the vast majority of Americans. It has been thus for SIX YEARS while they had total control, and it will always be thus.
To say they have an idea of how to run the country NOW ... it's beyond laughable, it's tragic, pathetic, and the province of the insane and hopeless fools. I won't conjecture which YOU are.
Ok...lets see what ya got. You provide plenty of negative bitching comments...how about your budget plan.
I submit that the RSC proposal is a sensible starting point. With a majority in both houses you should be able to accomplish great feats with your budget plan...if you have one.
Hold your horses, Wes. The Dems first have to construct the '07 budget (left over from the Republicans)... that's nice. Then, perhaps, they can work on more long-term goals.
To be honest, I think the lack of an '07 budget was intentional. The Dems are scrambling to complete unfinished biz... then folks (like you) will sit back, tapping their feet exclaiming "where's the big plan?!" Can't win for losing. But, I say give the Democrats a chance first, then you can trash them to your hearts content.
You're way off base.
I have not demonstrated impatience. The RSC proposal is a great starting point to reduce spending and hold down taxes. The democrat party is now in control and I am patiently waiting for their proposals on the budget.
Democrats have run yapping and barking after the budget car...now they've caught it...time to put up or...or...well you know the rest of the verse.
Okay. Wait and see is a nice compromise. But, "way off base"... I don't think so. Just my opinion.
Wesley fails to answer Tex's simple question, naturally.
Wes, if the RSC plan is so great, why did the Republicans FAIL to pass it in six years of control of Congress and the White House?
Here's another great site...
http://budget.house.gov/
You should pay particular attention to the part entitled "Report on a Republican Legacy: A financial mess". That seriously sums it up. A mess.
Balanced by 2011? Whoop-de-do.
We've been there before. The Bush Administration has thrown out boatloads of long-term budget projections, almost exclusively with assumptions so reality challenged that, by comparison, "weeks rather than months" sounds reasonable.
If you can't give us a plan to balance the budget in two years, you've got nothing.
Whoa--did you see that?
It was your credibility. I'm afraid it just flew out the window. Bye bye.
Yes - all Wes has shown is that the Republicans have FAILED for six years to be responsible on the budget.
Exactly,
On principle, they should always applaud when someone says no taxes should be raised, but they can't and then they complain that people think they are the tax-raisers. It is strange.
They also didn't applaud when Bush said the government was too big, which is his fault as well, no denying that........but more evidence that Democrats think government is the solution and it can't ever be big enough.
Please... you and Wesley should get a room
Both yours and Wesley's comments are baseless. On principle alone, I would not give Bush an ovation. He barely deserves polite applause. By not being 'one of the crowd' and blindly applauding nonsensical statements by Bush, that makes the Democrats in favor of Big Government? That's nonsense.
No, your cute remark is baseless. It wasn't about Bush, it was about raising taxes and big, bloated government. Something you apparently are in favor of.
That's BS Tommy. The comment was about giving Bush an ovation because he made a comment... one of the routine lies that Bush always gives during every one of his SOTU addresses. Are the Dems supposed to show bipartisan support and jump for joy every time Bush makes a dumb claim? You'all inferred that the Dems are 'apparently' in favor of raising taxes because they didn't stand and cheer him on. Little like Simon says, isn't it? After 6 years of being shut out by the creepy Republicans and being scolded by an indignant Bush... You know? I'd sit on my hands too. Talk (especially from Bush) is cheap.
Also, your comment about me being in favor of raising taxes is also inferred. You have no idea what I think about taxes.
- You have no idea what I think about taxes. - greek
Fair enough...just what are your ideas on taxes?
Taxes? I hate taxes... Who among us likes/loves taxes?? Yeah, yeah... Democrats right? Wes, at this point... I would love to believe that any proposal from the Republicans to balance anything without raising taxes is feasible... following the insane amount of glad-handing, waste and fiscal irresponsibility put forth by the GOP... I echo Monkjo's concern. How on earth can we compensate for the insane debt (you better include the military debt into those figures)... without raising some taxes? Where's it going to come from? If you care to read the other link I posted... it pokes serious holes in your RSC report. I don't have a good answer. But, then again... neither do you.
These neocon creeps refuse to see taxes as investments in the infrastructure of country, as investments in the future even though they benefit richly from such investments. Furthermore, they will not see that government can effectively promote the common good when run by responsible representatives and held accountable by we the people. But then these ultra authoritarin right wing ideologues lust to be controlled by their betters instead of participating in an open government of the people, by the people for the people.Why would anyone vote for republicans to run the government when republicans do not believe government can have a role for good in society. Thus we get strategic deficits, a la Reagan, so the repubs can portray the social safety net as an enabling drag on our society and hack away at programs that help support our poor working families.Don't even get me started on the big swinle that is privatization with its net upward redistribution of the commonwealth. Face it republicans have devolved into selfish pigs.
I absolutely agree.
I have read your link...did you really read the RSC plan.
Federal spending is completely out of control...and that includes the republican party. The basic divide between the RSC and the CBPP that you cited is age old. CBPP hangs its hat on the notion that any reduction in growth is a cut...while the RSC recommends a small reduction in the rate of growth.
We currently fund the federal government with all the money they need. Both sides of the aisle must perform their duty and get spending under control. The transportation bill had over 6000 pork projects at a cost of 24 billion dollars.
Taxes and spending are not mutually exclusive...but it's my opinion that spending is the real culprit...corrupt politicians.
Okay. Then you must admit that the last 6 years of complete Republican rule have been no exception. In fact, some of the worst. People can complain about Democrats and their purported love for taxation all they want. But, the real issue is the Republican debauchery we've witnessed over the past 6 years (in my mind).
But, that's okay. I agree with your general sentiment. Politics is dirty. And, they money we give should be enough. I agree with that. But, is it enough to rectify the massive hole we're in? I'm not sure. I don't know.
...and, no... I have not read the entire 75 page report.
Tommy are you being Sarcastic? Sometimes I can't tell.
No. I would applaud when anyone, Bush or anyone, says taxes need not be raised. I would also applaud anyone, Bush or anyone, who says government is too big.
If you want more government along with more taxes, then I would imagine you would sit on your hands.
I suppose I look at it differently. I took it as and attempt to set up the dems for falure. When I look at that statement in the context of who said it,I would sit on my hands as well.
Not raising taxes and lowering the deficit would only work if he was willing to make "MANY" changes to his administration's gameplan. Changes that he has shown he is unwilling to make.
I don't know is condescending is the right term for it.
My applause for lower taxes and smaller government did not go to supporting Bush in any way - in fact he has been an anathema to smaller government since he took office. It is the principle and the fiscal restraint proposed by any elected official that I would applaud.
Like Hoover? Honestly what is so bad about taxing the wealthiest among us more? Clinton did it, Republicans said it was doomed to failure, the exact opposite happened. Reagan cut taxes, threw the national debt through the roof and had to raise taxes to try and recover, then Bush says "no new taxes" and ofcourse was forced to raise them again. Robert Reich's economic formula worked. Silly rabbits taxes are for the top 1/10th of 1%. Let the middle class grow, buy the products and services that make people wealthy who then pay taxes to help the middle class stay healthy and working to buy the products and services....etc. In order to form a more perfect union and to promote the general welfare. Henry Ford knew it, Dale Carnegie and yes FDR knew it. If a few give little more many prosper allowing them to prosper even more. The NFL gets it! Profit sharing works.
Not raising taxes and lowering the deficit would only work if he was willing to make "MANY" changes to his administration's gameplan. Changes that he has shown he is unwilling to make.
Lets hope the Dems do.
Democrats think government is the solution
Bingo! That is how I see it. Party of Big Government, want Uncle Sam to grow big enough to take in lots of money and then dole out lots of money - enough to buy everyone's vote.
Nonsense. Government is the people's venue. While government is not the answer, it certainly has a role to play in promoting the general welfare. This means making sensible investments in the areas that will facilitate broad prosperity: education, renewable energy, healthcare and research and development. This is your government. How will you lead?
EL, ask yourself this: did government expand more under Clinton or Bush? Then rethink your position.
where have I heard that before? I will cut taxes raise defense spending and balance the budget. Oh right that was Rayguns fantasy. How did that work out for us? Yeah it was a disaster, more deficits than all other presidents combined. So when Bush basically says it again Dems should APPLAUD? Then they can say thank you sir may we have another.
I know when/why Hillary scowled
When Bush got to the humorous part where he was interested in the deficit and Global Warming (which should be more properly named Global Changes), how could Hillary not scowl?
Her husband was the only prez able to control spending in the past several decades! And his environmental policies were designed to curb pollution, not create more (i.e., Clear Sky Initiative)
Bush has pleased so many wealthy people by lowering their taxes and forcing the middle- and underclass to foot the bill. He knows that they will not fault him for giving lip-service to anything now because the wealthy are now wealthy beyond comprehension.
Global Warming (which should be more properly named Global Changes)
really? why?
Kudos to MMFA for rounding up this disgusting display of unprofessional analyses. I am thoroughly embarrassed for our press.
I am thoroughly embarrassed for our press.
I am embarrassed by our press. Just read the BS headlines every single day.
"How do we balance the budget without a tax increase" - MonkJ80"For starters . . . stop spending federal money like drunken sailors, its a spending problem." - Wesley------------------------------------------------COMPLETELY AGREE.And we can start with that $8 billion/month, or week, or whenever, that we're spending on the Iraq War . . .
I have a balanced budget idea for the repubs.
First, cut spending. Reduce pork.
And finally, instead of raising taxes (we all know how much the republicans hate higher taxes), the money needed to help plug the current hole we call our budget, can be raised in other ways. First Bush will donate all the funds generated by all of the companies he successfully ran before entering politics.
Oh wait.....
Actually I reread what I just posted and besides the fact that we have someone trying to balance a budget who could even run a company, I had a scary thought.
Knowing Bush's history in business. Has anyone sat down with Bush and explained to him, that if he runs the U.S. into the ground (like he did to his businesses), Daddy and Friends can't buy him a new country to run?
Maybe five years from now, the first ever US Republican President of France?