State of the Union Blog:

January 29, 2002 10:36 AM

State of the Union Blog: quite possibly the first web site devoted to analyzing a speech before it happens. (warning: contains Republican content)
posted by darukaru (27 comments total)

As you tune in tonight at 9 p.m. eastern time, fire up Rants in your browser window!

Yeah, right.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:41 AM on January 29, 2002

{{customone}}

This is the real reason that Noah Grey dropped out of the bloggies...
posted by machaus at 10:46 AM on January 29, 2002

No kidding. Actually, what I wanted to ask, but being sick of poll-FPPs... are there any other sites that're doing real-time commentary on the State of the Union tonight?
posted by darukaru at 10:47 AM on January 29, 2002

On a mildly-related State of the Union tangent, I have for years watched it on C-SPAN. They join it early, and it's a neat thing to see them seat the Senate, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, etc., all with little to no commentary over it. I always used to make a point of noticing who was missing in the Constitutional chain of authority from the address in case Something Bad happened, a fact that is more in our minds now than it was a year ago.
posted by ebarker at 10:48 AM on January 29, 2002

From the site:
However, a new poll suggests Americans are more suspicious of congressional Democrats than of Bush. In the USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey, 29 percent said Bush believed he would owe Enron executives special policy treatment in return for campaign contributions; 55 percent believe congressional Democrats felt that way.

Um, how about Congressional Republicans? Was that question asked? Also, what about Cheney? Why do Americans think Bush would not owe them any special treatment? Because he's honest, or he's out of the loop? Just because? What the hell is going on here? Lousy, pointless poll crap. Fox just came out with a poll which shows that, supposedly, less than 50 percent of respondents would vote for Bush if he ran for reelection today, already, at the supposed height of his popularity. You want to make a case for or against public support of Bush? Go search through the polls. There's more than enough material for either case to be made.
posted by raysmj at 10:49 AM on January 29, 2002

I happen to like when people blog things in real time. I've even "watched" a football game or two on ESPN's live play-by-play blog.

I seem to remember being stuck at work once and reading someone's blog as they covered a Clinton SOtU Address.

I can't imagine reading this guy's biased site, though. He sounds to me like he'll be blogging with one hand if you know what I mean.
posted by perplexed at 10:51 AM on January 29, 2002

Well, chances are I'll be blogging it on my little corner-o-heaven. My hand will probably lean left, peppered with Britney references.
posted by owillis at 10:57 AM on January 29, 2002

(warning: contains Republican content)

If we start this on all FPP's I'll wager a 80/20 tilt the other way. Can't we leave it up to the reader to decide the lean, it usually isn't difficult regardless of the direction.
posted by revbrian at 11:13 AM on January 29, 2002

" ... I can't imagine reading this guy's biased site, though. He sounds to me like he'll be blogging with one hand if you know what I mean ...".

Gosh, an American citizen that supports an American president. Terribly, terrible, terrible. Of course, on a board where even introducing this topic actually contains a freakin' disclaimer warning of "Republican content", it's not surprising that anyone supporting the president is called "biased". Funny, however, how often the word "biased" is used to mean "a viewpoint opposed to my own".
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:13 AM on January 29, 2002

When I read twits like that I realize that there is something to be said for a universal draft so our young folks can do something specific to help the nation and to get their heads straightened out. A state of the nation is one step better than a party platform but is an attempt to convince the country that all would be well if the nation would unite and give the president everything he wanted, no matter who the president. To think, veto, debate is to be unpatriotic. I wonder if Cheney will be let out of the kennel for the evening?
posted by Postroad at 11:15 AM on January 29, 2002

" ... When I read twits like that I realize that there is something to be said for a universal draft so our young folks can do something specific to help the nation and to get their heads straightened out. ...".

Funny, I had the same impression after reading your post.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:23 AM on January 29, 2002

revbrian, Midas: the 'disclaimer' was a lame attempt at a joke. You may freely string me up by my toenails.
posted by darukaru at 11:24 AM on January 29, 2002

[revbrian, Midas: the 'disclaimer' was a lame attempt at a joke. ]

Duly noted. I was just making an obervation. Now, to the stocks with you...
posted by revbrian at 11:26 AM on January 29, 2002

The baby jesus is going to continue to sniffle until the spell check returns.
posted by revbrian at 11:27 AM on January 29, 2002

darukaru: (warning: contains Republican content)

revbrian: Can't we leave it up to the reader to decide the lean, it usually isn't difficult regardless of the direction.

I agree, but would go further. The 'disclaimer' was innappropriate for a FPP, implicitly belittling the man's political leanings without presenting any evidence that his opinions were false, let alone that his entire political ideology was misguided. Sorry, darukaru, it wasn't funny, and it only contributes to the feeling of harassment that some Conservatives seem to feel here (unnecessarily, in my view).

In terms of a while-you-wait blog, sounds interesting, though. One of the things I like best about the Web is the unfiltered commentary - it's not like TV (or even radio) where you have to tow a party line, or present something palatable for the public. People are honest, sometimes vulgar, and fiercely opinionated. As a result, I read MeFi threads where I couldn't care less about the issues (but enjoy the viewpoints), I read AICN reviews of movies I won't see, just to get some perspective, and yeah, if I wasn't going to a concert, I just might check out this blog at 9pm. I typically enjoy any number of the keynote-speech-blog-things that happen for Steve Jobs' MacWorld talks.
posted by Marquis at 11:30 AM on January 29, 2002

Gosh, an American citizen that supports an American president.

Riiiiight.
posted by y2karl at 11:31 AM on January 29, 2002

Many people think the 25th Amendment to the Constitution covers the order of Presidential succession, but it deals mainly with the circumstances surrounding replacing the President with the Vice President, and in replacing the Vice President. The amendment goes no further than that, however.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that the Legislature can dictate the order of succession. This order has differed at different points in history, but we are currently operating under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, codified as Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 19 of the U.S. Code. There’s also a short narrative with some historical background available on the Senate website.

(I hope that doesn't sound too pedantic; I already had this written up as part of my job)
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:38 AM on January 29, 2002

state of the unionthis BBC item suggests that Bush is going to take advice I had seen a few times: focus on the war because that's where the people give you high marks...it's the war, dummy, and not the economy or Enron etc etc. But the rebuttal of course will go for the jugular on the issues Bush sidesteps.
posted by Postroad at 11:40 AM on January 29, 2002

When I read twits like that I realize that there is something to be said for a universal draft so our young folks can do something specific to help the nation and to get their heads straightened out

Nothing like a little "re-education program", no sir-ee.
posted by dagny at 11:54 AM on January 29, 2002

When I said biased, I meant being prejudicial in his assessment of the President's speech. Being biased means applying an unfair interpretation on something.

And if I'm at work and unable to follow along on the television, all I am saying is that I'd rather read a reasonable account of his speech than one that is slanted.
posted by perplexed at 11:55 AM on January 29, 2002

That's interesting, perplexed. I think I'd rather read a verbatim account, accompanied by an account that is "slanted", regardless of the slant.
posted by Marquis at 12:07 PM on January 29, 2002

I see what you're saying Marquis, and I'll probably go home and tune into a channel where I know I'll be getting an opinion.

But I want the first account of anything to be an accurate representation of the speech, devoid of any positive or negative opinion. I don't feel like I'll get that with this guy's weblog.

I am in support of real-time blogging, however.
posted by perplexed at 12:30 PM on January 29, 2002

( I meant go home after I've seen or read an unbiased account of the speech. I'm working long hours these days. )
posted by perplexed at 12:33 PM on January 29, 2002

MrMoonPie: Most excellent links. Presidential history has always fascinated me.
posted by ebarker at 12:37 PM on January 29, 2002

MrMoonPie: what is your job?

And how do I go about getting one.
posted by zpousman at 1:28 PM on January 29, 2002

If the introduction of personal opinions is to be denigrated, what is the purpose of personal publishing?

It's this guy's site. He has a political point of view. Amazingly, there are few technical or logistical obstacles in the way of persons with different points of view doing the exact same thing.

It's America, folks. Don't like what he's saying? Do it yourself.

zp: In case he isn't back shortly -- many of us cheered MrMoonPie when he got a plum job supporting the Library of Congress website. I think he's at the information architect level, or close to it.
posted by dhartung at 2:26 PM on January 29, 2002

(Warning: third party/anarchist content)

Maybe we do need a draft to get some of us out of the cubicles and away from gaming/sci-fi/online fantasy land for a few minutes. If, Earth forbid, something had gone wrong tonight and forced Department of Interior to take the reins of government, it would have been a really bad jolt that no amount of "it sucks" and "the Carlyle Group did it" could fix. But then again, we've each got 2000 hours worth of Freedom Corps time to figure things out. You're all signing up for Homeland Defense, I assume.
Like they say, "de-nial" is not a river in Egypt.
posted by sheauga at 8:47 PM on January 29, 2002