State of the Union Address 2004

[jerseydevil]

I figured I'd post this now and have it as an advertisement that Tuesday January 20th the President will give the State of the Union.

I was wondering how many people will be watching it and why or why not?

I for one will be watching it - because I think it is important to know what the president has to say - whether you agree with him or not. I always watched Clinton's State of the Union speeches and I have always watched Bush's.

After the State of the Union - this can also be the place where people discuss the speech.

I was also curious how many other countries get to see the President's State of the Union speech uncut or is it pretty much just filtered through your media. Since it's at 9:00pm Eastern I seriously doubt people in Europe get to see it live. Also - do they show the other party's rebuttal - in this case the democrats?

[Valandil]

Thanks JD. I plan to watch it. Like you, I always try to see it, regardless of whether or not I like / agree with the current President.

You mention one thing that I could do without: the rebuttal from the opposition party. I might just turn it off at that point this year. The US Constitution calls for the President to make an annual report on the State of the Union. It COULD be a time of pulling together. There is NO constitutional requirement about having someone opposed to the President getting in the 'last word' on the matter. Having that is simply divisive.

Perhaps the State of the Union address has become so partisan (over many years - not just of late) that some consider this fair? Many the networks just like to have our attention that much longer? But I don't like the opposition response - didn't like it when the Republicans did it while Clinton was President, and don't like it when the Democrats do it while Bush is President.

[Ruinel]

I have no problem with the opposing side giving a rebuttal to the State of the Union Address. Both sides really have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Bush is going to play up the a rise in the economy. As anyone who has taken statistics knows, the numbers can be played with and/or interpreted to give the results you want. I expect him to either completely eliminate from the speach or downplay the fact that there are so many people unemployed or under-employed, and many people returning to jobs are taking jobs with little or no benefits at all, and for less money. Though I'd be shocked if he brought in space exploration and moon base proposal to offset the war in Iraq. I don't even think he'd do that.

I'll be in class, so I won't be watching it. I'm sure there'll be plenty on cnn.com and in the newspapers the following day.

On a side note that is slightly tangent to this topic. I'm seriously disappointed that the redistricting of Texas went through.

[jerseydevil]

I don't know when the rebuttal came in. I agree - their shouldn't be a rebuttal. it's the state of the Union. The president used to not even go to Congress to give it - they used to just write it out and send it to them. That of course was before TV. I wonder if they did the rebuttal during the days of radio - or if it is just a result of TV.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Bush is going to play up the a rise in the economy. As anyone who has taken statistics knows, the numbers can be played with and/or interpreted to give the results you want. I expect him to either completely eliminate from the speach or downplay the fact that there are so many people unemployed or under-employed, and many people returning to jobs are taking jobs with little or no benefits at all, and for less money.

You can't fudge the Stock prices - those are pretty much undeniable. A lot of companies have started to announce major hiring - so that's good.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't know when the rebuttal came in. I agree - their shouldn't be a rebuttal. it's the state of the Union. The president used to not even go to Congress to give it - they used to just write it out and send it to them. That of course was before TV. I wonder if they did the rebuttal during the days of radio - or if it is just a result of TV.

I think the rebuttal is a very recent thing... like maybe within the past 15 years or so. I don't recall them during the Reagan years anyway - and not sure if they had them for Bush Sr. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention or wasn't aware. Does anyone else know for certain when they started?

I've heard before who was the first President to actually give the State of the Union report as an address... not sure anymore, but was it Eisenhower?? Anyone know?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You can't fudge the Stock prices - those are pretty much undeniable. A lot of companies have started to announce major hiring - so that's good.

You can interpret numbers any way that you like in order to back up any results you desire.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
You can interpret numbers any way that you like in order to back up any results you desire.

There are certain things that indicate whether the economy is picking up or not and that is sustained growth. So far there has been sustained growth. It isn't just the numbers - it's a bunch of things that show how well the economy is doing. A recession is 3 consecutive periods of negative economic growth. There isn't anything about interpretting the numbers to come out the way you want them to. The down has been close to 11,000 now. It has been above 10,000 for the last month and has sustained this level. This shows that the economy is picking up.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I was also curious how many other countries get to see the President's State of the Union speech uncut or is it pretty much just filtered through your media. Since it's at 9:00pm Eastern I seriously doubt people in Europe get to see it live.

I don't think they broadcast the whole thing (which is not exactly the same as "filtering" it ) but news progammes discuss the gist of the speech. And of course it's printed in full in many newspapers. I don't think I for one will watch it live though

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by sun-star
I don't think they broadcast the whole thing (which is not exactly the same as "filtering" it ) but news progammes discuss the gist of the speech. And of course it's printed in full in many newspapers. I don't think I for one will watch it live though

It is filtering it - because they take things out of context or only show you one thing but not another. Filtering is anything they don't show in it's entirety. I saw this demonstrated very well on French news when they covered the California Guberatorial Debates and they wanted to show that Arnold Swcharzennegger was argumentative. I saw it live - the whole thing - and it was was completely different when it was sliced and diced by french news.

You can however read the State of the Union speech on http://www.Whitehouse.gov once they release it, but in my view - it's still not the same.

[Earniel]

I don't know how long the State of the Union normally is (but knowing politicians, it'll probably be long) but it'll probably be shortened in the our national news. Something like "In his State of the Union, president Bush said this and that.... "with a short piece of video of said president acompanying.

I don't think we would ever show such a speech of a foreign ruler 'life' on the national TV-stations or uncut (if it's too long) anyway. I also don't think they'll have it edited that much that'll seem completely different from the original, though.

If I've time tomorrow night (and if I remember it) I'll look at the news, and I'll tell you how they did it.

[Insidious Rex]

On a side note that is slightly tangent to this topic. I'm seriously disappointed that the redistricting of Texas went through.

you and me both. What a fiasco that whole thing has been. I cant believe that this kind of thing is allowed to happen. I mean this is supposed to be a democracy and the party in power (yes BOTH parties do this) gets to rewrite the rules to rig things so they always have a majority? How can that be allowed in this country! And just out in the open just bold faced and unapologetic like that. That’s not democracy. Its just corruption. Reminds me of something mob run unions might do. Why cant they come up with a different way of determining districts perhaps based on the census every 10 years or something. Districts should NOT be allowed to be determined by the party in power.

It is filtering it - because they take things out of context or only show you one thing but not another. Filtering is anything they don't show in it's entirety.

but its all about spin anyway. Don’t make it out as if the president is speaking pure truth and everything else is just word games. Its ALL spin. The speech. The hubbub leading up TO the speech. The timing of the speech. Who he pulls in to “honor” on site. And then of course all the post speech rebuttles and rebuttle rebuttles and the media telling us how we are supposed to think on the whole thing. Its ALL spin. Put on your spin filters before you watch this whole affair or live in darkness I say.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
you and me both. What a fiasco that whole thing has been. I cant believe that this kind of thing is allowed to happen. I mean this is supposed to be a democracy and the party in power (yes BOTH parties do this) gets to rewrite the rules to rig things so they always have a majority? How can that be allowed in this country! And just out in the open just bold faced and unapologetic like that. That’s not democracy. Its just corruption. Reminds me of something mob run unions might do. Why cant they come up with a different way of determining districts perhaps based on the census every 10 years or something. Districts should NOT be allowed to be determined by the party in power.

It is based on the census that's why they have to do the redistricting. But then how do you get the same number of people into each district? That's where the redistricting comes into play - they change the borders of the districts. The thing is - they usually do adjust them so the district moves further into the current party's favor based on again - census data.

but its all about spin anyway. Don’t make it out as if the president is speaking pure truth and everything else is just word games. Its ALL spin. The speech. The hubbub leading up TO the speech. The timing of the speech. Who he pulls in to “honor” on site. And then of course all the post speech rebuttles and rebuttle rebuttles and the media telling us how we are supposed to think on the whole thing. Its ALL spin. Put on your spin filters before you watch this whole affair or live in darkness I say.

Or in your case - live in pure cynocism. I will look at the speeches like I always look at the speeches. But I don't look at politicians as if they are all out to get us and screw us. Politics is complicated - it was here at the founding of the country - even during the Declaration of Independence - and it is here now - no differen than it was back then.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It is based on the census that's why they have to do the redistricting. But then how do you get the same number of people into each district? That's where the redistricting comes into play - they change the borders of the districts. The thing is - they usually do adjust them so the district moves further into the current party's favor based on again - census data.

Based on whatever it takes to keep the current party in power you mean. thats why you get these ridiculous puzzle shaped districts with long tendrils. and if its SIMPLY based on innocent census data that comes out every ten years then why do they just HAPPEN to do this when they happen to come into power in their particular state? its corrupt to the core and its obviously so. ive NEVER heard anyone try to defend it as perfectly legitimate. You are the first. The only thing ive ever heard is well THEY did it when THEY were in power so WE can also. Now what Ive hear more and more is that apparently the republicans took advantage of their recent domination in many areas to REALLY close the door election wise on the democrats and keep a permanent majority. Maybe its all part of Carl Roves dream of a one party state. There is a certain segment of republicans who believe that the constant bickering and compromise that goes on because of the two party system wastes too much time and gets them no where in the end. So if one group could be in power with NO opposition then they could accomplish so much and wouldnt have to worry about compromising and filibusters and all that. That scares me to death quite frankly.

[Radagast]

What is the 'State of the Union Address'?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Radagast
What is the 'State of the Union Address'?

Basically, an annual report on the state of our country made by the US President to the US Congress. It's mandated in the US Constitution that a President make this report. For the past 40-50 years the report has been given in the form of an address, on live TV. Presidents (from whichever party) generally now use it to promote their policies as much as to actually report on the status of our nation.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Based on whatever it takes to keep the current party in power you mean. thats why you get these ridiculous puzzle shaped districts with long tendrils. and if its SIMPLY based on innocent census data that comes out every ten years then why do they just HAPPEN to do this when they happen to come into power in their particular state? its corrupt to the core and its obviously so. ive NEVER heard anyone try to defend it as perfectly legitimate. You are the first. The only thing ive ever heard is well THEY did it when THEY were in power so WE can also. Now what Ive hear more and more is that apparently the republicans took advantage of their recent domination in many areas to REALLY close the door election wise on the democrats and keep a permanent majority. Maybe its all part of Carl Roves dream of a one party state. There is a certain segment of republicans who believe that the constant bickering and compromise that goes on because of the two party system wastes too much time and gets them no where in the end. So if one group could be in power with NO opposition then they could accomplish so much and wouldnt have to worry about compromising and filibusters and all that. That scares me to death quite frankly.

Are you talking about the federal government or texas or what? Each state determines their own way to do the redistricting and the federal government has nothing to do with it - other than the that it is required by the Constitution.

States are Constitutionally mandated to redistrict after the census. It's every ten years - no matter who is in power - the districts have to reflect the new census data and new population growth. All districts HAVE to have the same number of people. Every representative in a state represents the the exact same number of citizens. They try to get all the states to have as close to the same population/representative as they can. So one representative in NJ - represents the same number of people as one representative in Calirfornia. As populations shift and change - the districts must be changed to keep them in line. States also gain and lose representatives based on growth.

This is the way NJ does the redistricting (this is the legislative redistricting anyway - I think we do it the same for Congressional redistricting)...

Every ten years, after the federal decennial census, New Jersey's Senate and General Assembly districts are redrawn by an Apportionment Commission to maintain an equal population in each district. Created under Article IV, Section III of the State Constitution, the Commission consists of 10 members, five each appointed by the chairs of the state committees of the two major political parties. Its mandate is to produce an apportionment plan by February 1 of the year following the federal decennial census or within one month of receipt of the census figures, whichever is later. If the Commission fails to meet its deadline or declares that it will be unable to do so, the Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court appoints an eleventh member.

Here is about redistricting in general and why we have to do it...

Government Redistricting Web Sites - Purdue University

The decennial population Census of the United States is constitutionally required for determining congressional representation. After each decennial census, the Census Bureau assigns each state the number of seats it will have in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next ten years. Individual states are given the responsibility of drawing legislative boundaries for congressional districts as well as for state legislative districts. In some states, this process is done by the state legislature and in other states it is done by independent commissions. This process is occurring again following the 2001 release of state population data from the 2000 Census. Most state governments have Internet websites featuring information about their redistricting practices and policies.

[Edit]Here is the redistricting plan for North Carolina that shows the process they go through...

1990's District Plans versus 2000 Population

The maps below shade 1990's districts according to the percent that they are above or below ideal population, based on 2000 Census data. These districts were drawn using 1990 Census population data and needed to be redrawn in the 2001 redistricting effort using 2000 Census figures to be at least approximately equal in population to each other. Ideal population for a district is arrived at by dividing the total population of the state by the total number of representatives, and then mulitplying by the number of representatives in that district.

[Insidious Rex]

Are you talking about the federal government or texas or what? Each state determines their own way to do the redistricting and the federal government has nothing to do with it - other than the that it is required by the Constitution.

Yes Im talking about the states. Specifically what several of them went through (not just Texas) when republicans did so well in the last election. Beautiful map. I would like to be able to see that color key up close though so I could read it.

All Im saying is the way its done now is simply bogus. Why cant they have a system where an impartial body sets the districts and not the WINNERS of the elections? I mean does that really make sense? To let the winners rig the game?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Yes Im talking about the states. Specifically what several of them went through (not just Texas) when republicans did so well in the last election. Beautiful map. I would like to be able to see that color key up close though so I could read it.

All Im saying is the way its done now is simply bogus. Why cant they have a system where an impartial body sets the districts and not the WINNERS of the elections? I mean does that really make sense? To let the winners rig the game?

I don't know how you could really select an impartial body to handle this... everyone would have some interests at stake. And if you didn't, your interests might just go to the high bidder.

What frustrates me about this is the Democrats have been doing the same thing for years. But now that the roles are reversed, the media is making a story about it and people are up in arms. Same with the 'winner take all' system with congressional committees. When the Democrats controlled both houses for decades, it was just fine & dandy that they chaired every single committee. Now that the Republicans hold the majorities, it's suddenly not fair! Puh-lese!! The Democrats are such whiners!

[Insidious Rex]

Well as I said I think the whole concept is corrupt and both parties have taken advantage of this. Now there are a lot of people who think the republicans have really taken it up a notch recently but thats a subject for others to debate and Im more concerned with the inherent faults of the system.

Well theres got to be a more independent group out there then the actually winners of the elections themselves even if there are some token losers thrown in. And if we need to worry about people bribing them then we are back to square one. there should be an individual (like a judge) or a body of equivalent stature who can base the districts on figures alone and not use sophisticated computer programs to maximize their parties power while still declaring they are following the population rules and therefore everything is above board. the rules need to change in that case.