Decoding the State of the Union

Peter Nicholas of the Chicago Tribune: "President Obama will call for a five year freeze on non-security discretionary spending in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, White House officials said, in a bid to help reduce the deficit and counter public perceptions that he spent too freely in his first two years in power."

Ezra Klein on "Competitiveness": "Framing the global economy as a competition rather than a shared enterprise preys on our fear of rising powers such as China and India. But, to the White House, it's for a good cause: It gets America's competitive juices flowing, helping galvanize us into making the changes and investments needed to secure our own future. The true competition that the White House is setting up is not between the economic models of China and the United States, but between the economic policies of Democrats and Republicans."

Michael Shear of the New York Times: "... advisers say Mr. Obama will lay out his case for investment in education and infrastructure, while tempering his call for new initiatives with an acknowledgment of the country’s long-term fiscal challenges."

Michael Crowley of Time adds his two cents: "This will, in effect, be Obama's opening pitch for re-election in the 2012 presidential campaign."

Perry Bacon, Jr. of the Washington Post: "Now, the president is expected to offer a series of proposals that don't fall on sharp ideological lines as last year's health care bill did, but will still test the two parties' ability to work together. He is expected to tout deficit reduction, but the two sides don't agree on how to get there. Republicans largely favor spending cuts, Democrats a combination of cuts and tax increases."

Marching Orders for Talking Heads (Picture That). Jake Tapper: "A cavalcade of Democratic talking heads were beckoned to the White House to be briefed on the president’s State of the Union address by White House senior advisers David Axelrod and Stephanie Cutter and communications director Dan Pfeiffer."

Decodng the Rebuttal. Richard E. Cohen of Politico: "In rejecting [President] Obama’s planned call for 'targeted investments'—which Republicans contend is a metaphor for more stimulus spending—[Rep. Paul] Ryan reportedly will respond that the 'spending binge' of the past two years failed to stem historic unemployment and the nation’s largest deficits. Instead, he will emphasize the need to cut federal spending in order to boost job creation." CW: what a surprise.

AND for the subtext of Michele Bachmann's rebuttal to the rebuttal, she has released her own budget proposal which involves stuff like eliminating the Department of Education & raising revenues by leasing "leasing land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas companies." The sub-subtext of course is Bachmann for President.

Seating Arrangements (Con'd.)

Jennifer Epstein of Politico: "Rep. Gabrielle Giffords will be honored Tuesday night with an empty seat in the House chamber during the State of the Union address. Jeff Flake, a Republican, and Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, plan to sit together for the speech and keep a seat open for Giffords...." Here's a related Arizona Republic story.

Some Seating Arrangement Are Written in Stone. We know Justice Alito won't show up for the State of the Union address, as he "is taking advantage of a perfectly timed speaking engagement in Hawaii to avoid the event at which he became a reluctant player last January." We don't know what other Supreme's will skip the SOTU, but we do know where they sit on the Court. Click on the picture below to take a fun interactive quiz to see if you can put the members in their seats on the Court:

The Commentariat -- January 25

Ignorance of the Law Is My Excuse. Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times: "Under pressure from liberal critics, Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court acknowledged in filings released on Monday that he erred by not disclosing his wife’s past employment as required by federal law. Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was 'inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.' To rectify that situation, Justice Thomas filed seven pages of amended disclosures.... Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be 'implausible.'” ...

... Jennifer Epstein of Politico: "Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has amended 13 years’ worth of disclosure reports to include details of wife Virginia Thomas’s sources of income, documents released on Monday show.... He also had checked a box marking no spousal income." CW: my emphasis. What is it about the term "spousal income" you don't understand, Mr. Justice? ...

... Judicial Watch has posted pdf's of Thomas' Financial "Disclosure" forms for the years 2003-2009. ...

... Roger Shuler in OpenSalon: "Does this mean a justice on the nation's highest court has committed a crime? The answer probably is yes. Will the legal system kick into high gear in an effort to protect one of its most exalted members? The answer to that definitely is yes -- in fact, it already seems to be happening." Shuler points to a similar failure to disclose case in which an FBI agent pleaded guilty to a felony this month. ...

... Protect Our Elections has "asked the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for making false statements on his Financial Disclosure forms.... Justice Thomas signed these forms under oath after certifying that the information in them was true and accurate." CW: good luck with that.

** The Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune, which has been a right-wing bastion for 100 years, goes to bat for Rahm Emanuel: "With startling arrogance and audaciously twisted reasoning, two appellate judges ignored more than 100 years of legal precedent, invented a new definition of 'residency' and ordered Rahm Emanuel off the Feb. 22 mayoral ballot.... The Supreme Court must set this right, and fast."

Eric Lipton of the New York Times: "The Bush White House, particularly before the 2006 midterm elections, routinely violated a federal law that prohibits use of federal tax dollars to pay for political activities by creating a 'political boiler room' that coordinated Republican campaign activities nationwide, a report issued Monday by an independent federal agency concludes." Here's a pdf of the Special Counsel's report.

Let's hope Megyn Kelly can tear herself away from watching Fox "News" long enough to catch this "Daily Show" segment:

Noam Scheiber of The New Republic: "Despite all the talk about Obama’s political reinvention as we head into the State of the Union, it’s become increasingly clear that Obama isn’t caving to business. He’s shrewdly co-opting it."

John Harwood of the New York Times: "Suddenly, Republicans face an unanticipated problem: less than three months after their midterm triumphs, President Obama has regained political momentum."

Jennifer Steinhauer & David Herszenhorn of the New York Times: top Democrats rip into Rep. Paul Ryan, Harry Reid calling him "the architect of a plan to end Social Security and Medicare." Reid added, "Republicans are not only endorsing Representative Ryan’s extreme plan but giving him unprecedented power to carry it out."

Sam Stein: "The Obama administration on Tuesday released a policy statement formally opposing a House Republican bill to end the public-financing system of presidential elections."

Federal Disaster Relief Is Unconstitutional, but We'll Take It. John Daley of the Deseret News: "Utah's newest U.S. senator has long championed state's rights and continues to campaign for shrinking the federal government's size and role in state affairs — including natural disasters. But until those changes happen, Republican Sen. Mike Lee backs the state's request for millions in federal disaster relief funds to help Utah's Dixie rebuild from major flooding." Via the Huff Post.

David Corn of Mother Jones: "Andree McLeod, a prominent [Sarah] Palin critic in Alaska, ... has been publicly threatened with assassination — just for requesting, under Alaska's open records act, the work-related emails Palin sent and received while governor."

News Items

New York Times: "Just hours before President Obama was to give his State of the Union address...,  Gen. David H. Petraeus, offered what amounted to his own 'state of the war' address, one noticeably more upbeat than a White House assessment issued late last year. The general’s assessment, in the form of a letter to troops posted on the NATO Web site, outlined a fight in which troops and the military machine here had gained the edge or was on the cusp of doing so on every front." A pdf of Gen. Petraeus' letter is here.

New York Times: "The long-predicted double-dip in housing has begun, with cities across the country falling to their lowest point in many years, data released Tuesday showed. Eight of the 20 cities in the index fell to new lows for this cycle, including Atlanta; Charlotte, N.C.; Portland, Ore.; Miami; Seattle; and Tampa, Fla. Only a handful of places — essentially California and Washington, D.C. — saw prices rise."

Chicago Tribune: "The state Supreme Court today issued a stay of the appellate court order knocking Rahm Emanuel off the ballot and ordered Chicago election officials not to print any ballots without his name. The high court said it was still considering whether to grant Emanuel's request that it hear his appeal on an expedited basis." ...

     ... Update: "The high court issued an order this afternoon saying it would take up the dispute over whether Emanuel meets the state requirement that a candidate for office live in a municipality for a year prior to an election.... The order states the court will take up the case on an expedited basis, using briefs the parties filed with the appellate court. There will be no additional briefs and no oral argument before the high court...."

State of the Union -- Prognostications Part 2

Perry Bacon, Jr., of the Washington Post has yet another preview of the content of the State of the Union address.

Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post: "President Obama has decided not to endorse his deficit commission's recommendation to raise the retirement age, and otherwise reduce Social Security benefits, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, cheering liberals and drawing a stark line between the White House and key Republicans in Congress."

Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times: "In a series of carefully choreographed appearances on Sunday morning talk shows here, Republicans sought to draw the battle lines for the Tuesday night speech over government spending. With Mr. Obama planning to call for 'investments' of tax dollars in specific areas like education, infrastructure and technology, Republicans insisted that 'investment' was just another name for spending that the nation can ill afford." ...

... Shailagh Murray & Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post draw the same conclusion Stolberg does: "The debate that will define this year and likely set the terms for the 2012 elections began in earnest over the weekend, with President Obama and Republican leaders presenting competing visions to reduce the deficit and grow the economy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Sunday that Republicans would do everything in their power to stop the new spending increases that Obama said were necessary in a video preview of his State of the Union address...."

The Rebuttal(s)

Garance Franke-Ruta & Chris Good of The Atlantic look at what could/will go wrong when Republican Rep. Paul Ryan delivers his rebuttal to the State of the Union address.

Star-Ledger: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said no.

And, although I've purposely avoided even mentioning it, what kinda fun do you think we'll have with Michele Bachmann's rebuttal to the rebuttal, or whatever the hell she bills her little tea party pout. ...

... Robert Schlesinger of U.S. News on the impending Bachmann fiasco (for the Republican party!). ...

... Dave Weigel, in Slate, says the Bachmann rebuttal is no big deal. Why, one person who gave an alternate SOTU rebuttal was none other than Sen. Barack Obama. With video! Oh, and here's another one Weigel mentions but has the good grace not to embed on his post. Eh, so I'm graceless (you will not be able to watch the whole thing, but just listening to the first little bit gives you a chance to recall what a phony that guy is):

Frank James of NPR addresses both rebuttals, with a little help from other bloggers.

Seating Arrangements, Con'd.

Polson Kannath of ABC News: "Daniel Hernandez Jr., one of the heroes of the mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., two weeks ago, tells ABC News that he will be sitting, along with his father, Daniel Hernandez Sr., with Michelle Obama at the State of the Union on Tuesday...." ...

     ... Washington Post Update: "The White House released Monday the guest list for the first lady's box at Tuesday's State of the Union address."

... The Washington Post has a photohistory slideshow of State of the Union guests.

Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "... there will always be at least one bonehead who will see something nefarious in a simple, if superficial, gesture designed to generate goodwill. In this case, the bonehead belongs to Georgia. U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), one of the most rightwing and conspiracy-addled members of Congress, called on Republicans to reject the idea of sitting next to a Democrat...."

Karen Garcia thinks the to-do among members of the House & Senate over getting "dates" for the SOTU prom is pretty funny. Garcia refers to this New York Times article which we linked earlier.

Eric Kleefeld of TPM agrees with Garcia: "The biggest question headed into tomorrow's State of the Union address doesn't seem to be what President Obama will say..... No, the big question is -- which Democrat is sitting with which Republican?" He includes a funny exchange in which Kent Conrad (D-ND) asks Kay Bailey Huchison (R-Texas) to the SOTU prom -- on national TV! -- and she turns him down. Plus, Garcia's instinct on Joe Lieberman was right -- here's Christiane Amanpour asking Lonesome Joe about his SOTU plans:

LIEBERMAN: You know, when I was in high school, I always waited too long before the prom to ask for a date, so I haven't done that yet, but...

AMANPOUR: You've got two days. Tell us now.

LIEBERMAN: I'm going to be on the phone today.

Lee Ross of Fox "News": "Just one day before President Obama’s State of the Union address, it’s still not clear whether Chief Justice John Roberts will attend or, like ...Justice Samuel Alito, skip the event. The recent uptick in collegiality from lawmakers on Capitol Hill in the run-up to Tuesday’s speech contrasts sharply with the lingering controversy from last year’s speech in which President Obama rebuked the justices over a campaign finance decision." ...

... ** Dahlia Lithwick has a terrific commentary in Slate on the chilling impression that will be left if all of the conservative Supremes fail to show up for the SOTU & only the moderate attend. It doesn't help, either, that Justice Scalia is "teaching the Constitution" at a closed-door event for conservative House members.