James Fallows

The item I posted just before this one is the full 7000+ word official text of President Obama's latest State of the Union address, with a generous amount of marginalia from me. The first few paragraphs are intro about the circumstances and timing of "Year Four" SOTU speeches, given at the beginning of a presidential re-election year.

From that point on, if you do a mouse-hover over an underlined passage or anything that looks like a footnote, in blue, a little window will pop up showing side notes for that part of the speech.

Thanks to the Atlantic's Jennie Rothenberg Gritz and Clarissa Matthews for making this work. In case you're interested, I started with a Word file of the official speech text and then inserted Word "comments" at the relevant points. We then ran it through a conversion routine to have the comments rendered into the HTML popups that you see.

 

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery

State of the Union Address

"An America Built to Last"

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

Washington, DC

As Prepared for Delivery -

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq.  Together, we offered a final, proud salute ^[1][1] This is the first of many places in the speech where Obama gives a "hey, dummies, remember what I did??" reminder in words just slightly subtler than those. "Last troops" and "final, proud salute" are the allusive ways of saying, "Remember, we have in fact formally withdrawn from Iraq—and despite the contractors and others who remain there, and whatever else may go wrong on scene, this is a significant step." The combination of "final" and "proud" is also artful: whatever the historians eventually say, for now there's only upside for Obama in casting withdrawal in the noblest possible light, especially as concerns the military. The current status of the military as the only un-critcizeable institution in America affects a lot about this speech—and raises issues beyond those I'll deal with here.to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought—and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes ^[2][2] "Generation of heroes" is a nice touch. The subliminal reference is: "Greatest generation," doing all the heroics during the Depression and World War II. Then came the "worst generation," aka my fellow Baby Boomers, wrecking the country from their indulgent youth through the expensive impending retirement years. Now younger Americans—who went heavily for Obama 2008 but seem to have lost passion—can be cast in the role of another wave of greatness. Only a tiny fraction of America, and young America, is directly involved in these military efforts, but is rhetorically shrewd to cast it as a greatness of their times.has made the United States safer and more respected around the world^[3][3] The Joint Chiefs of Staff, in attendance, stand along with everyone else for the ovation that follows this line. This must have been arranged in advance: most of the time, like the members of the Supreme Court who attend, the Chiefs are expected to sit there stolidly and not betray any potentially partisan reaction..   For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.  For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden^[4][4] Get it??? is not a threat to this country^[5][5] John Boehner, sitting alongside Joe Biden behind Obama, is quicker to his feet in leading the standing ovation after this line even than Biden is. In general Boehner is a mensch during the speech. By the end he is looking as if he's ready for bed, or for a smoke, but he claps for more of Obama's lines than I would have expected, and he is on his feet for applause more than a few times.. . Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated.  The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America's Armed Forces.^[6][6] You do have to admire this. The unavoidable political message is: "These things happened on my watch, and whatever credit there is I obviously deserve part of it, since I would have been blamed if things had gone wrong." But the explicit formulation not only uses the word "selflessness" but avoids personal claims of credit altogether, instead deflecting the glory onto America's Armed Forces. Which I don't think I have seen with that exact capitalization before.  At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations.  They're not consumed with personal ambition^[7][7] I so wish that the camera had cut to Rep. Eric Cantor at this point. But alas.... They don't obsess over their differences.^[8][8] Or maybe here, for Cantor?  They focus on the mission at hand.  They work together^[9][9] These few paragraphs, and the mirroring passages at the end of the speech, constitute its main literary/rhetorical fancy-footwork. The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf doesn't like the implied collectivism of this argument -- see his post here. On the other hand, a year ago in the Washington Monthly, Heather Hulburt recommended, or foreshadowed, exactly this approach: arguing for American unity and teamwork by alluding to the one institution Americans in general and Obama's conservative opponents in particular do not want to criticize: the military. (Her article was here.) For now let's set aside arguments about whether Obama in fact has too "collectivist" a vision for America. Purely as rhetoric and persuasion, it's as good a way as he has to cast his arguments in terms the other side might accept. Plus, every president looks strongest and most symbol-of-America-like when appearing as head of state and Commander in Chief.. . 

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example^[10][10] Boehner leads the clapping on this one, too. The Republican caucus must have decided that it is better to be good-cop than bad-cop (as in the old "we don't care about defaulting on the national debt" days), or at least for purposes of being on camera during this speech. . Think about the America within our reach:  A country that leads the world in educating its people.  An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs.  A future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world.  An economy built to last,^[11][11] Let's give this phrase its due: On rational grounds, it's a reasonable summary of the points Obama wants to make about long-term economic strategy. Also, the more it recalls the auto industry, GM (which originated the slogan), Detroit, and American manufacturing in general, the better for Obama. He can tell people: Remember, that Romney guy wanted to let GM go bust, but thanks to our help it has overtaken Toyota to be Number One again. So, that is all to the good. But it got only a smattering of applause on this first appearance, and you can't really see it on campaign posters or bumper stickers. My guess: a "good for the purposes of one speech only" slogan. where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded. 

We can do this.  I know we can, because we've done it before^[12][12] The recitation of how the U.S. economy REALLY developed in the decades of post-WW II dominance, and middle-class golden age, is essentially to Obama's policy arguments now. He is saying: public-private coordination made a difference then, and we need the same thing now. On the other hand, there is a kind of auto-text quality to this sort of historic reminder. All Democratic presidents, and some Republican politicians, have said something like this..  At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known.  My grandfather, a veteran of Patton's Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.  My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth^[13][13] One of the rare sentences in the speech with a "Huhhh??" quality. Is he saying that the bombers were the finest on Earth? Probably they were, but I don't think that's the intended main point.. 

The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism.  They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share—the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement^[14][14] Face it: Obama will never really be convincing as an average-American economic populist. To me he is entirely convincing as an American -- someone whose story makes vivid the capaciousness of the country. But the "put a little away" doesn't ring true from him. Still had to say it, I suppose.

The defining issue of our time^[15][15] This is quite a bold claim, when you think about it. I agree with what he is saying -- but think how six or seven years ago any sentence containing the words "defining issue of our time" would also certainly end with "Islamic terrorism." Again, for my own personal taste, this is a welcome shift in emphasis -- but it's worth noting what a shift it is.. is how to keep that promise alive.  No challenge is more urgent.  No debate is more important^[16][16] In case you missed the point earlier..  We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by.  Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules^[17][17] It is hard to tell, with the "Date Night" seating scheme of Dems and Repubs sitting together, but it appears that only Democrats stand up and cheer for this line.. .  What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values^[18][18] Of course an allusion to the phrase that first brought him to national attention, in his Democratic convention speech of 2004: that we were not a country of Red states or Blue states, but the United States of America.. . We have to reclaim them. 

Let's remember how we got here.  Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores.   Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete.  Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren't, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed^[19][19] 1) Nice to be able to refer to it, without the need for explanation, as a "house of cards." 2) A worthwhile variation on the accurate, but getting-old-even-to-his-supporters "Bush wrecked the economy before I got here" point. .  We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them.  Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people's money.  Regulators had looked the other way, or didn't have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong.  It was irresponsible.  And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag.  In the six months before I took office^[20][20] This makes it a little more personalized than in the previous paragraph -- and will sound like whining to his critics. Though of course it is accurate, we lost nearly four million jobs.  And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts.  But so are these.  In the last 22 months, businesses have created^[21][21] Good to present this as "businesses have created" rather than "we have created" or "our policies have created." more than three million jobs.  Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.  American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s^[22][22] Remind me, who was in the White House then?.  Together, we've agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion.  And we've put in place new rules ^[23][23] Interesting that we don't hear the polarizing name "Dodd Franks" -- and, by similar logic, we hear very little about the other most polarizing Obama policy, the health-care reform billto hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again. 

The state of our Union^[24][24] Here it is! Mattemashita, as they say at Kabuki performances when a long-expected line is uttered! Every speech is expected to contain this magic formulation, and Obama uses it twice, with interestingly different emphases. Here the point is: it's tough, but things are getting better. Which has to be the main theme of his campaign.. is getting stronger. And we've come too far to turn back now.  As long as I'm President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum.  But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies^[25][25] This paragraph is significant in several ways: it suggests a revived, "good cop," bi-partisan approach; it threatens a "bad cop" alternative, instead of the passivity that disappointed many of Obama's supporters in 2010 and early 2011; and it lays down a marker that Obama will portray the Republican program as what caused the problems the economy is still recovering from. Only Democrats are cheering this part. that brought on this economic crisis in the first place. 

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits.  Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last—an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.^[26][26] Over the next 2000 words or so the policy meat-and-potatoes of Obama's program are laid out. Little or none of it will actually be put into law this year, and it has a suspiciouslyheavy reliance on tax incentives. My main emphasis in this note is rhetoric rather than policy, so I am not going to stop and weigh all the reasons why each proposal might be a good or bad idea.

This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse.  Some ^[27][27] Hmmm, would this be Gov. Romney? even said we should let it die.  With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen.  In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility.  We got workers and automakers to settle their differences.  We got the industry to retool and restructure.  Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number one automaker^[28][28] Boehner gallantly cheers this too..  Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company.  Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories.  And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.   

We bet on American workers.  We bet on American ingenuity.  And tonight, the American auto industry is back. 

What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries.  It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh.  We can't bring back every job that's left our shores.  But right now, it's getting more expensive to do business in places like China^[29][29] At this point it would have been useful for Obama to wave a copy of our current cover story to the crowd—the same one that all op-ed writers in the NY Times have been quoting. .  Meanwhile, America is more productive.  A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home.  Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock's unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back.  But we have to seize it.  Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple:  Ask yourselves ^[30][30] Any imperative sentence including the words "ask" and "your country" is a deliberate reference, for better or worse, to an inaugural speech 51 years in the past.what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed. 

We should start with our tax code.  Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas.  Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world.  It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. 

So let's change it.  First, if you're a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn't get a tax deduction for doing it.  That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas.  From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax.  And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here. 

Third, if you're an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut^[31][31] Top that, Republicans!.  If you're a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here.  And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

My message is simple.  It's time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America.  Send me these tax reforms, and I'll sign them right away^[32][32] "Right away" is a nice reference to the "jobs jobs jobs" speech last fall, which marked the beginning of a more aggressive tone from Obama. Eric Cantor is shown looking daggers at Obama after this line..

We're also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world.  Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years.  With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal—ahead of schedule.  Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.  Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.

I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products.  And I will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules.  We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration—and it's made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires^[33][33] Another minor "Huhh???" line. Yes, it's about getting tough in a trade dispute over alleged Chinese dumping of tires, and voters in Ohio will recognize the allusion. But just as a sentence it sounds odd..  But we need to do more.  It's not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated^[34][34] Hey, Hollywood, I still love you, despite that nasty SOPA bill!.  It's not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they're heavily subsidized.

Tonight, I'm announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China.  There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders.  And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia.  Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you—America will always win^[35][35] This gets a huge standing cheer from everyone except the JCS and the Supremes -- but really, this is a blunt-instrument way to make the point that ours is a great country.

I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can't find workers with the right skills.  Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job.  Think about that—openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.   

That's inexcusable.  And we know how to fix it.  

Jackie Bray is a single mom^[36][36] No offense to Ms. Bray or the others in the First Lady's box, but really, this schtick has outlived its time. Look up "Lenny Skutnik" if you want to know how ordinary citizens became rhetorical props for presidential addresses. It's corny, and I dream of an America in which a President gets through a SOTU without this faux-realism touch. from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic.  Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College.  The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training.  It paid Jackie's tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did.  Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job.  My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help.  Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running.   Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers ok—places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing. 

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie^[37][37] Maybe I am an ogre, but again I have had enough of this faux-personal touch. have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need.  It's time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.   

These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today.  But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.

For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we've convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning—the first time that's happened in a generation. 

But challenges remain^[38][38] This is the kind of sentence you write when you're really tired..  And we know how to solve them.

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers.  We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000.  A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance.   Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives.  Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies—just to make a difference. 

Teachers matter.  So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal.  Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones.  In return, grant schools flexibility:  To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn.

We also know that when students aren't allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma.  So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college.  At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July.  Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.

Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid.  We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money.  States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets.  And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.  Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who've done just that.  Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly.  Some use better technology.  The point is, it's possible.  So let me put colleges and universities on notice:  If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down.  Higher education can't be a luxury—it's an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge:  The fact that they aren't yet American citizens.  Many were brought here as small children, are American ^[39][39] There is a very nice throaty emphasis on "American" in this sentence that sounds heartfelt -- and unlike the faux-populist touches undoubtedly is linked to his own story in life.. through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation.  Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else^[40][40] This whole section is policy-dense but delivered well.. 

That doesn't make sense.   

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before.  That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office. 

The opponents of action are out of excuses.  We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform ^[41][41] For some reason, no crowd shot here, so we can't see who is cheering and who is sitting on his or her hands.right now.  But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country.  Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship.  I will sign it right away^[42][42] This "right away" riff is delivered very nicely -- almost in an Al Green tone..

You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country.  That means women should earn equal pay for equal work.  It means we should support everyone who's willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.^[43][43] Query: if the latest NYT story about Apple's subcontracting problems in China had come out on the morning of the speech, would he have used this line? Probably so, but they would have had to think about it. 

After all, innovation is what America has always been about.  Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses.  So let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed.  Tear down regulations [that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow.  Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs.  Both parties agree on these ideas.  So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year^[44][44] Not likely, for the record..

Innovation also demands basic research.  Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally-financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched.  New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet.  Don't gut these investments in our budget.  Don't let other countries win the race for the future.  Support the same kind of research and innovation ^[45][45] A Democratic president cannot remind people often enough that the government played a crucial role in the creation of the info-tech and Internet economies.. that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.  

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy.  Over the last three years, we've opened millions ^[46][46] Criticize that, Republicans!of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.  Right now, American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years.  That's right—eight years.  Not only that—last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

But with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, oil isn't enough.  This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source^[47][47] The passage that follows is an attempt to pull an Obama-style straddle on the politics of energy: reassuring Republicans that he's not ruling anything out, but reassuring Democrats with a firm defense of clean-energy investment, even including risky projects like Solyndra. of American energy—a strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs. 

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.  Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade.  And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use.  America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose ^[48][48] Oh, sure.between our environment and our economy.  And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock ^[49][49] For Democrats this will be the next item on the list of crucial modern industries that wouldn't have happened without government investment. After genomics, GPS-and geospatial info, the semiconductor, and the Internet, we now have ... shale gas!- reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.

What's true for natural gas is true for clean energy.  In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries.  Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled.  And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. 

When Bryan Ritterby^[50][50] See "citizens as props," above. was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance.  But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan.  Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts.  Today, it's hiring workers like Bryan, who said, "I'm proud to be working in the industry of the future."

Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away.  Some technologies don't pan out; some companies fail.  But I will not walk away ^[51][51] Impresive doubling-down on Solyndra! Plus he even uses the term "double-down" at the end of the paragraph, leading to standing ovation from Democrats and silence from Republicans.from the promise of clean energy.  I will not walk away from workers like Bryan.  I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.  We have subsidized oil companies for a century.  That's long enough.  It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and double-down^[52][52] ! on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising.   Pass clean energy tax credits and ^[53][53] I feel phantom-limb pain in this sentence, for the missing "right away."create these jobs.   

We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives.  The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change.  But there's no reason why Congress shouldn't at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation.  So far, you haven't acted.  Well tonight, I will^[54][54] No More Mr. Nice Guy, part 118..  I'm directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes.  And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history—with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy.  So here's another proposal:  Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings.  Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them.  Send me a bill that creates these jobs. 

Building this new energy future should be just one part^[55][55] This is the classic and unvarnished "turning now to world affairs"-style transition sentence. of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure.  So much of America needs to be rebuilt.  We've got crumbling roads and bridges.  A power grid that wastes too much energy.  An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world. 

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge.  After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways.  Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today^[56][56] In the 2008 campaign, Obama didn't really have to make this case about the public role in private prosperity. Back then, his explicit argument against Hillary Clinton in the primary was "I had the judgment to be against the Iraq war"; and against John McCain in the general election the implicit argument to many Americans was, "I am an acceptable unifying figure." Now in order to justify what his Administration has done so far, from GM to health care, and also to prepare the ground for anything he hopes to do if re-elected, he needs to make the "government matters" case. Bill Clinton was the last national Democrat to spend serious time on this argument, which of course he presented in a folksier way.. .

In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects.  But you need to fund these projects.  Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it ^[57][57] Not sure how this math works out, but all the Dems cheer and none of the Republicans.to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

There's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst.  Of course, construction workers weren't the only ones hurt.  So were millions of innocent Americans who've seen their home values decline.  And while Government can't fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn't have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.  

That's why I'm sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates.  No more red tape.  No more runaround from the banks.  A small fee on the largest financial institutions^[58][58] A truly comic art-trouvee moment here as the camera cuts to Timothy Geithner, who is looking pained. will ensure that it won't add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust. 

Let's never forget:  Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules^[59][59] Bill Clinton went far on exactly this phrase, so why not give it a try again? every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same.  It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom:  No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts.  An America built to last ^[60][60] This sentence illustrates why "built to last" isn't really going to, well, last as a campaign slogan -- but the sentiments are very similar to those that took Bill Clinton to two terms.. insists on responsibility from everybody. 

We've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them.  That's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior.  Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don't destroy the free market.  They make the free market work better.^[61][61] No response to this line, but it is the heart of the Democratic argument..

There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly.  In fact, I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.  I've ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don't make sense.  We've already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years.  We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill—because milk was somehow classified as an oil.  With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk^[62][62] Scholars will try for centuries to understand how this line got into the speech. It wasn't even ad libbed: it was in the pre-released text. As I saw it coming, I started saying out loud: "No, no, he can't really be planning..." .   

I'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder.  But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution^[63][63] Dog-whistle to enviros: The EPA's recent ruling restriction mercury emissions, especially from coal-fired plants, was one of their big victories in recent years., or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean.  I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies^[63a][63a] What Obama's opponents consider far and away the most objectionable of his achievements, passage of the "Obamacare" health-care program, makes only the briefest and most indirect of cameo appearances in this speech. Significantly, Obama emphasizes the consumer-protection aspects of the bill, rather than trying to re-argue the case of "individual mandates" and so on. had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men. 

And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules^[64][64] Good line; no crowd reaction..  The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system's core purpose:  Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, start a business, or send a kid to college.

So if you're a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers' deposits.  You're required to write out a "living will" that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail—because the rest of us aren't bailing you out ever again^[65][65] This is a very bold line. I think it would have gotten a big response earlier in the speech. But it is getting late, and most people want this to be over.. .  And if you're a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can't afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over.  Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray^[66][66] Another dog-whistle to "the base" among Democrats: Cordray is of course one of Obama's (relatively few) recess appointments.. with one job: To look out for them. 

We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people's investments.  Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there's no real penalty for being a repeat offender.  That's bad for consumers, and it's bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing.  So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count. 

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans. 

A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy.  But it should also guide us^[67][67] Another "we don't have time to make this fancy" transition sentence. as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working^[68][68] Something strange is going on here. Obama is of course referring to the showdown late last year about extending the payroll-tax cut. The Republican hard-liners, led by Eric Cantor, are generally considered to have "lost" that showdown—since Obama dared them to let it expire, and they flinched. But the camera (predictably) cuts to Cantor, and he (inexplicably) is shown cheering like crazy. Hmmm. Maybe he is back to thinking any tax cut is a good cut? Americans while the recovery is still fragile.  People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year.  There are plenty of ways to get this done.  So let's agree right here, right now:  No side issues.  No drama.  Pass the payroll tax cut without delay^[69][69] 1) Why is "without delay" better than "right away"? Just curious.2) Cantor and Boehner both are cheering this one. I am guessing it might happen.. 

When it comes to the deficit, we've already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings.  But we need to do more, and that means making choices.  Right now, we're poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.  Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.  Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary^[70][70] Who of course we see on camera now..  

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?  Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else—like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans?  Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both^[71][71] This is the way for Obama to cast his argument: not that he's opposed to tax cuts for everyone, but that there are tradeoffs to make.. 

The American people know what the right choice is.  So do I.  As I told the Speaker this summer, I'm prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors. 

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me^[72][72] To the best of my knowledge it was Bill Clinton, in his post-presidential years of prosperity, who pioneered this touch: referring to "people like me" when discussing tax breaks and tax burdens at the top., and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.  Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule:  If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent^[73][73] Hmm, is there any prominent candidate who has just released tax returns showing that on income of more than 10 million he paid tax of less than 15% ? The speechwriters are not earning their pay if they haven't thought about this. in taxes.  And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right:  Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires.  In fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions.  On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98^[74][74] Just curious: if the math worked out so that families with incomes under $250,000 represented 99% rather than 98% of the population, would Obama dare talk about "the 99%"? If the math fit, I think he should: he doesn't have to say "the" 99%, but by using the number he would send a signal.. percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up.  You're the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages.  You're the ones who need relief.   

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want.  But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes?  Most Americans would call that common sense. 

We don't begrudge financial success in this country.  We admire it.  When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich^[75][75] Hmm, I wonder who has used this language about "envy" recently?.  It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference^[76][76] Again it is important for Obama's side that he point out the tradeoffs. In principle, everyone's taxes should be cut. But here are the real implications.... -like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet.  That's not right.  Americans know it's not right.  They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country's future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility.  That's how we'll reduce our deficit.  That's an America built to last^[77][77] I've got the message!. 

I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt; energy and health care.  But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing^[78][78] You never want to use this kind of line in a speech, because it invites subversive responses. I was thinking at just that moment: It is nearly 10pm, we haven't talked foreign policy yet, it's time to wrap things up! right now:  Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken. 

Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical? 

The greatest blow to confidence in our economy last year didn't come from events beyond our control.  It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not.  Who benefited from that fiasco^[79][79] Boehner looks stoic. No cut-away to Cantor.?

I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street.  But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad—and it seems to get worse every year.

Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics.  So together, let's take some steps to fix that.  Send me a bill that bans insider trading^[80][80] 1) It is incredible that this is even an issue. 2) It is more incredible that there seems to be some booing from the floor. Did anyone have a camera on Rep. Joe Wilson? by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow.  Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.  Let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can't lobby Congress, and vice versa—an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington. 

Some of what's broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days.  A simple majority is no longer enough^[81][81] Well, three years after his inauguration, it's not too early for him to be talking about the menace of the filibuster! to get anything—even routine business—passed through the Senate. \ Neither party has been blameless in these tactics.  Now both parties should put an end to it.  For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.^[82][82] This is a good, and overdue, idea. Next question: what's the "or else" provision if the Senate minority doesn't agree to this change?

The executive branch also needs to change^[83][83] Huge and not-entirely-sought ovation.. Too often, it's inefficient, outdated and remote.  That's why I've asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people. 

Finally, none of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town.  We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction^[84][84] Isn't it pretty to think so?; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas. 

I'm a Democrat.  But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed:  That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more^[85][85] Republicans start the cheering for this one, but Dems blunt them by standing up too..  That's why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States.  That's why we're getting rid of regulations that don't work.  That's why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program. 

On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most^[86][86] I am sure he can name names on this one, which would be amusing during the campaign. about Government spending have supported federally-financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home. 

The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective Government.  And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress.  With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow.  But I can do a whole lot more with your help.  Because when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can't achieve^[87][87] Showing the undiminished role of ritual assertions, this gets a huge standing ovation.. . 

That is the lesson we've learned from our actions abroad over the last few years.^[88][88] Another "it's getting late, we've got to switch to foreign policy" transition passage..

Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies.  From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can't escape the reach of the United States of America.

From this position of strength, we've begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan.  Ten thousand of our troops have come home.  Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.

As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana'a to Tripoli.  A year ago, Qadhafi was one of the world's longest-serving dictators—a murderer with American blood on his hands.  Today, he is gone^[89][89] Understated coldness, as with the bin Laden reference. Obama doesn't want to make "honey badger" his campaign mascot, but "honey badger is a badass" is the idea  he's getting across. .  And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can't be reversed, and that human dignity can't be denied^[90][90] Somewhat unexpected standing ovation for this line.. .

How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain.  But we have a huge stake in the outcome.  And while it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well.  We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings—men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews.  We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.

And we will safeguard America's own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests.  Look at Iran.  Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program now stands as one.  The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.  Let there be no doubt:  America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table^[91][91] It's too late to explore this whole topic, but this is the formula U.S. presidents have to stick with in murky situations like this. "Strategic ambiguity" is one fancy name for it: to say more, or less, would be destabilizing in itself. So a president, Democrat or Republican, conceals his cards. to achieve that goal.  But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe.  Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever.  Our ties to the Americas are deeper.  Our iron-clad^[92][92] He ad-libs a repetition, "and I mean iron-clad." In case you were wondering. commitment to Israel's security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.  We've made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope^[93][93] This is a classic State of the Union line. On the merits, of course it is important to recognize what has happened in Burma. But in the negotiations before a SOTU, petitioners and officials from every part of the government are saying that it will be a huge problem if topic X or Y is not mentioned. So now no one can say that Burma "went unmentioned" in the speech,. . From the coalitions we've built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we've led against hunger and disease; from the blows we've dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back^[94][94] Huge ovation here, too. Nothing elegant about the phrasing. Some historian may eventually parse the cheers for the "We're Number One!" "USA-USA"-type lines in the speech as a sign of ... something .. in our national mentality of the era.. 

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about^[95][95] Another ovation here. See previous remarks..  That's not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us.  That's not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they've been in years.  Yes, the world is changing; no, we can't control every event.  But America remains the one indispensable nation^[96][96] Trying out this phrase as a new diplomatic / campaign meme. It's a reasonable contention. in world affairs—and as long as I'm President, I intend to keep it that way. 

That's why, working with our military leaders, I have proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget.  To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I have already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats^[97][97] As with the Burma line, this is in the speech mainly so no one can say, "But he didn't even mention...".

Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it^[98][98] The longest standing ovation of all. The ease of getting cheers for the military, during an era when only a tiny percent of Americans are in the military, will also be fodder for historians and anthropologists.. . As they come home, we must serve them as well as they served us.  That includes giving them the care and benefits they have earned—which is why we've increased annual VA spending every year I've been President.  And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our Nation.

With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we are providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets.  Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families.  And tonight, I'm proposing a Veterans Job Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her.

Which brings me back to where I began^[99][99] This is another transition -- but in this case a wholly earned one. He is indeed circling back to the "military as model for a nation" motif with which he introduced the speech.. .  Those of us who've been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn't matter if you're black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight^[100][100] Not exactly a dog whistle, but a reminder that Don't Ask, Don't Tell went away on Obama's watch. The people who hold that against him are already aware of it. He's making sure the people who should be grateful, but might have forgotten, are attentive to this fact..  When you're marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails.  When you're in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden.  On it are each of their names.  Some may be Democrats.  Some may be Republicans.  But that doesn't matter.  Just like it didn't matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates—a man who was George Bush's defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton^[101][101] She gives a wan and tired-looking forced smile. Was it really necessary to introduce her in the context of a beaten contender? After all she has done?, a woman who ran against me for president. 

All that mattered that day was the mission.  No one thought about politics.  No one thought about themselves.  One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn't deserve credit for the mission.  It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job—the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs.  More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other—because you can't charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there's someone behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America.  Each time I look at that flag, I'm reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes.  No one built this country on their own.  This Nation is great because we built it together.  This Nation is great because we worked as a team^[102][102] I know that there are people who disagree with this on the merits. My view of America's history is closer to what Obama is arguing here; and in any case, tying it to the SEALS is rhetorically very nice.. .  This Nation is great because we get each other's backs^[103][103] A deliberate use of the vernacular; I think it works.. .  And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard.  As long as we're joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong^[104][104] A very nice second use of "the State of the Union is..." theme, which effectively complements the previous "getting stronger." I won't belabor the useful way in which the two sentiments fit together. I will only say that the State of the Union will be stronger still when such a speech can end with such a well-wrought "real" ending, and not the boilerplate auto-text of the line that follows.. .

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

###

... Rick Santorum would have been declared the knockout winner over Mitt Romney tonight, for backing him into making a plainer, simpler case for the "individual mandate" in health coverage than Barack Obama himself has ever made. (In fairness, Obama was against the individual mandate during the 2008 primaries, which may affect his ability to argue for it now.) I don't see any video posts at the moment, so here's the gist of it tonight, emphasis added:

ROMNEY: For the 8 percent of people [in Massachusetts] who didn't have insurance, we said to them, if you can afford insurance, buy it yourself, any one of the plans out there, you can choose any plan. There's no government plan.

And if you don't want to buy insurance, then you have to help pay for the cost of the state picking up your bill, because under federal law if someone doesn't have insurance, then we have to care for them in the hospitals, give them free care. So we said, no more, no more free riders. We are insisting on personal responsibility.

Either get the insurance or help pay for your care. And that was the conclusion that we reached.... Everyone has a requirement to either buy it or pay the state for the cost of providing them free care. Because the idea of people getting something for free when they could afford to care for themselves is something that we decided in our state was not a good idea.

That's the "individual mandate," plain and simple. As Santorum eventually got around to pointing out.

BLITZER: Let's move on, let's move on. [BAD IDEA Wolf!!!]

SANTORUM: Wolf, what Governor Romney said is just factually incorrect. Your mandate is no different than Barack Obama's mandate. It is the same mandate. ...
(APPLAUSE)

Santorum is correct. This was a looser, woolier version of the very sharp and harsh case Michael Kinsley made about Romney's utter, complete, no-disguise flip-flop on health care plans, last week on Bloomberg.

I am not a Republican strategist, but if I were, I would worry about the problem of the "strongest" candidate making a flat-out ridiculous and disprovable claim about the issue his party says is the most objectionable part of the current president's program.
____
Placeholder for next installment: Romney said late in the debate

We stand with our friend Israel. We are committed to a Jewish state in Israel. We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally, Israel.

First sentence: Yes. Second sentence: Yes -- U.S. policy for more than half a century. Third sentence: is there any country to which an American president should pledge all-out no-exceptions fealty? The United Kingdom is perhaps our closest ally. But we have disagreed and will in the future. Same with Canada, France, Australia, Japan. "Not an inch of difference," even if they're wrong? This is not what we want to hear from an American president about any other country. And it is not how any president would govern, which means that it is by definition an election-year pander.

These are in five distinct modes. After this I will taper off for a while. Plus, there's another debate to watch!

Theme one: making the best of things.

As someone that enjoys a drink as much or more than the next guy (and is also frugalish), the fluids rules for flying were a huge bummer for me because it was my practice for morning flights to build myself a nice big bloody mary in a disposable bottle for consumption as I passed my way through the security apparatus and inevitable downtime before the flight.  Rather a good deal compared to the pathetic offerings for top dollar otherwise available to travelers.

Which brings me to my travel tip:
Minis (the tiny little liquor bottles) happen to fit into your TSA quart sized baggie and are perfectly legal to take through security. A bottle of OJ on the far side of the line and you're in screwdriver heaven.  Although, please be discrete as the US still has insane open container laws.

Which brings me to my story:
Not long after I figured out this loophole, I tossed my baggie full of minis in the x-ray bin and the TSA screener looked at them and gave me a broad grin and said, "Now there's a man 'at knows how to fly."  To which I could only grin and nod in agreement.

Theme two: don't blame the government, plus stop whining.

Because TSA is a government agency people seem to take extra delight in mocking or questioning it. It is useful to remember that we had x-rays, security, and security personnel before TSA ever existed. Some of those folks were far less trained, less professional, and far less knowledgeable than what we currently have now. For people who think this is just security theater, fair enough. But at least the cast now has better actors and the performances tend to run more smoothly.

I agree about the extra edge of anti-government hostility -- though if Wackenhut and other private firms (Blackwater! even under its new name) were back in charge, we'd have the offsetting "rent-a-cop" slurs. The X-ray point is not correct: in the old (pre-9/11) days, airports used metal-detectors only, not the "backscatter" X-ray scanners and "millimeter wave" devices that have recently been introduced.

Theme three: TSA solidarity.

As I was exiting screening this morning I overheard two agents discussing Sen. Paul and his recent "issue"(?) in TN. Their take was that he was seeking special treatment as a politician and that the TSA couldn't possibly do anything wrong. I thought this was pretty amusing and also wondered if their opinion extended to the entire organization or just to the screeners? I have never met any low level employees who ever believed that management was competent. Does the TSA defy this trend?

Theme four: We're not "in decline," we're just acting stupid.

I don't think [America's backwardness with airports and their amenities] it's a sign of a nation in decline... To me, what is striking is how deliberate it seems. I understand that the airports of poor countries often look grubby - there just isn't money around to keep them squeaky clean and well repaired all the time. In the US, it looks like the expression of a country that just can't be bothered (collectively) to have good public infrastructure. When I'm waiting in this or that line at Dulles (which I do quite a lot) I'm not thinking, "Oh no, the Chinese will have built three of these by the time I'm done here", I'm thinking, "why don't they care enough to pay for decent airports"?

Having to go through immigration and recheck your luggage so that the TSA is just the icing on the cake seems to me another symptom of this. It doesn't even serve a mock purpose (like taking off your shoes), it just doesn't make any sense at all. Surely the US government would have noticed this at some point, so why can't they be bothered to change it?

Of course I can look at this from the inside, I've lived here long enough to understand the politics and the path dependency and the odd attitudes towards anything "public". But sometimes, I just don't want to. Those are also the moments when I really hope that ten years from now, I'll still visit the US often enough, but live somewhere else.

To round this off, theme five: We can't do anything about it.

As you yourself stated: it's impossible for anyone to reduce the security theater because of the risks involved, both physical, and certainly if it was a political initiative. If President Obama even hinted publicly that he wanted to make travel more convenient by reducing TSA security, or even just supported such an idea, the Republican field would immediately pounce on that as "criminal negligence" and "exposing the American people to danger." And then if something did happen, that's it. Obama's finished. He'd have no supporters. Like the isolationists before Pearl Harbor, the minute a disaster occurs, all the people complaining about the inconvenience and humiliation would shut up immediately. Nobody is going to listen to reasonable arguments against security theater when several hundred Americans are dead.

Politicians and other leaders have nothing to gain by maintaining the current level of security, but they have everything to lose by weakening it. The trickle of gratitude that would result is not worth risking the tidal wave of condemnation if something then did occur. "And after all, the American people are safer with things as they are, inconvenient though they be, right?" goes the reasoning. So it's in everybody's interest to just keep things as they are.

The only way to do it would be to do it slowly and "anonymously" over a long period of time.

With that, it's time for another GOP debate! And, the promised SOTU notation is now done and should be posted when we get all the formatting worked out.

If you haven't seen it already, it is worth checking out this minute-long clip from the Nashville Tennessean, showing Sen. Rand Paul during part of the hour-plus period he was in a TSA cubicle in Nashville because of a disagreement about whether he needed an extra pat-down. Paul is hidden behind the column for the first few seconds of the video, then he emerges holding a cell phone to his ear and sits down in the chair on the left.



Obviously this minute doesn't show us everything about one hour; we're not seeing the full context; and so on. But with those caveats, it's worth watching Paul's demeanor in light of police claims that he was being "irate."

The theme in some of my recent TSA-related grievances has involved just this kind of situation: at some airports agents have seemed (to me) to be on hair-trigger to show their authority and put passengers in their place for non-compliant "attitude." Again, we don't know everything that happened with Rand Paul, but in the clip he looks more sedate than most of us would be if held for an hour, forced to miss a plane, and as a result not being able to give a scheduled speech at a major rally on the National Mall.

I do recognize the impossibility of what the TSA and its leaders are trying to do.
   -If they give their agents any leeway or discretion, there will be a million complaints about judgment calls going one way or another.
   -If they don't, we have a US Senator (or any other person) made to cool his heels for an hour when there are no reasonable grounds to think he's a security threat.
   -If the TSA treats everyone as a potential terrorist (which is the de facto current practice, although Administrator John Pistole said in an interview last year that he was trying to move away from it), it creates the patdowns-for-toddlers episodes.
   -If it doesn't, it opens itself to other complaints.
   -If it acts as if any cost or inconvenience is justified if there is the slightest risk of attack, it can nearly destroy the travel system in order to save it.
   -If it doesn't -- and something happens -- it knows that the same Congressmen who complained about security theater will soon be presiding over "who let the terrorists through?" inquisitions.

So, it's tough. But I don't think we've worked out the sweet-spot compromise solution. More on this soon, after Jeffrey Goldberg and I have another chance to interview TSA officialdom.

A few other reader notes. On the bright side:

I live in Des Moines, and I have found, not surprisingly, that the smaller airports are better as far as TSA kindness goes.  The agents in here in DM are very nice, and even crack jokes.  Of course, it would not surprise me if I ran into them at the mall - it's a small city. 

In Orlando recently, the agents were professional and fairly nice, but they did confiscate a fruit cup from my 7 year old daughter.  That kind of thing is utterly amazing to me.  It was a clear plastic, see through cup.  Really?

It could be worse elsewhere:

Have you ever been to DeGaulle in Paris???  TSA seems like heaven.

Regional airports in the USA, for instance Gerald R Ford in Grand Rapids MI, are friendly, fast, handy, clean, well-run.

Detroit is better than it used to be.  O'Hare is HUGE, but fairly well-managed.

I'm with Louis C-K, at least as far as US airports are concerned.  It used to take you 4 months to get from NYC to SF.  Now it takes 4 hours, and you SIT IN A CHAIR while it's happening.  Keep perspective; get a grip; plan some recovery time for when things do go awry.  We're blessed even in the midst of our chaos.
And avoid DeGaulle like the plague.  The plague, I tell you.

I am a fan of the classic Louis C-K riff on how impatient, whiny, and complainy we all become. But airline travel is not a good illustration. Travel from NYC to SF is incomparably faster, safer, and easier than it was 150 years ago. It is slower and harder (though even safer) than it was 25 years ago.

Further in this vein:

I'm a book editor in Chicago.  This note is to encourage you to maintain your "hard-over" attitude on the TSA and their hateful, ruinous effect on commercial air travel, which was very recently one of the great democratic glories of modern life.
 
Their work is transparently, obviously pointless and stupid; please continue to point this out at every opportunity your position affords you.  The public justifications for it are nonsensical.  The backscatter machines, while I'm not really that concerned about their safety, provide featherbedding to crony companies at enormous public expense.  But the most serious problem is the plain fact that the rules and routines are facially absurd and contemptible, far beyond any other aspect of government from IRS to state DMV. 
 
The entire operation is an embarrassment to the United States and its citizens. 

More in the queue, and after our interview. Also, see this new Pro Publica article on a proposed bill requiring independent testing of the TSA's full-body X-ray scanners -- which, it's worth remembering, are prohibited in Europe.

There's not much time left in the Broadway run of David Henry Hwang's Chinglish. I understand that a West Coast tour will happen later this year, followed perhaps by a movie. Whenever and wherever you might have a chance, my advice is: See it. My wife and I went with friends last night, at the Longacre Theater in New York, and thought it was great.

In response to my contention that American airports had become run-down and off-putting to an extent that Americans who don't travel internationally may not realize, several "on the other hand" replies.

First, a reader who is highly experienced in and around aviation sends a report of two recent "humane" interactions with the TSA. I've changed the names of the airports he mentions so as not to make the TSA people in question too easy to identify:

The first case was in December at [a major West Coast airport]. I was in line for security behind a late 20ish pregnant woman. As we got close to the front of the line she leaned over and asked the TSA person at the mileage elite/first class line (who had nobody in his line), "I'm just curious, are these things safe for pregnant women, do I have to go through?" My first thought was that she just sealed her fate for extra security.

She was obviously pregnant, and sounded generally concerned and wanting to know if the x-ray boxes in our path were safe.

"They say they are" was the response from the TSA agent. She didn't seemed all that satisfied.

A few moments later he leaned back and said, "once you're past the ID check, go over to the line on the far [left or right], there isn't a machine over there."

As somebody who also opts out at every occasion, I was surprised and pleased by this piece of advice. And sure enough, both of us walked to the far-side line after the ID check and were whisked through a metal detector only. No x-ray in that line.

I have since made a point of going through this same line at that airport twice more and each time with the same no x-ray/opt out decision needed.

The next experience happened [yesterday] departing [a major East Coast airport]. After opting out of a millimeter wave scanner (I just opt out of everything on principle), I was politely walked to a location for the pat down. Just as the pat down began (professionally and politely), another agent walked over and said he was going to send my carry on suitcase though the x-ray again for a second screening. No problem.

After the pat down was complete, the TSA agent said to me, "sorry about that, I just wanted to make sure you weren't one of us."

I was confused and it must have showed. He explained that the reason he was extra careful with the pat down - which was actually not the most careful one I have received - is because after I opted out and my bag warranted another scan, he thought I must have been a TSA tester sent through to check the system. He then explained to me how that happens every so often and the little things that the testers have on them to test the TSA agents.

So two stories of rather polite TSA agents sharing a little inside info with me. One an advice on how to avoid the x-ray scanner, the other on where to hide something if I wanted to emulate where the testers apparently think the sneaky traveler carries contraband.

Now, from a reader who says US airports aren't really that bad:

On the aesthetics, cleanliness, and amenities of US airports: I haven't been through every major airport in the US, but I've been through many of them. This weekend I was at SeaTac, Newark (where I had to spend the night in the terminal), and Orlando. In my time I've been through Atlanta, Houston, O'Hare, Midway, JFK, Dallas, Minneapolis, etc. Most of the hubs.

Most of them are pleasing enough, in Holiday Inn kind of way. Most of them are clean. Most have decent amenities, at least until the late evening hours. They could all use Japanese-style "tube hotels" in them, for the case of longer times between flights, and they could all use more truly personal services.

I've only found one that was wholly unacceptable, and that, unfortunately (given the nature of international flights) is Newark. It's an open pit, a noisome, foul, offending spot ("things rank and gross in nature possess it merely"). To put it literally and succinctly, it stinks.

Just one man's opinion, without tears.

And further on this theme:

I've always found Heathrow to be one of the worst experiences one can have to change flights. If one has a connecting flight, you still have to through the customs rigmarole. If I ever have a transfer in London that is less than 2 hours, I usually decline it because there's an even chance I'm missing my connection. CDG, while not as bad, is pretty bad as well, since you have to go through security unless you're connecting within the EU.

After the jump, a report from a reader in Japan.

More »

Often I forget to mention items appearing on Patrick Smith's Ask the Pilot site, probably because I've assumed that people interested in airlines, airplanes, airports, and aviation security will already have seen them.

Here's an exception I want to highlight (and thanks to reader SG). That is because it clarifies something that is well known to people who have spent time outside America but that often goes unnoticed or undiscussed inside our country. I'll let Smith lay it out:

With scattered exceptions, U.S. airports don't have a whole lot going for them. Putting aside aesthetics, cleanliness and a lack of public transport options, another thing that doesn't help, and which you don't hear about much, is that American airports simply do not recognize the "in transit" concept. All passengers arriving from overseas, even if they're merely transiting to a third country, are forced to clear customs and immigration, recheck their luggage, pass through TSA screening, etc. It's an enormous hassle that you don't find in most places overseas. Compare it to Singapore, Dubai, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and so on, where transit passengers walk from one gate to the next with a minimum of fuss. [JF note: The exception in my experience is Frankfurt, where connections are often a hassle.]

Here's how this hurts us: Flying from Australia to Europe, for instance, a traveler has the option of flying westbound, via Asia (namely Singapore, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur or Hong Kong) or the Middle East (Dubai, Qatar), or eastbound via the U.S. West Coast (Los Angeles or San Francisco). Even though the distance and flying times are about the same, almost everybody will opt for the westbound option. [ie, avoiding America.] The airports are spotless and packed with amenities, while the connection is painless and efficient.
 
Change planes at LAX or SFO, on the other hand, and you'd have to stand in at least three different lines, be photographed and fingerprinted, collect and recheck your bags, endure the TSA rigmarole, and so on, just to change planes. Few passengers will choose this option, and I suspect it costs our airlines many millions annually in lost revenue. Indeed, this is part of what has made carriers like Emirates, Singapore Airlines and others so successful.

This might seem a small thing -- hey, so what if these foreign jet-setters endure some hassle? -- but I think it is emblematic of some cumulatively larger issues. Americans are habituated to griping about our airports and airlines, but I sense that people haven't internalized how comparatively backward and unpleasant this part of our "modern" infrastructure has become. Along with our freeways, bridges, subways, buses, and other transport-related aspects of our built environment. To put it another way: we love to bitch about American "decline" but are usually thinking in metaphorical terms, or about whatever political trend we deplore. The truth is, when you go to other countries you see that many of them seem more modern and efficient than America does. In a very tangible sense America looks old and "declined."

I think there is a similar failure of imagination about how hostile-seeming the whole process of getting into America has become, even for those fully vetted with green cards or visas -- or for those merely "in transit," as Smith's item notes. Most Americans still assume that foreigners all dream of coming here. The "Build a Fence!" crowd thinks all Mexicans are desperate to crawl in and steal jobs; the "America the Beautiful" group [which is most of us] thinks Japanese and Germans want to come enjoy our scenery; the idealists at universities or tech companies are proud that Indians, Chinese, and all others want to come here for the research labs and free-speech seminars. And to some extent each is true. What's left out of the mental picture is the increasing outside-world impression of the U.S. as one giant TSA screening-line. We may overestimate how much general unpleasantness other people will put up with -- if they have a choice of traveling (or studying or investing) somewhere else.

Maybe this is why I (like Patrick Smith) am so hard-over on the anti-"security theater" campaign. I keep seeing reminders elsewhere that it doesn't have to be done in our heavy-handed way. I mention all this in a "State of the Union" spirit. Also, I'm biased toward seeing a nation's transportation and aerospace ambitions as a proxy for its modernity, this being a big theme of my forthcoming China book.

But for now, and the ever-cherished spirit of balance, after the jump a traveler's defense of the TSA, at least in the Rand Paul case.

More »

A reader writes about his recent experience in a screening line at the San Francisco airport:

In response to yesterday's blog post containing a reader's and Senator Rand Paul's accounts of recent airport security experiences, I wanted to share my own. I flew out of SFO the other day, and the security checkpoint I went through (Terminal 1, Boarding area C) was shunting all passengers through millimeter wave devices - the first time I've seen them used on all passengers at a checkpoint, and not just a sample.

When my turn came and I opted out, my friendly male opt-out screener approached me with a clipboard and asked me why I was opting out. "Do I have to tell you?" I said. "No, but the TSA is collecting that information to help improve the screening process," he replied, pleasantly. "I don't trust the TSA to properly calibrate and maintain the machines, and I find the hands-up position debasing," I said. He thought a moment and checked a box on his clipboard marked "Other." We proceeded with the pat-down, which he conducted with all courtesy and professional comportment.

I'm very curious as to whether you or your readers are also being asked their reasons for opting out, not as a provocation by screeners with bad attitudes, but in a systematic way. And I'm dying to know what the other boxes on that form say!

My boyfriend was on the same flight, and also opted out of the millimeter wave machine. He had to wait a few minutes for his pat-down, in a cordoned-off area about a yard square right next to the x-ray machine. He asked if he could wait somewhere else, since he was exposed there to too much ionizing radiation for comfort. Instead of remarking on the irony, the screener just said "no," but when he kept pressing his case, some other TSA employee, perhaps a manager, let him go stand somewhere a bit further from the machine. Sitting, however, was strictly forbidden.

A final thought: as I was listening to Senator Paul's comments, I was taken aback that he would prefer the invasion and indignity of going through a full-body scanner multiple times to the invasion and indignity of being groped by an agent of the state. I prefer the latter because the indignity is the same in principle, but slightly safer and delivered by a human being who can look me in the eye. Then I realized how inured I'd become to such indignity. And that is why I hate the TSA: it is insidious in its constant escalation of human debasement.

I had the same surprise about Rand Paul's decision: I will happily go through a metal-detector all day long, but I prefer the pat-down to the body-screening machine for reasons like those the reader mentions and others. On the other hand, good for the TSA if it is inquiring into travelers' attitudes. More on this front to come.

Update From another reader who was surveyed after opting-out:

I flew through SFO in early December. I do the opt-out-as-protest-vote when I have the time, and got surveyed with the clipboard. I answered something like, "I am not convinced TSA management has had the devices sufficiently independently vetted, and disagree with the rollout procedure". TSA agent paused for a moment to process, and said "I'll mark 'refused'".

While I couldn't see what the other options were, this and "Other" make it sound like it's just garden-variety process statistics; the sort of data you gather to make sure the machinery runs well, not some sort of covert opinion polling.

(See update below) As the Atlantic Wire and others have reported, Sen. Rand Paul ran afoul of the TSA on his way from Nashville back to Washington to speak at the mammoth March for Life gathering today. To me the striking -- and unfortunately recognizable -- aspect of his experience the apparently quick escalation to "Do we have a problem here?" prison-guard tone from a TSA representative when Paul asked what had gone wrong and if he could make a phone call (to explain why he wouldn't be there to give his scheduled speech).

This is one of the great airport-by-airport variations in TSA demeanor, in my experience. In some -- for instance, BWI on our last trip through there -- you sense that you're dealing with human beings trying to apply the rules but not rub in their authority. At some other places, you have officers who look as if they're waiting for a traveler to provoke them by showing "attitude." TSA-Dulles usually seems that way to me, though friends in New York tell me that if I traveled through JFK more, I'd have it at the top of my list.

Two notes for the day. First, here is Rand Paul to ABC, talking about how he was made to miss "probably the biggest speech of my career."



Now, maybe Paul is putting on an Eddie Haskell-like super-reasonable act after being quite provocative in the screening booth. I don't know. But at face value, as one reader said: "Imagine a world where Rand Paul sounds more sensible than the government." [Yes, yes, I know that many readers will say: 'What do you mean 'imagine'? That's the world as we know it.' etc etc]

Next, here's a note from a reader who, like me, has decided always to opt-out rather than go through the "enhanced" scanners. This came in a few days ago:

Yet another indignation for the TSA opt out, from Portland International (PDX).  I have been opting out of the full body scans whenever I get picked for them for all the usual reasons and go through the mutual humiliation with the TSA agent. 

Today (about 15 minutes ago) the opt-out line was about 4 people deep which is the
most I'd ever seen.  I was early and didn't mind waiting quietly but the line perturbed the TSA agent who's job it is to clear people out of there as quickly as possible.  In an attempt to coerce us to just go through the damn machine he started talking to us about the machine. 

At first I thought he was just making chat, "Do you know what this machine is?" I've been to this airport before and I knew it was millimeter and I said so.  "Do you know how it works?" I responded that it was a full body imager done with high frequency waves.  He said, "you have no idea what you're talking about.  It's just like sonar.   You should read about it because you have no idea what you're talking about.  It's perfectly safe." 

I didn't say anything in response (I saw no upside) other than I choose to opt-out.   For the
record, I am finishing a doctorate in materials engineering of which high frequency measurements are part of my research. This doesn't make me an expert in body imaging technology, but I do feel like I know the basics and intermediates (at least) of the underlying technology. Anyway, in addition to being treated as a bigger threat for opting out I am also now an ignorant ass.

 The main observations I had here were the following:
 1) The TSA is hip to the health concerns about the body scanners.
 2) The TSA also believes this is the main reason everyone is opting out and that this is a totally erroneous reason for opting.
 3) When the TSA gets backed up in unexpected places, weird things start to happen to their routine.  When I was waiting online the agents were sending about 50% of passengers through the body scanner.  When the opt-out line got long, this dropped to about 10%.  I'm not sure that it was on purpose, I think it just seemed crowded and they wanted people to go through.

Listen to the Rand Paul clip again. He makes -- gasp -- some reasonable points about the way TSA practice could evolve.*
___
* For instance, from his Daily Caller interview:

TSA procedures, he said, ultimately waste time and resources. "So, if you try to comply, if you take your shoes off, you take your glasses off, you take your wallet out, you take everything out of your pockets and try to comply, it still goes off randomly."

"But then you're made to think that, 'Oh, there's a problem. We have to look at this,'" Paul said. "But, they're wasting time, I think, by doing this. Instead of targeting people who meet a risk profile for terrorism, what they're doing is they're just doing these random things. But, I think it's a waste of time and it's insulting to put people through a body pat down when they have not shown any risk."

Update. A wonderful Tweet:

I still haven't seen Red Tails, and the head-to-head conflict this evening is not just the latest GOP slugfest in Florida but also (if you're in DC) a live book event at Politics & Prose with my friend and the Atlantic's longtime stalwart Cullen Murphy, on his wonderful new book God's Jury. But there's always tomorrow.

For now, some reactions from aviators who have seen the film. First from long-time flyer and aviation-writer Stephan Wilkinson:

As a pilot since 1967, former executive editor of Flying, and a member of and youth mentor for the Tuskegee Airmen local chapter (Newburgh, NY), I'm delighted to read your encouragement of people to go see the film. 

I frequent a number of aviation and warbird forums in my current work as an aviation-history freelancer, and it's dismaying to read the many comments from anoraks condemning the film for its "historical inaccuracy," by which they mean wrong-era insignia or the use of CGI airplanes.  Assumedly, they'd have preferred that Lucas lease dozens of P-51s and B-17s for aerial filming, probably killing several pilots in the process, and none of them seem to understand that the film is for an audience of teenage boys--particularly African-American boys--and not 60-year-old rivet-counters.

And from a former Blue Angels commander:

Back in 1997-1998 I had the unique privilege to be the commanding officer and flight leader of the Blue Angels.  On MLK day I watched a trailer regarding "Red Tails" and it drew me back to a memorable experience from those days.......

We were in Winter Training evaluating who we should invite for media rides in our 2-seat FA-18B to gain national media exposure for USN and USMC.  We reviewed a letter from an airline pilot nominating his father, a Tuskegee Airman, for a media flight to highlight the 50th anniversary of the Tuskegee Airmen.  As he was in his 70's we were easily inclined to file it under "nice idea, but unable" except that was the timeframe when John Glenn was preparing to fly in the space shuttle, also in his 70's.  I recommended we do two things -- 1) ask the national TA HQ who they would like us to fly to represent them and 2) evaluate the risks of flying that person.  TA HQ concurred with the son's nomination and a health screen indicated no undue risk if maneuvers were limited within reason/comfort.

The gentleman came to El Centro and had a wonderful flight in the #7-jet.  Afterward he returned to the BOQ to change into TA presentation clothes (maroon blazer with TA crest, gray slacks, tie) and we assembled all 125 members of the squadron to hear him tell his story of overcoming significant discrimination and racism in order to serve his country in aerial combat in Europe.  He didn't dwell on the racism part, but he didn't sugarcoat it either. The big takeaway was hearing from him the same values we held dear: Honor, Courage, Commitment.  And 50 years later he and his TA brothers are still serving, speaking in public, visiting schools and youth groups to inspire young people to make a difference.  Wow.

About the same time, we held quarters the workday before MLK weekend.  I started the meeting by setting the stage for most too young to remember the 60's by highlighting the context of those times and the Civil Rights movement.  A couple days before I had asked six members of the squadron to read portions of MLK's "I have a dream speech" and assigned them sections to prepare and practice.   It was powerful that day to hear them take turns read his memorable words loud and clear as we all reflected on those challenging days.

After a pause to let what we just heard sink in, I ended the meeting by simply saying, "The Blue Angels only have two colors -- blue and gold."

Here's hoping George Lucas makes that trilogy.

One more:

I saw it Saturday night for my birthday in Atlanta. It was a full-house. It's not 'Saving Private Ryan', but I enjoyed it enormously, as did my wife and my best friend, whose African-American father fought in WW2 on the ground in the Pacific Theatre (New Guinea), and judging by the raucous applaud at the end, the overwhelmingly African-American crowd in attendance. See it, enjoy it!
 
The father of one of my High School friends, was a B-24 pilot in WW2. He flew out of Libya and later Italy. He participated in the Ploesti raids. I imagine that at some point his bomber group was escorted by the 'Red Tails'. I'd like to think that, and I regret that I never asked him if it was so.

I'll be there soon.

All right, I know that the reviews have been so-so at best. But for the reasons Lane Wallace has laid out very well on our site, the debut of the movie is in itself an event worth noting and supporting. I have met a number of Tuskegee Airmen over the years at air shows, and their story really is inspiring and deserving of notice by a new generation. Also, George Lucas has said that if this movie succeeds, he might complete a trilogy on this theme, so I figure I will vote with my movie-going dollars.



The flying world is still mainly white, in addition to overwhelmingly male, which is part of why the Airmen's achievement was so significant. Lane Wallace also makes this nice point:

There's also a kind of poetic parallel between the movie and the fighting group it portrays. The most extraordinary aspect of both is how long it took, and how hard their champions had to fight, just for them to exist. And if the movie and its "heroes" feel almost too "ordinary" at times, well, that is, in a way, the very victory the Tuskegee Airmen were fighting to achieve. They wanted to be seen as ordinary fighter pilots, no different from anyone else. And Lucas wanted to prove that he could take a story about black pilots, with all the major roles played by black actors, and make it into an "ordinary" big-screen, action-adventure movie that would appeal to anyone.

I suspect that my wife might opt for a chick flick meaningful rom-com, so I will try to scare up some fellow flying-action enthusiast and then will report back.

I have been off the grid for several days and will be for a while more, as obligations of different sorts pile up all at the same time. As a placeholder, and instead of anything about tonight's Newt-mania, a closing-the-loop home-news update.

Last week Derek Thompson pointed out that the Riverside, California metropolitan statistical area was "in an economic freefall" and among the worst in the nation in both job-loss and real-estate terms. This got my attention. By its full name, the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA covers the generally unloved (notably by Joan Didion*) "Inland Empire" of California -- but also my wholly lovable hometown of Redlands. Wikipedia panorama of Redlands in its orange-growing heyday:




I mentioned before my latest visit to Hangar 24 that I would report on its newly released Double IPA. Here's the report: I liked it a lot. Some people on Beer Advocate and elsewhere agree. Some sound a little too picky abut it, in my view. Ideally you'll have a chance to judge for yourself.

Back to business in this space shortly.
___
* Here are the  opening words of a famous Joan Didion Saturday Evening Post story from the 1960s about my home turf. It didn't go over that well locally:

This is a story about love and death in the golden land, and begins with the country. The San Bernardino Valley lies only an hour east of Los Angeles by the San Bernardino Freeway but is in certain ways an alien place: not the coastal California of the subtropical twilights and the soft westerlies off the Pacific but a harsher California, haunted by the Mojave just beyond the mountains, devastated by the hot Santa Ana wind that comes down through the passes at 100 miles an hour and whines through the eucalyptus windbreaks and works on the nerves. October is the bad month for the wind, the month when breathing is difficult and the hills blaze up spontaneously. There has been no rain since April. Every voice seems a scream. It is the season of suicide and divorce and prickly dread, wherever the wind blows.

The Mormons settled this ominous country, and then they abandoned it, but by the time they left the first orange tree had been planted and for the next hundred years the San Bernardino Valley would draw a kind of people who imagined they might live among the talismanic fruit and prosper in die dry air, people who brought with them Mid-western ways of building and cooking and praying and who tried to graft those ways upon the land. The graft took in curious ways....

In the unfortunate art-trouvee category, this one from the Belfast Telegraph  (thanks to many who have sent it):


And, from the indispensable Department of Fear, a few shots of the new double-row "Green Zone D.C." fencing that is going up to build in extra buffers between the Congress and the public. The D of F suggests that this is an homage to the fondly remembered Green Zone in Iraq:

What is Green Zone D.C.?  Modeled after our former seat of government in Baghdad, Green Zone D.C. will comprise a system of fortifications designed to keep the People at a distance from Congress.  The temporary fencing we have in place today is only a beginning.

(See two updates below.) This should go without saying, but since I haven't yet seen it elsewhere on our site:

For the record, Rick Perry during last night's debate showed his trademark command of details, and owes the government and people of Turkey an apology, for calling Turkey, a U.S. ally through NATO:Update-update Another reader offers another hypothesis:

Perry wasn't mixing up Turkey and Pakistan. He was responding to the following question:

"Governor Perry, since the Islamist-oriented party took over in Turkey, the murder rate of women has increased 1,400 percent there. Press freedom has declined to the level of Russia. The prime minister of Turkey has embraced Hamas and Turkey has threatened military force against both Israel and Cypress. Given Turkey's turn, do you believe Turkey still belongs in NATO?"

Bret Baier loaded the question to such an extent that Perry had to choose between either defending Turkey or agreeing with the premise of the question. Of course, he chose a third way by doubling down with the word "terrorist."

I mentioned last night two dog-whistle moments at the latest GOP debate. One was Rick Perry's saying that the state of South Carolina was "at war with this federal government"; the other was Newt Gingrich's repeated insistence that Barack Obama was the "food stamp president."

One reader hotly disagrees:

Many times you present your perspective fairly, but in today's footnote comments about the South Carolina debate in your Final on Huntsman blog posting, one of two things is apparent.  Neither alternative reflects well upon you.

You cited as a "dog whistle" Newt Gingrich's comment that Obama is "the food stamp President".  By calling that a dog whistle you are dog whistling to your own constituencies about how terrible and racist those evil Republicans are.

You should certainly be aware that Newt Gingrich and other Republican candidates have many times in recent months made the argument that President Obama's administration has resulted in record numbers of Americans receiving food stamps, while record numbers of Americans are unable to find jobs.  They then promise policies that will result in more jobs and fewer people needing food stamps as employment improves.  They may make the point as well that it is more personally uplifting to feed one's family as a result of holding employment, than it is to be dependent on food stamp assistance.

Alternative one is that James Fallows is ignorant of this argument or fails to see that it might resonate with people of all races who hope to support themselves in the job market.  That would imply an obtuseness that other evidence does not support.

Alternative two is that James Fallows understands this formulation but pretends not to for the specific purpose of unfairly accusing its proponents of racism.  Given that the distribution of food stamp assistance is broadly represented among whites, Latinos, and blacks in America, even if the argument were "nobody should be receiving food stamps", which it clearly isn't, where is the racial viciousness supposed to come from?  The ugly smearing appears to be coming from this hypothetical James Fallows alternative two.

Look, there are plenty of cultural, aesthetic, and policy issues you may have with the Republican South Carolina campaign.  It might be wise to confine your arguments to those real differences rather than smearing people for slurs they do not make.

Here is a third alternative, the one I believe: that Newt Gingrich knows exactly what he is doing when he calls Obama the "food stamp" president, just as Ronald Reagan knew exactly what he was doing when talking about "welfare Cadillacs." There are lots of other ways to make the point about economic hard times -- entirely apart from which person and which policies are to blame for today's mammoth joblessness, and apart from the fact that Congress sets food stamp policies. You could call him the "pink slip president," the "foreclosure president," the "Walmart president," the "Wall Street president," the "Citibank president," the "bailout president," or any of a dozen other images that convey distress. You decide to go with "the food stamp president," and you're doing it on purpose.

If Joe Lieberman had been elected, I would be wary of attacks on his economic policy that called him "the cunning, tight-fisted president." If Henry Cisneros had or Ken Salazar does, I would notice arguments about ineffectiveness phrased as "the mañana administration." If Gary Locke were in office, then "the Manchurian candidate" jokes that had been used on Jon Huntsman would have a different edge. And so on. This reader may not recognize it as a dog whistle, but I have no doubt that Newt Gingrich knows what it is. I don't think that Gingrich has had a racist-style political career; on the contrary. But he knows what this language does. [More on Newt and the racial dog whistle of "food stamp president" from the NYT here.] [And here's background on NAACP-vs.-Newt on "food stamp" claims.]

Another reader from South Carolina disagrees in a different way:

Your comment on those dog whistles was, "A coincidence that the GOP's stronghold is the old Confederacy? I have begun to think not." Your expressed reluctance to acknowledge this truth seems more naïve than I know you to be.

As a native and current resident of SC, I want to disavow those around the country who think "dog whistle" is an apt metaphor for "racist comment" or even "comment that may have a purpose linked to racial division." Everyone I know here in my home state of SC knows exactly what signal is being sent, and we all hear it--white and black, regardless of political allegiances. Perry is from Texas. Newt is from Georgia. They don't have to use dog whistles. Regular whistles work just fine...just like they do for most successful statewide politicians in SC.

As a white, liberal South Carolinian married into a family that more accurately reflects the statewide republican hegemony, I hear routinely expressed over dinner or on a drive across town racist whistle blowing...enough to make dogs, yes, but also more enlightened humans cover their ears. And all the things I hear about...whether directed at President Obama, Jim Clyburn, Martin Luther King, or that black child walking down the sidewalk...are said without the least bit of "discretion" or worry that the inferiority of others might be something other than "the way things are."

Between racist barbs, the same people can be as kind as your own mother to me and to my daughter. They might even be similarly kind to that "big fat black woman" who cleans their house. And you see, this family is not a rarity. They move regularly in the mainstream, upper middle class/upper class circles. I don't know what such circles are like in New York, but I picture a benefit for a charity or the opening of a new wing at some nice university art center. Picture the NY sort who attend these events because they contributed in some smallish way to the cause--the racist people I am talking about here in SC are a similar socio economic group. But the conversation, once things get "real," might include some allusion to, for example, evidence that Jim Clyburn is comically, stereotypically dumb. Oh sure, they usually know when to refrain from blowing the racist whistle. Like when the blacks are around. Or when a microphone might be on. But sometimes, rarely, they don't know how and a big brouhaha develops, usually ended by an "apology for any offense someone may have taken."

Now that my relationship to my in laws is pretty much set in stone, I sense only the slightest effort, sometimes, to refrain from outright racist commentary on the issues of the day or the people who cross their paths. Even though they know I'm "off" in my politics, they see no need to adjust or tone things down. Here's why: they believe they are correct, not racist.

They don't really know that, when the "liberal media" or the "academics" talk about racism, they are talking about the systemic white supremacy that is shot through the language and society of SC. Or, if they do understand this idea, they regard it as intellectualized bunk. I'm sure things are "better than they used to be" in multiple ways, but I've known since early exposure to white children not in my family (in the seventies and eighties) that the whistles being blown were audible to everyone.

I hope you'll forgive the length of this email. Sometimes, I just get fed up with the idea that racism is merely some sort of surreptitious quality of SC (not to mention its politics). It's out in the open, and that's how it's possible for it to work as intended. Cause you see "Racism" cannot be expressed openly. That would be impolite.

A few more. First:

The debate was held on the King Holiday, the Fox News questioners prefaced a couple of questions noting that the debate was taking place on the MLK Holiday, and yet I do not believe that any of the candidates offered any tribute to Dr. King. Nothing in the way of a salute to his contributions or a tribute to his life's work and accomplishments.  It could have been perfunctory, anything. I realize they were in South Carolina.  But I don't recall any such comment from any of the candidates.

Now, in response to my line about the GOP's base in the old Confederacy:

Nobody I know down here in Loooziana thinks that way any more, and I've been down here a longggg time.

I think this has more to do with the candidates than the audience. Pandering in the extreme, and inept, inaccurate stereotyped pandering at that.

FInally, from a U.S. Army officer:

Y'know, when I was growing up the "Solid South" was still a Democratic stronghold.  The whole region seems to bitch whomever depends on it.  But somebody ought to do a sociology Ph.D. on the love the US Army has for the Confederacy. 

I drove in this morning behind a huge dualie with a rear windshield lovingly painted with a waving Confederate battle flag and an ornate "CSA" lettered across it.  Makes me want to throttle someone.  I remember the visiting officers' quarters at Fort Sam Houston had a painting of General Lee and his fellows riding home from war -- I'd look at it and think, yeah, they just shot a bunch of _us_.  It's creepy, but there's an awful lot of Confederate stuff on and around military bases.

To wrap this up, and because I lack the stomach to write about the latest South Carolina GOP debate*, here are some final items looking backward-and-forward on the Jon Huntsman campaign. Final, that is, until three or four years from now.

First, from a reader who differs with the dismissive estimate I quoted yesterday:

I have to disagree with Joseph Britt's analysis of Huntsman's future prospects. Compare where Romney was after dropping out in 08 compared to where Huntsman is now. What did Romney do between now and then? Run his PAC, write a book, and build his infrastructure. Why couldn't Huntsman do all the same things? His family's wealth is more than sufficient to fund the skeleton staff Our Destiny would need to stay on the radar. And as for a book - no doubt he has some interesting things to say about China, an issue which is going to become more pertinent over the next four years. Romney became the voice of the "money wing" of the party by doing these things. I don't see why Huntsman couldn't do the same.
 
Huntsman has four years to learn how to be a decent politician and carve out a sizeable-enough niche for himself in the party. He's the only defeated candidate for nominee who has enough credibility to be viable in 2016. I wouldn't underestimate a smart, handsome, sometimes-charming Governor just because he faces a few obstacles.

Now, from a reader who likes Huntsman -- and that's the problem:

To me Huntsman represented a sort of sane economic conservatism which I disagree with but can respect matched with a social tolerance that seems about on par with most Democrats. He wasn't necessarily my guy (although his China experience and general world savvy might have put him over the top in a match up with Obama, especially if I was willing to bet on him dragging his party ahead) but I certainly would have approved of him as a candidate and not been heartbroken or terrified if he won. Of course he has no future in Republican primaries.

And:

The GOP, as is, couldn't imagine supporting JH.  If he had entered the race with his eye firmly on '16, so that 4 years hence he's be remembered as the sane, non-pandering one, it would have been a strategy with a chance for a payoff.
 
Without that clear eye, he was sane for a bit, and then pandered for a bit--essentially wrecking his "sane" brand for the future.  Taking up the "class war" tag as his farewell address, he's pretty totally fouled his own nest.  He doesn't seem to have any upward route anymore.

Finally, from my friend CO:

One other (I think large) problem Huntsman will have if he wants to run again is that if Romney is the nominee and loses, there is awfully little chance that four years from now the party is going to think, "hey, maybe this time we should nominate a rich but ideologically suspect Mormon ex-governor." (And if Romney wins the election, then 2016 is obviously off the table.)

It is worth re-emphasizing that any Huntsman 2016 scenario depends on the assumption of this year's GOP nominee, presumably Romney, losing.

For now, that is all.
___
* Debate Dog Whistle #1, Rick Perry: "South Carolina is at war with this federal government." You know, South Carolina is not really the best place to use this metaphor.

Dog Whistle #2, Newt: Obama is the "food stamp President."

Jesus. But when I remember that during my lifetime I have seen "white" and "colored" signs on bathrooms and drinking fountains, maybe we have come some distance. But still. A coincidence that the GOP's stronghold is the old Confederacy? I have begun to think not.

Jon Huntsman's "suspending my campaign" speech just now would have been more in keeping with his pleas for conciliation and American unity if it had not included the moronic  claim that Obama -- who appointed Huntsman and whom he was loyally serving just ten months ago -- was destroying the economy through "class war."

Still, what about the argument that Huntsman, whose positioning was never right for this year's GOP race, overall helped rather than hurt his long-term prospects by introducing himself to the country this way? Especially to the 0.5% of the country's population that lives in New Hampshire? Obviously we're getting way ahead of ourselves here. But last night I guessed that on balance it probably helps him. Joseph Britt of Wisconsin, who has worked for a Republican US Senator, writes in to disagree:

 Here's my problem with the 2016 argument:  Huntsman, were he to run again in four years, wouldn't be building on anything.  It's true that Robert Dole got the nomination in 1996 after running in 1988; he led the Senate Republicans in the meantime.  Romney, and Ron Paul, are running this year after running four years ago; Romney is clearly the spokesman for the money wing of the party, and Paul in his first race built a base of ideology-driven followers.

Huntsman doesn't have any of that going for him -- no responsible position to keep himself in the public eye, and no constituency within the party.  Right now he's the favorite Republican of people least likely to vote Republican.  John McCain, who was better at that role, thought so little of it he became a Bush Republican by the time he ran in 2008.  Why would Huntsman do any better?

The reality is probably even worse than that.  Dole and McCain both lost the election after they were nominated.  Paul won't get nominated; Romney, assuming he wins the nomination, is likely to lose the general election.  The fact is that only a spectacularly unlikely combination of circumstances in 2000 enabled the election of the only Republican President who did not inherit the Presidency directly from Ronald Reagan; in the meantime, the general electorate and the Republican Party have been moving in opposite directions.  

Huntsman might have been able to stake a claim for the 2016 race if he had used this year's campaign to try to change the GOP.  He didn't.  He ran essentially as a Bush Republican who didn't fully sign on to Paul's libertarian ideology, Michele Bachman's conspiracy theories, Rick Santorum's social crusading or whatever Newt Gingrich's last ten big ideas have been.  I don't see what impression Huntsman's campaign this year left on the Republican Party.  Do you?...

I don't think Huntsman's a bad guy.  He's just one of the many Republicans who has never come to grips with the idea that the GOP's problem isn't really the people on the fringe.  It's the record of the people in the mainstream.  This includes the leadership of the last Republican administration and of the Republicans in Congress.

Another reader writes:

I don't know how much I am looking forward to his this-is-totally-for-reals run in 2016, and all the probably more cynical stances he'll take.  I'm hearing echoes of McCain 2008 and Romney 2012 (although it can't be as bad as McCain 2008, can it?).  Its easy to take the high-road if you're setting up for four years down the road.  Its much harder to be noble when you're running a campaign that took four years to establish.

Sorry for the wear-and-tear on the Huntsman family, and a happy recovery to them. He will be a trouper for the party and for its presumptive nominee now, as he has shown he could do before, which is fine and part of politics. Here is one man's hope that he go easy on the "class war" line and heavier on optimistic "better, stronger" America themes. But mainly, he and his team  all deserve a little time off.

(See update below, with link to two of the deleted ads)

That was fast.

I mentioned last month that Jon Huntsman's campaign had prepared a brilliant set of mocking anti-Romney videos, funnier and therefore more wounding than anything the Democrats had come up with. The scions of these two big Utah/LDS families were not thought to be big admirers of each other.

Well, I hope someone cached those videos some place. Because they've been zapped from YouTube and the Huntsman campaign site. Huntsman, having decided to drop out and apparently preparing to endorse Romney tomorrow, is cleaning up the loose ends.

Here is a screen capture of one of the videos a few days ago.



The "Mittstant Replay" was the riff for a bunch of funny contrasts of Romney contradicting himself. Now at that site we find:

 

I am sorry to hear the news that Jon Huntsman is dropping out of the 2012 campaign. Sorry for him, sorry for his family and for everyone who has put time, heart, and money into his cause.

One year ago, when my wife and I were headed back for several months in China and I had just heard the first rumblings that Huntsman, then still the serving ambassador in Beijing, might resign to run against Obama, I argued that the reports were hard to believe. The center of his party was moving away from the kind of "modern" positions he represented on evolution, environmentalism, and other social/cultural issues. Moreover, I thought, he would have a hard time running within the party against the very president who had appointed him and with whom he had worked very well.

Obviously those rumblings were correct, my initial skepticism was wrong -- but the obstacles to Huntsman within the party were at least as formidable as they seemed then.

Huntsman has made some obvious missteps along the way, which there is no point in dwelling on now. The question I've long wondered about -- based on my assumption that he wouldn't / couldn't win this time, and that the odds are still in Obama's favor this fall -- is whether having run, and lost, in 2012 will make him better or worse positioned for the run I had always assumed he had in mind, in 2016.

We can't tell anything about politics in real time, but my guess at the moment is that the run will have left him somewhat better off, bruised and rejected as he and his (attractive) family and staff must be feeling now. He has trivially embarrassed himself in a way he'll easily be able to make fun of next time, with his Tourette's-style interjection of Mandarin one-liners at debates and on the stump. This will be the equivalent of Bill Clinton making fun of his embarrassment at the 1988 Democratic convention, where he was mocked and practically hooted off the stage for an interminable speech nominating Michael Dukakis. Huntsman embarrassed himself with another split-second decision he'll have time to reflect upon and learn from. That was when he raised his hand, along with everyone else, in saying that he, too, would reject a budget deal skewed even 10-to-1 for budget cuts rather than tax increases.

But he also had a flash he can build on, when he dressed down Mitt Romney in the last New Hampshire debate for derogating Huntsman's "service to country" as ambassador to China. And he had many more moments when he seemed to be making high-road (if occasionally wacky) appeals than showing anger, bitterness, a willingness to pander, or other traits that will grate and make people dread the sound of his name four years from now. To illustrate the contrast: who, except the Democrats, would truly relish the prospect of Newt 2016? Or Cain?

So, sympathies to Team Huntsman on a race that was a long shot and that didn't work out, but which he managed with a lot of dignity. [On the other hand: please see this update.]