Wow!! Biden’s best speech ever!

February 8, 2023

          I wrote in yesterday’s newsletter that State of the Union addresses rarely matter, but President Biden managed to turn his State of the Union into a real-time negotiating session with Republicans that resulted in an agreement by acclamation not to cut Medicare and Social Security. I stand corrected and am in awe of how nimble Biden was in dealing with a boisterous and profane GOP. Geez, even Kevin McCarthy was unable to remain seated and stood to applaud Biden’s comments on multiple occasions.

          When Biden asserted that “some” Republicans wanted to cut Medicare and Social Security, he was met with boos, cat-calls, and shouts of “Liar” and “Bullsh*t.” He then went off script, and said, “That’s okay. I believe in conversion.” When he repeated his assertion that some Republicans wanted to cut social programs, he was met with another round of boos. He then turned tables on Republicans, saying, “Okay, then apparently it is not going to be a problem—Medicare and Social Security are off the books and won’t be cut”—a statement met with a standing ovation.

          As Kate Riga of Talking Points Memo wrote,

Biden gets grief for not being a particularly skilled public speaker — but that was an absolutely masterful use of Republican heckling. Biggest moment of the night so far.

          Biden masterfully engaged with Republican heckling on multiple occasions, sometimes offering to provide evidence to back his position, other times telling his critics to “look it up.” But he did not back down; he seemed to revel in the back-and-forth. While it wasn’t at the same level as the Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK Parliament, it was the first time a State of the Union address began to approach that spirit of give-and-take.

          At one point, Republicans shouted “Murder” when Biden discussed the deadly toll of fentanyl in America. He paused and said, “That’s right.” Then a Republican shouted, “It’s your fault.” Biden stared coolly at the heckler for 2-3 seconds—a long pause in such a speech—and then began to list the new restrictions on the illegal importation and distribution of fentanyl—a comeback that resulted in another standing ovation.

          As Laurence O’Donnell noted, this was the most confrontational State of the Union address ever—on both sides—and no one would have picked Joe Biden to be on one side of that confrontation and to prevail so decisively.

          Some issues received proportionally less airtime—opposition to a national abortion ban, police reform, immigration reform, and support for Ukraine. We should expect to hear criticism for that allocation of time from some commentators. But that comes with the territory of trying to fit every issue into a limited timeframe.

          There will be much more to discuss in the coming days about the speech, but for those who framed this State of the Union address as a “test” of Biden’s fitness to run for a second term, Biden passed the test with flying colors. In the past, Biden’s reputation was that he was not a great orator but an effective speaker because he connected with people on an “everyman” level. Tonight, he was both. Few politicians could have handled such a hostile and disrespectful audience and walked away triumphantly.

The GOP’s behavior during the State of the Union.

          The behavior of leading GOP members of the House was crass, classless, and profane. Marjorie Taylor Greene was the ringleader and repeatedly yelled, “Liar” to statements made by Biden. See The Independent, Marjorie Taylor Greene shouts ‘liar’ at Biden during State of the Union.

          The GOP is not only waging war on the rule of law but also on norms of civility and decorum—both essential to self-government and political discourse.

          The most reprehensible conduct, however, was that of Kevin McCarthy, who refused to stand or applaud when Biden condemned the January 6^th insurrection. See The Independent, Kevin McCarthy doesn’t stand or applaud as Biden condemns Jan 6 riot.

          Kevin McCarthy’s refusal to condemn the insurrection makes him unfit to hold any public office, much less that of Speaker of the House.

Should Biden run for a second term?

          Earlier this week, I offered a few observations about whether Joe Biden should run for re-election. To be clear, I did not take a position other than to say that I support Biden but that it is reasonable to consider whether his age should be considered in evaluating his candidacy. To say that I got an earful would be an understatement. In fact, some of the responses were (uncharacteristically) angry personal attacks on me from (now) former subscribers. With that as background, let me put my toe into the water again.

          Jonathan V. Last posted an eye-opening analysis in Bulwark / The Triad titled, What the Fork Do You People WANT?!? Last begins his analysis by noting that before the midterms, 52% of Democrats supported Biden for a second term. After he led Democrats to the most successful midterms in half a century, only 37% of Democrats want him to run for a second term. As Jonathan Last asks, “What the heck do you people want?”

It is not clear why support for a second term for Biden is so low, but Last makes the point that tepid support for second terms is not unusual—even for popular presidents.

          As Last notes, at this same point in the first terms of Obama, Reagan, and Clinton, each had less than 50% support for a second term. The only two presidents who had more than 50% support for a second term—Carter and George HW Bush—lost their reelection bids.

          In other words, Biden’s low support among Democrats for a second term is not a historical anomaly and should not be overweighted at this point. And given Biden’s outstanding performance on a “make-or-break” night, the polls should be given less weight in evaluating Biden’s readiness for a second term.

Response to my comments regarding the media in yesterday’s newsletter.

          One frequent criticism I receive from readers is that I refer to groups like “Republicans” or “the Supreme Court” without stopping to acknowledge that not every Republican or member of the Supreme Court deserves the criticisms I level. In my defense, if every reference to a group must be qualified by “some” or “the reactionary majority,” the newsletters will become longer and more tedious.

          In my diatribe against the “media” last night, I tried to note up front that I wasn’t describing every member of the media. I wrote:

The free press in America is an important bulwark in defense of democracy. For all its faults, the media serves that function well—on average, over time, warts and all, with a few glaring exceptions.

          Nonetheless, it is a fair criticism that my comments last night addressed the media as a collective “hive mind” rather than a collection of competing enterprises. One reader called me out on that aspect of the newsletter. I think his comments are fair, so I share them here:

Geez, Bob, the newsletter’s splattering references to “the media” are offensive to people like me (retired, leader of a Pulitzer Prize-winning team) and, worse, playing into the right-wing’s “media” narrative since Nixon and Agnew. For heaven’s sake, there are now a countless number of published voices, an increasingly small proportion of which are writers professionally grounded and morally committed to find and report newsworthy facts accurately and in balance. If anything exists as “the media” it would be the Associated Press, the largest American news agency, a cooperative owned by 1,400 publications and broadcasters. Each is determined to get the news right and would be deeply embarrassed to do anything your newsletter refers to. Rather than referring to “the media,” be specific about the voices you’re talking about.

          Let me take the reader’s point one step further: Rather than merely differentiating between offenders and upstanding citizens, I want to share a few of the journalists and sources that I rely on to deliver fair, high-quality analysis. My list is incomplete, so I invite readers to add other journalists and sources in the Comments section. (If you are not a paying subscriber, email me by “replying” to this newsletter with your trusted sources, and I will collate and post responses received by email.)

          My “go-to” sources include Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, Ian Millhiser (Vox), Dahlia Lithwick and  Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, Charlie Sykes and Jonathan Last (Bulwark), David Frum (Atlantic), Philip Rotner (various sources), Jennifer Rubin and Eugene Robinson of WaPo, Lawrence O’Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Neal Katyal (all of MSNBC), Dennis Aftergut and Laurence Tribe (various sources), Democracy Docket, the trio of commentators Joyce Vance, Barbara McQuade, and Jill Wine-Banks of #SistersInLaw, as well as Joyce Vance’s Civil Discourse, and many others. As to independent voices, I frequently consult and promote Heather Cox Richardson, Dan Rather, Tim Snyder, Judd Legum, and Katelyn Jetelina (all of Substack). Jessica Craven of ChopWoodCarryWater is in a category of her own for her constant bias toward action. And despite my frequent criticism, I always check the NYTimes and WaPo on major stories.

There are many others, but I will rely on readers to fill out the roster.

Concluding Thoughts.

          On a night of terrific news, less is more. Joe Biden single-handedly bested the GOP’s “Chaos Caucus” on live television. It doesn’t get much better than that.

          Talk to you tomorrow!