Michele Bachmann, Prime Time

So, CNN will be broadcasting Michelle Bachmann’s response to the State of the Union tonight. I am not sure what to call it. An “alternative speech? A “rival” speech? Since it seems to be on behalf of the Tea Party, I guess it’s really neither.

Presently looking for the last time a speech given by a Democrat after a Republican State of the Union – other than the official response, or course – was televised by a major news outlet…  I bet I'm not alone in this endeavor.

Pre-Game Show, Post-Game Show

Pre-Show:

You can find former Clinton-era Secretary of Labor on what President Obama should say at tomorrow’s State of the Union, here.


Post-Show:

And, in addition to the official GOP response from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), you can listen to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann speak on behalf of the Tea Party at www.TeaPartyExpress.org.

David Weigel doesn’t think it’s such a big deal:

Is it a "rival" to the official GOP response from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.)? Not really. In 2008, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius gave the official Democratic response to George W. Bush's final State of the Union. But candidate for president Barack Obama gave one, too.

In 2007, then-presidential-candidate John Edwards counter-programmed Jim Webb. (Apologies if you've eaten before watching this.)

So there's precedent for what Bachmann and the Tea Party Express are doing. It's just that the precedent includes presidential candidates and people with national ambitions.

I am sure the Republican Party is looking to Ryan to best the last two Republican responses. Last year’s response by newly-elected Virginia Gov. McDonnell drew intense criticism when he tried to mimic the State of the Union by giving a speech in the chambers of the Virginia House of Delegates, to a hall full of supporters. And who could forget the 2009 response? Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is still trying to make up for that one.

In offering a rival speech, Michele Bachmann finds herself in the recent company of John Edwards and Barack Obama. Presidential aspirations, indeed. I am not sure she will end up a disgraced politician, like John Edwards. But leader of the free world? Never.

Musical Chairs

The mainstream media is merrily telling us that President Obama will be pressing a centrist agenda in his State of the Union this Tuesday. The New York Times, here. The Washington Post, here. The Wall Street Journal, here.

In the end, the most interesting thing of the night might be seeing who wins at musical chairs:

WASHINGTON — Mary from Louisiana asked Olympia from Maine because they are BFFs, but had a backup in Bob from Tennessee in case she was rebuffed. Kirsten from New York went the Sadie Hawkins route and asked John from South Dakota, and thus the deal between two members of the Senate with seriously good hair was sealed.

The talk in the West Wing may center on what President Obama plans to say on Tuesday in his State of the Union address to Congress about the still-ailing economy, or United States-China relations, or his education agenda. But here on Capitol Hill, the talk for the last few days has been all about the seating for the president’s speech and just who will be next to whom.

Personally, I would like to see Barbara from Maryland and Tom from Oklahoma walking away together into the sunset. That would solve all our problems. Make it all better.

The Week That Was: The Social Security Edition

In light of President Obama's upcoming State of the Union address next Tuesday, lots of talk about Social Security. Lots of warnings about Social Security. Lots of forewarning about Social Security – as in, don't even think about touching it, Mr. President. Very interesting to see the “lobbying” in action.

A good piece of reporting by Dan Fromkin at HuffingtonPost:

President Barack Obama's apparent willingness to consider cuts in Social Security benefits may be winning him points with Washington elites, but it's killing him with voters, who see the program as inviolate and may start to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for, if not for Social Security.

That's the conclusion of three top progressive pollsters who spoke to reporters Wednesday at a briefing sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, the Century Foundation and Demos.

For the public, cutting benefits is the problem, not the solution," said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates.

As a result, the pollsters said that any Democrat seeking elected office in 2012 should be begging Obama not to say anything about Social Security cuts in his State of the Union address later this month.

He goes on to link to the results of a poll done by Celinda Lake's Lake Research Partners. Check out the summary. While the public does not want to see a cut in benefits, Americans trust Republicans in Congress more than Democrats when it comes to Social Security by a margin of 3 percentage points.

And the New York Times picked up on the story:

Mixed Seating Arrangements

A nice catch by Matt Finkelstein over at Media Matters:

I’m not much for the “mixed seating” arrangements some are calling for at the State of the Union. I don’t care a whole lot one way or another. I guess it makes for a cool visual, but really a token proposition that won’t make much difference even in the short run.

But really, Rep. Broun. The President spitting venom? Calling this “bait?”

The President is neither a snake, nor a fish. Really.He.Is.Not.

But again, these are the same people who think he is a Muslim and travels on a Kenyan passport, so I guess anything is possible.