Trump Delivers FrankenSOTU

Given how modern presidential administrations work, the State of the Union address is necessarily a team effort. There certainly have been presidents who did the job by themselves, but that probably hasn't happened since Grover Cleveland left office. Some post-Grover presidents have been pretty good at (or, more commonly, had a chief speechwriter who was pretty good at) smoothing the various contributions out. Kenneth Khachigian and Jon Favreau, who did the job for Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, respectively, had this skill. Nobody in the Trump administration has it, and it showed in an address that felt like it had been put together like an erector set.

Now, a speech like that can be fixed—at least in part—by a smooth public speaker. Trump is not that, particularly when he is reading pre-scripted words off a teleprompter. Even by his standards, however, his performance on Tuesday night was poor. For whatever reason—maybe the choppy nature of the text, or maybe because the font on the teleprompter was hard to read, or maybe because he was tired—his energy was consistently very low, and his delivery made it seem like he'd never seen the speech before. He clearly had seen it, since he occasionally made impromptu references to something coming in the next 15-30 seconds. But his reading of the speech was the reading that someone would give if there was no punctuation, and they were just guessing when the pauses and line breaks should be.

In any case, about 20% of the speech was the standard SOTU dog and pony show, with the President introducing his various guests, and them collecting their rounds of applause. Another 20% was braggadocio, as Trump—like any President—listed the things he feels he accomplished this year. For example, he talked about how much progress has been made on the North Korea front and (as expected) announced the details for his next summit with Kim Jong-Un—it will be February 27 and 28 in Vietnam. On Tuesday afternoon, not long before the SOTU, a confidential UN report leaked, and it reveals that the North Koreans are not only hiding their nuclear weapons, they are also selling missiles to other countries to fund their program. It is not clear if Trump was unaware of this news, or if he simply doesn't care.

Naturally, as is par for the course for Trump, he felt the need to exaggerate beyond the point of credulity while listing his accomplishments. For example, he described the basically stable U.S. economy as "far and away the hottest economy anywhere in the world," and took sole credit for the United States being viewed as the most powerful country on earth. The presidents from William McKinley through Obama might have something to say about that. Trump also claimed that if he hadn't won the 2016 election, the U.S. would likely already be at war with North Korea. A dubious claim, at best. And beyond the gross exaggerations, there were also plenty of the kind of garden variety misstatements of fact that are Trump's calling card. For example, there was his claim that 600,000 manufacturing jobs have been created since he took office (454,000, actually), or his assertion that his administration has recouped billions from China thanks to tariffs (that's not how tariffs work; they largely get passed on to U.S. consumers); or that drug prices declined in 2018 (for every drug whose price was slashed in 2018, a staggering 96 had their price go up).

Moving on, about 20% of the speech appeared to have been essentially copied and pasted from last year's address. Consider these two passages:

As we rebuild our industries, it is also time to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. America is a nation of builders. We built the Empire State Building in just 1 year—is it not a disgrace that it can now take 10 years just to get a permit approved for a simple road? I am asking both parties to come together to give us the safe, fast, reliable, and modern infrastructure our economy needs and our people deserve.

Both parties should be able to unite for a great rebuilding of America's crumbling infrastructure. I know that the Congress is eager to pass an infrastructure bill—and I am eager to work with you on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment, including investments in the cutting edge industries of the future. This is not an option. This is a necessity.

Or, consider these two:

One of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs. In many other countries, these drugs cost far less than what we pay in the United States. That is why I have directed my Administration to make fixing the injustice of high drug prices one of our top priorities. Prices will come down.

The next major priority for me, and for all of us, should be to lower the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs—and to protect patients with pre-existing conditions...It is unacceptable that Americans pay vastly more than people in other countries for the exact same drugs, often made in the exact same place. This is wrong, unfair, and together we can stop it.

Can you tell which passages came from his 2018 SOTU, and which came from last night's address? In both cases, the second excerpt is the one from 2019. Of course, we know that nothing was done on the infrastructure front after Trump uttered those words in 2018, and fairly little was done on the prescription drugs front. That probably gives a useful clue as to how much salt you should take the 2019 declarations with.

Beyond that, another 15% of the address was taken from Trump's standard stump/rally speech. Most obviously, while he did not declare a national emergency, he did repeat most of his usual talking points about the danger of immigrants and caravans and MS-13 gangsters, and the importance of walls. For example:

Tolerance for illegal immigration is not compassionate—it is cruel. One in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north. Smugglers use migrant children as human pawns to exploit our laws and gain access to our country.

Human traffickers and sex traffickers take advantage of the wide open areas between our ports of entry to smuggle thousands of young girls and women into the United States and to sell them into prostitution and modern-day slavery...

The savage gang, MS-13, now operates in 20 different American States, and they almost all come through our southern border. Just yesterday, an MS-13 gang member was taken into custody for a fatal shooting on a subway platform in New York City. We are removing these gang members by the thousands, but until we secure our border they're going to keep streaming back in.

It's worth noting that when the audience realized the nativist portion was beginning, there was a distinct, reflexive groan, so loud that it was likely bipartisan. Then, at the end of this portion, Trump decided to ad lib, and declared that he would like to see legal immigrants come into the U.S. in the "largest numbers ever." One wonders how the base will feel about this goal.

So, that's about 75% of the speech we've accounted for. Another 15% might well be described as the "Rush Limbaugh" tributes, as they were red, red meat for the base that might well have been taken directly from the right-wing talker's radio show. For example, there was an extended bit about abortion, and the late-term abortion laws in New York and Virginia. "[The] Governor of Virginia [Democrat Ralph Northam] basically stated he would execute a baby after birth," observed Trump, as he significantly misrepresented the situation. Similarly, Trump had an extended harangue about Venezuela that transitioned into a harangue about how "America will never be a socialist country." Someone might want to explain to him the model that fire departments, public schools, and freeways work on, even in the "never socialist" United States.

That leaves us with about 10% of the speech; the portions where Trump embraced Democratic issues. There was, for example, the call to eradicate HIV by 2030 (a portion of the speech that was leaked to Politico on Monday, and so did not come as a surprise). There were also his statements, quoted above, that pre-existing health conditions need to be covered and that drug prices need to be lowered. He also said he wanted job opportunities for women to be expanded. It's not entirely clear why Team Trump included these things, but it was likely to give some foundation for them to claim that the speech was bipartisan and placed an emphasis on unity and cooperation.

Of course, the speech wasn't actually a unifying speech. The Frankensteinian nature of the speech is not just indicated by the fact that it's easy to identify and disassemble the various portions of the speech, like tearing down a building made of LEGO Bricks. Nor is it solely indicated by the fact that each of these major building blocks was actually broken up and scattered haphazardly across the speech, with some red meat here, and some stump speech there, creating a real jumble of assertions, brags, proposals, complaints, and slogans. It's also a product of the wildly uneven tone of the address.

That uneven tone was most evident in the President's approach to the opposition party. It is clear that someone very important in the White House wanted bipartisanship and unity to be a major theme of the speech, presumably recognizing that the base alone won't get it done in 2020. It is also clear that person was not Donald Trump, who actually wanted to edit the speech at the last minute in order to make it more nasty toward the blue team. The result of these competing impulses was an address that would best be described as passive-aggressive. The President did, for example, declare that, "We must be united at home to defeat our adversaries abroad," and he called for a "new era of cooperation." However, he also took a number of backhanded swipes at the Democrats, most obviously when he opined that:

An economic miracle is taking place in the United States—and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn't work that way!

Presumably, he was not thinking of investigations conducted by the GOP members of Congress, which do not seem to have bothered him in the last two years. In addition to verbiage like this (and expect that rhyming legislation/investigation line to become a standard feature of his rallies), it was also noticeable that as Trump delivered the speech, he was almost always angled toward the GOP side of the gallery (camera right/stage left), as if he was really talking just to them.

The unevenness of the speech was also a product of the fact that, although Team Trump does not seem to accept it, the different portions of an address like this do not exist independently of one another. If one wants to deliver a cohesive speech, one cannot rail about the pure evil of undocumented immigration one minute, and then talk about the need for humanitarian assistance at the border two minutes later. Or talk about how nasty and greedy the Chinese are, and then talk about what a great fellow Xi Jinping is. Or declare one's concern for the poor and uninsured, and then declare that Obamacare is wrongheaded and comes from a wicked place.

Not surprisingly, the response of the Democrats in the gallery was less than positive. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who was on camera nearly the whole time, largely avoided overtly negative facial expressions. What she did do, however, was read/shuffle papers (presumably a transcript of the speech) whenever she was nonplussed:

The cameras in the gallery also managed to get the reactions of a number of folks who are, or are likely to be, presidential candidates in 2020. Here are Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT):

For what it is worth, newly-minted Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) did not appear to be impressed, either, though Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) liked a lot of what he heard:

Of course, unenthusiastic responses are customary from the opposition party during the SOTU, though this year's seemed to be particularly bereft of enthusiasm.

And now, having addressed the speech as a whole, let's conclude with the three most notable moments of the night. These are the things that will likely get the most attention on Twitter, the Wednesday morning talk shows, etc. First, Trump's staff inadvertently allowed him to blunder into a fair bit of irony when he bragged about how many women have found new jobs in the last year thanks to him. Sitting not far from the podium, and all dressed in white (the color of the women's suffrage movement), were all of the newly-elected Democratic women representatives. They responded with great enthusiasm to his boast (note Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seated, presumably not by coincidence, front and center):

Obviously, many of these women do owe their new jobs to Trump, albeit not in the way he meant it. To his credit, the President rolled with it, laughed at their response, and told them they'd really like the next part of the speech (in which he specifically recognized the historic number of women serving in Congress).

The second moment like this, in terms of being on the lighter and more pleasant side, came when Trump introduced Judah Samet, who survived the Pittsburgh synagogue shootings, and who happened to be celebrating his 81st birthday on Tuesday night. When the President noted the occasion, the gallery launched into a mass, impromptu rendition of "Happy Birthday." It was surely the most off-key performance of that song in music history, but it was a nice moment nonetheless.

And third is a moment that wasn't light or pleasant, but might just have been the single most significant and substantive nugget of the whole night. About halfway through, Trump described the wall he wants, and said, "It will be deployed in the areas identified by border agents as having the greatest need, and as these agents will tell you, where walls go up, illegal crossings go way down." Note that description is most decidedly not a description of a wall along the entire border, but instead suggests an expansion and improvement of existing fortifications. In other words, it might well be a trial balloon for a compromise position, one that the Democrats might even be able to get on board with. We shall see if this turns into anything, or if it was just a momentary thought.

Finally, the country was spared the trauma of a President Rick Perry. It is customary now that when the president, vice president, speaker, and the cabinet are all in the same place at the same time, one member of the cabinet is chosen as the "designated survivor" who is kept hidden by the Secret Service in a secure location. That way, if a terrorist manages to explode a bomb or crash a plane into the gathering and kill everyone, there will be one person in the order of succession still alive to become president and avoid a situation in which no one is president. This year, the designated survivor was Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, who is 15th in the line of succession. Since his Senate confirmation, Perry—who, when he accepted it, thought the job involved selling U.S. oil and gas to the world—has basically disappeared from public view, so his absence was probably not noticed by anyone. As an aside, Perry was very surprised to learn that his actual job is largely about storing, maintaining, and securing America's vast arsenal of nuclear weapons.

There you have it. Undoubtedly, there will be much response tomorrow, and probably many takeaway pieces. So, you'll likely have more from us on this subject on Thursday. (Z)

Abrams Does Not Wilt Under the Spotlight

In the last few decades, the gold standard for politicians who hope to seize the day when given their first shot at a national audience is Barack Obama's address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. When he walked onto the stage that day, he was a relatively unknown state legislator from Illinois who was running for the U.S. Senate. When he walked off the stage a quarter of an hour later, he was one of the half-dozen most popular members of the Democratic Party. Obviously, we all know how that turned out.

Stacey Abrams clearly studied Obama's address, as well as some of the others that did not go so well. For the delivery of her response to Donald Trump's State of the Union, she chose a room somewhere in Atlanta, draped in blue, with supporters standing behind her, and—perhaps most importantly—with good acoustics. This avoided the awkwardness of, for example, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer's response to Donald Trump last month, delivered from a hallway in the Capitol building. They sounded like they were speaking from inside a metal garbage can, and they looked like two Washington tourists who somehow ended up on "Candid Camera."

The structure of Abrams' speech also mirrored that of Obama's. He began his 2004 address with an anecdote about his family's journey that illustrated his larger theme (America has room for contributions from everyone). Abrams started with a story about how her not-so-rich father gave away his coat in the middle of a rainstorm, because he knew that he had someone to come home to, and the receiver of the coat did not. This set up a theme of the importance of community, and allowed Abrams to run through a series of policy initiatives, like Medicare for All, immigration reform, correcting wage inequality, and so forth. There wasn't much detail, but it did present an overall vision for where the Democrats would like to see the country head.

Abrams' speech, incidentally, had almost nothing to do with the substance of Trump's address, with only a couple of issues (like immigration) appearing in both. Sometimes presidents provide a copy of their address to the opposition in advance, so they can prepare their response, but it's likely that Team Trump is either not organized enough or is not gracious enough to do this. Whatever the case may be, if one was to see the two speeches independent of each other, one would never guess that speech #2 was meant to be a direct response to speech #1.

In any event, the specifics of Abrams' speech don't matter all that much, since she's not currently in office, and since the presidential election is still two years away. The much greater significance (as with Obama's 2004 address) is that she was auditioning for an ongoing role on the national stage. She definitely passed the audition. Her address might not have been quite as good as Obama's, but it wasn't far off. Abrams is a very good public speaker, with a warm, conversational style and a pleasant voice. In contrast to Trump's speech, it was very clear where the punctuation and line breaks were supposed to be. And so, Abrams' rise continues, unchecked.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), chair of the DSCC, very much wants Abrams to run for the Senate in 2020 against Sen. David Perdue (R-GA). Abrams' excellent performance under pressure yesterday is only going to increase the likelihood that she does so. (Z)

Feds Want to Chat With Trump Organization Employees

For Donald Trump and his family, things just went from bad to worse back home in New York. On Monday, it was reported that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USA SDNY) was taking a close look at the $107 million that was raised for the President's inauguration—where it came from, how it was spent, and why much of it is unaccounted for. On Tuesday, CNN broke the news that the same office wants to interview executives at the Trump Organization. At the moment, those interviews are voluntary, but those who do not agree are likely to have a judge volunteer for them.

The USA SDNY was already investigating Michael Cohen's work on behalf of Trump, so that brings the total investigations to three, all focusing on the finances of Trump the businessman, Trump the politician, and the intersection between the two. When it was just Cohen, it was possible that the crime in question was just campaign finance violations (and a dash of conspiracy). That is a felony, but one that might just lead to a fine and a slap on the wrist. Involving the inauguration committee, and particularly the Trump Organization executives, suggests that the USA SDNY is thinking about vastly more serious financial crimes, like bribery, violations of the emoluments clause, money laundering, or all of the above.

This may very well be the most serious of the various legal quagmires in which Trump finds himself entangled. To start, because financial crimes tend to be easier to prove than most other misdeeds, thanks to the paper trail. As we are fond of pointing out, it was tax evasion that they got Al Capone on, not the other stuff. Also, because if the USA SDNY is looking into money laundering, or other crimes committed while Trump was still a private citizen, then they would presumably be much more extensive and long-lasting than anything he did as a politician. On top of that, the Trump Organization is a family business, and so the President's family might also be in serious jeopardy. And finally, because most things that are financial crimes on the federal level are also financial crimes on the state level. So, even if Trump fired every employee at USA SDNY and pardoned himself and everyone he's ever met, New York Attorney General Letitia James would almost certainly be able to pick up the ball and run with it and it would be beyond the President's power to do anything to stop her. (Z)

Nice Work, If You Can Get It? (Part I): Donald Trump

The word "sinecure" comes from the Latin phrase sina cura ("without care"), and was originally used to describe a church official that had no parishioners to attend to (and thus, no souls to care for). Over time, of course, the term came to describe any job with few (or no) responsibilities. One would not imagine that the presidency could ever be a sinecure, but it certainly appears that Donald Trump is giving it the old college try.

Prior to this week, it was already widely known that the President spends much of his days in "executive time," which entails tweeting, making phone calls, and watching television. This week, however, it became clear exactly how much of Trump's day is allotted to activities that we might associate more with a high school sophomore than with the leader of the free world, as someone on his staff leaked three months' worth of daily schedules to Axios. The site posted all of them here; many days look a lot like this:

It is, of course, possible that the President uses some of that unstructured time to do real work (drop in on meetings, communicate with his cabinet) on an ad hoc basis. However, it's hard to avoid thinking that he's managed to turn the presidency into something of a retirement, in a manner that does not align too well with the approach of his predecessors. Even Ronald Reagan, who was famous for being a little work-shy, managed to hold to a 9 to 5 schedule most of the time. In total, Axios calculates that Trump spends 60% of his "work" day in executive time.

In order to post this material to their website, Axios had to retype and reformat it in order to make certain that the identity of their source remains a secret. Clearly, someone in fairly close orbit to Trump made these public, and they presumably did so to embarrass him. This follows on the heels of a similar sort of story, published in TIME last week, that revealed that the President barely pays attention during intelligence briefings. Staffers have to use tricks like keeping their points very short (2-3 sentences), using visual aids, and frequently referring to Trump by his title (which perks him up). Unlike the days and nights of tweeting and telephoning, this doesn't even rise to the level of being sophomoric. More like kindergartenic.

In any case, add it all up, and it certainly looks like Trump has one or more enemies among the intelligence establishment who are more than willing to dish on him in order to make him look bad. What they hope to accomplish with this is not clear; Trump does not really feel shame, and he is the living embodiment of the old saying that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. If we want to be conspiratorial, it's possible that this is the start of an effort to lay the groundwork for invocation of the 25th Amendment. After all, the behavior described in these two stories goes beyond mere laziness and/or poor attention span, and suggests significant cognitive impairment. We shall see what else leaks on this front in upcoming weeks and months. (Z)

Nice Work, If You Can Get It? (Part II): Duncan Hunter, Chris Collins, and Steve King

By all appearances, Donald Trump is happy as a clam that he has few official responsibilities most days. Apparently, the same is not true of three fellows at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, namely Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Chris Collins (R-NY), and Steve King (R-IA), who have been frozen out of most Congressional business by their colleagues.

The trio is toxic for two distinct reasons. In the cases of Hunter and Collins, it is because they are under indictment, and seem likely to be convicted. In King's case, it is because he is a racist who does not do a very good job of keeping his opinions to himself. All three have been stripped of their committee assignments, and since committee work makes up a sizable chunk of a representative's workweek, they don't have a whole lot to do. They could get on the phones and raise money, but the Party also doesn't want them doing that, for obvious PR reasons. They can write bills and try to get their colleagues to sign on, but none of those folks particularly want their names to be linked with a felon or a white supremacist.

With most avenues for doing actual work cut off, the trio is limited—when in Washington—to wandering the halls of Congress, taking long lunches, and maybe making the occasional off-hour floor speech for the six people who happen to be watching on C-SPAN. They can also spend time back home on constituent services: clearing up red tape snafus, holding town halls, and cutting the ribbons at the openings of new Cracker Barrels (or, in Hunter's case, since he's from San Diego, new Rubio's Fish Tacos).

All three of the representatives have adjusted to their pariah status, and so they appear to be unlikely to resign in frustration. If any or all of them tries to stand for reelection, however (assuming they avoid conviction and/or expulsion from the House), they will be in serious trouble, despite all three coming from R+11 districts. The GOP would prefer, of course, not to put districts that should be "safe" in doubt, so it's possible that some carrot might be dangled before one or more of them (particularly King) to get them to leave (How would you like to be ambassador to Austria, Steve? Hitler was born there, after all!). Failing that, well-heeled primary challengers are likely to magically materialize in all three districts. (Z)

Elizabeth Warren Did Claim to Be a Native American (at Least Once)

Just an hour or so before the State of the Union address, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) got some bad news: Someone dug up her 1986 registration card for the State Bar of Texas. On that card, she was asked to identify her race. And her answer was "American Indian."

Under most circumstances, this would probably not be a big deal. It's one document, from nearly 40 years ago, and from a time when Warren was of an age when people are still figuring out who they are and who they want to be. Still, she has consistently claimed that she never identified as Native American, and that she certainly never derived any benefit from that status. It's hard to see what benefit Warren might have gotten from a Bar card (as opposed to, say, a scholarship application), but if she forgot (or "forgot") this one instance, there may well be others, including circumstances where she might very well have benefited. Plus, this will give Donald Trump an even larger cudgel to use against her. Warren is in full apology mode right now, and is trying very hard to do damage control. We shall see if she recovers, although there's a certain irony if one small falsehood from decades ago proves fatal when there's a fellow in the White House who tells giant whoppers on a daily basis. (Z)

Tulsi Gabbard Gets a High-Profile Endorsement--Unfortunately for Her

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's (D-HI) presidential campaign has been flailing. It's not entirely clear what her purpose is in running, or what she thinks her path to victory might be. Her launch was handled poorly, and the campaign—such as it is—has been beset by internal strife, with reports that Gabbard is alternately impulsive and indecisive. Her campaign manager and polling firm have both already jumped ship, leaving Gabbard's sister Vrindavan to run the show. The Representative also has some skeletons in her closet, most notably her past outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage, which she's spent the last two weeks apologizing for.

In short, Gabbard 2020 might already be on life support. It's also possible the campaign could be resuscitated with the right endorsement. Barack Obama is going to stay out of things, consistent with his ex-president status, but if he were to announce that Gabbard is his candidate, it would give her a major shot in the arm. More plausible, and nearly as helpful, would be if Bernie Sanders were to announce that he's out, and that he's throwing his support to her.

On the other hand, there are also those endorsements that don't help at all—that, in fact, are actively harmful. Say, endorsements like this one:

Tulsi Gabbard is currently the only Presidential candidate who doesn't want to send White children off to die for Israel. pic.twitter.com/NN2dyHVFia

— David Duke (@DrDavidDuke) February 5, 2019

It's certainly possible Duke is trolling—after all, who really knows what's in the mind of a man like him? However, it's also true that he is a firm supporter of isolationism, particularly when it comes to Israel, and that Gabbard is strongly anti-intervention and is not a big fan of the Israeli government. Plus, he's been tweeting his support of her for days, and has even changed his background image to feature her. So, he's probably serious.

Could a single endorsement—one that Gabbard has already repudiated, incidentally—actually put a dagger in the heart of her presidential campaign? If ever there was a circumstance where that could happen, this is it. Though she was once the darling of progressives, the gay marriage stuff and other policy positions from her past have prompted serious doubts. If her potential voters think she's the candidate of David Duke, that could very well be the final nail in the coffin for them, especially since there are so many other candidates in the progressive lane for them to choose from. (Z)

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer, click here for submission instructions and previous Q & A's. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger