 |
| Angelika/Mike Schilli |
|
Angelika Once a year, usually in January, the sitting American President delivers a report on the state of the nation before the members of Congress, including representatives, senators, and some invited guests. This report is called the "State of the Union." I have experienced this once before during Clinton's time in office (Rundbrief 03/2000). The same applies, by the way, to the respective "Governors" (Heads of State) of the federal states and mayors of the cities, except that the speeches are then called "State of the State" or "State of the City".
The president's speech will be broadcast live on television. I had actually sworn to myself never to watch another speech by Bush, because it always ends with me yelling at the TV. I find Bush's grin and his basking in applause unbearable. But one has to be informed in order to participate in discussions. Of course, several speechwriters have been working on the State of the Union address for weeks, so it sounds great, but what is said has little to do with reality.
The speech, of course, serves the purpose of presenting Bush in the best possible light. He portrayed the scandal of Americans being wiretapped without court orders as a legal "terrorist-surveillance program." Otherwise, he bombarded us with the usual platitudes: fighting terrorism and radical Islam, tax cuts as a cure-all, reforming Social Security, combating skyrocketing healthcare costs, and America as the savior of the world. Yawn! But then the president, deeply connected to the oil industry, said: "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.
And he added another point, namely that 75% of American oil imports from the Middle East must be replaced by alternative energy sources by the year 2025. This alarmed the Saudi Arabian ambassador, who speculated in dismay after the speech about what Bush actually meant by that. Could it be that Bush is secretly an environmentalist and a Democrat? No, because he only spoke about replacing oil with alternative fuels like ethanol. He did not say that the dependency on oil imports should be reduced by limiting American gasoline consumption.
But the more liberal American press is increasingly picking up on this idea. Columnist and Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is tirelessly writing about it in the New York Times. His mantra is more fuel-efficient cars and a high gasoline tax. After the speech, the opposition is given the opportunity for a response, the so-called "Rebuttal." However, this no longer takes place in Congress with an audience. This year, Governor Tim Kaine from Virginia and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa from Los Angeles spoke for the Democrats, with Villaraigosa delivering his response in Spanish, by the way. Surprised, aren't you?
){kind=link}