Viewer Discretion Advised: The State of the Union Address

Next Tuesday, President Bush will deliver to Congress and the American people his sixth State of the Union address. Viewer discretion is advised — viewers not seated while watching may find themselves experiencing acute vertigo as a result of the hurricane of spin swirling out from their television sets. The White House has taken its usual precaution of avoiding any and all responsibility by announcing that it will not be held responsible for any concussions or broken limbs. And don’t count on FEMA — it’ll be doing a heckuva’ job just to come to your aid days later.

Any viewer who voted for the President in either of the past two presidential elections who plans on watching the Presidential propaganda pitch on Tuesday will also be advised to first put on their commemorative "Bush-Cheney 1984" rose-colored glasses. Any such loyal and patriotic voter who has misplaced their glasses is sternly instructed by the White House not to watch. You are to turn off your television and instead spend the time reading aloud to the family by candlelight verses from the Old Testament, or anything written by those sages of sanity and sensibility, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. The next day you may learn of your opinion of yet another magnificent presidential address by reading the well-crafted accolades posted by the White House spinsters on the front and editorial pages of the obedient and unquestioning Wall Street Journal.

For any viewer foolish enough to actually watch the State of the Union address without rose-colored glasses, it will simply be impossible to see the America seen by the President and the thirty-odd percent of Americans who support him. After all, the America you think you see is not reality — reality is only what the President says it is. Any viewer who speaks of an America any different than the President’s will find themselves permanently branded by the White House and its supporters as defeatist non-patriots whose only mission in life is to tear down America and hand our country over to Osama bin Laden before heading north to Canada.

Also on Tuesday, Democratic party leaders, having long forgotten the meaning of "winning", will take yet another bold step toward remaining in the minority by offering up the newly-elected and nationally-unknown pro-war governor of Virginia — Tim Kaine — to give the Democratic response to the President’s speech. The poor fellow, who will speak from a White House-designated "free speech zone", must be feeling honored to have been chosen by Pelosi, Reid and Emmanuel as sacrificial lamb to the gods of mediocrity and minority. Do these Democratic "leaders" really believe that in a time ripe for tearing down the president and his party for their torturous corrosion of our national prestige and their absolute corruption of our national government that offering up a mild-mannered pro-war political neophyte to counterpoint the President will do anything, anything at all to advance the Democrat’s chance of taking back one or both Houses come November?

But what do I know. Representatives Pelosi and Emmanueal, and Senator Reid, clearly have a plan for leading Democrats out of the wilderness in 2006. They do, don’t they? Does it start to take effect after Governor Kaine’s speech? Does it start anytime in 2006? One has to wonder, when they’ve chosen as the voice of Democrats everywhere a man who has publicly stated that to exit Iraq would be to "cut and run".

So, from three thousand miles and light-years of influence away from Washington and Richmond, I’d like to humbly offer two suggestions for Governor Kaine as he drafts his rebuttal of the President’s rosy view of the state of the union. The first suggestion is the most urgent: cut and run. Before you write another word, politely step aside from giving this speech, and turn it over to Jack Murtha, or Barack Obama. You may be a great guy, and even a bright star in the future of the Democratic party, but this is not your time. You are not the right person in an election year, especially this election year, to go head to head with the President.

If you do the right thing, but those party "leaders" reject your offer to step aside and you are to forced to go ahead with giving the speech, then I have a second suggestion: remember that by a large and growing majority, Democrats and Independents do not support the President’s war, and by a small majority, Americans as a whole do not support this war. Don’t you dare echo the President by restating your position that to exit Iraq would be to "cut and run".

Just some friendly advice.

Todd Huffman is a pediatrician and political columnist in Eugene, Oregon. Comments are welcomed at doctortodd@att.net.