Got a call late in the day from the folks at the Lars Larson Show to come on the show following Tony Snow to talk about the State of the Union address.

If you're not familiar with Lars, he's a hard right, fiercely "conservative", widely-syndicated national talk radio host in the Rush/Hannity tradition. If you've heard me on his show before, you'll know that fireworks usually occur. Tonight was no exception, though he was a bit more subdued than usual, and was singing a new tune from previous appearances when it comes to Election Integrity and the need for a paper BALLOT (not "trail" or "record) for every vote cast.

Lars and I talked about the SOTU, N. Korea, the dismal treatment of vets by the Bush Administration, Election Integrity, the right-wing Swiftboating of Barbara Boxer and John Kerry bowing out of the 'Clusterf#@k to the White House 2008'...

Sadly, he took no calls during the short appearance, so we didn't get to hear from his wingnut base this time around. Oh, well. Still a fun appearance, I think. But you tell me.

I've cut out the commercials (you're welcome) as well as the Snow interview just before me since it was the same old tired WH spin (you're welcome again). Enjoy our latest round of "Brad Plays Audio Whackamole!"

-- Brad on Lars Larson Show, 1/24/07 [MP3, appx. 19 mins.]

One interesting --- dare we say, hopeful --- point we just noticed about last night's speech.

In the text transcript at the White House website, the speech was written to end, curiously enough, with the following words:

"See you next year"???

Anybody ever recall such an ending to a State of the Union address?! Now why would they include something like that, one has to wonder.

But as odd as it was to include those words in the first place, what's even more interesting is that Bush didn't say them, choosing instead to end simply with "God bless."

Shall we take this as an encouraging omen? I say we do.

With more than 5600 words in his State of the Union speech, Bush couldn't cobble together five or six of them to thank our 1.6 million new American Veterans? Let alone recognize the continuing horrors they face and what our country plans to do to help them?

A press release from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America find that pretty crappy. So do we.

Why does George W. Bush hate our troops?

Last year, during the SOTU, we spent all night live blogging the inappropriate arrest of Cindy Sheehan for wearing a T-shirt to the State of the Union address. And, naturally, the misreporting of it by CNN, AP et al. We're hoping for a less eventful SOTU tonight, personally, but lord only knows what could happen. If it does, we'll be here.

But so will you. So, to that end, consider this a SOTU Open Thread. Have at it!

To get you warmed up, if you need it, see the rather hysterical parody SOTU at right and the quite amusing Democratic response that follows. We're sure neither will be anything at all like the actual versions. (Hat-tip Atrios for the vid.)

For your more serious types, RAW STORY has advance excerpts from the speech right here and Webb's response right here.

And if you're wondering what came of our call for Sen. Jim Webb to be allowed to give his Democratic Party Response to the full joint session of Congress just after Bush, here's the final word from Speaker Pelosi's office on it.

Oh...and if you're interested, I was on San Antonio's KTSA with Chris Duel this afternoon discussing it (and delighting everyone in Texas by calling George W. Bush a criminal!) That radio appearance is right here [MP3, appx. 15 mins]

See you in Comments (unless events warrant an update here)...

As previously mentioned, we've received some comments from Nancy Pelosi's office in reply to our initial editorial and subsequent follow-up calling on Congressional Democrats to assert the branch's co-equal powers by allowing Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) to give his State of the Union Response Address to the full joint session of Congress. That, instead of relegating the response to the usual, audience-free, less-than-impressive, impossible-to-compete, unlevel playing field of a makeshift TV studio somewhere.

In a conversation yesterday with the office, I was told there were no "Constitutional issues" to keep Webb from addressing the full joint session as some callers to Pelosi's office, encouraging her to allow it, may have been told. And, in fact, the aide I spoke to, speaking on background, felt the idea was "brilliant" and it might be something to consider for next year. This year, however, the logistics would make it impossible at this late date.

I'd admit to still being somewhat unclear on exactly what the logistical problems would be. It seems that it would simply be a matter of keeping the joint session open after Bush is finished and giving the podium to Webb and allowing him to give his address to the assembled members and officials. Logistical issues concerning Secret Service sweeps and such surrounding a POTUS visit being an issue handled separately.

However, I'm told there is some form of joint resolution that is passed by both chambers each year to allow for the President's address to Congress and perhaps it is that resolution which would need to be amended to allow the floor to stay open after the intial SOTU speech has concluded.

In any case, here is the official statement as emailed from Pelosi's communication director, Brendan Daly, which seems to close the door on the matter for this year. Unfortunately...

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer

Andrea Mitchell calls former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie on his B.S. GOP talking points today on MSNBC. Refreshing to say the least.

UPDATE 1/23/07 1:54pm PT: I received background comment on all of this from a Pelosi aide late yesterday afternoon who promised to send an official statement, their position, the Constitutionality issue (there is none), etc. Their official statement, seeming to close the door on this possibility, is now posted here along with some additional thoughts.

I've received extraordinarily positive responses to my call, as posted on Friday at both Huff Po and BRAD BLOG, calling on Congressional Democrats to allow Virginia's Sen. Jim Webb to deliver his Opposition Response to the State of the Union Address to the entire, full, joint session of Congress just after George W. Bush finishes his on Tuesday night.

That, instead of the usual limp response as performed in front of a single TV camera in some studio somewhere which can't hope to compete with the live "Presidential Performance" moments before to a packed house.

I've come to understand the tradition of such a response has been in play since 1966 --- a relic of the Reagan-dissolved 'Fairness Doctrine' --- and, like the President's televised speech before a full joint session of Congress, has no actual basis in the Constitution. Both are simply done that way largely by tradition. Even Presidents as recently as Jimmy Carter chose to deliver the State of the Union via a letter to Congress instead.

Nothing now keeps Congressional Democrats, in charge of both the House and Senate, from changing the Pres-Joint Session/Oppo-Basement Response tradition other than the courage and fortitude to do so. Buoyed by overwhelming support from the American people last November to take back power from a runaway Imperial Presidency, it's time for them to take the stage they deserve, and give Webb the podium to make their case before the entire joint session just after Dubya.

But, being Democrats, they may need your help to show that courage and fortitude.

My complete editorial originally making the case for giving Webb the platform we all deserve has, so far, far been posted in full at a number of websites, including TruthDig, RAW STORY, OpEd News, After Downing Street, Democratic Underground, Left in Aboite and NYTimes' About.com.

Off-the-record response to the idea, as received from various politicos inside the beltway, has been quite positive.

But it will still take a lot of noise and many citizens standing up to call for this in order for the Democrats to show the courage they'd need to make this bold and important change to the years-long tradition of relegating Opposition SOTU Responses to the dim recesses of some poorly lit makeshift TV studio somewhere.

In addition to passing the original editorial virally around the net and elsewhere, some specific calls and/or emails may be in order. To that end, I might suggest as many folks as possible contact the following offices as soon as they can to strongly advocate for this important, and if I say so myself, excellent idea.

Sen. Jim Webb
Phone: 202-224-4024

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Phone: (202) 225-4965
Email: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

Sen. Harry Reid
Phone: (202) 224-3542
Email: reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm

As usual, don't rely on others to take action here. It's your country. Take it back.

If you have other thoughts on how to help encourage Democrats to allow for the above, please post them in Comments below --- or just take action!

(NOTE TO REPUBLICANS: This idea would likely become a new tradition, and would thus be one that your party would similarly find beneficial if the Democrats are ever able to figure out how to get seated in the White House in the future.)

(I just cross-posted the following over at Huffington Post. Please spread the word on this one between now and next Tuesday if you can. --- BF)

I don't know how long the tradition of an Opposition Party "Response" to the President's State of the Union address has been going on. But for as long as I can recall, it has been a drab, embarrassing, cringe-worthy effort by whichever party found itself unlucky enough to not be in the White House.

Over the last six years, the Bush Administration has run rough-shod over their co-equal Congressional partners, stealing extraordinary power for themselves at every turn with the short-sighted blessings of their Republican chums in the House and Senate as an all-but-castrated Democratic party stood quietly by in the background for the most part.

This year, the Dems have smartly tapped freshman Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) to deliver the Democratic response to Bush's State of the Union Address. No simpering softee he, Webb has already shown he has the stones to look Bush straight in the eye and deliver as good as he gets in the face of a classic Dubya bully-boy alpha-dog snarl.

But no matter how much clout, moral authority or gigantic balls the former Reagan Naval Secretary and proud father of a son still serving in Iraq may be, the conventional stagecraft of the SOTU and its Democratic/Republican Response simply stacks the cards insurmountably against the opposition party and --- as is likely again this year --- only serves to reinforce a perceived, if undeserved, imbalance between the two parties and the two branches of Government.

Just moments after the predictable but rousing reception given to any President during a SOTU address --- featuring long and loud applause break after applause break and the undeniable excitement of a live speech delivered on live television to a packed and contentious house --- there is no way that a one-camera opposition party Response delivered in an all but empty room turned TV studio can ever hope to measure up to the pomp and circumstance of the President's address. That fact would be true even if Superman was selected to deliver the opposition party Response.

It's time to make a change.

And it's time for the Dems to take back just some of the White House's self-proclaimed empirical majesty in the bargain.

So here's what I think is a very good new idea...

Hopefully this will be my last words on the disgraceful incident involving the arrest, removal and detention of Cindy Sheehan, who gave the life of her child in defense of this country, just prior to Tuesday's State of the Union address.

This latest canary-in-the-coalmine story made the front page of WaPo today, and reveals quite clearly both the Media's and at least one Republican's bias against those who do not agree with the George W. Bush Administration...As well as the disregard for our Constitutional Freedom of Speech. At least by the Republican.

The WaPo article, written by Petula Dvorak, first reveals the pro-administration media bias and/or their consistent inability to fairly report on an unfair situation. Note this early graf:

In other words it's implied here that Beverly Young, the wife of Congressman Bill Young (R-FL), who was removed from gallery at some point during Bush's speech wasn't arrested because, unlike Sheehan, it didn't come to that. Mrs. Young must have been polite (she wasn't) requiring no arrest, while Sheehan must have been unruly (she wasn't) requiring arrest and hours of detention.

The fact of the matter, however, as clearly explained later in the article, is that Mrs. Young was never threatened with arrest at all, unlike Sheehan who was frog-marched out of the chamber and handcuffed from the get-go. And that was even with Sheehan being polite in every respect, by all accounts of the story, while Young was abusive towards the cops, calling them "idiots" (that night, and even later after their eventually apology) and, as WaPo points out, "Witnesses said her words for him were much saltier the night before."

As I mentioned yesterday in my article on "Cindy Sheehan's Unequal Treatment Under the Law", the Wingnuts who've been busy trying to equate Sheehan's treatment with Young's ("They were both asked to leave, so clearly there's no political bias here!" say the apologists) have also overlooked the fact that Young was asked to leave much later. After the cops already had an embarrassing situation on their hands. As WaPo reported...

It's clear that Mrs. Young would have been left alone with her "Support the Troops" T-shirt and would not have been asked to leave, had not the cops already had the Sheehan situation on their hands, and needed to cover their asses.

Finally then, it's revealed in the story that the hypocritical Congressman Young himself would likely not have said a word about Sheehan's treatment (which was much worse than his wife's) had his wife not been asked to leave. He admits as much:

So the woman actually arrested, detained, and perhaps even "roughed up" was no problem for Young's "standards" because he "totally disagree[s] with everything she stands for."

Welcome to the amazingly slipperly slope...as it gets still slipperier and slopier every damn day in this country.

Still unclear? See how Judge Anthony Napolitano --- who defended Sheehan on Fox News, ostensibly, once it became clear she broke no rules or laws --- reportedly contrasted Young's T-shirt with Sheehan's. Young's, said Napolitano, in regard to the "Support the Troops" T-shirt, was "a Republican T-shirt."

Fox happily took up the meme on their website:

The "opposite message"?!

It's a dangerous fucking line we're crossing here in America 2006. Pay attention.

ALSO... It's not just the MSM who get the story wrong in their rush for political points. Blogger Glenn Greenwald reports on tons of Wingnut bloggers who couldn't wait to lie about the Sheehan story to their readers...and then refuse to correct themselves after it was proven how incredibly wrong they were.

According to MSNBC...

As we pointed out previously, Sheehan was arrested and detained for hours for wearing the T-shirt she had been wearing all day prior to the State of the Union Address, while a Republican Congressman's wife who wore a "Support the Troops" shirt was simply asked to leave (even though she called the cops "idiots").

On moral and "Freedom of Speech" grounds, neither should have been ejected. Now, as it turns out, neither of them should have been ejected on legal grounds or even "rules of Congress" grounds.

Here's a photo of a statement by Republicans from last year that was allowed. Here's our minute-by-minute coverage of the shameful affair as it played out last night.

UPDATE: As of Wednesday evening, it looks like MSNBC has scrubbed their "We Screwed Up" article and replaced it, at the same link, with an article by AP. No explanation is given at the MSNBC website for the switcheroo!

Let me be very clear, since the Mainstream Wingnut Media Spinners are already attempting to "Fair and Balance" (read: level an unlevel playing field) this one.

Cindy Sheehan, who did not plan to, or even want to go to the State of the Union speech, was convinced to go. She wore the T-shirt she had been wearing all day long in support of our troops, including her own son who gave his life in service to this country while in Iraq. Sheehan's shirt said, "2,245 Dead --- How Many More??"

She was arrested for wearing the shirt, held for hours in detention, and claims to have been "roughed up" a bit in the process.

We covered the entire process, minute-by-minute, as it shamefully unfolded last night.

Later, during the speech --- after Sheehan had already been arrested --- the wife of a Republican Congressman from Florida, Bill Young, was politely asked to leave the chamber for wearing a T-shirt in support of our troops. Her shirt said "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."

She was not arrested for wearing the shirt, she was not held for hours in detention, nor roughed up. She does not face any legal charges or legal fees in connection with the incident that we know about. And, as far as we know, did not also make the ultimate sacrifice of giving the life of her child for this country.

Rep. Young reportedly decried, "Shame, shame," on the U.S. House Floor today for the treatment of his wife. His wife, who was not arrested as far as we know.

While neither woman should have been arrested --- or even removed from the gallery (in our opinion) --- they were not treated equally. Whatever the "rules" are about such things in the U.S. Congress, they did not receive "equal treatment under the law". (A law, we might add, which would seem to be unconstitutional, according to this 1971 Supreme Court decision which ruled that wearing a "Fuck the Draft" T-shirt into a courthouse was Constitutionally protected free speech).

Both T-shirts were in support of our troops. Both shirts made a political statement of sorts. One woman was arrested, the other was not.

In fact, the other was not even asked to leave until after the speech had already started. After Sheehan had been arrested and after the authorities knew they had a politically sticky situation on their hands. All of which begs the question of whether Mrs. Young would have been asked to leave the chamber at all, had not Sheehan's arrest occurred previously.

As to Sheehan's take on things, she wrote this morning about "What Really Happened" as she experienced it.

She describes the fact that she didn't want to go to Bush's speech at all, since it would be so difficult for her to here, didn't wish to protest or be disruptive, but was convinced, in the end, to go anyway.

You can read her entire description of events, but here's one notable passage:

All of that, even as Bush was saying at the exact same moment, as if he meant it, these words during his State of the Union Speech:

Cindy Sheehan understands what those words actually mean. She gave up the life of her son in supposed defense of that freedom. She is fighting for that freedom which George W. Bush doesn't have a clue about.

And frankly, any American who doesn't stand with her in that particular fight, hasn't a clue of what America --- or the U.S. Constitution --- actually stands for.

"Shame, shame," indeed.

UPDATE: John Nichols in The Nation gets it right. He discusses the events that took place "Minutes before the President of the United States would tell the Congress how much he appreciates 'responsible criticism and counsel'" and points out that Mrs. Young admits to having "argued loudly with officers and called one of them 'an idiot'". But, of course, unlike Sheehan, who behaved politely throughout the proceedings according to all accounts...

ALSO... More on "Good SOTU Protests" versus "Bad SOTU Protests" here...

FURTHER UPDATE: Capitol Cops admit they "Screwed up"! Charges to be dropped!