The State of the Union

I promise, I will get back to my presidential platform building soon, I just had a few pet peeves pop up and I can't stand it..



Tonight was the State of the Union address. As required by the Constitution, the President must "from time to time" address the Congress. Think of it as the CEO telling the Board of Directors where he plans to take the company. It's a good time for him to challenge the congress on the direction he wants to take the company. He is, after all, the President.



I have several pet peeves with this whole setup. If I do this right, I will offend my conservative friends as much as my liberal friends.



First of all, this is supposed to be an address to congress. For most of Bush's 50 minutes, he did pretty good at this. But then he lapsed into talking to the TV.



Second, it's supposed to be "from time to time". Bush has done a pretty good job speaking to the American people when it's required, do we really need a State of the Union every year?



Third, why have a response? Why must the party not in power feel the need to contradict the president and give their own view? Frankly, the few times I've listened to (or read) the response, it just sounded bitter. This year, the Democrats even carried it further, generating a pre-sponse in some cases and generating a written response immediately after they President spoke. Who are they fooling? That's not a response.



Lastly, the political pundits. I made the mistake of listening to two tonight. One called Bush's speech and understandably marginal speech by a lame duck. Give me a break. Walter Cronkite didn't use that many cliche's. Even Dan Rather could be more original.



None of this addresses the CONTENT of the speech, rather it addresses the STYLE of the speech and it's responses. Maybe if there was truly some content, I would have commented on it.