State of the Union?

Pure Rhetoric.

I thought the point was a report on where we are, not vague goal setting. Maybe I just don't get it. It is worth watching just for amusement. Where else can you see:

• Congresspeople doing up downs for an hour giving applause.
• A newly confirmed Supreme Court justice looking lost (not that I blame him after less than 12 hours on the job and the confirmation process).
• A great display of adolescent partisanship in which half of the audience gives a standing applause for what is said. The Republicans clapped a lot--no suprise. The high point was the sarcastic Democratic standing applause for defeating the attempt at personal accounts for Social Security. It shows just how partisan Congress is with the amount of one-sided ovations. What kind of example does our government set when it can't rise above political arguments to do their job? It's almost as good of a role model as T.O. or 50 Cent.
• Great facial expressions. None of these folks should play poker. McCain looked sleepy part of the time. Hilary is a B***h. The holier than thou, pitying look she had most of the time was utterly disgusting. Kerry had a similar expression, but I don't think he's capable of any positive expression. The only good poker faces were the senior military officers and Supreme Court justices.

As for content, it was long on ideas, short on answers. There were a lot of initatives. I lost track. My perennial question is how are we going to pay for all of these and cut taxes? If politicians are on these initiative where are the ideas coming from? They can't possibly be well-informed on everything to the point of being able to create a large list of options to evaluate. The energy policy is still underfunded and short-sighted. The environment was barely mentioned. No Child Left Behind is not something to be proud of. Shoot, I even voted for the guy and am less than pleased.

Counterpoint is that the Democratic response was about as short on solutions as the President, not that they have offered anything much beyond criticism lately anyways. The new governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia was a good choice. He actually seems like a decent guy--certainly more palatable than Hilary or Kerry.

As far as themes go, they both were good. I am 100% against isolationism and pulling out when we have made a committment (even if it wasn't a good idea). Democracy is a great thing to spread. One thing here is what to do when a terrorist group is elected to govern a nation (Hamas)? It will take time and a lot more bridge building, but is certainly a worthy goal. He did spend an awful lot of time on this topic.

The governor's theme of service was very good. If only that was what policitians at the national level practiced instead of infighting for a percieved short term political advantage. I would be interested to see a national platform built around that theme from either party with practical solutions not big promises. Certainly most non-profit organizations and the younger generations would buy into this.

I guess my thought on the whole thing is that there are a lot of challenges we face and can solve, but the political modus operandi is to make the solution so convoluted as to be nearly impossible to implement. I understand that the issues are complicated, but that doesn't mean the goal and plan has to be. It also does not mean the government needs to solve the problems. Perhaps it can provide a direction and facilitate programs through supporting laws, but it does not need to operate all of them.

The response and effect of the address will be interesting to watch. I hope there is a good choice of candidates in '08 for both parties.