2007 State of the Union: Team Coverage

(Mark is participating in a round table discussion on the president's speech for 411mania.com's politics page, and this is his submission. Rev. John threw in his two cents as well)

1). Did you like the speech? Explain why you did or didn't.
Mark: I missed the first 20 minutes or so of the speech due to personal issues, not the least of which was flying in from Cleveland and not getting home until midnight, and I walked in about when he was talking about fuel economy. He hit some good green points and mentioned some of the better ideas for limiting our dependence on foreign oil. However, he still seems to be in love with the BIG fuel corporations and that couldn't have been more apparent than when he mentioned clean coal and nuclear power. But the question is whether or not I liked the speech and I'll say that I did because at least this time he explained the War on Terror in a way that made sense and actually used examples. He should have done that 4 years ago but beggars can't be choosers.

Rev. John: State of the Union's are rarely bad speeches, regardless of whom the President is and which glass of Kool Aid you prefer. They all basically say that the state of the union is good, and layout a bunch of ideas to improve it. Unless you're a douchebag like Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann, they don't leave much to complain about. Last nights SOTU open a few doors to get things done, particularly with immigration, health care, and energy. Whether or not people go through those doors or not...that's a different story.


2). Do you think this speech was any different than his previous SOTU addresses? (If you didn't watch the previous addresses, you can substitute any other Bush speech that you have seen or heard).
Mark: Yes in the sense that as I said before he explained the War on Terror pretty well and hit all the relevant points that he's missed in years past. I don't know if it will matter as it is too little too late for most Americans but at least this year I can't complain that his explanation of the War of Terror was not fit for a kindergarten class. I also like that he mentioned the UN millennium poverty goals as I'm sure everyone except Bono had forgotten about them.

Rev. John: There were two big differences I noticed. Last year the underlying theme was how it was the remaining Democrats job to work with him. This year, the theme is that it's everyone's job to work together...which is good, because I'm all for the two parties working together and doing away with this red state/blue state jive. Also, last year he ended the speech with a paragraph catered to make the Christian base happy. This year, I didn't hear anything that catered to them (at least not that I heard). So James Dobson can stick that in his pipe and smoke it.


3). Of all of the points he touched on in this speech, which policy would you like to see him follow through on the most?
Mark: Obviously the fuel issues. It's pretty apparent that even BIG oil cannot ignore these fuel issues any longer. If he and others continue to pretend that there is no problem with a single fuel economy then his party will continue to lose power in Washington. Ultimately, it's up to folks like Boxer in the Senate to put forth serious energy legislation and Bush will go a long way in maintaining his integrity by signing said legislation instead of continuing to carry the water for BIG energy companies.

Rev. John: My favourite part of the speech was when the President acknowledged the NYC Subway Hero, but as far as issues go I'd like to see him (and Congress, since they're in this too) follow through doing something about energy or health care.


4). If you were to assign the President a letter grade on a scale of A-F for this address tonight, what would you give him and why?
Mark: I'd give him a B. He finally did what he needed to do with Iraq and he mentioned many of the not well known points of other foreign policy issues we are contending with and he did it without the two dimensional cartoonish language he usually employs. Not bad overall.

Rev. John: I guess a B. Like I said, SOTU's are rarely bad. He laid out a number of good ideas. It's just a question of if he or anyone else is going to act on any of them. I'll be honest, I have my doubts.