http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3414757.stm

I think the BBC nailed it...last night's speach sounded more like a re-election speach rather than an inspiring speach over the current state of our union and a vision for our future.

I don't think anyone would accuse me of being slow to fault the Rove/Cheney mouthpiece for anything, but on this I feel compelled to point out that third-year State of the Union addresses are invariably and almost inevitably stump speeches. I don't think that an assessment of the current state of the country can sound like anything but a reelection speech 10 months before the general election, and as the opponents' nomination process is just getting under way.

That said, I think that anyone can see that deficit reduction, setting tax reductions in stone and new spending initiatives doesn't make much sense. But that's a content issue, not a tone issue, and probably needs its own thread.

__________________
Thomas Taylor

Interested in NP tech, kids and snark? Follow me on Twitter.

I agree Thomast! Every President has done and will most likely continue in the practice. Bush is a politician after all.

__________________
Sponge
----------
Soaking up intelligent commentary.

Samuel clements

True that it's inevitable that the speech is delivered with the upcoming election in mind, but I do not think that the speech should be used to rebut your critics as blatantly as it was done last night. Save it for campaign rallies.

To compare past State of the Union Addresses:
http://www.thisnation.com/library/sotu/

How about when he vowed to "protect the sanctity of marriage." Now there's a place government belongs. That was a bit of blatant pandering to the religious right. It's a tough balancing act for these guys. Perhaps he could just declare a "war on gays"

Maybe every president since Wilson.

http://users.law.capital.edu/dmayer/Blog/

(scroll down to "The Unconstitutional State of the Union Address", this looks like a new hand-edited blog and doesn't have item links.)