I liked the State of the Union. My wife didn't -- she complained that it was "all over the place", which I think of as just a part of the art form. She also pointed out that Bush is a lousy speaker. No disagreement there.
I was surprised and pleased that it was so bold. Calling for the renewal of the PATRIOT act -- as one of the first policy initiatives proposed in the speech, no less -- is a beautiful political move. Democrats have criticized the PATRIOT act since its passage in 2001. Given the amount of invective poured into this, I would have expected the President to ignore it in an election year. By raising it again, Bush gets to use the Democrats' criticism of PATRIOT against the Democratic frontrunners. Kerry and Edwards both voted for PATRIOT in the Senate, as did every other Senator except for Russ Feingold (yes, including Ted Kennedy). This gives Dean and Clark something to use against Kerry and Edwards in the primaries, while putting Kerry and Edwards into a double-bind with the renewal of the act. If they vote for, they hurt themselves with true-believer Democrats; if they vote against, they give the Republicans something to use against them in the general election.
The same logic applies to the possibility of Democratic filibuster against the renewal of the PATRIOT provisions -- either they don't and the act passes, and Bush gets what he wants; or they do and Bush can point to the Democrats, obstructing a necessary tool in the war on terror. And what are they objecting to, anyway? The law passed 99-1 in 2001, but now that it's an election year, 39 Democrats flip-flop to enable a filibuster. The administration can say, "Look, the Democrats are playing politics with your security!"
Speaking of the Democratic members of Congress, I really felt they shot themselves in the foot during the "applause" portions of the speech. During one pause when the Democrats pointedly remained seated and didn't applaud, my sister-in-law (a Canadian) turned to me and asked, "What's wrong -- don't the Democrats want prescription-drug benefits for seniors?"
I understand that a TV producer's job is to pick interesting camera angles. And I can see how just having the one camera pointed at the President's head the whole speech is kind of boring. But did CNN have to keep cutting away to Ted Kennedy rolling his eyes and flapping his jowls? Even if he is Colby Cosh's choice for frontrunner-behind-the-curtain?
Oh yes, the best part? The part that really made the speech for me, and is most likely to induce me to vote for Bush in '04? The inclusion of Jerusalem in the list of terrorist targets.