The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.
Since the President will not really give such "information" without his B.S. spin and his judgment of what is necessary and expedient is similarly not worthy of much respect, I did not listen to his State of the Union Address. I also find his voice grating and his facial expressions nauseating, but that's just my personal bias. Others watched it for me, and remarks here and here might be worthwhile of your time. [President Barbie would have done better, as she did before.]
My title is taken from Slate's Today's Papers, which notes that a "number of the papers solidly compare and contrast the president's talking points with reality." When one editor was asked if anything said "strike you as objectively untrue," he noted:
Yes. Bush often describes a world whose features are all highly debatable, if not simply invented. He proposes "a comprehensive health care agenda" that will leave perhaps 50 million Americans without health insurance. Is that comprehensive in any meaningful sense? He promises big economic benefits from legal changes, "tort reform," that independent economists say cannot have more than a small economic effect even if enacted, which is not likely. [And] he promises to increase the size of Pell Grants, not noting that they have shrunk far below the level he promised when he came into the White House.
The Slate title centered on the S.S. part of his remarks, particularly glaring given his scare tactics when there really isn't a problem, and offering a solution that would likely just make the "problem" worse. The title is fitting, but just too limited.
SIGH.