January 21, 2004
Network And Cable Coverage Of State Of The Union More Balanced Than Ever
JOHN: We're back with more of our liberally biased and objective coverage of the President's State of the Union. Bob?
BOB: It was a masterful speech, strong and hardy -- like some of Campbell's soups, John.
JOHN: I think that's right. How was the delivery? We turn to drama critic Norman Lickspittle.
LICKSPITTLE: He pronounced all the words correctly, John, and punched all the right syllables. He's ready for Hamlet.
JOHN: Exactly, I thought so. Substance, Bob?
BOB: Well, Bush did exactly what he had to do: he told the Republicans that everything was all right and it was going to continue on course and get better, and he acknowledged to the Democrats that everything was broken but he had solid plans to fix everything. He praised his strengths, or created them out of whole cloth, and glossed over or plain didn't mention his failures.
LISA GIBBLER: He was aware but not aloof, in control, but not dictatorial, confident but concerned -- he struck the perfect balance, hit the perfect tone.
JOHN: He earned every single moment of applause that occurred, all 365 outbursts--
BOB: And that was just from us. Half of the Congressional Gallery applauded the speech 67 times--
JOHN: But not as heartily as we did, Bob. President Bush also adequately kindled the spark of fear in each and every American while assuring Americans that, as long as he's in office, they have nothing to be afraid of.
BOB: He reflected the mood of the country. He was complaisant, superficial, full of homilies and platitudes -- one of the great State speeches ever, John.
JOHN: I don't know which awed me more the speech -- or the man. They were both so, so . . .
JOHN: Yes. Now: let's hear from a conservative voice.