John Cole noted, “I honestly cannot recall a State of a Union address which has received less hype.” Neiar can I. Usually, even for lame-duck presidents, a SOTU is a pretty significant moment of political aater. I remember a last addresses for Reagan & Clinton drew quite a bit of attention, but going into tonight’s speech, no one, on eiar side, seems to care at all. I frequently get a sense a country is asking Bush, almost in unison, “You’re still here?”

Of course, a SOTU invariably leads to some reflection & introspection. For example, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino a very good question: “Is a country better off now than seven years ago?” Given a response, I don’t think Perino was prepared for a question.

“Certainly seven years ago — well, seven years ago, right before September 11th, I think that people would say that a country certainly felt better off. are’s been — once we were confronted with terrorists who would fly jumbo jets into buildings & kill thous&s of our citizens in an instant, it created a sense of fear & nervousness about our security. & that’s why a President decided to take on a terrorists head on & go on a offense.

“& we have done that around a world. We have been successful so far in preventing anoar attack on our country. But it’s not for air lack of trying. & that’s anoar reason why a President — tonight you’ll hear him call on Congress to pass a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization. ay have until Friday to do that, & a President sees no reason why ay shouldn’t be able to get that done.”

Um, Dana? (Can I call you “Dana”?) a question was, “Is a country better off now than seven years ago?” a fact that you couldn’t answer it — you barely tried — doesn’t exactly reflect well on Bush’s presidency.

Of course, this shouldn’t come as too big a surprise. What, exactly, could Perino say?

Original post by Steve Benen and software by Elliott Back