Did we really see what we think we saw? Were the words that man was saying, the people that heard them, and the pundits who talked about it all afterwards really even there?
GIVEN: That a free and independent press, acknowledged as essential for a functioning democracy, does not exist in America circa 2006. (Except in the blogosphere, thus far.)
GIVEN: That the press is beholden to its current stakeholders: profit, ratings and corporate ideology. (Except in the blogosphere, thus far.)
GIVEN: That any information delivered by this fettered press is also beholden to the above mentioned stakeholders. (Except in the blogosphere, thus far.)
GIVEN: Political parties and individuals, liberal and conservative, are aware of the above set of givens. (And becoming aware of the power of the blogosphere, thus far.)
THEREFORE: There was no State of the Union address delivered on January 31, 2006. What was delivered was a carefully manufactured product designed with full knowledge of the apparatus of delivery. (Is this getting wierd?)
The "Address" was a careful construct, a package created by Karl Rov, et al. (41 drafts / versions?) That package was given to a willing errand-boy. That errand boy did his job efficiently. ( If you use current U.S. public school standards of efficiency.)
Once the product was delivered, the media began verbalizing on the nature of the Rove product described. Which is precisely why Rove crafted it that way in the first place.
Now, the so-called "analysis" of the product shakes out into the consumersphere to be digested.
CONCLUSION: By understanding the paradigm, one can better understand the elements within it. To call Bush's speech a "State of the Union" address is to denigrate the phrase. However, one can only marvel at the adeptness of Rove, Inc. in exploiting the inherent nature of the media. Even the best of the TV pundits could not see that they were being played.
Except in the blogosphere. Thus far.