THAT’S DEBATABLE:State of president’s speech was strong

What did you think of President Bush’s State of the Union speech, and what didn’t he mention that you think he should have addressed?

The president eloquently laid out the cost of failure in Iraq and the war on terrorism, and he showed a commitment to achieving victory in the conflict. In regards to domestic policy, his plans for healthcare and energy efficiency were new and positive steps to reform how we as a nation approach both issues. That being said, I would have liked to have heard a stronger commitment from him to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration before considering expanding legal forms of immigration.

JOHN CAMPBELL

Congressman

(R-Newport Beach)

As a former speechwriter who has worked on State of the Union speeches, I give the President an A for presentation and a B for content because of his comments on illegal immigration. Obviously, I am in major disagreement with this administration on that issue and found that section to be in conflict with the rest of his speech, which emphasized the safety and security of the American people. The president may end up getting a majority of Congress on his side, but the majority of Americans will be in vast opposition, and that’s whose side I’m on. “Comprehensive” is just a code word for amnesty, which will encourage millions more illegals to come here.

Overall, the president did a good job of touching on most of the issues he needed to rally support around like the importance of victory in Iraq and the fight against Al Qaeda. Those are two of the most pressing issues of the day, and he tackled them in an aggressive and effective way so the American people can clearly understand what is at stake. In terms of foreign policy, it was a very persuasive speech.

DANA ROHRABACHER

Congressman

(R-Huntington Beach)