union. there have been times -- you know, during the reagan presidency, when he negotiated with speaker of the house to o'neillr presidential addresses -- o'neill was the great protector of the institutional prerogatives of the house, and he did not think fondly of presidents using the house to lobby for specific legislative items outside the contours of the state of the union address, but, no, no. that would, i think, indicate a decline in civic discourse that i would prefer not to imagine. even as you can probably tell i'm not a big fan of the way the state of the union has been reinterpreted over time. i do think when presidents make the request to attend that it is congress' duty to invite them to. >> do you think the state of the union should go back to being a nonpartisan speech, or is that even a possibility at this point? >> what do we think about that? what do we think about going back to either a written address or asking presidents to tone down the partisanship? is that even a possibility? >> i seriously doubt it, especially with the fact that the spectacle, all about the relationship between the pr