State of the Union

Little32 · #1 01-24-2007, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I don't see why everyone is so upset about the clapping, it always happens. Its basically SOTU tradition. Did you guys get upset when it happened to Clinton?

I think the jist of what everyone is saying is that the clapping is annoying all around. Why is everything a Democrat/Republican issue with you? You don't have to answer that.

shinerbock · #2 01-24-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little32

I think the jist of what everyone is saying is that the clapping is annoying all around. Why is everything a Democrat/Republican issue with you? You don't have to answer that.

Because its probably a republican/dem issue here. I think much of the annoyance is that a lot of people simply don't want to see applause for someone they hate. People have different tolerances for things based on what side they're on. Maybe I didn't pay attention to this board last year or the year before around the SOTU, I just don't see why this is an issue now when it happens every year. If people complain every year, then so be it, they have a right to be annoyed. I'm just questioning whether its the clapping itself or the person who is being applauded.

Drolefille · #3 01-24-2007, 01:02 PM

I dislike the clapping all the time. Congress is only doing it because it looks good and there's no need to clap, or start clapping but not quite follow through, after every phrase.

At the same time I probably wasn't paying as much attention to politics under Clinton, so I can't tell you if I even watched the SotU. And in six years I won't remember this one either.

lovelyivy84 · #4 01-24-2007, 01:38 PM

The clapping is stupid. I heard on the news that pundits, etc. are measuring the effectiveness of the speech by how hard people clap and where they clap. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And I'd say the same whether it was a dem or a republican. The clapping, and all the signifigance accorded to it, irks me.

TonyB06 · #5 01-24-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lovelyivy84

The clapping is stupid. I heard on the news that pundits, etc. are measuring the effectiveness of the speech by how hard people clap and where they clap. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And I'd say the same whether it was a dem or a republican. The clapping, and all the signifigance accorded to it, irks me.

Usually what the pundits are referring to are control groups of citizens brought together by political operatives to watch the SOTU or other political type events. They measure (often with a response meter held by the control group participants) the like/dislike responses of control groups participants. Operatives do the same with candidates' stump speeches, testing them on groups and using the most liked lines-topics as the basis for future campaign ads and such.

The clapping at the State of the Union is just political posturing and stagecraft. ...or maybe they do it to stay awake.

Little32 · #6 01-24-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyB06

The clapping at the State of the Union is just political posturing and stagecraft. ...or maybe they do it to stay awake.

This makes all kinds of sense...especially the latter half.

Honeykiss1974 · #7 01-24-2007, 02:50 PM

OK, I just read his address so thank goodness I missed all the grandstanding.

But based on what I read I don't think he address what the American public wanted to hear. Great ideas in regards to the fight against AIDS, NCLBA (although I do think that it still needs some major work - children should be thought to think critically, not to simply memorize info in order to get a particular test score, but digress), even immigration reform. But the main hot button is the war - which the majority of american (regardless if you Dem/Repub/liberal/conservative) has grown remarkably tired of it. It matters not how much he wants to grow our military forces, if there are no volunteers who are willing to take up the challenge?

I think if the Republicans are going to have even a remote chance in 2008, they are going to have to either (a) some SERIOUS butt kissing to the more moderate voting base (b) more vocally publically distance themselves from Pred. Bush's initiatives with his current Iraq stratefy being one of them or (c) pull a SUPER candidate out of a hat that will overshadow our current presidnent's damage and alienation to current republican party memebers.

Long time groups which at one point was considered a "shoe-in" for Republicans (ex. evangelicals) have grown tired. Not to mention the fact that you now have more candidates of other parties (especially the Democrats) touting themselves as "evangelical friendly" (ex Bob Casey of Penn). Its almost like the Democrats have found this niche and are taking advantage of the opportunity and the Repubs are just basically sitting back and letting it happen. Well I take that back - Sen Brownback has been publically critical of our President so maybe some Repubs are S-L-O-W-L-Y starting to catch on that for a victory in 2008, its going to take more than the old school party line tactics that were used in days gone by.

Just my 2 cents....

shinerbock · #8 01-24-2007, 03:00 PM

You may be right about the SOTU, but I'm not sure you're close regarding 2008. Just because people are tired of Bush doesn't mean they'll vote for a Democrat for President. Currently, the dems don't have a candidate who can take on the RNC big guys. Granted, things will change as the country starts hearing from them, but I don't think Bush will have as much an impact on 2008 as people think. All three of the Republican front runners are quite different from Bush on many levels, and that'll be apparent as the campaign goes on. Despite the mid-terms, American's are still default republicans right now because the DNC is so bad at politics. I think its gonna be Democratic candidate who has to sway the middle, not the other way around. It'll be fun.