Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

That being said, I understood what he was saying but I don't see why it was necessary to do it in that format. I don't think I've ever seen a speech by a President where immediately after they have an official response speech from the other party (I'm not talking about reactions on CNN/Fox/etc). It all seemed very odd to me.

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

They do it every year after the State of the Union address.

True, they do do it after every State of the Union (and after the weekly radio address and after other speeches as well). But whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats doing it, it has always struck me as very odd and, for want of a better word, inappropriate to do it after the State of the Union.

The State of the Union isn't just any speech, it's a constitutionally-required address. (Granted, for 100 years or so, it was delivered in writing rather than in person.) I've just never seen the value in a "response" to the State of the Union address.

Perhaps that's part of the reason I can be counted in with those who were not favorably impressed by Jindal.

[jwright25]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I've just never seen the value in a "response" to the State of the Union address.

Agreed. And I also agree with your calling it a "response." I've always wondered how the opposing party can deliver a rehearsed, telepromptered "response" to something that just ended 10 minutes earlier. Yes, by and large we all know what the President is going to say (which IMO makes the whole thing nothing more than political grandstanding), and we get hints from his staff in advance. But I am waiting for the day when a President "leaks" something and then says the complete opposite - just to trip up the "response."

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by jwright25

Agreed. And I also agree with your calling it a "response." I've always wondered how the opposing party can deliver a rehearsed, telepromptered "response" to something that just ended 10 minutes earlier. Yes, by and large we all know what the President is going to say (which IMO makes the whole thing nothing more than political grandstanding), and we get hints from his staff in advance. But I am waiting for the day when a President "leaks" something and then says the complete opposite - just to trip up the "response."

Doing a little research, I found out a few things worth noting (some of which, I guess, partly correct what I said earlier):

• This was not considered a formal "State of the Union" address, which I guess is why the media kept calling it "The President's speech/address to a joint session of Congress." A new president doesn't give a "State of the Union," since his tenure as president has been short enough that he can't comment, as president at least, on the previous year.
• The first "response" to the State of the Union was in 1966. It has been done ever since.
• Apparently, written copies of the speech are distributed beforehand. That's what so many members of Congress, Democratic and Republican, were asking him to autograph Tuesday night.

I still think it's a bit odd. Not that much odder, though, than the constant standing ovations. (Does anyone else remember that SNL skit where they had Michael J. Fox playing Dan Quayle, and he couldn't figure out when to stand? That's all I can think of watching SotU addresses now.)

[AGDee]

I thought the whole thing was odd. I like Obama and believe he's trying to do what's will help the most people in this country. However, I am not a fan of hijacking prime time TV for these things. I don't ever feel like I'm hearing anything new and if I want to watch this stuff, I'll watch CSPAN. I surely hope this does not become a regular thing.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I surely hope this does not become a regular thing.

It already is a regular thing. The State of the Union Address/first speech of a President to a joint session of Congress has been highjacking prime time TV for decades.

[AGDee]

I honestly had not heard last night's talk addressed as "The State of the Union Address". All of my TV listings said "Presidential Speech to Congress." Previous presidents have not done a state of the union address the year that they were elected. (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/sou/index.html) That site lists the Inaugural Address instead for those years.

This is the third time (including Inauguration Day) that he has hijacked prime time and he's only been in office for 6 weeks? That's what I meant when I said I hoped this didn't become a regular thing. He was just on all the stations a week or so ago to plug the stimulus package.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

• Apparently, written copies of the speech are distributed beforehand. That's what so many members of Congress, Democratic and Republican, were asking him to autograph Tuesday night.

This seems laughably inappropriate - a member of Congress acting starstruck by the President? Seriously?

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This seems laughably inappropriate - a member of Congress acting starstruck by the President? Seriously?

He is a BARACK STAR!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

He is a BARACK STAR!

The RNC got a lot of shit for their ad that portrayed Obama as a star via comparisons with Hollywood, but that seems eerily prescient right about now, doesn't it?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This seems laughably inappropriate - a member of Congress acting starstruck by the President? Seriously?

Yeah, it seems incredibly inappropriate. Members of Congress asking for autographs? So bizarre....

As for Obama's speech; it was ok I guess. I think it's tough for him to say he's against bigger government what with the stimulus packages and the Biden-led task force, but I understand that he needed to say something like that as an answer to those of us who are anti-big government.

[Munchkin03]

Whoa, Bobby Jindal clearly needs to stop watching 30 Rock!

[Munchkin03]

Word on the street is that Jindal's Katrina anectdote is a lie!

[sugar and spice]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This seems laughably inappropriate - a member of Congress acting starstruck by the President? Seriously?

I buy it. Some news story I read said that representatives often stand in line for hours to get aisle seats for the address--if they're sitting in the aisle, they're more likely to get a hand shake or a hello from the president than if they're in the middle. So it's not just an Obama thing, but a general starstruck-by-the-president thing. "Congress, they're just like us!"

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by sugar and spice

I buy it. Some news story I read said that representatives often stand in line for hours to get aisle seats for the address--if they're sitting in the aisle, they're more likely to get a hand shake or a hello from the president than if they're in the middle. So it's not just an Obama thing, but a general starstruck-by-the-president thing. "Congress, they're just like us!"

There's a big difference between trying to get a handshake or hello from the President, and asking for his autograph. One I can chalk up to an attempt at facetime...the other seems like a grab for memorabilia.

That said, even if it's happened with past Presidents, I still think it's inappropriate.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

There's a big difference between trying to get a handshake or hello from the President, and asking for his autograph. One I can chalk up to an attempt at facetime...the other seems like a grab for memorabilia.

That said, even if it's happened with past Presidents, I still think it's inappropriate.

I've been in the gallery for a SotU before and they do "rush the aisle", Repubs and Dems alike, regardless of what President of what party is walking down the aisle. It's a funny sight, especially from above.