Quote:
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.)
Threaded Mode
