Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Someone else heard your Reading Rainbow reference to Jindal. You made the joke first.

Mr. Jindal's Neighborhood (R.I.P. Mr Rogers): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wROwWvq6zvw

OMG Mr. Rogers describes it so much better than LeVar Burton.

But is it a harder slam? I mean, LeVar is a serious actor on top of schooling those children.

Two things:
1. I <3 Mr. Rogers. Always have, always will. I'll ride the Mr. Rogers' neighborhood ride at Idlewild time and time again.
2. Is anyone else stunned by the fact that LeVar Burton is 52? He looks like he's still 30!

[DrPhil]

I think they are all overcoached.

The Dems just seem to hide it better than the Repubs. The way-too-obvious Palin coaching sessions were hilarious.

[TexasWSP]

My God......did anyone from the Republican party think it was maybe just a little necessary to tell Bobby not to talk to America like we all have the dumb ?

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

My God......did anyone from the Republican party think it was maybe just a little necessary to tell Bobby not to talk to America like we all have the dumb ?

52.9% of us do.

[OtterXO]

I understood what he was saying but felt like I was watching an infomercial for children. I kept waiting for him to pull out a Snuggie or talk about stranger-danger.

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

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.

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

[nate2512]

Jindal's done great things. Great platforms. So what if he isn't very interesting when you listen to him. All that matters is that you properly convey your views, stances, and intentions, Mr. Jindal has done that, other than that, its all about how you perform your job, and he's done a pretty good job at it.

[RaggedyAnn]

Originally Posted by PJS

I find it interesting that the only commentary on the speeches last night had to do with style. Any interest in what was actually said?

The Daily Buzz counted him using the word recovery 22 times in his speech. I know that's not really what you meant, but I found that interesting.

[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?