MattPie Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Republican response: CBS mentioned that 3 former "opposition response" speakers had gone on become president. Ford, GHW Bush (the first one), and Clinton. Interesting.
shrader Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Now you're catching on. I'm glad you caught the reference. :thumbsup:
LGR4GM Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Wow. 11 hours and 19 posts in, and no name-calling? No hysterical conspiracy theories? No regurgitation of partisan talking points? No "you would agree with me if you weren't so much dumber than me?" What's become of us? Everyone not in Washington finally understands that its not about right or left its about the country and the country is dying? I watched very little because the SOTUA is like everything else that comes from elected officials, carefully crafted and spun to get the uneducated masses onto their side.
TrueBlueGED Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Can't. It's required per the Constitution. EDIT: I just realized for the first time that while the Constitution mandates the address, it doesn't say how often the President has to give it. So I guess there's your way out. Could you imagine the epic shitstorm that would come from any modern president not giving it in a given year? The "tyrant rhetoric" would reach nuclear levels! Everyone not in Washington finally understands that its not about right or left its about the country and the country is dying? I watched very little because the SOTUA is like everything else that comes from elected officials, carefully crafted and spun to get the uneducated masses onto their side. The uneducated masses neither watch nor care about the SOTU. /ivorytowershtick :P
MattPie Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Could you imagine the epic shitstorm that would come from any modern president not giving it in a given year? The "tyrant rhetoric" would reach nuclear levels! The screams of "what are they hiding!" would be deafening. The uneducated masses neither watch nor care about the SOTU. /ivorytowershtick :P It was always nice in Buffalo that (at the time) you could watch normal TV on the Canadian channels. I had it on, but I was baking cookies during the entire thing so I wasn't paying full attention.
darksabre Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 I agree with this 100%. And how can anyone listen to a speech that involves 30 seconds of oratory followed by 45 seconds of applause? lather, rinse, repeat. Ugh. Let the man talk so we can get on with our regularly scheduled programming. *Full Disclosure* I got tired enough of SOTU addresses that I stopped watching them altogether some time in the Clinton administration. I assume they still go the same way and have no desire to verify my belief. *reenacts scene from The Big Lebowsky* Dude, that rug tied the Oval Office together!
frissonic Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Republican response: CBS mentioned that 3 former "opposition response" speakers had gone on become president. Ford, GHW Bush (the first one), and Clinton. Interesting. who gave the opposition response...?
inkman Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Posted January 25, 2012 who gave the opposition response...? John Clayton clone from Indiana. Can't remember his name. I did find it interesting that the Republican took Obama's "Washington is broke" as "Republicans are the problem". He clearly said it's on both parties but I guess the response was more to rile the masses rather than offer some real solution.
SarasotaSabre Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 I am encouraged by the civil tone of this discussion, free (....so far) of any name-calling or bomb-throwing. I feel both parties use the SOTU to express platform/campaign type of content, but in Obama's case I feel this approach was used more heavily than normal = full campaign mode by BO. As such, this wasn't (for me, at least) a State of the Union as much as it was a State of the Presidency. I like the previous post which expressed the fact that we are all on the same team, no matter what side of the political spectrum we fall on. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, our country is in a mess and right now I do not see a visionary leader to help get us out of this quagmire.
darksabre Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 I'm curious to see the direction Obama takes in the upcoming election. His initial goal was to play peacemaker and attempt to get both Republicans and Democrats to find common ground and work together, but as far as I can tell that tactic has failed. Do we see Obama employ typically more conservative tactics in his re-election race? Does the peace-maker try to be a fighter instead?
nobody Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 The uneducated masses neither watch nor care about the SOTU. /ivorytowershtick :P But they will be the most vocal proponents/opponents.
Mr.Christopher Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 who gave the opposition response...? Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. Personally, I thought it was a pretty weak response. Never heard of the guy before.
darksabre Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. Personally, I thought it was a pretty weak response. Never heard of the guy before. Despite not knowing about the speaker, what were some positives and negatives of what he said?
K-9 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Ah yes. The old "undeducated masses" messing it up for the rest of us. I really hope some super educated group can come to our rescue soon. The Founders must be spinning like spits. GO SABRES!!!
fan2456 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Anybody think the Somalia rescue being done on the same day as the speech was merely coincidence? ;) :o
darksabre Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Anybody think the Somalia rescue being done on the same day as the speech was merely coincidence? ;) :o I haden't even heard about it. Do you have a news story link?
fan2456 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 http://news.yahoo.com/navy-seals-rescue-two-aid-workers-somalia-daring-105651769--abc-news.html
MattPie Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Despite not knowing about the speaker, what were some positives and negatives of what he said? Mostly about how the Republicans are really the ones that are going to help the middle class and how it doesn't make sense that the wealthy get gov't entitlements (national healthcare, etc.) so they're not going to get them any more (unsaid: along with everyone else). But again, I was baking cookies at the time so I wasn't really paying attention. Those two statements stuck in my mind.
darksabre Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 http://news.yahoo.co...--abc-news.html Interesting story. I suppose rather than trying to find political connotations we should just be happy it got done. Coincidence? Maybe, but I doubt it's a big enough story to help Obama's image. Mostly about how the Republicans are really the ones that are going to help the middle class and how it doesn't make sense that the wealthy get gov't entitlements (national healthcare, etc.) so they're not going to get them any more (unsaid: along with everyone else). But again, I was baking cookies at the time so I wasn't really paying attention. Those two statements stuck in my mind. Cookies. Much more appealing than listening to politicians. Did you get the vibe that the rebuttal was intended to create soundbites or to actually respond to Obama's speech?
fan2456 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Interesting story. I suppose rather than trying to find political connotations we should just be happy it got done. Coincidence? Maybe, but I doubt it's a big enough story to help Obama's image. Cookies. Much more appealing than listening to politicians. Did you get the vibe that the rebuttal was intended to create soundbites or to actually respond to Obama's speech? True, but after too many years I’ve grown cynical, and I can’t believe ANY politician doesn’t have one eye on the polls when they make a decision
darksabre Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 True, but after too many years I’ve grown cynical, and I can’t believe ANY politician doesn’t have one eye on the poles when they make a decision I can't argue that cynicism, it is certainly warranted. I suppose its our duty to ignore little stories like this come election time, since they aren't representative of bigger issues such as the country's economy, government agencies, and foreign policy. edit: maybe it's a little bit foreign policy, but Somalian pirates aren't high on my personal list of concerns. :blush:
Mr.Christopher Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Despite not knowing about the speaker, what were some positives and negatives of what he said? Well typically I am a Democrat, so I'll just mention the potential bias first. Daniels' response seemed boring when you compare it to Obama's. Obama seemed more passionate compared to Daniels. I felt Daniels kept the same tone throughout the speech, never really raising his voice to make a point. I do agree with Daniels that Social Security and other entitlement programs are in desperate shape. Which as far as I can recall, Obama never really mentioned these programs at all in his speech. One of the main points of the President's speech was to try and get Congress to act. The crisis over raising the debt ceiling this past summer really frustrated me personally because some members of Congress are content with letting this country fall apart and using these things to score political points. It's not just one party either. I thought Obama has made real, genuine attempts to be bipartisan and cut the deficit, but I think that some Republicans are just going to sit and wait until the election to act, hoping that the economy continues to struggle and hope that Obama loses because of it. I don't think Obama has been a great President, but not a bad President either. The economy is still in rough shape and may not be recovering as fast as we hoped, but I think its in better condition than what Daniels has described. Sure those first few figures Daniels throws out there about unemployment, the debt, and government spending are not good, but the auto industry has recovered after the bailout and has made investments in America. This really is more of my reaction and feelings after watching both speeches as opposed to a positive/negative of Daniels.
darksabre Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Ah yes. The old "undeducated masses" messing it up for the rest of us. I really hope some super educated group can come to our rescue soon. The Founders must be spinning like spits. GO SABRES!!! I want to come back and address the "uneducated masses" concept. Although I know TruBlue was being sarcastic, I think it is still something worth looking at. How do people make decisions? Generally the theory goes that most people are rational (or at least limited rational) and are capable of weighing the costs and benefits of their decisions. Decision making can be guided by things such as peer groups, current life situations, and past experiences. Choosing who to vote for as a Presidential candidate generally involves decision making based on how that candidate appeals to those guiding factors. Does the candidate speak to your financial situation? Do you have a social group in common (race, income class, or even personal interests)? Was the candidate's past similar to yours, or in some way respectable to you? Just a few examples there, I'm sure we could come up with many more. What I'm getting at though, is that for many people, taking the candidate at face value by how they are presented in the media and represent themselves in their campaign, is the only means they have for educating themselves on the candidates. For a number of us though, that is not enough. We have our doubts about the things candidates say when it comes to the economy, society, foreign policy, etc. and we contend that it is important for the voting public to seek to educate themselves in these areas in order to make a more "guided" decision. This is how I choose to make my selections. And I will admit that it is tough to make a decision because I often feel that I simply do not know enough. I can't make a selection based on "gut" instincts because my method of decision making relies on more stages of information collection and learning. This draws a disconnect between people like myself and those who do not (or cannot) take the time to pursue more knowledge. When we see people on forums such as Facebook post things that are obviously the rhetoric they have received from the information sources they rely on (cable news, political campaign sites, etc.) and are not individual thoughts, we label them as "uneducated". We dismiss them as a problem, when we should be doing our best to guide them. Even if we disagree with their views, it is nice to help them solidify their stances on those views. Don't dismiss the "uneducated masses" as a problem. They have feelings and life experiences just like us, but for whatever reason they do not (or cannot) go to greater lengths to learn. They are victims of the disservice that media outlets do them.
Mr.Christopher Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 Interesting story. I suppose rather than trying to find political connotations we should just be happy it got done. Coincidence? Maybe, but I doubt it's a big enough story to help Obama's image. Cookies. Much more appealing than listening to politicians. Did you get the vibe that the rebuttal was intended to create soundbites or to actually respond to Obama's speech? I think the whole response speech has been a way for the opposition party to try and take away some of the momentum or support the President may receive from the State of the Union. After all, the President has some perks when it comes to making televised addresses (air time on major networks). It gives the opponents a chance to get on TV that night and possibly counter some of his points, but also lay out some of their agenda as well. Obama spoke for over an hour, the Republicans really can't use nearly as much time as that, so what they say is usually brief. It also has been used to take a rising star in the party and get them some national exposure.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.