First, I have to admit I didn't watch the State of the Union or the Republican response. I haven't read either of them yet, I intend to read them both this weekend (while it's snowing outside). I heard about it on the radio some today and some on the news tonight.
I don't intend to comment on Pres. Obama's "dis" of the Supreme Court or Justice Alito's "Joe Wilson" moment. I don't intend to comment on anything the President said or Governor McDonnell's speech at all.
Instead I'll complain about the same thing I complained about last year. And the year before. Why must there be a "response"? It's written several days (or weeks) before the State of the Union, so it's not really a response. Instead it is just a way to complain about the president. This only serves to further polarize the general public,
My hat will be tipped for the first party that decides to raise the decorum by skipping the "response".
(For previous posts on this see here, here and here.)
2 comments:
To be honest I think it's all a joke. I dodn't think I have watched one in full since the one following 9/11. They're political speeches. The "State of the Union" is strictly filtered through the political rhetoric of the giver.
I agree with you Chuck. That's why it's hard for me to get motivated to read one. That plus the fact that it's a lot of political promises. I'm getting the increased feeling that the current president will say whatever he thinks will suit the people who are listening, then go off and do whatever it was he intended to do in the first place.
Post a Comment