skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Mediaite.com:
Rush Limbaugh is still annoyed that President Obama took a selfie at Nelson Mandela‘s
memorial, and on Tuesday he said it would be hilarious if, during the
“State of the Coup” address, Republicans just get back at Obama by
taking selfies the whole time.
Limbaugh said in an ideal world, John Boehner would
sit down behind Obama “in a white lab coat… as a doctor that has lost
his practice” thanks to Obamacare, but said it wouldn’t happen because
of the “prestige and tradition” of the State of the Union.
But Limbaugh thought of something else Republicans could do just to mess around during the speech.
I think what the male Republican ought to do is find an
attractive woman, not his wife, and put his arm around her and start
taking some selfies while Obama is delivering the State of the Coup
address. Would that not be hilarious? Would that not be eye catching?
Limbaugh referred to Obama taking the selfie with Helle Thorning-Schmidt and the picture of Michelle Obama looking none too happy, though the man who took that photo said he she wasn’t really upset and told people to get a life if they’re seriously fixated on this.
RELATED: WaPo poll: 52% support Obama using executive orders to bypass Congress on his legislative goals
Mediaite.com:
President Barack Obama delivered his third State of the Union speech tonight, and in an age in which opinion media so dominates political will, the reaction to the delivered text by various pundits is almost as interesting as the text itself. Take for example the initial reaction by the Fox News panel that seemed primarily unimpressed by what some may have seen as a significant move to the center by the Democratic president. Charles Krauthammer did not demure, calling the speech “flat and uninspired” and “remarkably against the trend of what the electorate said this November.”
To be fair, the energy in the room was dramatically different than recent State of the Union speeches, largely because the two parties were not sitting in clear and separate sections of the House. Without question, the somewhat improvised mixed seating arrangement that was conceived to show unity, took away many of the partisan interruptions but made for a more fractured and yes, entertaining experience. While it was perhaps less interesting to partisan bloggers looking for snark, it did create a rare and more unifying experience for the speech.
But this was largely overlooked by the Fox News panel, who focused on the actual rhetoric and ignored the “room,” at least in their initial reaction. Brit Hume seemed to agree with Krauthammer’s critique saying that it appeared that Obama “wanted the speech to be upbeat about America’s future, but only outlined further government spending.” When challenged by fellow guest Juan Williams, Hume doubled down by theoretically asking the President “How much borrowed money, Sir are you willing to spend on these items?” Sharp words that appear to have come from someone who may have missed (or overlooked?) any bipartisan effort from the President.
Token Democrat Kirsten Powers presented faint praise by suggesting that State of the Union speeches are always lackluster and that this was no different. But Williams went to bat for Obama, lauding the President for the realistic nature of the speech, clarifying that it was “not a time for fake oratory” adding admiration for the simple note that Obama made when he said “we do big things.”
Mediaite.com:
Every week on ABC’s This Week viewers can always count on conservative commentator George Will to provide a unique perspective on current events, yet what many might find surprising is that he often delivers laugh out loud funny moments to thoughtful political discussions. This morning Will unleashed a humorous assault against the insignificance of the State of the Union address calling it an overrated and interminable speech, and that’s Will just warming up.
Will continued:
“Every President, regardless of party, tries to stroke every erogenous zone in the electorate, and it becomes a political pep rally . . . if it’s going to be a pep rally with the President’s supporters or whatever party standing up in braying approval and histrionic pouting on the part of the other, then it’s no place for the judiciary, it’s no place for the uniformed military, and it’s no place for non-adolescent legislators.”
Anytime someone can get serious journalist Christiane Amanpour to gasp “oh my goodness” you know the clip is worth watching. Panelists Donna Brazile, Paul Krugman and Matthew Dowd also join in the laughter, but then attempt to justify the significance of the speech and predict what President Obama might say. However, Will’s conclusion that the speech ultimately means nothing might potentially be more memorable than anything actually said by the President during the address.
Just an all-together
dumb idea:
Why do we watch the State of the Union address? Is it to hear our president say patriotic, optimistic clichés about our country, or explain his agenda for the upcoming year? Certainly not. It is to marvel at the amusing spectacle of clapping and standing performed by our elected representatives. Nothing is more fascinating than seeing the Democratic side of the chamber rise and applaud with gusto to something President Obama has said while Republicans either politely clap in their seats or fail to react at all. Or catching the Democrats squirm at the mention of, say, entitlement reform or the war in Afghanistan. But Mark Udall, a Democratic senator from Colorado, wants to put an end to all that:
Colorado Democratic Sen. Mark Udall released a letter Wednesday proposing that members of both political parties sit next to each other at this year's State of the Union address instead of the normal seating which is divided along party lines.
"As the nation watches, Democrats and Republicans should reflect the interspersed character of America itself," Udall wrote. "Perhaps, by sitting with each other for one night, we will begin to rekindle that common spark that brought us here from 50 different states and widely diverging backgrounds to serve the public good."
In the letter Udall plans to send to Congressional leadership, he said the "debate surrounding our politics has grown ever more corrosive," and suggested choreographed standing and clapping is unbecoming of Congress, especially given the recent Arizona shooting.
Unity is great, sure, but apart from the entertainment value, there is an important practical reason to maintain the State of the Union's partisan seating arrangement. A neat separation of the parties allows the American people to see, in real time, their positions on the president's agenda and the issues of the day. It's actually very informative and helpful to be able to easily assess which proposals the Republicans and Democrats support, respectively, through the decision to applaud. It also allows us to identify the few party-bucking independent thinkers who, every so often, stand up to clap while the rest of their colleagues remain seated.
Thrown together in one big bipartisan hodgepodge, congressmen and senators would still carefully regulate their applause, but that brief chamber reaction shot on TV becomes nearly impossible to decipher. The country could certainly benefit from more symbolic demonstrations of solidarity, but the State of the Union address is one instance where a stark partisan divide is actually good for democracy.
Posts
