• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

State of the Union Response: Will Anyone Survive?

barehl

Master Poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
2,655
It started with Bobby Jindal. He was the hot, young, ethnic Republican whose career was streaking for the stars. He was going to be the kryptonite to counter superman, Obama. Here was the Republican stepping out to steal Obama's thunder...right up until Jindal opened his mouth and removed any chance he might have ever had of running for president. He was flattened.

He wasn't alone. No a single Republican has given a reply unscathed. Marco Rubio: gone. Mitch Daniels: gone. Bob McDonnell gave something more like a campaign speech than a response. Paul Ryan didn't do so well either. If Paul Ryan had done well then he would be the clear front runner for 2016; instead he has about as much chance of winning as Rand Paul.

So, Republicans have figured out that the Republican response is mostly The Charge of Light Brigade and that someone's blood is going to be soaking into the ground afterwards. So, the plan now is gang up on Obama, hitting him with four different responses and hope that someone gets close enough to draw some blood. How likely is this to work?

Well, the first reply we can dismiss is Rand Paul. Although he is first class whiner, he isn't much of a speaker. I'm still trying to figure out how could stand up with straight face and talk about succeeding based on your own ability rather than who your parents were. So, the son of a senator is claiming that he made it by his own ability while criticizing a man (Obama) who actually did? That's pretty tone deaf even for a Republican.

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen(R-Fla.), the most senior Hispanic Republican, will give the Spanish language response which means that most Americans won't see it. However, the Spanish speaking Americans who do see it will be all too aware that Republicans are not serious about immigration reform and that the only progress has come from Obama. So, how far can that get?

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) is delivering a speech sponsored by the Astro-turf Tea Party Express. I would guess that few will see his speech and the content will be rather shrill and disconnected.

So, that only leaves the official Republican response. The Republican drill is: if you are really scared then find a woman whose skirts you can hide behind. Those skirts would be worn by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), who as the No. 4 GOP leader is the highest-ranking female Republican in Congress. Could she pull it off? Well, not if she tries to defend the GOP against the war on women charge. If she turns a blind eye to Republican opposition to Planned Parenthood, Equal Pay for Women, and the Violence Against Women Act, she'll come across as tone deaf as Rand Paul. It's going to be very difficult for her to maintain credibility while being critical. The smart play would be to not be critical but with no Republican offers on the table, that will come across as hollow rhetoric. So, maybe she can do it but I have no idea how. I think the bottom line is that Rodgers doesn't have much to lose since she probably wasn't planning on running for the presidency anyway.
 
Interesting analysis. I'd never really tracked the aftermath of the various Response speakers. From this we could generate a couple of hypotheses

1) All Republicans are complete morons
2) only Republicans who are complete morons manage to get talked into doing the Response.

Personally, I lean towards #2.
 
I thought the title of thread was suggesting that the Republican response will simply be three words: "Will anyone survive [Obama]?"

To which I say, you are wrong. The response will be: "What about Benghazi?"
 
or ya know, save the partisan numbskullery for the actual speeches?

Yeah, I'm working on dinner so I had ot cut my post short. I want to say that analysis of Democratic responses to Republican SotU addresses would probably lead to the same conclusion that either they're all idiots or only idiots let themselves get talked into writing a speech that "responds" to a speech they haven't heard yet.

The thread title made me think of Mars Attacks, though. :D
 
Well, that was a very good speech and I'm not seeing much room for a reply. The smart move would be to keep the reply short and do counter challenges. However, with three responses I'm guessing that the official one will be poor because it will go too far and the other two will be even worse.
 
Rodgers' speech was much worse than I expected. Who picked that setting on a couch by a fireplace? That would be perfect for a First Lady speech but not for this. Her opening was rambling; I didn't hear anything in it. The first real substance was when she criticized Obama. Her fake enthusiasm was grating; she came across as the worst spokesperson I've ever seen. I also didn't hear anything of substance in all that feel good filler about her family. I noticed that she criticized against specifics but didn't give any specifics of her own, none, zip, zero. Not even one specific program or policy. Yet, she managed to rail against taxes even though the wealthy are doing quite well. She railed against the ACA against the proof of millions new insured. Someone should have told her that one anecdote doesn't cut it; she needed some hard figures. She re-affirmed that the Republicans aren't serious about immigration reform. And, strangely she claimed that Republicans are helping create business and helping education with not one program for either. Rodgers failed to score even once with that speech. I was expecting something stronger.
 
Last edited:
Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan are gone? Where did they go?
Mitch Daniels is out of politics (so now he could show up in one of the MSNBC seances). Rubio, Ryan, and Jindal lost whatever chance they had to run for the presidency.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me I recall someone saying that once you were a veep candidate in a failed campaign, your career as a future veep is over...just a matter of statistics I guess.
 
Interesting analysis. I'd never really tracked the aftermath of the various Response speakers. From this we could generate a couple of hypotheses

1) All Republicans are complete morons
2) only Republicans who are complete morons manage to get talked into doing the Response.

Personally, I lean towards #2.

I go with #1.
 
Rubio, Ryan, and Jindal lost whatever chance they had to run for the presidency.

They have? :confused:

I do seem to remember some nonsense over Rubio stopping to drink some water (so what) but I hardly think he's out of the picture completely. And since Christie ran into problems of his own, there is an opening for someone.

Frankly, I don't think that either the State of the Union speech or the responses matter very much. Most people aren't watching.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/is-anyone-even-paying-attention-to-the-state-of-the-union

A triple whammy of Washington ennui, presidential history and a changing media landscape has conspired to make this year’s State of the Union one of the least anticipated in recent memory, observers say.
. . .
A collective shrug on the part of the American people is essentially baked in, experts say.

http://www.ibtimes.com/state-union-speech-will-anyone-bother-watching-obama-1549624
How many people do you know who will be watching the president’s speech tonight? If the past is any predictor, very few will be. While the SOTU address is one of the most important speeches a president gives each year – and certainly the most hyped -- according to Nielsen, over the last several years fewer and fewer Americans have bothered to watch.

Last year, for instance, President Obama speech’s was one of the least-watched SOTU addresses in more than a decade.
 
Well, even Fox didn't bother airing the Tea Party response. And, the brilliant people at Tea Party Express ran over the file limit at You Tube so that file was removed unless someone there posts a smaller file. I guess this is something of an IQ test for the tea party. However, I did read the transcript. If tea party doesn't get the video back up, the transcript can be found here: The Salt Lake Tribune.

Lee begins by appealing to paranoia. Then he claims that the current Mad Hatter version has a connection with the original (apparently without being bright enough to understand that the original was an event, not a political party). This ignorance of history is amazing. The actual group was The Sons of Liberty and it included such notables as John Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, and Paul Revere. He does say that it took 14 years to get from the Boston Tea Party to the Constitution. He left out the first and second Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the raising of armies and the assistance of France. And, that was not done by the Sons of Liberty. Then he confuses the Sons of Liberty with the Founders.

He goes on to blame inequality on government. His rhetoric is a bit vacuous but from what I gather he likes charter schools, does not want married people to pay more taxes than they would as two single people, and I'm not quite seeing how he is thinking that people get penalized for getting better jobs. He doesn't want insurance companies to get bailouts; I'm not sure what that's about. He seems to be claiming that we are blocking petroleum production even though it is up or maybe he is only talking about the temporary jobs for Keystone. He puts in a rather psychotic rant about Choice by claiming that viable unborn are aborted. He apparently is not familiar with the third trimester ban. He claims that the federal government is mismanaging public lands. Maybe he is channeling James Watt who allowed severe overgrazing on federal land.

It's changing laws without congressional approval, and spying on American citizens without constitutional authority.
The changing law without congressional authority refers to Executive Orders which Obama has done fewer of. And the spying would be what happened after they passed the Patriot Act under Bush. Pretty much at this point, we can conclude that Lee is an idiot.

But, just in case we have any doubts as to Lee's grasp of reality he continues with:

We have a new generation of leaders in Washington with positive, innovative ideas - thoughtful policy reforms to, as my friend Senator Ted Cruz

So, this clown sides with "burn down the house" Cruz? I think that's enough of that.
 
Last edited:
Rodgers' speech was much worse than I expected. Who picked that setting on a couch by a fireplace? That would be perfect for a First Lady speech but not for this. Her opening was rambling; I didn't hear anything in it. The first real substance was when she criticized Obama. Her fake enthusiasm was grating; she came across as the worst spokesperson I've ever seen. I also didn't hear anything of substance in all that feel good filler about her family. I noticed that she criticized against specifics but didn't give any specifics of her own, none, zip, zero. Not even one specific program or policy. Yet, she managed to rail against taxes even though the wealthy are doing quite well. She railed against the ACA against the proof of millions new insured. Someone should have told her that one anecdote doesn't cut it; she needed some hard figures. She re-affirmed that the Republicans aren't serious about immigration reform. And, strangely she claimed that Republicans are helping create business and helping education with not one program for either. Rodgers failed to score even once with that speech. I was expecting something stronger.


She might have scored mildly with some women on her comments about her 6 year old son but, since she led straight on it to women not getting abortions (she didn't say the words, she spoke about loving happy lives [app.]) as her son was special but fun and kind. And I am sure he is and I would likely enjoy meeting him and showing him some neat kid sciency stuff. But, that is not remotely a reason to not allow other women the choice of abortion. Or the choice to use birth control.
 
They have? :confused:

I do seem to remember some nonsense over Rubio stopping to drink some water (so what) but I hardly think he's out of the picture completely.

No, he's out of it. He lost his chance to look presidential; there's no way he can recover from that in the short term. The only quick rehabilitation I'm aware of was Nixon and that required eight years as well as both Johnson dropping out the race and Bobby Kennedy's assassination. The earliest I could see for Rubio would be 2028.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom