Where am I ever even discussing divisiveness? Unless, again, you feel the choices he made for his guests were divisive. In which case I get Rush...but please do elaborate on why the others were divisive. Underpriveleged kid getting a scholarship? Black American war hero...and his aspiring grandson, who wants to be an astronaut? Families of military? If you think those are divisive, you are simply proving my point. If you don't think they're divisive, then what are we discussing? Outside of the guests, which WAS the topic...the same applies to the speech in general. The only 'divisive' thing in it was the discussion on approach to health care. But that's not a Trump thing..there is a real division on approach to that between the parties. Outside of that, for his speech to be divisive, one would need to be: Pro criminal illegal alien Pro terrorist Anti military families Anti space exploration Anti minority wage and job growth Anti blue collar wage and job growth Anti under privileged children being given access to schools of their choice Anti overall wage and job growth Anti women in the work force Anti allies paying their fair share in Nato Anti fair trade etc etc If those are really the positions of the Dems...then they might as well fold up their tent and go home. If those aren't the positions of Dems, then the speech wasn't divisive (other than it pointing out the Dems have a tough road ahead of them in the upcoming election). Which is it?
Pelosi actually pulled it off, she's actually made the SOTU address about her and her frustration with this President and people just aren't talking about anything Trump said during it. The fact that people are talking more about HER than anything in HIS speech shows it worked. Because Trump COULD brag about the economy, there is some merit there, of course, we can argue that he inherited Obama's economy and just didn't mess it up but still, he can take some credit there... But what are people talking about? Pelosi.
interesting take. I didn’t like the stunt, and I didn’t get it, but she’s got about the best political instincts in DC. So I knew she had a plan of some kind. Your theory is the most sensible I’ve come across.
It's great fun to go back and read all of the conservative responses to Obama's SOTUs. They had slightly different takes on unity and togetherness back then.
That’s like saying everyone is talking about the sleazy J Ho halftime performance and not the Super Bowl. Pelosi is making a spectacle of herself and it’s not a good thing.
Turley on Pelosi. hard to imagine Tip O'Neill doing this to Reagan, and when I was younger, Reagan was the anti-Christ
She is awful and part of the problem. She is every bit as insulated from the average American as Trump is. She was petty and childish and lacked self control. The problems with Pelosi and Trump are in part because they are so much alike.
You are giving her too much credit. She's too stupid to have planned that as a tactical diversion maneuver - she simply had a meltdown in front of America and folks noticed.
It is all a joke. From Trump, to Pelosi to AOC not showing up to the lies told by the President to some of the Democrats jeering.... to the selection of Rush Limbaugh......... it is just getting progressively worse with time. We have had someone scream out that the President is a liar (Wilson), we have had a freaking Supreme Court Justice shaking his head....... we have had entire portions of the democrat party not even provide tepid clapping for non controversial statements......... we have someone who didn't even bother to show up (AOC). Too many people are fine with it when their party does it and angry when the other party does it...... it has just reached a point where it is cringe worthy. Also both parties need to stop dragging out military families and service people for cheap applause. Neither party really gives a **** or we wouldn't be constantly sending them overseas..... we wouldn't have frequent military events..... we would lease our troops out to other nations and we would pay them better. The only time anyone cares is when they can drag them out like cut outs for selfish reasons. Everyone in the congress needs to show up and everyone needs to be cordial and polite. Both parties treat the Saudi's better than they treat the other party in their own country.
Turley's column for The Hill this morning calling for Pelosi to either apologize or step down as Speaker https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/481598-nancy-pelosi-should-resign Nancy Pelosi should resign By Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor — 02/05/20 11:00 AM EST The House has its share of infamies, great and small, real and symbolic, and has been the scene of personal infamies from brawls to canings. But the conduct of Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the State of the Union address this week will go down as a day of infamy for the chamber as an institution. While it has long been a tradition for House speakers to remain stoic and neutral in listening to the address, Pelosi appeared intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces and head shaking, culminating in her ripping up a copy of his address. Her drop the mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House. While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum, and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. The House speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she must transcend her own political ambitions and loyalties. Tensions for this address were high. The House impeachment managers sat as a group in front of the president as a reminder of the ongoing trial. That can be excused as a silent but pointed message from Democrats. Moreover, Trump hardly covered himself with glory by not shaking hands with Pelosi. I also strongly disliked elements of his address which bordered on “check under your seat” moments, and the awarding of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the House gallery like a Mardi Gras bead toss. But if Trump made the State of the Union look like Oprah, Pelosi made it look like Jerry Springer. What followed was an utter disgrace. First, Pelosi dropped the traditional greeting at the start of the address, “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States.” Instead, she simply said, “Members of Congress, the president of the United States.” It was petty and profoundly inappropriate. Putting aside the fact that this is not her tradition, but that of the House, it is no excuse to note that the president was impeached. Such an indignity was not imposed on President Clinton during his own impeachment proceeding, and anyone respecting due process would note that Trump has been accused, not convicted, at this point in the constitutional process. Pelosi proceeded to repeatedly shake her head, mouth words to others, and visibly disagree with the address. It was like some distempered and distracting performance art behind the president. My revulsion over this has nothing to do with impeachment. Six years ago, I wrote a column denouncing Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito for mouthing the words “not true” when President Obama used his address to criticize the court for its decision in the Citizens United case. I considered his response to be a disgrace and later wrote a column criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts for not publicly chastising Alito for such a breach of tradition. Instead, Roberts seemed to defend Alito in criticizing Obama for his “very troubling” language and saying it was unfair to criticize the court when justices, “according to the requirements of protocol,” have “to sit there expressionless.” It is not unfair. It is being judicious. I also wrote a column denouncing Republican Representative Joe Wilson, who in 2009 shouted “you lie!” at Obama during his address. Wilson should have been severely sanctioned for that breach. When I wrote those columns, I never imagined that a House speaker would engage in conduct far in excess of those controversies. After all, they often have been required to sit through addresses that they despised from presidents of the opposing party. The House speaker is third in line of succession to the presidency and the representative of the chamber as a whole. She is not some Sinead O’Connor ripping up a photograph of the pope on Saturday Night Live while shouting “fight the real enemy!” Pelosi, like her predecessors, is supposed to remain stone faced even when presidents have left them personally enraged. Indeed, House speakers have been the authority who kept other members in silent deference and respect, if not to the president, then to the office. On this occasion, Pelosi seemed to goad the mob, like a high schooler making mad little faces behind the school principal at assembly. It worked as members protested and interrupted the president. At that moment, Pelosi became just another Democratic leader, little more than a twitching embodiment of our age of rage. This is not to suggest that the House has always listened to its better angels. More than 180 years ago, a confrontation between Democratic Representative Jonathan Cilley and Whig Representative William Graves led to a duel over what Graves viewed as a slight on the House floor. In February 1838, the two met in Maryland for a duel with rifles, and Graves killed Cilley after both missed each other twice. In response, the House quickly pushed forward antidueling legislation. Pelosi has demolished decades of tradition with this ill considered and ill tempered moment. Of course, many will celebrate her conduct and be thrilled by the insult to Trump. But even those of us who disagree with his policies should consider what Pelosi destroyed in her moment of rage. She shredded the pretense of governing with civility and dignity in the House. Notably, she did not wait to rip up her copy of the president's speech until after she left the House floor; she wanted to do it from the House speaker’s chair, at the end of the address and with the president still in the chamber. That act was more important to Pelosi than preserving the tradition of her office. In doing so, she forfeited the right to occupy that office. If Pelosi cannot maintain the dignity and neutrality of her office at the State of the Union, she should resign as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Really now? She literally made a point that it was seen on TV and even was showing after that she ripped the papers. No one is talking about anything Trump said.
Well, I guess it is easier to think she had some kind of tantrum on TV, if that's what you want to believe, but the effects are the same. No one is talking about the content of his speech.
Every time there is a state of the union I can’t help but think of this. I think it should be done solo to the people, the applause is unbearable.
Except it definitely is not true, his current economy is not even better than the last year of Carter. Take that for Data.
