It's become a pep rally with no substance. Words with no explanation.Some questions not addressed in this speech:* how are we
reducing the debt?* what about keeping your plan, and doctor. Why have
people loss coverage?* why are we sending military weapons to Egypt,
Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.* how much money have we already spent on
infrastructure, and education, and why do we need more?* how was the
stimulus package spent, and where are the shovel ready jobs it was to
produce.* why has the number of people on food stamps doubled?* why,
when so many people are poor, don't you vacation at camp David rather than
Hawaii? Isn't that part of the inequality gap?When seven
trillions have been added to the debt, why are leaders applauding the
...a waste of time if Barack is speaking
With all due respect, the article is a waste of time. Is such a shock that a
state of the union speech is going to be ornamental rather than substantive? It
is one of the rare occasions when all three branches of government come together
for a ritual. Rituals may seem trite, but they also serve a useful purpose:
they symbolize, they foster unity, and they remind us why we have a union.
So? Don't watcht.It's a Free Country, and it is not being forced
to be broadcast or viewed by the public.BUT -- It IS a
Constitutional requirement for him to address Congress on that date.So, regardless of how you feel or it's content -- Please stop
trampling the Constitution.
I think the constitutional requirements could be met with a written report, not
very long, and a list of recommendations to congress. All of the theatrics of
the speech are unnecessary. This process could happen several times a year. From
time to time, as it says in the constitution. President reports to congress;
congress does what it does with the report and recommendations. Congress remains
accountable to voters who can help members offer their skills to the marketplace
if necessary. It's gotten skewed away from the original intent, I think.
Those pesky framers, they put something in the Constitution requiring the event.
All the mindless applause, and partisan jabbing... it's a waste of time.
LDS Liberal and othersBut, it is not required for the President to
go to Capital Hill and speak. He can, as others have done, merely submit a
written report to them. That would fulfill the requirement. However you are
correct about not watching it. The last time I watched one was when George H.W.
Bush was President. No Clinton (I had no respect for him) No Bush (I
didn't like him not being honest about the Iraq war), and certainly no
Obama. He is such a phony person and bad President he makes me long for Bill
Clinton. I didn't think that was possible.
In any case, as to the necessity and value of the State of the Union speech, was
struck by the contrast between this event and the Super Bowl. Not to compare
their importance, but the football game is watched by significantly more people
-- in fact this year's blow-out game was the most watched thing on
television ever.How interesting that the four television networks,
in conjunction with the NFL, have worked out a deal where on a rotating basis
ONLY ONE NETWORK broadcasts this each year. Frustrated that this "show"
(Obama flapping his gums) of absolutely no interest to me (especially live)
pre-empted my favorite night of television. Accordingly we just turned the
television off and did something else.