why the FUCK do they ALWAYS get a response. They OWN the media. WTF????

[themaguffin]

Seriously the President should get to speak, period. Then the Flat Earthers can do what they always do on TV.

[EffieBlack]

1. Because they ask for it . . .

Unfortunately, Democrats did not fully assert themselves under the previous president.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. Do Democrats EVER assert themselves anymore? nt

[EffieBlack]

3. We're very assertive - at least when it comes to other Democrats, especially the President

With Republicans, not so much.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I was very assertive campaigning for this president...

But he's not being even half as assertive as I was in campaigning for him.

[robinlynne]

4. Thank-you!! I felt the same away. Harry Reid has a proposal which was not mentioned

at all.

[onenote]

6. President Obama mentioned it.

[Mass]

7. That is called democracy. Both sides speak. We need to be more forceful than they are.

The president is not a king.

The problem is not that Boehner got to speak. The problem is that the media do not know how to say somebody lied when he spoke.

[sudopod]

10. The President and other Democrats could have been pointing that out for oh, the last two years.

We wouldn't want to say something intemperate and hurt their feelings, though.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. you're right...

the opposing party has always had time after a president speaks. Our party spoke after Bush, their side spoke after Clinton, etc, etc. One day a republican will be back in office, so people should be careful what they wish for.

[onenote]

8. Always?

Maybe I missed it, but was there a formal, televised repub response to President Obama's Libya speech? I know that there is a response to the SOTU, but that's been true for both parties since the mid-1960s. And as I recall, Sen Jack Reed gave a formal Democratic response to Bush's Iraq war speech in Sept 2007.

If you're going to be outraged, at least have your facts straight. Otherwise, you make us all look bad.

[themaguffin]

12. oh jesus come on

[awoke_in_2003]

20. the republicans chose not...

to respond to that one.

changed "so" to "to"

[onenote]

22. I'm not sure what your point is

Sometimes the Democrats have asked for and been given time to respond (as was the case with Jack Reed's response to bush's Iraq speech in 2007). Sometimes we have chosen not to ask.

Similarly, the repubs have sometimes asked for and gotten time (as in last night) and sometimes they choose not to (the Libya speech).

I'm still trying to see what part of the OP's claim that the repubs ALWAYS get to respond because they OWN the media is accurate.

And I'm still trying to figure out how it helps us to act like crybabies because the other party got time to respond to the President. Once upon a time, this place was filled with people concerned about the "unitary executive" and the President putting himself above the other branches of government. The pendulum swings back and forth. We should be careful what we complain about now, since we may want that exact thing sometime down the road.

[awoke_in_2003]

23. Yeah, I didn't get where you were coming from...

either until I read one of your posts further on. I agree, this does sound like crybaby shit. Whenever a president speaks, the opposition party has the opportunity to rebut. They do not always chose to do so. I think the OP wants to take that opportunity away, which, like it or not, is bad. A puke will be in the Oval Office sometime in the future, so we should not set a bad precedent.

on edit: I went back to my post you were responding to. Changed "so" to "to". I think I was reading you as saying there are times where we don't allow them to respond, when what you were getting at was them not always taking the opportunity.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Supersedeas]

11. and then equivocating the positions of both sides no matter how

underhanded and unpatriotic the Republican can be.

The network pundits either proclaim the Republican absolutely right or the network chattering classes declare both sides equally wrong without specifying exactly what was wrong with the President's speech.

This Republican Response to the President's remarks is brought to you by Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Insurance, Big Beer, and Big Pharma whose advertising dollars pay the salaries of the voices in the Network chattering classes. Good night and back to our regularly scheduled 'reality' programing.

[sudopod]

13. Is this a new thing? It always seemed kind of childish to me, too. nt

[onenote]

14. No. Despite the false outrage being expressed by some here.

SOTU speeches: there always is a response from the other side (since 1966).

Other presidential addresses: sometimes yes, sometimes no. Both sides have gotten them at times, and both sides haven't gotten them at times.

When we complain about this we come across as crybabies. That doesn't serve our interests.

[themaguffin]

15. This is not a SOTU. A response is not needed.

[onenote]

16. Neither was chimpy's Iraq speech in 2007, But the Democrats asked for and got time to respond

My point is that the OP claims that the repubs always get a response (and implies that the Democrat don't because the repubs "own" the media). That's simply not reality. Sometimes there is a response. Sometimes there isn't. And that's been true for both repubs and Democrats.

[themaguffin]

17. No that's not what the OP claims. My point was that it's ridiculous that the GOP gets a response wh

when they have had ample opportunity to communicate. This an opportunity for the President to speak, or at least it should have been.

[onenote]

21. So you think it was ridiculous when the Democrats got to respond to chimpy's iraq speech?

I guess we have differing opinions.

[sudopod]

18. Fair enough nt

[totodeinhere]

24. It works in our favor when Boner comes on to respond to the president. He always

makes such an ass of himself. Every time Boner comes on TV the Republican poll numbers take a dive.