the big blogs have already commented on the announcement that rand paul will deliver the "tea party response" to the president's state of the union address. this is in addition to the official republican response, which will be delivered by marco rubio. i have an annual tradition on this blog to whine about how much i hate the SOTU address. i won't do that now. tradition demands that i save it for a post closer to the actual address.
i've also occasionally mentioned that, as much as i dislike the SOTU, the opposition response is even worse. (e.g. i referred to it "pathetic" in 2008, and that was when the democrats were the opposition) it's really a ridiculous thing to do, suggesting a kind of insecurity of the party out of power, a deep unwillingness to give the president the chance to just be president--not even for a single night. but it's beyond pathetic for there to be a second response after the regular opposition response.
i believe this is only the second time that there has been a double response like this. in 2011 paul ryan gave the official GOP response to the SOTU, and then michele bachmann gave the unhinged teatard follow up. (we all remember how the stunt catapulted her to the white house!) last year the republicans were trying to paper over their differences amidst a bruising and embarrassing primary, so there was only a single response from mitch daniels. now that they are done trying to unite behind a single unlikeable presidential candidate. civil war has broken out in the party! and so they're back to doing two, one by a crazy rightwinger and the other by a crazy rightwinger who is trying to pretend he's a moderate because he's mexican or cuban or some other kind of brownish -an.
call me crazy, but i don't see how this will help the party get its act together after their defeat last november. and i really hope the democrats don't start doing two when they no longer have the presidency.
i've also occasionally mentioned that, as much as i dislike the SOTU, the opposition response is even worse. (e.g. i referred to it "pathetic" in 2008, and that was when the democrats were the opposition) it's really a ridiculous thing to do, suggesting a kind of insecurity of the party out of power, a deep unwillingness to give the president the chance to just be president--not even for a single night. but it's beyond pathetic for there to be a second response after the regular opposition response.
i believe this is only the second time that there has been a double response like this. in 2011 paul ryan gave the official GOP response to the SOTU, and then michele bachmann gave the unhinged teatard follow up. (we all remember how the stunt catapulted her to the white house!) last year the republicans were trying to paper over their differences amidst a bruising and embarrassing primary, so there was only a single response from mitch daniels. now that they are done trying to unite behind a single unlikeable presidential candidate. civil war has broken out in the party! and so they're back to doing two, one by a crazy rightwinger and the other by a crazy rightwinger who is trying to pretend he's a moderate because he's mexican or cuban or some other kind of brownish -an.
call me crazy, but i don't see how this will help the party get its act together after their defeat last november. and i really hope the democrats don't start doing two when they no longer have the presidency.
