Democratic Response by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

I guess I can live blog something tonight. . .

Does Reid actually think anyone gives a rip about his childhood in Searchlight? Otherwise, he comes across as amiable if dorky. Most of his speech, though, is a recitation of campaign rhetoric that failed to sway the voters three months ago. Groundhog Day, indeed.

Nancy Pelosi’s delivery is incredibly slow. She’s apparently been taking speech lessons from Steve Forbes. She’s not very effective at reading a teleprompter. That, combined with her monotone delivery and insistence on pausing between every word makes paying . . . attention. . . very . . . hard.

It’s unclear why Pelosi was chosen, let alone tasked with the foreign policy part of the speech. Bush was just resoundingly re-elected with national security at the center of the campaign. Why would what she thinks be worthy of note?

If this is the best the Democrats have to offer, they’re toast.

FILED UNDER: Congress, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. And can we call this a “response” in any way? It’s like a bizarro SOTU address where the Democrats get to say what they would have said had we not rejected them in November.




    0



    0
  2. caltechgirl says:

    She needs to get off the Botox train.

    Her rhetoric is also completely asinine. Brit Hume is now tearing the dems a new one as fairly as he can…




    0



    0
  3. Mark says:

    Anyone considering running for president should stay far, far away from giving that rebuttal speech, regardless of party.




    0



    0
  4. M. Murcek says:

    * channelling Homer Simpson * Donkey toast. Mmmmmmmm!




    0



    0
  5. ken says:

    From Harry Reid’s response:

    “Too many of the President’s economic policies have left Americans and American companies struggling. And after we worked so hard to eliminate the deficit, his policies have added trillions to the debt – in effect, a `birth tax’ of $36,000 on every child that is born.”

    That strikes me as very significant. It has long bugged the hell out me that starting with Reagan conservatives have always chosen borrowed money as the way to finance their tax cuts. This means my child will eventually have to pay for their irresponsibility. And who will my child pay this money to? Mostly to foreigners.!!! The money, principle and interest, does not even go back into our own economy. It makes me absolutely furious. It’s like a tax my child will be paying to the Chinese. And by the time he is grown and paying taxes to China, will China be a friend or foe?




    0



    0
  6. Dave says:

    Pelosi’s delivery is not only slow, every word that has the sylable “it” gets emphasis: sek-ur-IT-ee and in-her-IT-ed. It’s as if she is overpronouncing everything. Weird.




    0



    0
  7. John says:

    Listening to the two–okay, I quit about 5 minutes into Pelosi’s ramble–I had the distinct impression that somehow GW had gotten his hands on their speeches. Every “salient” point they made had already been addressed in the SOTU. They were left raising questions that had already been answered.

    Guess they can’t be trusted to go ad lib.




    0



    0
  8. LJD says:

    “It’s unclear why Pelosi was chosen…”
    She’s proven to have the venom the Dems are looking for.




    0



    0
  9. likwidshoe says:

    ken says, “It has long bugged the hell out me that starting with Reagan conservatives have always chosen borrowed money as the way to finance their tax cuts.”

    You don’t “finance” tax cuts. Unless you believe that the government owns the money to begin with. Simply put: tax cuts don’t “cost” anything. And oftentimes a cut in tax rates will actually increase tax intake. Smaller taxed amounts + more economic activity = greater tax take. This has happened every time the federal government has cut tax rates.




    0



    0