Watching the President's speech to Congress I noticed that he said two sentences about the first female speaker, and was interrupted TWICE for separate standing ovations. I've noticed in previous State of the Union addresses and also when Prime Minister Blair addressed a joint session of the US Congress, that important and serious points are interrupted and even diminished by it. I'm not suggesting dignitaries should be subjected to House of Commons style heckling, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to listen respectfully and only interrupt to applaud main, substantive points rather than constantly rising for everything you agree with, cheering and disrupting the rhythm of the speech?
2007-01-25 01:15:28 · 13 answers · asked by mark 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Waaaaay over the top. Over-zealous support of Bush is an indication of cronism in my opinion. I watched their reactions and took notes. And I'll take those notes to the polls. Nancy Pelosi did a fine job. She wore an expression on her face that told the world she'd love to bitchslap Bush in the back of his chickenhawk head. But she clapped when appropriate to be diplomatic and professional.
2007-01-25 01:21:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Members of Congress behave rather too politely in my opinion. Being a Brit I'm much more used to the confrontational style of the House of Commons where any prime minister trying to make a speech is not going to get even a sitting ovation, never mind a standing one. Mostly what he will get is a lot of yah-boo and the slow hand clap he deserves.
2007-01-25 04:01:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
contributors of Congress behave extremely too civilly in my view. Being a Brit i'm lots greater used to the confrontational sort of the abode of Commons the place any top minister attempting to make a speech will no longer get even a sitting ovation, on no account strategies a standing one. ordinarily what he gets is a huge style of yah-boo and the sluggish hand clap he merits.
2016-11-01 05:56:48 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. They are just trying to suck up to the sitting Commander in Chief. It's ridiculous, because the applause really doesn't count for anything--except making them look pompous. Quiet attention would be more patriotic.
2007-01-25 01:24:12 · answer #4 · answered by rangerbaldwin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certain things become tradition, like in the Army during speaches you will hear HOAH! at the end of every statement. Yes it seems to get annoying but once in place it stays forever.
P.S. do you think half of them were smiling with pleasure at comments or laughing at them? I support our president, but did make a note of that.
2007-01-25 01:24:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
With Bush's low approval rating.....I think it might be humbling if he was not given any standing ovations nor any clapping during the speech.
2007-01-25 01:31:32 · answer #6 · answered by TexasRose 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The speech was great. Let's have a show of unity, even if it is for only 1 hour a year.
2007-01-25 01:19:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, they all get an electric shock at the moment that Bush needs to be applauded.
2007-01-25 04:24:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I absolutely agree with you. So much time WASTED with applause. Everyone should just sit down and listen until the very end.
2007-01-25 01:23:59 · answer #9 · answered by starbrite 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats because they all have vibrators shoved up their arses that get turned on by remote control at the proper moment.
2007-01-25 02:35:26 · answer #10 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋