SOTU and radio addresses
As far as the State of the Union address, the law only requires a written notice to congress. Although Washington and others delivered the update in person, it really only caught on when politicians realized the value of the face (and voice) time afforded by the broadcast age.
One thing about hearing it on the radio - one can focus on what the speaker is saying, without all the reax shots from the joint session and gallery. Hard to imagine here I suppose, but there are many people around the world who actually read that speech. It's almost less a message to the American people than it is a telegraph to the rest of the world of administration intent. one thing that captivates me is how many times I've walked into a convenience store or gas station during the speech - and noticed a first-generation American or immigrant listening to or watching it on some tiny little radio or TV. The thought of a chief executive actually addressing his constituency in such a regular and public fashion is still not all that common in the rest of the world.
The same goes for the weekly radio address. Aside from older Americans in largely rural areas, few people tune it in as appointment listening. But it largely serves as something of a back-channel for delivering messages to the opposition party and other governments, establishing political benchmarks, and as a diplomatic tool. Plus, it gets the president's public agenda on the record. I've known folks in the last three administrations, and they'll tell you that while most Americans scarcely take notice of the weekly radio address, the same is not true in the world's capitols. As one of them told me, everything has a purpose or it doesn't happen.
And as for the t-shirts, the same relative thing happens all the time. I know of one instance in which Buchanan supporters showed up en masse at a GHW Bush rally, when the advance man had strongly assured the president's campaign team that such wouldn't happen. as told to me by his brother, that young advance man was called to the president's quarters aboard Air Force One, where Barbara gave him a nasty grilling. After a few minutes of letting his wife vent, GHW Bush simply told the young man "Well, you did the best you could. We'll get 'em next time".
Frankly, I wish more of the people around the president would react the same way. Of course, what they're trying to do is protect an image - which is in many ways ridiculous. The president (whomever he or she is) is a big person, and could probably handle a minor breach of decorum to his advantage. You don't see Tony Blair running for cover when the backbenchers start to heckle him, and the British parliamenthas been that way for generations. The best answer? John Major's response upon one such occasion. To a particularly strident opponent he said, "With all due respect, does the gentleman's interruption reflect a lack of manners, or the lack of a better idea?"
Jody
> > Quickly:
> >
> > There are laws against demonstrating or protesting inside
> > the capital building. Both women were in violation of
> those
> > laws.
> >
>
> House and/or Senate rules, also referred to as 'decorum' or
> maintaining decorm (decorum rules; rules of decorum).
>
> They aren't 'laws', written, codified rules in jurisprudence
>
> in the usual sense of 'laws' on the books.
>
>
> > Now, back to the subject:
> >
> > Tony actually brings up a valid point, but I'm not sure
> what
> > relevance it might have. How many people actually listen
> to
> > the radio for the SotU, when it is televised on 4 networks
>
> > and 6 cable channels?
>
> The sound has *not* usually been synchonized between radio
> and
> 'tele-vision' either, as I have noticed in past speeches and
>
> addresses. I usually have a radio on, often in addition to
> the
> 'tele-vision' set, but didn't this time.
>
>
> >
> > President George W. Bush is *not* going to be remembered
> as
> > one of the great orators. Perhaps not even as a good one.
>
>
> I could not sit through a Reagan address either. Once
> elected,
> they seem to lose a bit of their passion and drive.
>
> > But I think that during the Clinton Presidency, people
> > learned that you can't always trust the guy that is the
> most
> > charming. Of course, in 2000, our choice was between a
> > wooden VP and a blathering good-ole-boy. Then in 2004, it
>
>
> Wasn't that election stolen by Bushco in Floriduh with the
> aid of
> the butterfly ballots, hanging chads and the Supremes?
>
> Oh, sorry, I was caught buying into moveon.org-level
> conspiracy
> theory for a moment there ...
>
> > wooden VP and a blathering good-ole-boy. Then in 2004, it
>
> > was between a 20-some-odd year Senator who spoke clearly
> but
> > not constistently and same said blathering good-ole-boy
> > turned Leader-Through-Tragedy-And-Starter-Of-Wars.
>
> Wasn't that election stolen by Bushco in Ohio with the aid
> of
> pirated electronic Diebold machines and crowded polls?
>
> Oh, sorry, I was caught buying into another moveon.org-level
>
> conspiracy theory ...
>
>
> >
> > Both times, it was the man with the lesser ability at
> public
> > speaking that won. Also, contrary to past elections, both
>
>
> Yup.
>
> > times it was the shorter man who won.
>
>
> Yup.
>
> >
> > What does that say about us as a country? I think it says
>
>
> We like underdogs?
>
> > that we don't care so much about what they say anymore...
>
> > it's what they do that we will measure.
>
> Well, content and delivery *are* two separate and unequal
> items.
>
> >
> > That's just my opinion. I hope you enjoyed it.
> >
>
> Thanks, I did, kinda.
>
> 73's
>
<P ID="signature">______________