GOP Mulls Not Inviting Obama to Give State of the Union

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Just another empty threat. If they did, Obama would just give the SOTU from the White House.

If I were Obama, I would make no hesitation to do it on the steps of the capitol to an open crowd and have the Democrats walk out of the chamber. The whole extravaganza would go down in history.

[Mehmentum]

As many have already said, doing this would be a massive political blunder for the Republicans.  It would make them look petty and Obama would just give his own address from the White House.  I seriously doubt that the GOP is stupid enough to actually do this. (not that a government shut down or impeachment are any smarter).

The best way for the GOP to respond to this is to pass a comprehensive immigration bill.  The Republicans look like pragmatic problem solvers, and the executive order won't be an issue for Hispanics in 2016.  Unfortunately for them, Boehner and McConnell have already made statements indicating that there is no chance for an immigration bill after this executive order.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Oh my, but this is going to be a darkly funny two years.

[Torie]

This is asinine.

My sentiments exactly. One should respect the office at least, if not the occupant. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

[Franzl]

This is asinine.

My sentiments exactly. One should respect the office at least, if not the occupant. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

Not sure how one couldn't respect the occupant when compared to the clowns in the GOP Congress.

[Cory]

If I were Obama, I would make no hesitation to do it on the steps of the capitol to an open crowd and have the Democrats walk out of the chamber. The whole extravaganza would go down in history.

This would be epic.

[Simfan34]

This is asinine.

My sentiments exactly. One should respect the office at least, if not the occupant. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

Precisely. I hope so.

[7,052,770]

This is asinine.

My sentiments exactly. One should respect the office at least, if not the occupant. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

When have cooler heads prevailed for the Republicans since 2009? When have Republicans ever respected the office since 2009?

Even if Republicans do privately agree to invite Obama, if Ted Cruz personally decides that Obama won't be invited after all, all the rest of Republicans will just meekly go along with him. Remember the shutdown?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Can we say that Ted Cruz is the most powerful man after President Obama?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Boner amd McConnell must be the most hapless duo of congressional leaders ever.

[The Free North]

Obama should reverse the precedent set by Wilson and go back to simply writing a letter to Congress.

[pbrower2a]

Republicans will honor the Office of the Presidency -- only when their man is President.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Republicans will honor the Office of the Presidency -- only when their man is President.

Democrats were so respectful of President Bush.

As for the topic, it won't happen.  Not a chance.

[BaconBacon96]

This would be amazing to see.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Republicans will honor the Office of the Presidency -- only when their man is President.

Democrats were so respectful of President Bush.

The people who thought Bush was literally Hitler and trying to create Nazi Germany in America and 9/11 was a false flag to further this, etc., never had any sort of power in the 2001-2009 Democratic Party the same way the Tea Partiers do in today's Republican Party.

And they obviously didn't even THINK of blocking Bush from the SOTU.

Your illogical and ill-thought tu quoque fallacy is illogical and ill-thought.

[CountryClassSF]

State of the Union speeches are American tradition - but let's face it. It's essentially an hour and a half of free ad time for the President's party. Obama goes all preacherman, fake accent in tow, and spends the whole time bashing Republicans. Total ad buy cost - $0.

The constitution says Congress may "from time to time" allow SOTU - not "it MUST happen EVERY year EVERY January."

I don't think the founders intended SOTU to be political advertising. Elections have consequences.  But please rest assured, the spineless GOP has not stood up to the President for 6 years, there's no way they will deny him the opportunity to give one of his majestic speeches

[anvi]

Obama goes all preacherman, fake accent in tow

Fake accent? 

I'd be ok with making SOTUs more rare, or going back to pre-Wilsonian practices, in principle.  But the reasons cited for doing it here smack of (a poor attempt at) political retaliation, and would just look petty.  Bad idea is bad.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

the spineless GOP has not stood up to the President for 6 years, there's no way they will deny him the opportunity to give one of his majestic speeches

What do you call blatant obstructionism?

[pbrower2a]

Republicans will honor the Office of the Presidency -- only when their man is President.

Democrats were so respectful of President Bush.

As for the topic, it won't happen.  Not a chance.

The elder Bush did nothing terribly wrong.  We liberals did not turn on Dubya until he and people around him got caught in the lie about Saddam Hussein attempting to get yellowcake (uranium oxide) from mines in Niger. (The mines were operated by a Japanese firm, and the Japanese were certainly not going to allow yellowcake to go to a rogue regime like Iraq at the time, especially since one rogue regime could easily transfer it to another -- let us say North Korea).      

[Cory]

I don't think the founders intended SOTU to be political advertising. Elections have consequences.  But please rest assured, the spineless GOP has not stood up to the President for 6 years, there's no way they will deny him the opportunity to give one of his majestic speeches

A.) The founders "didn't intend" for a lot of things , so it's a non sequitur in modern times.

B.) What else would you have the GOP to have done in 2009 to the present?

[CountryClassSF]

the spineless GOP has not stood up to the President for 6 years, there's no way they will deny him the opportunity to give one of his majestic speeches

What do you call blatant obstructionism?

I call it irrational because the new definition of "obstructionism" = not giving Obama everything he wants.  Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate until January 2010, and huge majorities in the House.  If things like amnesty were so crucial, why weren't they passed then?

Think about all of the policy initiatives that he has proposed and passed since coming into office.  There are very few things that he has asked for that he has not gotten.  Must be up in the 90% range.

Yet the public has chosen to have checks and balances in Congress.  That's not obstructionism, that's democracy.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2009 and 2010 there wasn't much they could do because of the large majority.  Between 2010 and 2012, they should have done a better job driving the message home that hundreds of House bills never made it past Reid's desk to the Senate floor.  At minimum, the Senate could have atleast allowed votes on these bills.

They were able to use the canard of a "do nothing Congress," and it was blamed on the Republicans, but the Senate was the one refusing to even consider Republican legislation, let alone amend it or even vote it down.

They should have had a clear legislative agenda - medical device tax repeal, reforms, etc.

Post-2012, they should not have given fodder to media meme that Ted Cruz "shut down the government," and unfortunately they're doing the same thing now.  Essentially, if Obama doesn't get his amnesty in the funding, he'll veto the bill, thus shutting it down. Give Obama his EA, or HE shuts it down.  Republicans are afraid to again drive this point home.

Even after a historic landslide loss, the Democrats continuously control the messaging because the Republicans are afraid of overreaching. It's hard to criticize the Republicans too much as this cycle was worlds better from even 2010.  

But objectively speaking, the Republicans have never had a desire to truly fight Obama, considering the two candidates they put up against him, the PR battles that they've lost.  Their words may be fighting words, but that's all they are.

I might add, that there is hope post 2014, for the Republicans to have more say in driving the national agenda, by sending bills to Obama's desk and forcing him to take a public position on some issues, such as Keystone, and will require Democrats, particularly Democrats running for President, to take a position on these things.

By being able to force votes on legislation, the Democrats will have to decide whether to march in lockstep or to represent their constituencies