So lets talk about what is and what is not appropriate with respect to attendance and behavior during this annual address. It is expected that Congress, the cabinet, SCOTUS, and the joint chiefs attend and guests are invited, by the President or Congress. This year 14 Dems in Congress will not attend. this is not without precedent. In 1971, all 12 African-American members of the House, members of the newly founded Congressional Black Caucus refuse to show. The members wrote to President Richard Nixon for a meeting, which they said he refused. In turn, they skipped Nixon's speech Some Republicans, boycotted Clinton's 1999 address, deciding not to attend secondary to the impeachment process, including Reps. John Shadegg of Arizona, Bob Schaffer of Colorado, Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Bobb Barr of Georgia. House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Illinois, missed the address, citing health reasons, though that was viewed with some skepticism given his role in the impeachment trial. Is there a duty to attend, or is a boycott a perfectly appropriate response? Personally, I am fine with a boycott. Is booing okay? I feel strongly that any time a speaker expects and accepts applause, he must accept the risk that the same audience will show its displeasure. You can't have one without the other. How about heckling? That happened in 2005 to Bush after he claimd SS would be bankrupt. While not a SOTU speech, during an address to a Joint session of Congress, Obama was called a liar by Joe Wilson who was later rebuked by the House. I think it would be entirely inappropriate to call out Trump's lies during SOTU. If he can't finish the speech, then nobody gets to go home!
I don't think that was the meaning of the post. I would think that it's fine to not attend but if you do attend then at least observe common courtesies. Booing is unseemly, it's not a football game. Yelling out, same. Not applauding but sitting silently - fine.
It is the meaning of the result of your double standard. What it does, is tell the audience, 'keep your negative views to yourself because opposition should be silent and passive, but applause is welcome because support makes the speaker look good....' Either both applause and booing is disruptive to the rhythm of the speaker, or neither is. Your notion 'booing is unseemly' is ONLY about controlling the content of audience reaction and nothing else. Unless the booing is so extensive that interferes more with the delivery of the message than clapping does, it cannot be seen as more disruptive. A political speech is not about self adoration.
As I understand it the SOTU is a set piece. It's ceremony. It's a little like the monarch's speech to open the British parliament. Yes there is a difference in that the president is a political figure and the monarch is not, but the monarch reads a speech prepared by the government so while the monarch is apolitical (supposedly) the speech is political. But it does and should get a polite hearing. From what I've seen on C-Span when I've been in the US the parliamentary debates are quite sedate compared to the ruckus in my own country's parliament. But that's another issue.
Trump gave a good speech, no great rhetorical flourishes, but full of excellent content and concrete actions and because of that the best speech since Reagan. The SOTU has become a show. All the special guests are really irrelevant. All the childishness by the Democrats is interesting because it shows the D's put their hate of Trump and Americans above everything even terrorism and citizenship for DACA Dreamers. In the future, Trump should just televise the speech from the White House.
