WSJ Henninger: Ungracious Dems sat on hands during SOTU.

[edbermac]

During the February 4 broadcast of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger claimed that Democrats were "very ungracious" during President Bush's January 31 State of the Union address for "refusing to applaud anything this president said," with the exception of one instance, adding that they "simply sat on their hands." In fact, the Democrats applauded more than a dozen times during the State of the Union address.

Henninger's claim echoed an assertion made by NBC's Katie Couric, who said that Democrats "really applauded" only when Bush mentioned his failed Social Security plan. But far from sitting "on their hands," the Democrats gave standing ovations when Bush began the address by eulogizing Coretta Scott King; when he recognized the family of Marine Staff Sgt. Dan Clay, who was killed in Iraq; when he called for bipartisan support for the "war on terror"; and when he asked Congress "to put aside partisan politics and work together" in resolving the financial challenges facing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs. In total, Democrats applauded Bush at least 15 times during the approximately 50-minute-long address.

From the February 4 broadcast of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report, with host and Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul A. Gigot:

HENNINGER: I thought the more telling thing, though, was the Republicans -- the Democrats refusing to applaud anything this president said, other than that , in the State of the Union. I thought it was very ungracious.

GIGOT: You mean the Democrats?

HENNINGER: The Democrats, yeah.

GIGOT: Yeah.

HENNINGER: They simply sat on their hands, and people noticed that.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602060008

Hey Daniel, you neocon asswipe...GO FUCK YOURSELF!! How's that for ungraciousness?

[deadparrot]

1. But it's fine when the Republicans did it to Clinton.

:eyes:

They're the opposition party, dumbass. His political agenda is pretty much the opposite of theirs. Why should they applaud his "successes"?

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. I thought it was very ungracious

So are illegal wars

[RebelOne]

3. Sounds like an echo of what Sean Insannity said.

[LiberalPartisan]

4. They should haved mooned the sorry ass puke n/t

[ET Awful]

5. Was that more or less ungracious than turning off the microphones

during a hearing to prevent Democrats from continuing?

[MADem]

6. Or, for that matter, ungraciously allowing the chief law enforcement

officer of this nation to testify WITHOUT taking a pesky oath?????

[NV Whino]

7. I thought they were being very gracious

by being there at all.

[marions ghost]

8. some of us would prefer

it if the Dems had refused to applaud at any time...

If they were lackluster in their applause, well...many will take that as appropriate. Playing it up only helps our side IMO.

Not very spinnable. The usual Repug empty little hissy fit-- soooo boring. Yawn.

[orwell]

9. Other "Ungraciousness"...

...murdering innocent civilians.

Subverting the law.

Trashing the Constitution.

Assasination attempts on foreign leaders.

"Regime change."

Pointing nuclear warheads at much of the planet.

Maintaining the largest chemical, bilogical, and nuclear weapons stockpiles on the planet.

Yes, by all means, let's be "gracious," while we have a lunatic pointing a loaded weapon at our collective faces.

:eyes: