After the SOTU and other significant speeches, it has become standard for the opposition party to have a designated elected official give their response. My question is whether or not this response is in any way actually facilitated by the government.
I am always uncomfortable with anything that enshrines and entrenches the two-party system, and I’m wondering if this is one of them. If it’s just the Dem/Pub party working with the networks, well, that’s one thing. But if non-partisan government employees (or other resources) are being used, that annoys me. I hope my question is clear enough.
And to deal with the inevitalble: 1) Yes, I felt the same during the Clinton presidency. 2) This isn’t GD, at least not yet. If the question is answered factually, then ya’ll can take it anywhere you want.
I imagine the senators and governors and whatnot giving the response have access to considerable government resources purely by virtue of being senators and governors. For example, if Nancy Pelosi gives her response from her office in the Capitol building, that would be a use of a government resource. Similarily, I would imagine that senators have access to audio/visual personnal and equipment provided for by the federal gov’t to facilitate their speeches and press conferences. Personnaly I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be able to use these resources for the SOTU response.
And it doesn’t necessarily enshrine a two party system. If Sen. Jim Jeffords (independent) wanted to give a response, I’m sure he’d have access to the same resources (though he might have trouble getting a network to pick up his speech).