Huckabee-Sanders Offers Up Weak Response to Biden

To give the traditional response to President Biden’s State of the Union speech, Republicans selected the newly elected governor of Arkansas, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.  Her more prominent previous political position was as a Press Secretary for President Trump. 

I like Huckabee-Sanders – and I agree with most of her positions on the major issues.  I am not – and never have been – impressed with her ability to effectively communicate from the public stage.  In fact, in a previous commentary when she was press secretary, I suggested that Trump replace Huckabee-Sanders with a more effective representative.

My main criticism of Huckabee-Sanders was that she was not – as the saying goes – fast on her feet.  She lacks a certain charisma.  Her responses to questions were weak.  She was not good at nailing it.

Watching her give the Republican response did not change my opinion of her public speaking ability.  I had the feeling that she wrote the response herself – and that would explain part of the problem.  I rated her performance as one of the worst I had seen in terms of moving public opinion – and that was her primary job.

So that was wrong?

First of all, it was too much about … Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.  She told us about being a mother … about her bout with thyroid cancer … her trip with President Trump to the Middle East war zone.  None of that was germane to the State of the Union speech.

In addition, she offered a lot of platitudes and general criticism of Biden and Democrats – again, that had nothing to do with rebutting Biden’s eminently rebuttable speech point-by-point.  In fact, it was virtually impossible to find a single counterpoint on a specific subject.

I assume that she had an advance copy of the speech with which to prepare her response.   That is the tradition.  Most past responders would use it to craft a more specific rebuttal – and then make margin notes based on watching the President’s speech.

She tended to rely on general GOP talking points as if she was not engaged in a debate with the President.  Her speech seemed to have been drafted and given by someone who could only assume what Biden would say.  The Huckabee-Sanders’ response seemed to disconnect from Biden’s address to Congress.

In many ways, Huckabee-Sanders’ “rebuttal” came off more as a campaign speech by and for … Huckabee-Sanders.  So much so that a friend of mine, who saw a portion of her response, thought she was throwing her hat in the ring for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.  He did not recognize what he saw as a rebuttal to Biden.

Why she was chosen to give the Republican response is a mystery.  There are a lot of more effective speakers in the pantheon of Republican political figures.  In selecting Huckabee-Sanders, the Republican National Committee may have been avoiding giving the platform – and an edge — to a potential presidential candidate.  Of course, that takes out of consideration arguably the GOP’s most articulate and effective speakers.

There was so much in Biden’s speech that could – and should – have been refuted.  In general, I thought it was a lost opportunity for the Republicans to take some of the hot air out of Biden’s balloon.  That is allegedly the purpose of the opposition response, but that is not what Huckabee-Sanders did, in my judgment.

So, there ‘tis.