
<p>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. ;</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>So that was wrong?</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>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 &#8212; to a potential presidential candidate. ; Of course, that takes out of consideration arguably the GOP’s most articulate and effective speakers.</p>



<p>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.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Huckabee-Sanders Offers Up Weak Response to Biden
