Staff Reports
The Democrats demonstrated an impressive array of political ineptitude following President Trump’s recent address to Congress, culminating in what can only be described as a masterclass in how not to respond to a presidential speech. On a night that should have been about policy and progress, the Democrats turned the spotlight onto themselves—albeit for all the wrong reasons. Among their antics was one lawmaker audibly refusing to sit down, while others displayed signs that would fit in better at a middle school pep rally than a joint session of Congress. Perhaps their most egregious moment was their collective refusal to applaud a 13-year-old cancer patient being honored by the president. A true spectacle of shame.
Taking the baton for the Democratic rebuttal was Freshman Senator Elissa Slotkin, possibly chosen for her moderate reputation stemming from a recent victory in Michigan—a state Trump had decisively snagged in his 2016 sweep of the Midwest. It would appear Slotkin’s reputation is far less about courage and more about her convenient avoidance of the recent legislation aimed at keeping biological men out of women’s sports. In a move that typified Democratic opposition to a policy overwhelmingly supported by the public, Slotkin abstained from voting, leaving many wondering who she really stands for.
Democrat Senator Elissa Slotkin says to hold your elected officials accountable and watch how they’re voting.
Hey @SenatorSlotkin, why did you not vote yesterday to protect women and girls from being beat up by men in female sports??? pic.twitter.com/qwGLiwHHyU
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 5, 2025
The Senator’s rebuttal, while delivered with a degree of polish, quickly spiraled into confusion as she started ranting about change without elaborating on how her party’s plans would lead to anything but chaos. She tried to paint Trump’s border policies as reckless—ignoring the fact that his administration had actually seen a significant decrease in illegal crossings, resulting in the lowest numbers recorded. Slotkin’s rhetoric about needing a broken immigration system fixed would likely resonate more with a wall than with the American electorate who, let’s face it, are tired of the same old Democratic rhetoric.
Slotkin’s commentary veered off course when she tried to critique billionaire Elon Musk, claiming his employees were poking around citizens’ private information. This is rich coming from a party that endorses unbridled surveillance measures through unelected bureaucracies. Besides, a recent poll indicated the public stands firmly behind efforts to cut government waste, a concept that Slotkin herself might want to familiarize with when complaining about federal expenditure.
In quite an ironic twist, she denounced Trump for the chaotic firing of federal workers—echoing grievances from a bygone era when Bill Clinton also slashed through civil service jobs without a second thought in order to balance budgets. But now, with a Democratic majority screaming bloody murder over similar measures, it suggests the party is more committed to cushy federal jobs than actual fiscal responsibility.
One of the more ludicrous claims made by Slotkin was that Trump’s approach was not in line with “peace through strength.” Forgotten were the days of Ronald Reagan, who exemplified this strategy; Slotkin’s historical memory seemed selective at best. The reality is, she came off as just another Democrat with a failing playbook, trying desperately to paint Trump’s foreign policy as reckless—even as the former president successfully navigated complex negotiations. If anything, Slotkin’s performance served to further widen the gap between her party’s rhetoric and the American people’s desire for effective governance.
As the night concluded, it was clear that Trump had not only won the evening but had also effectively outlined policies that resonate with a large portion of the populace. Meanwhile, Slotkin’s effort to counter him fell flat, marking a low point for Democratic responses. If the night’s spectacle was indicative of their trajectory, prime-time political theater just got a lot less interesting.
