A MIXED DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE TO TRUMP'S SPEECH COULD BE FINE, ACTUALLY (Update: It Wasn't)

UPDATE, WEDNESDAY: In this post, I was wrong. Everything Democratic attendees did fell flat. A boycott would have been more effective.

If Axios is correct, Democrats haven't settled on a shared response to President Trump's speech tonight. I'm okay with that, for reasons I'll explain below.

Democratic lawmakers are discussing a litany of options to protest at President Trump's speech to Congress on Tuesday, including through outright disruption, a half dozen House Democrats told Axios.

... Some of these tactics go beyond their leaders' recommendation that members bring guests hurt by Trump and DOGE. This sets up a potential clash between party traditionalists and its more combative anti-Trump wing.

I think it's always good when rank-and-file Democrats want to go beyond the recommendations of their timid leaders. Here are some of the likely responses:

Some members have told colleagues they may walk out of the chamber when Trump says specific lines they find objectionable, lawmakers told Axios.

* Criticism of transgender kids was brought up as a line in the sand that could trigger members to storm out, according to a House Democrat.

A wide array of props — including noisemakers — has also been floated:

* Signs with anti-Trump or anti-DOGE messages — just as Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) held up a sign during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech last year that said "war criminal."

* Eggs or empty egg cartons to highlight how inflation is driving up the price of eggs.

* Pocket constitutions to make the case that Trump has been violating the Constitution by shutting down congressionally authorized agencies.

* Hand clappers, red cards and various other props have also been discussed, multiple sources said.

Also:

Some groups of Democrats plan to mount more traditional protests through the use of color coordination in their wardrobe choices.

* Pink: The Democratic Women's Caucus wants all their members to wear pink in a unified display of defiance to a president many of them despise.

* Black: Female members of the Congressional Black Caucus have separately discussed donning black to more accurately capture the party's somber mood.

* Blue and yellow: Ukraine Caucus co-chair Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) will distribute ties and scarves with the colors of Ukraine's flag to signal support for President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Not every Democrat will be in attendance. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has announced plans to skip the speech. He'll hold a town hall instead.

Maybe it would be best if every Democrat boycotted the speech, or showed up and then walked out. But I'm not so sure. I think a mixed approach could work well.

As I've said here many times over the years -- most recently last week -- Republicans know how to send multiple messages on the same issue. For instance, on the 2020 election, some Republicans argue that Democrats engaged in baroque vote-rigging conspiracies involving dishonest voting machines and fake ballots. More "responsible" Republicans merely said that changes in voting procedures unfairly favored Democrats (even though Republican voters were also welcome to use additional drop boxes or mail voting), or that media outlets censored stories favorable to Republicans (as if the bias of the email-obsessed mainstream media didn't hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016). The point is that Republicans have messages on this subject for non-conspiratorial voters as well as conspiratorial ones.

Republicans do this generally in their messaging: They send fire-breathers like Jim Jordan to Fox News, while on Sunday mornings they deploy calm, normal-seeming folks like John Cornyn to mainstream-media talk shows. If you're a well-educated right-leaner, you can tell yourself that the Cornyn party is the real Republican Party. If you're a tinfoil-hat-wearing yokel, Jordan's your man. Either way, you feel the GOP speaks for you.

I think a mixed approach to tonight's speech might function the same way for Democrats. I like some of the ideas listed above better than others. Pocket Constitutions? What viewers even be able to tell what they are? Wearing pink or black? I'm not sure most viewers will get the point. But showing up with fired workers is a good idea. Wearing Ukraine's colors is a good idea. (I'd like some members of Congress to show up dressed like Zelenskyy.) No-shows are good. Walkouts could be good -- I think a widespread walkout would be most effective if it happens when Trump is articulating an extremely unpopular position, but if some legislators from progressive districts want to walk out for trans rights and others want to walk out to protest Medicaid cuts, the walkouts might speak effectively to different parts of the electorate.

In short, I think some voters will appreciate seeing a certain percentage of Democrats expressing their dissatisfaction in a decorous way, and others will want to see walkouts and hear words of outrage. Mixing it up might help Democrats reach a broader portion of the electorate than a unified response would -- as long as they're expressing discontent in some way. And it appears they will be.