Petty political posturing

Posted Wednesday, September 7, 2011, at 8:35 AM

It was a perfect example of how petty our politics have become in this country.

The president wanted to address a joint session of Congress, normally a rare thing and therefore a big deal, to lay out his proposed jobs program for the country -- which potentially could be a very big deal (although we'll hold our judgement until we actually hear it).

The Speaker of the House said, "No, not the night you want to do it."

See, the president wanted to give his speech tonight, which would have overridden the Republican candidate forum. It was petty of him to ask for that night, which had been scheduled well in advance, and smelled of gamesmanship.

Boehner's response appeared equally petty and smelled of gamesmanship every bit as much. He gave some vague excuse about being unable to arrange security that quickly (are you kidding us?!) but really it was equally about politics. He didn't want the Republican message being tainted by the president's response. So he suggested the president speak tomorrow night, putting him up against the opening of the NFL football season.

Realistically, at this point in time, let's see a show of hands for how many people would rather watch football than listen to politicians jockeying for position next fall? We only wish there were a football game on tonight (heck, even ice dancing would be preferable to listening to a dozen candidates spouting spurious campaign promises).

What's worse, is that neither of these events, tonight's GOP forum or Thursday's presidential speech, are likely to do anything for this country now. Because it's obvious that "now" isn't important to either political party. Both are playing for position for the general elections next fall. Neither side seems willing to compromise and both are hoping the other party will get hammered next fall, allowing one side or the other to run roughshod over the other. Before next fall, we'd be astonished to see either side make a move to break the deadlock.

So until the next "new" Congress meets, 18 months from now, we can all expect much of what we've got now -- and nothing better.

Because it's become clear, it's all about petty political positioning right now.

Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Borders--Language--Culture

-- Posted by DRACO on Tue, Sep 13, 2011, at 4:14 PM

Homer, so do you agree the Constitution was not written as a Christian document?

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Sat, Sep 10, 2011, at 6:18 AM

Trouble, who said I didn't believe in God? I believe in God and the Constitution as it is written. Word for word. Nowhere in that document is God ever mentioned, even in the oath of office.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 6:26 PM

Roy stay away from money, don't accept any. It has the words "In GOD we trust" written on it.

-- Posted by Trouble2011 on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 5:48 PM

To anyone interested, check the update on countdown blog.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 5:07 PM

Well said Mike.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 4:45 PM

No harm, no foul.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 3:24 PM

Homer, part of my last comment was uncalled for and I apologize.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 12:45 PM

And just who said I supported Obamacare. Not me. Your assuming again Homer. Your side failed to secure 41 votes to block it. Remember the majority rules. How's that workin for ya?

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 11:24 AM

By the way the majority does not rule in the senate. 41 senators can block any major legislation. The majority be darned.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 10:16 AM

And the majority still must follow the Constitution.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 10:13 AM

The Constitution is the law of the land! If the Supreme Court deems the DOMA unconstitutional then what?

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 9:43 AM

That is a law passed by Congress that still hasn't passed Constitutional review by the Supreme Court. There have been other laws passed by congress that have failed to pass Constitutional muster.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 9:22 AM

Selective regard for history?

I'm not the one that supports their views with the term Christian. You seem very willing to brush aside the religious views of some with a very secular Law of the Land statement. You can't have it both ways. Do laws based on religious feelings trump the rights of the few? What of the laws of the other states that you disagree with. Now states have the right to pick and chose which states laws are valid and which aren't? Since when are the rights of the individual a mole hill? I bet if your individual rights came under attack it wouldn't be a mole hill.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/325/226/cas...

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 8:24 AM

Homer, don't forget that those who chose to ignore or disregard history are doomed to live it again.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 7:56 AM

Homer, if 160 years ago is ancient history, then 240 years ago is very ancient history. If you wish to stay in the here and now, are the marriages performed by the Episcopal church valid?

I don't think this link qualifies as liberal/progressive crapola.

http://earlyamericanhistory.net/founding...

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 7:55 AM

Homer, an interesting link.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfa...

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 6:54 AM

Well Homer, I sure don't worship at the foot of an all powerful Federal Government. If you haven't figured that out about me I give up.

Do I support Radical Islam? NO Just as I don't support Radical Christianity, Radical Judaism or any other Radical whatever that seeks to impose their religious values on ME.

You have said I don't answer questions, I assume you mean yours. If I'm wrong on that I apologize. You haven't answered some of mine. Why is that? You keep saying No national law restricting or forbidding the practice of religion, but you fail to address my question about the treatment of the early Mormons, or the point I made about Mitt Romney. If Marriage is both a civil and religious institution, then what is to be done about Marriages conducted in Episcopal churches between two consenting adults that are of the same sex? Are they null and void?

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Fri, Sep 9, 2011, at 5:54 AM

Got it.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 9:02 PM

You've been quiet Wayne, what's up lately?

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 8:54 PM

And before anyone brings up Warren Jeffs, the man is a child rapist. No more, no less.

Do I believe in polygamy between consenting adults?

It doesn't matter. They are adults and have the right to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they harm no one else. There are too many laws and regulations regarding the private behavior between consenting adults, and depriving those adults of certain legal rights.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 8:28 PM

The point is the danger in allowing any religious group to impose their beliefs on others. Did you see in the article that there is no civil marriage in Israel? There is no civil divorce. All that is dictated by a group of Rabbis. There are many variations of Jews, many of who have different views who are held to be less than relevant due to the fact that their religious views don't match those of the ruling theocracy. I know that it is a different country, but they claim to hold the same ideals of freedom that we hold. But do they? Is what they practice what you would like to see for America?

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:52 PM

Homer, If you had read my blog, you would see where the freedom to practice has already been thrown under the bus once. The reason nothing was said was that it was a persecuted group that were burned out of their places of worship and driven out of their homes all in the name of Christianity. Funny thing is, they believe in God. They worship on Sundays. They practice good deeds world wide. They aid the needy of any religion. They don't believe in welfare, never have. There is a man running for the republican nomination for the second time, whose worthiness to serve has been questioned due to his religion, the same thing that happened to J.F.K.

Freedom from religion means not having someones religious beliefs dictating my personal life. Remember the days when dancing in public was banned because some religious group deemed it immoral?

To support the right of certain people who hold certain religious beliefs to dictate to the rest of is WRONG. I can just imagine what you think of the American Episcopalian Church, given it views.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:44 PM

Homer, How about Judaism?

http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pair...

Please read the whole thing.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:14 PM

So, homer, you would support a Christian Theocracy? One where religious leaders make all the rules for everyone, Christian and Non-Christian? Which Christians? Where religious bigotry is legalized?

I'm sure you read my latest blog and decided not to comment, but you just opened this can of worms here.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:09 PM

Good call Roy. Maybe we should follow the British model and not run for election until 2-3 months before the poll date. Maybe then, our 24 hour news services would report on things that actually happen; as opposed to a two year he-said-she-said horse race.

As for one blogger's remark...that a favored candidate has no political experience;therefore, that's reason enough to vote for him: Just what kind of fuzzy logic is that?!

In other words, a person has no experience in business...that's reason enough to put him/her in charge of business. Someone has never had to deal with the challenges of mathematics, let's make that person a Dean of Mathematics at our university. Someone has never had to deal with the problems of diagnosing illnesses...must be qualified to be a medico. Are you kidding me?

The last guy I remember running for President based on the platform of...I'm just plain folk...was James Earl Carter III. What a glorious 4 years that "non-politician" brought us.

-- Posted by junkyard dog on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 6:59 PM

except for Herman Cain who doesn't want a Mosque built in Murfreesboro Tennessee, he opposes the construction. He wants freedom of religion Cain style !

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 6:58 PM

Mike,do you really support these stands? And I mean all of them.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Herman_C...

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 6:35 PM

From 2 different stands, he sounds like he advocates a Christian theocracy. Not a good thing. We are a REPUBLIC with the freedom of religion or freedom from religion. Religious bigotry or bigotry of any kind is just flat wrong!

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 6:28 PM

Grr, I meant now.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 4:03 PM

No I really wonder about Herman Cain. I just learned this and it disturbs me greatly

"A radio talk show host and former chief executive officer of Godfather's Pizza, Cain was chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's board of directors and has never been elected to political office."

Not so much of an outsider in my book.

http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-republican...

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 4:03 PM

I am sick and freaking tired of all this politicking so far ahead of the primaries.

Rick Perry, Gov. of Texas

Ron Paul, Congressman

Michelle Bachman, Congresswoman

These people have been elected to office to TEND TO THE PEOPLES BUSINESS, NOT POLITIC!

The rest of them can spend their spare time as they wish.

I have a great idea. 1 day for all states to have their primary or caucus. Campaigning limited to the 6 weeks prior. PERIOD! Stop this stupid year around fund raising nonsense.

General Election 6 weeks after the Primary day. Enough of this nonsense.

Ban, outlaw PAC'S, big money corrupts big time!

If the ordinary person wants to contribute, they will. Stop allowing the buying of OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS AND OUR GOVERNMENT!!!!

Campaign finance reform now! If a candidate has several million laying around and wants to spend it on a campaign, fine let them write the check and make it public! None of this loan stuff, no write off, NOTHING! Full public disclosure! Want to know where our politicians learned to spend so freely? Follow the money. On the Left and the Right, our country is for sale to the highest bidder. The more you do their bidding, the money you get.

Absolutely no outside sources of income while in office. No speakers fees, NOTHING!

Radical sounding? You betcha. This is a cancer that requires radical action if this great Republic is to survive.

-- Posted by royincaldwell on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 3:58 PM

I agree with you totally on that. Too many cooks in the kitchen.

-- Posted by KH Gal on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 12:49 PM

George soros

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soro...

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 11:27 AM

Sorry if I misunderstood you Kelly, my mistake.

Obama is on his own for his performance though. The Tea Party was not responsible for the decisions that he has made.

Let Obama take his share of the blame for the mess instead of giving the blame. he is a big boy.

The tea party is not attacking Obama but the government at large for the entire mess that we are in. It wouldn't matter if the incumbents were Republican or Democrat, they just want something done. We all do.

And while we are on the subject, Look up George Soros and tell me what you think his agenda is and how much he has contributed to different organizations and political campaigns. He has spent billions of dollars for influence peddling and not in the interest of America, but his own.

-- Posted by KH Gal on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 11:15 AM

Maybe the GOP can run on hope and change?

-- Posted by skeeter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 5:26 AM

I enjoyed Cain. He should have been given a little more air time.

The moderators were clearly wanting this to be the Mitt and Perry show. Michele didn't look as comfortable as she has been in the past.

However, I am enjoying these debates, It helps me sort out things a little better. There were some tart remarks from Gingrich and Huntsman was somewhat out there with his comments.

The Governors got the most air time. Gingrich was asked stupid questions so that he could be grumpy. Huntsman was just plain weird at times.

Herman Cain is a man who could get things done. But they won't like him. He will make people be accountable and that won't go over too well with those who don't want to work, but want to look as though they are working.

I think it was a good debate more sharp words on what a dismal record Mr. Obama has so far. It will be interesting to see if Congress gets scolded or if he will have a real job plan to present.

-- Posted by KH Gal on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 10:26 PM

Pat will be there Saturday with the Honor Guard.

I'm sure it will be repeated . Some think Romney did better then Perry. They all agreed Bachmann didn't do very well and I agree with that.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 9:16 PM

All politics is local...If I need a job, I'm gonna vote for the crook that gets me one. Neither what the cast of clowns says, nor how they part their hair or smooth their dress impresses me nearly as much as what they make me believe they can do for me. I'm fed up with folks asking me what I can do for my country...my contributions are already on the History Channel. What I want to know is what the candidates can do for me.

Let's keep it simple: If you're not helping to improve the lives of Americans, then don't put your ideologies on the ballot. I'm voting with my stomach, not my heart.

-- Posted by junkyard dog on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 8:08 PM

I'm watching the debate right now and enjoying it. I like John Huntsman, Ron Paul and Romney so far.

Zook I know when there' a Republican President the Demos give a rebuttal after a speech. I'm not saying its unfair what I was saying is according to the news there were going to be several giving rebuttals which I find a little odd.... Now I've heard some members of congress aren't even going to show up for Obama's speech which I find very childish and tacky

Ok bye I'm back to the debate

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 6:48 PM

There are tools, and then there are TOOLS.

-- Posted by MrMister on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 5:52 PM

Yeah and just in case you missed the televised Republican forum In South Carolina on Monday you can watch the debate tonight and then again next Monday. Geeeeez give it a break will ya ! What the Republicans want everyone to watch every day of the week and please make sure to squeeeeeeeeeze out Obama........ Don't let Obama make a speech on the same night.... Oh and after his speech there usually is some Republican to critique it well tomorrow night after his speech there will be several critiquing, sounds to me like they fear Obama !!

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 4:02 PM

Speaking of Political Posturing that is petty. How about reporting what Maxine Waters and that Carson fellow said?

Or some of the remarks that Joe Biden has made or Mr. Obama that were completely out of line and petty?

I don't agree with what Boehner is doing, or anyone else that refuses to take the high road, but lets be fair and say that the pettiness starts at the top and works it way down

-- Posted by KH Gal on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 1:33 PM