The GOPtards are going to all lengths to illegitimize Obama's Presidency every chance they get. I'm surprised someone didn't start humming the theme to Sanford & Son when he was walking to the podium.
QuoteThe Republican Response, Arriving a Little Early
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, September 10, 2009
As President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, the nation's rapidly deteriorating discourse hit yet another low.
It happened at 8:40 pm, just after the president vowed to lawmakers that his health-care reform proposals would not provide benefits to illegal immigrants. As millions of Americans watched from home, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted at the president from his fifth-row seat: "You lie!"
Murmurs of "ooh" filled the stunned chamber. Nancy Pelosi's chin dropped. Obama moved on to the next sentence in his speech, about how no federal money would be used to fund abortion. "Not true!" came another shout.
The national debate, already raw for years, had coarsened over the summer as town hall meetings across the country dissolved into protests about "death panels" and granny-killing. Guns were brought to Obama appearances. A pastor in Arizona said he was praying for Obama to die.
But even by that standard, there was something appalling about the display on the House floor for what was supposed to be a sacred ritual of American democracy: the nation watching while Cabinet members, lawmakers from both chambers and the diplomatic corps assembled.
Wilson was only the most flagrant. There was booing from House Republicans when the president caricatured a conservative argument by saying they would "leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own." They hissed when he protested their "scare tactics." They grumbled as they do in Britain's House of Commons when Obama spoke of the "blizzard of charges and countercharges."
When he asserted that "nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have," there was scoffing and outright laughter on the GOP side. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) shook his head in disbelief. Several Republicans shouted "What plan?" and Rep. Louis Gohmert (Tex.) waved at Obama a handwritten poster he made on a letter-size piece of paper: "WHAT PLAN?" Gohmert then took that down and replaced it with another handmade poster that said "WHAT BILL?"
The irony was that Obama had used his speech to offer a significant concession to Republicans and to break with liberals in his own party. There was a cool silence in the chamber as the president told "my progressive friends" that the "public option" they treasure as part of health-care reform could be sacrificed in favor of other ideas.
And, in truth, there were provocations from the Democratic side. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), sitting on the Republican side, insisted on making a victory sign with his hand and waving it at Obama. Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.), also on the GOP side of the aisle, felt the need to pound his fist in the air and make what looked, awkwardly, like a fascist salute.
Scolding Republicans for scoring "short-term political points," Obama wasn't subtle in his effort to make his foes look cruel. The White House stocked the first lady's box at the speech with a virtual medical ward: a woman with sarcoidosis, a colon cancer patient, a recurrent cancer survivor, a double amputee, two women with breast tumors, a woman with eye problems, a man with high cholesterol, two brain tumor survivors, the son of a brain cancer victim and the fathers of children who have seizures and hemophilia.
But while the majority of both parties' lawmakers behaved as adults, the insolence by House Republicans stole the show. There was derisive laughter on that side of the chamber when Obama noted that "there remain some significant details to be ironed out." They applauded as he spoke of "all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months." They laughed again when he said that "many Americans have grown nervous about reform."
When Obama addressed the charge that he plans "panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens," someone on the GOP side shouted out "shame!" The president went on: "Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical." "Read the bill!" someone shouted back. Obama mentioned those who accuse him of a government takeover of health care. "It's true," someone shouted back.
The antics continued when Obama urged opponents to "come to me with a serious set of proposals." About 20 Republican members raised copies of the GOP health-reform proposal over their heads. They raised their props again when Obama criticized those who think "it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it."
Even as Obama delivered a tribute to the late senator Ted Kennedy, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga), a leader of House conservatives, perused his BlackBerry. Shortly before the speech ended, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) walked out to beat the rush.
Above all, though, was Wilson's effrontery. From the reaction in the chamber -- one Democrat could be heard calling for him to be thrown out -- Wilson knew he had stepped in it. He shrugged, then consulted his BlackBerry. He puffed out his cheeks to exhale and licked his lips.
Toward the end of Obama's speech, the text of which was handed out before the congressman's outburst, was a fitting rebuke of the sort of behavior Wilson had just exhibited. When "we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter," Obama said, "we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves."
As Obama spoke these words, Wilson twiddled his thumbs, then took his BlackBerry from its holster to consult it yet again. The speech ended, and, as his colleagues applauded, Wilson beat a hasty retreat.
An incensed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went up to GOP Reps. Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.) to complain about the outburst. "No president has ever had that happen," Emanuel said. "My advice is he apologize immediately. You know my number."
Wilson did as Emanuel advised. After all that shouting, it's a wonder he wasn't too hoarse to place the call.
Well, it seems like America is finally demystifying their president.
Wow, such lack of respect from the GOP. Bush got better than this.
Quote from: Neil on September 10, 2009, 06:02:43 AM
Well, it seems like America is finally demystifying their president.
Nah, just the black ones.
When you call a joint session of Congress for a political stunt and deliver a laughably dishonest speech why should they suck up to him? Dear Leader just can't get enough of himself on TV.
As long as the GOP doesn't bring in some Code Pink hecklers during a real State of the Union speech they will not have sunk to the low level of decorum that the Democrats display. Kinda funny at how CdM is blustering up his phony outrage.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 06:22:58 AM
When you call a joint session of Congress for a political stunt and deliver a laughably dishonest speech why should they suck up to him? Dear Leader just can't get enough of himself on TV.
As long as the GOP doesn't bring in some Code Pink hecklers during a real State of the Union speech they will not have sunk to the low level of decorum that the Democrats display. Kinda funny at how CdM is blustering up his phony outrage.
I wonder if the Republicans will actually enforce their own rules...
QuoteReferences to the Senate or Executive Branch
Until the 109th Congress, it was not in order to make certain references to the Senate or individual senators. However, at the beginning of that Congress, the House removed the prohibition on making references to the Senate, leaving only the requirement that debate be confined to the question under debate and avoid "personality." The precedents of the House allow a wide latitude in criticism of the President, other executive officials, and the government itself. However, it is not permissible to use language that is personally offensive to the President, such as referring to him as a "hypocrite" or a "liar." Similarly, it is not in order to refer to the President as "intellectually dishonest" or an action taken by the President as "cowardly." References to the Vice President, in spite of his role as President of the Senate, are measured against the standard used for the President rather than prior standards used to govern the Senate.
Categories of Unparliamentary Speech
Defaming or degrading the House
Criticism of the Speaker's personal conduct
Impugning the motives of another Member
Charging falsehood or deception
Claiming lack of intelligence or knowledge
References to race, creed, or prejudice
Charges related to loyalty or patriotism
Committee on Rules - Republicans
U.S. House of Representatives
1627 Longworth Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
PHONE: (202) 225-9191
FAX: (202) 225-6763
EMAIL: [email protected]
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 06:22:58 AM
When you call a joint session of Congress for a political stunt and deliver a laughably dishonest speech why should they suck up to him? Dear Leader just can't get enough of himself on TV.
As long as the GOP doesn't bring in some Code Pink hecklers during a real State of the Union speech they will not have sunk to the low level of decorum that the Democrats display. Kinda funny at how CdM is blustering up his phony outrage.
If Wilson had pulled a gun and shot at the President your argument would not change one word.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 06:22:58 AM
When you call a joint session of Congress for a political stunt and deliver a laughably dishonest speech why should they suck up to him? Dear Leader just can't get enough of himself on TV.
As long as the GOP doesn't bring in some Code Pink hecklers during a real State of the Union speech they will not have sunk to the low level of decorum that the Democrats display. Kinda funny at how CdM is blustering up his phony outrage.
There's a difference between outside hecklers and elected representatives calling each other liars. Of course, you're German, so I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 06:22:58 AM
When you call a joint session of Congress for a political stunt and deliver a laughably dishonest speech why should they suck up to him? Dear Leader just can't get enough of himself on TV.
As long as the GOP doesn't bring in some Code Pink hecklers during a real State of the Union speech they will not have sunk to the low level of decorum that the Democrats display. Kinda funny at how CdM is blustering up his phony outrage.
Wow such a high standard of integrity you hold your own party to. Hilarious you excuse and even endorse this bullshit. You are no different than the most moronic leftist and to even pretend differently is dillusional. Political discourse in this country is really going to shit and it was never strong to begin with. I guess that is a victory for the Hansies of the world.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2009, 05:52:02 AM
As Obama spoke these words, Wilson twiddled his thumbs, then took his BlackBerry from its holster to consult it yet again.
:punk: Now this is *my* style of 'heckling'.
I do think we owe it to the Dems to give Obama the same level of respect & loyalty they showed Boosh.
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2009, 09:20:30 AM
I do think we owe it to the Dems to give Obama the same level of respect & loyalty they showed Boosh.
In the words of Cincinnatus: if you act no better than the Plebs you are no better than the Plebs.
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2009, 09:20:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2009, 05:52:02 AM
As Obama spoke these words, Wilson twiddled his thumbs, then took his BlackBerry from its holster to consult it yet again.
:punk: Now this is *my* style of 'heckling'.
I do think we owe it to the Dems to give Obama the same level of respect & loyalty they showed Boosh.
I'm glad that you want your fellows to be so amendable to Mr. Obama.
I don't think anyone should be surprised by the classless behavior of Republicans, at this point. That the Democrats may have been equally classless at some point is a rather pathetic excuse.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 09:22:45 AM
In the words of Cincinnatus: if you act no better than the Plebs you are no better than the Plebs.
I'm sick of the 'high road' approach. All it does is make you irrelevant in politics these days.
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2009, 09:20:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2009, 05:52:02 AM
As Obama spoke these words, Wilson twiddled his thumbs, then took his BlackBerry from its holster to consult it yet again.
:punk: Now this is *my* style of 'heckling'.
Ooooooh just want until Obama sees what I wrote about him on Twitter! *tap* *tap* *tap*
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2009, 09:38:08 AM
I'm sick of the 'high road' approach. All it does is make you irrelevant in politics these days.
I think those are the words of Julius Caesar. :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 09:51:09 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2009, 09:38:08 AM
I'm sick of the 'high road' approach. All it does is make you irrelevant in politics these days.
I think those are the words of Julius Caesar. :P
Sulla. :)
I support having the army move into South Carolina and ending that menace once and for all.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 10, 2009, 10:12:53 AM
Sulla. :)
Maybe the Republicans should march on Washington and make up proscription lists.
I would kill Jon Edwards if I could get his property.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 10:22:31 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 10, 2009, 10:12:53 AM
Sulla. :)
Maybe the Republicans should march on Washington and make up proscription lists.
I would kill Jon Edwards if I could get his property.
There is talk that the GOP is wanting general Betray Us to run in 2012.
some perspective: we see this kind of stuff in Ottawa fairly regularly and I suspect Westminister as well. watch "Question Period" (the Hansard accounts are amusingly genteel and bloodless).
I think most of it nowadays is playing for the cameras and evening soundbytes. I think it turns off as many people as it turns on.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 10, 2009, 10:31:38 AM
There is talk that the GOP is wanting general Betray Us to run in 2012.
:w00t:
Well on the other hand lots of people sound like a good candidate...until they actually become a candidate.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 10, 2009, 10:45:03 AM
some perspective: we see this kind of stuff in Ottawa fairly regularly and I suspect Westminister as well. watch "Question Period" (the Hansard accounts are amusingly genteel and bloodless).
I think most of it nowadays is playing for the cameras and evening soundbytes. I think it turns off as many people as it turns on.
Even in Westminster calling someone a liar is a big no-no.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 10:45:06 AM
Well on the other hand lots of people sound like a good candidate...until they actually become a candidate.
Colin Powell. :cool:
OTOH I never liked the fact that he didn't know how to pronounce his own first name. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 10:22:31 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 10, 2009, 10:12:53 AM
Sulla. :)
Maybe the Republicans should march on Washington and make up proscription lists.
I would kill Jon Edwards if I could get his property.
Friggin Psychics ain't got no call to be on TV.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 10, 2009, 11:41:44 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 10:22:31 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 10, 2009, 10:12:53 AM
Sulla. :)
Maybe the Republicans should march on Washington and make up proscription lists.
I would kill Jon Edwards if I could get his property.
Friggin Psychics ain't got no call to be on TV.
Though watching his commentary on Fox News during the Terri Schiavo case was comedy gold.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 10:45:06 AM
Well on the other hand lots of people sound like a good candidate...until they actually become a candidate.
True :(
It'd be nice to finally be able to vote for a General, however :w00t:
Quote from: Warspite on September 10, 2009, 11:14:51 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 10, 2009, 10:45:03 AM
some perspective: we see this kind of stuff in Ottawa fairly regularly and I suspect Westminister as well. watch "Question Period" (the Hansard accounts are amusingly genteel and bloodless).
I think most of it nowadays is playing for the cameras and evening soundbytes. I think it turns off as many people as it turns on.
Even in Westminster calling someone a liar is a big no-no.
point. checking the hansards, it seems "liar" provokes a similar-sounding controversy, and at least in case at Queen's Park, a suspension.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 10, 2009, 01:20:01 PM
point. checking the hansards, it seems "liar" provokes a similar-sounding controversy, and at least in case at Queen's Park, a suspension.
Yes, accusing another member of Parliament of deceit is a serious matter. The reason being that the laws of defamation do not apply within the Parliamentary chamber. The Speaker takes on the responsibility of maintaining the conduct of the members and can expell members who do not act appropriately.
(sask I know you know this - it is for the benefit of others)
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 10:45:06 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 10, 2009, 10:31:38 AM
There is talk that the GOP is wanting general Betray Us to run in 2012.
:w00t:
Well on the other hand lots of people sound like a good candidate...until they actually become a candidate.
Generals that run against Presidents they have served under(I think the only one is McClellan) have a historical record for losing. He'd wait until 2016, if he runs at all.
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2009, 09:38:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 09:22:45 AM
In the words of Cincinnatus: if you act no better than the Plebs you are no better than the Plebs.
I'm sick of the 'high road' approach. All it does is make you irrelevant in politics these days.
The GOP has proved you can irrelevant no matter what road you take.
They are taking the low road now mostly because little remains of what used to be their leadership and the rump of a party that remains is a mostly a sad collection of paranoids and mental Palins.
I've seen the clips. I think what Wilson did was wrong and over the top. He realised that and apologised and I'm glad that every Republican asked about it told him he should apologise.
Having said that I didn't find there much objectionable in the loud groans of discontent at various points. But then I'm British, we're used to that sort of thing. I remember Americans having talked during the Bush years about the dignity of the office. I didn't really get it then and I don't get it now. So I think it's a cultural difference. Though I can't know because we don't have a President, maybe we'd always behave deferentially to them too? :mellow:
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 10, 2009, 02:03:37 PM
Generals that run against Presidents they have served under(I think the only one is McClellan) have a historical record for losing. He'd wait until 2016, if he runs at all.
But McClellan was a failure & a defeatist. And a Demoncrat.
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2009, 12:06:56 PM
It'd be nice to finally be able to vote for a General, however :w00t:
You could have voted for Clark. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2009, 02:43:31 PM
Though I can't know because we don't have a President, maybe we'd always behave deferentially to them too? :mellow:
Deference to the President is one of the things about American politics that has always struck me as a bit odd. In our tradition you have at the executive (the Prime Minister).
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2009, 02:43:31 PM
I've seen the clips. I think what Wilson did was wrong and over the top. He realised that and apologised and I'm glad that every Republican asked about it told him he should apologise.
Having said that I didn't find there much objectionable in the loud groans of discontent at various points. But then I'm British, we're used to that sort of thing. I remember Americans having talked during the Bush years about the dignity of the office. I didn't really get it then and I don't get it now. So I think it's a cultural difference. Though I can't know because we don't have a President, maybe we'd always behave deferentially to them too? :mellow:
Maybe you'd understand it better in terms of the President being not just the Head of Government but also the Head of State. Imagine someone heckling the Queen like that.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 10, 2009, 02:54:56 PM
Maybe you'd understand it better in terms of the President being not just the Head of Government but also the Head of State. Imagine someone heckling the Queen like that.
We have long recognized that the Head of Government should not also hold the position of Head of State.
There isn't anything wrong with not respecting the President in general.
However, when the guy is up there giving a speech, you can ahve the common decency to shut your trap and let him do his bit, THEN go and bitch about it.
IMO, this is pretty basic civility. I wouldn't heckle anyone giving a speech, much less the POTUS.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 02:58:14 PM
There isn't anything wrong with not respecting the President in general.
However, when the guy is up there giving a speech, you can ahve the common decency to shut your trap and let him do his bit, THEN go and bitch about it.
IMO, this is pretty basic civility. I wouldn't heckle anyone giving a speech, much less the POTUS.
Thank you, Berkut. I'm glad you at least have some class.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 10, 2009, 02:54:56 PM
Maybe you'd understand it better in terms of the President being not just the Head of Government but also the Head of State. Imagine someone heckling the Queen like that.
I thought Oprah Winfrey was our Queen now? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2009, 02:43:31 PM
I didn't really get it then and I don't get it now. So I think it's a cultural difference. Though I can't know because we don't have a President, maybe we'd always behave deferentially to them too? :mellow:
What is there to get? The President is the leader of the nation, the head of state and government and selected freely by his fellow citizens and the only office we elect on a nationwide basis. Thus he is the personification of the soveriegnty of the people and so forth.
To give the President shit when he is acting as the President is to sort of shit on the nation as a whole. But strangely the man himself is fair game most of the time (like insulting the President during a time of crisis is really frowned upon).
The President has two bodies :P
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 02:58:14 PM
There isn't anything wrong with not respecting the President in general.
However, when the guy is up there giving a speech, you can ahve the common decency to shut your trap and let him do his bit, THEN go and bitch about it.
IMO, this is pretty basic civility. I wouldn't heckle anyone giving a speech, much less the POTUS.
Man it pissed me off when the people at Obama's inauguration booed Bush. At least they were just the common plebian rabble though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 02:56:48 PM
We have long recognized that the Head of Government should not also hold the position of Head of State.
Any particular reason for that? I guess the value of a powerless figurehead is sort of lost on me.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 03:04:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 02:56:48 PM
We have long recognized that the Head of Government should not also hold the position of Head of State.
Any particular reason for that? I guess the value of a powerless figurehead is sort of lost on me.
Someone gave a very good reason just a few posts ago.
QuoteTo give the President shit when he is acting as the President is to sort of shit on the nation as a whole.
Its a bit odd to say that your head of government is off limits.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 03:09:17 PM
Its a bit odd to say that your head of government is off limits.
Um...maybe you missed the part where we call them all worse than Hitler? When he is in public acting as the President you show him a bit of respect. Then when you are done you pronounce him worse than Hitler.
It isn't rocket science here.
QuoteSomeone gave a very good reason just a few posts ago.
I must have missed it. Why have a position that doesn't do anything? Seems like a waste of public money to me...not that we are bad at that or something.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 10, 2009, 02:54:56 PMMaybe you'd understand it better in terms of the President being not just the Head of Government but also the Head of State. Imagine someone heckling the Queen like that.
Oh I get that. The difference is though that the Queen is studiously non-political. The entire point of her is that theoretical top of the state is entirely removed from the political process, so that passions aren't excited and you wouldn't heckle. Same reason the Armed Forces tend to be seen as having a special relationship with the Queen, she's sort of symbolic of the nation. I mean even the Presidential systems I like are the ones that give the Presidency to elder statesmen as a sort-of lifetime achievement award rather than ones in which the Presidency is engaged in dirty politics on a daily basis.
That's why I wonder whether it would be the same if we had a President, or whether it is something to do with the Head of State thing. I think we'd be as abusive to a President (though Wilson was out of line) because I think Britain no longer has any sense of deference to politicians.
QuoteThe President has two bodies :P
This is the thing I don't get, the President's consubstantiality. Sometimes he's just a politician, sometimes he represents the nation. I'm not sure where the lines are or how that works.
QuoteIMO, this is pretty basic civility. I wouldn't heckle anyone giving a speech, much less the POTUS.
I've less of a problem with heckling. It's a core part of our political system/pantomine :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 02:51:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2009, 02:43:31 PM
Though I can't know because we don't have a President, maybe we'd always behave deferentially to them too? :mellow:
Deference to the President is one of the things about American politics that has always struck me as a bit odd. In our tradition you have at the executive (the Prime Minister).
Well, the President is the equivalent of the Queen for the UK/Canada. So don't think of him as the equivalent of the Prime Minister. In fact, the US is unique (among Republics) that it doesn't have a separate Prime Minister post that most Presidential Republics have (e.g. France, Germany or Poland).
Quote from: PDH on September 10, 2009, 10:19:53 AM
I support having the army move into South Carolina and ending that menace once and for all.
I suggest calling up 75,000 90 day volunteers for the task.
Next time around, Wyoming will be the first state to secede.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 03:09:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 03:04:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 02:56:48 PM
We have long recognized that the Head of Government should not also hold the position of Head of State.
Any particular reason for that? I guess the value of a powerless figurehead is sort of lost on me.
Someone gave a very good reason just a few posts ago.
QuoteTo give the President shit when he is acting as the President is to sort of shit on the nation as a whole.
Its a bit odd to say that your head of government is off limits.
Still, a lot of people want to abolish gg's job because it's a worthless one
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 03:09:17 PM
Its a bit odd to say that your head of government is off limits.
Um...maybe you missed the part where we call them all worse than Hitler? When he is in public acting as the President you show him a bit of respect. Then when you are done you pronounce him worse than Hitler.
It isn't rocket science here.
QuoteSomeone gave a very good reason just a few posts ago.
I must have missed it. Why have a position that doesn't do anything? Seems like a waste of public money to me...not that we are bad at that or something.
Because the "head of state" has a ton of ceremonial functions. These aren't "useful' in the same way as actually governing the country is "useful", but they are
necessary.
With two bodies - a ceremonial head of state, and a prime minister to govern - you can reserve all the awe-struck "they represent the
nation"-type deference for the one, have him or her attend all the diplomatic bun-fests and bridge openings and the like, while the other gets on with business - and calling out "shame!" at the latter in the rough-and-tumble of parliament isn't sort of unpatriotic.
I mean, if there
isn't a ceremonial head of state, the person whose job it is to actually govern has to do more of that cremonial and diplomatic crap, wasting his or her valuable time.
I think yelling at someone who is giving a speech is a crass thing to do not matter what you call them.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 04:25:58 PM
I think yelling at someone who is giving a speech is a crass thing to do not matter what you call them.
Yeah. I think Wilson was out of line apparently some one else shouted 'Shame!' at one point during his death panel section too, similarly out of line. But I've no problem with the booing or groaning of the Republicans except that I don't know if it's acceptable in the American context.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 04:25:58 PM
I think yelling at someone who is giving a speech is a crass thing to do not matter what you call them.
Depends to an extent on the context and institutional tradition.
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 04:21:55 PM
[With two bodies - a ceremonial head of state, and a prime minister to govern - you can reserve all the awe-struck "they represent the nation"-type deference for the one, have him or her attend all the diplomatic bun-fests and bridge openings and the like
That's the theory, but the practice rarely works out because the people who get elected to the head of state position usually are time-serving nobodies. For example, "awe-struck" is hardly the word that one would use in the presence of the likes of Giorgio Napolitano or Horst Kohler, yet they happen to be heads of the two largest and most important states in Europe.
Of course, you could always fall back on the prestige ( :rolleyes:) of a royal house, but that requires actually having a royal house that has some prestige and puts one at the risk of the fecklessness and genetic oddities that such dynasties are prone to give rise to from time-to-time. You could get a bicycle monarch or a harmless stiff waver like Liz 2, but you could also get a disaster like Edward VIII.
EDIT: I would think this would be understood by Canadians - you guys have a hard enough time making your immediate southern neighbor and largest trading partner remember who your PM is; I doubt 1 in 10,000 would recognize the Governor General even if he plowed into them while escorted by an honor brigade of moose cavalry.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2009, 04:28:16 PM
Yeah. I think Wilson was out of line apparently some one else shouted 'Shame!' at one point during his death panel section too, similarly out of line. But I've no problem with the booing or groaning of the Republicans except that I don't know if it's acceptable in the American context.
I've never even seen booing and hissing during a State of the Union. The standard method of demonstrating disapproval is through sitting on your hands and looking stony during the applause lines.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I've never even seen booing and hissing during a State of the Union. The standard method of demonstrating disapproval is through sitting on your hands and looking stony during the applause lines.
Yep there is a protocol and tradition and the hecklers broke those in this case. Hopefully this sort of thing will not become standard fare in the future.
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2009, 09:38:08 AMI'm sick of the 'high road' approach. All it does is make you irrelevant in politics these days.
How would you know?
Yeah, I don't think the deference to the HoS has in practice a lot to do with whether he is depoliticized or not (I mean, in most Republics he will naturally be) but by a local tradition. Even in a country where there is a separate function of a prime minister, the president can take an active political role and still be offered some deference (e.g. France, Russia or Poland).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I've never even seen booing and hissing during a State of the Union. The standard method of demonstrating disapproval is through sitting on your hands and looking stony during the applause lines.
Apparently it happened to Bush in 2005 over Social Security and to Clinton in 93, 95, 97 and 98.
I love this guy. He did more for healthcare reform than any congressional democrat has done.
Hopefully, he's censured and loses his seat in 2010. Think I'll donate some money to his challenger..
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 05:07:51 PM
EDIT: I would think this would be understood by Canadians - you guys have a hard enough time making your immediate southern neighbor and largest trading partner remember who your PM is; I doubt 1 in 10,000 would recognize the Governor General even if he plowed into them while escorted by an honor brigade of moose cavalry.
I guess I almost make your point when I remind you that our GG is a "she".
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2009, 06:43:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 05:07:51 PM
EDIT: I would think this would be understood by Canadians - you guys have a hard enough time making your immediate southern neighbor and largest trading partner remember who your PM is; I doubt 1 in 10,000 would recognize the Governor General even if he plowed into them while escorted by an honor brigade of moose cavalry.
I guess I almost make your point when I remind you that our GG is a "she".
The Haitian woman?
OMG WHERE IS HER BIRTH CERTIFICATE. :mad:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2009, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I've never even seen booing and hissing during a State of the Union. The standard method of demonstrating disapproval is through sitting on your hands and looking stony during the applause lines.
Apparently it happened to Bush in 2005 over Social Security and to Clinton in 93, 95, 97 and 98.
And one of the Congressmembers booing and hissing was ....... Senator Obama. :lol:
I guess all this fake outrage at Joe Wilson simply proves that the speech by Obama was a disaster.
It was just a few years ago when the Democrats loved it when Joe Wilson called the President a liar.
Quote from: Rex Francorum on September 10, 2009, 04:02:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 03:09:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 03:04:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2009, 02:56:48 PM
We have long recognized that the Head of Government should not also hold the position of Head of State.
Any particular reason for that? I guess the value of a powerless figurehead is sort of lost on me.
Someone gave a very good reason just a few posts ago.
QuoteTo give the President shit when he is acting as the President is to sort of shit on the nation as a whole.
Its a bit odd to say that your head of government is off limits.
Still, a lot of people want to abolish gg's job because it's a worthless one
Agreed. But I would rather have a worthless head of state rather then one that is off limits and does have power.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 07:14:35 PM
And one of the Congressmembers booing and hissing was ....... Senator Obama. :lol:
Youtube footage link, please.
And stop hating our President because he's black, you rascist bastard.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2009, 04:25:58 PM
I think yelling at someone who is giving a speech is a crass thing to do not matter what you call them.
Agreed. We were going on a bit of a tangent regarding the reverence Americans otherwise have for the office of the President.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2009, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I've never even seen booing and hissing during a State of the Union. The standard method of demonstrating disapproval is through sitting on your hands and looking stony during the applause lines.
Apparently it happened to Bush in 2005 over Social Security and to Clinton in 93, 95, 97 and 98.
And one of the Congressmembers booing and hissing was ....... Senator Obama. :lol:
I guess all this fake outrage at Joe Wilson simply proves that the speech by Obama was a disaster.
It was just a few years ago when the Democrats loved it when Joe Wilson called the President a liar.
You're full of shit. Just stop.
Quote from: Fireblade on September 10, 2009, 07:19:39 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 07:14:35 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2009, 06:15:41 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2009, 05:54:58 PM
I've never even seen booing and hissing during a State of the Union. The standard method of demonstrating disapproval is through sitting on your hands and looking stony during the applause lines.
Apparently it happened to Bush in 2005 over Social Security and to Clinton in 93, 95, 97 and 98.
And one of the Congressmembers booing and hissing was ....... Senator Obama. :lol:
I guess all this fake outrage at Joe Wilson simply proves that the speech by Obama was a disaster.
It was just a few years ago when the Democrats loved it when Joe Wilson called the President a liar.
You're full of shit. Just stop.
The poor guy is just forwarding on what he recieves from whoever makes this stuff up.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 07:14:35 PM
I guess all this fake outrage at Joe Wilson simply proves that the speech by Obama was a disaster.
I don't think it's fake outrage which is why everyone jumped on him Democrat and Republican. I think what Wilson did was beyond the pale. I mean what he did would be banned in the House of Commons :lol:
As I've said I've not much of a problem with the booing and hissing, or the derisive laughter - though it may not look good in a system not used to it. But the heckle was just rude.
Quote from: Fireblade on September 10, 2009, 06:46:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2009, 06:43:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 05:07:51 PM
EDIT: I would think this would be understood by Canadians - you guys have a hard enough time making your immediate southern neighbor and largest trading partner remember who your PM is; I doubt 1 in 10,000 would recognize the Governor General even if he plowed into them while escorted by an honor brigade of moose cavalry.
I guess I almost make your point when I remind you that our GG is a "she".
The Haitian woman?
OMG WHERE IS HER BIRTH CERTIFICATE. :mad:
She was born in Haiti. Until she became the GG she actually had dual France-Canada citizenship.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2009, 07:16:02 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 07:14:35 PM
And one of the Congressmembers booing and hissing was ....... Senator Obama. :lol:
Youtube footage link, please.
And stop hating our President because he's black, you rascist bastard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mqSXsNJzRM&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mqSXsNJzRM&feature=player_embedded)
Unfortunately, this video doesn't have the right angle at the time of the Democrats erupting to interrupt President Bush to see the Obamateur reaction, though it was quite clear an universal outbreak (and not a singular case as with Joe Wilson), so your pathetic outrage now is laughable. And of course this is still far tamer than the time the Democrats invited Code Pink as guests to disrupt the president's SOTU speech (and the Obamateurs speech wasn't a SOTU speech but a campaign event)
As far as the racism charge, you're the only person on this forum to ever engage in explicitly racists comments in reference to Obama so I just have to laugh (remember when you opposed Obama because you see black men all the time standing at the side of the road asking for change?)
Next week Hans will be telling us that Rep. Wilson is actually a registered democrat.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2009, 07:22:17 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 07:14:35 PM
I guess all this fake outrage at Joe Wilson simply proves that the speech by Obama was a disaster.
I don't think it's fake outrage which is why everyone jumped on him Democrat and Republican. I think what Wilson did was beyond the pale. I mean what he did would be banned in the House of Commons :lol:
As I've said I've not much of a problem with the booing and hissing, or the derisive laughter - though it may not look good in a system not used to it. But the heckle was just rude.
The reason all the leftists are jumping on Wilson is that as long as they attack him they don't have to spend any time defending Obama's speech. They're not really mad at Joe Wilson, they just don't know how they possibly could defend Obama's outlandish claims.
I remember you going on about how Joe Wilson was a liar and despicable. Now you are defending him? Yeesh!
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2009, 07:55:53 PM
I remember you going on about how Joe Wilson was a liar and despicable. Now you are defending him? Yeesh!
Was it the same guy? Valerie Plame's husband? I thought he was a Democrat.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 10, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 10, 2009, 07:55:53 PM
I remember you going on about how Joe Wilson was a liar and despicable. Now you are defending him? Yeesh!
Was it the same guy? Valerie Plame's husband? I thought he was a Democrat.
You are totally fucking up my joke.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 10, 2009, 07:32:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mqSXsNJzRM&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mqSXsNJzRM&feature=player_embedded)
Unfortunately, this video doesn't have the right angle at the time of the Democrats erupting to interrupt President Bush to see the Obamateur reaction, though it was quite clear an universal outbreak (and not a singular case as with Joe Wilson), so your pathetic outrage now is laughable.
You're conflating three different things.
Joe Wilson heckled, as did someone else at a different point, to be precise at a moment when no-one else was talking Wilson shouted 'you lie!' Something which is beyond the pale in even the rowdiest legislature in the Western world. I think even if he'd shouted something innocuous it wouldn't have been acceptable, because I don't believe that heckling should be a part of our discourse unless you're being witty (the Dennis Skinner doctrine).
The GOP last night booed and hissed and so on. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. As I've said it happened 4 times to Clinton and possibly to Bush there in the last 5 seconds. So it's not unprecedented, though it's rude and I think unusual in America's overly decorous Congress.
The Democrats in 2005, from that clip, seem to largely be engaging in inappropriate applause and, possibly, an ovate-off with the Republicans. It's a bit rude, sure, but it's from the very core of American politics: the almost involuntary, spasming need to applaud that even respectable Senators show. I think it turns politics into a Big Brother eviction, but I think that of all the applauding Congress does.
QuoteThe reason all the leftists are jumping on Wilson is that as long as they attack him they don't have to spend any time defending Obama's speech.
I'll ignore your mind-reading and just point out that it's not just leftists who've thought this was unacceptable. I believe righties like McCain, Joe Scarborough and others have condemned it - which is entirely right. What he did was wrong for an elected official. I mean even he's accepted that.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2009, 06:43:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 05:07:51 PM
EDIT: I would think this would be understood by Canadians - you guys have a hard enough time making your immediate southern neighbor and largest trading partner remember who your PM is; I doubt 1 in 10,000 would recognize the Governor General even if he plowed into them while escorted by an honor brigade of moose cavalry.
I guess I almost make your point when I remind you that our GG is a "she".
I couldn't name a single GG in all of Canadian history.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 09:14:06 PM
I couldn't name a single GG in all of Canadian history.
:o
Not even Sir Guy Carleton!!?
He was the only one other than Clarkson I could name myself.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 02:27:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 10, 2009, 09:38:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 09:22:45 AM
In the words of Cincinnatus: if you act no better than the Plebs you are no better than the Plebs.
I'm sick of the 'high road' approach. All it does is make you irrelevant in politics these days.
The GOP has proved you can irrelevant no matter what road you take.
They are taking the low road now mostly because little remains of what used to be their leadership and the rump of a party that remains is a mostly a sad collection of paranoids and mental Palins.
:huh:
Wow.
Quote from: Maximus on September 10, 2009, 09:29:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 09:14:06 PM
I couldn't name a single GG in all of Canadian history.
:o
Not even Sir Guy Carleton!!?
He was the only one other than Clarkson I could name myself.
Only talking about post-1867 Canada.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 09:14:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2009, 06:43:15 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 05:07:51 PM
EDIT: I would think this would be understood by Canadians - you guys have a hard enough time making your immediate southern neighbor and largest trading partner remember who your PM is; I doubt 1 in 10,000 would recognize the Governor General even if he plowed into them while escorted by an honor brigade of moose cavalry.
I guess I almost make your point when I remind you that our GG is a "she".
I couldn't name a single GG in all of Canadian history.
Lord Stanley? Viscount Byng? The Marquess of Lansdowne?
Quote from: Neil on September 10, 2009, 09:49:28 PM
Viscount Byng?
The only reason why I know him is b/c the thread we had here about the McKenzie King dissolution crisis.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 09:51:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 10, 2009, 09:49:28 PM
Viscount Byng?
The only reason why I know him is b/c the thread we had here about the McKenzie King dissolution crisis.
He was one of the Great Commanders of the Great War. Stanley has his Cup, and Lansdowne was the greatest of the Indian Viceroys.
Quote from: Neil on September 10, 2009, 09:49:28 PM
Lord Stanley? Viscount Byng? The Marquess of Lansdowne?
Michelle Jean and Romeo LeBlanc are the only ones I know :sadblush:
Well it is a backwater of a dead empire. It's like asking someone to name a governor of Pannonia inferior.
Quote from: Neil on September 10, 2009, 10:01:23 PM
Lansdowne was the greatest of the Indian Viceroys.
I'd heard of Lansdowne, just not that he was GG of Canada at some point in an otherwise illustrative career. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 11, 2009, 11:27:01 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 10, 2009, 10:01:23 PM
Lansdowne was the greatest of the Indian Viceroys.
I'd heard of Lansdowne, just not that he was GG of Canada at some point in an otherwise illustrative career. ;)
He was a pussy.
Quote from: Neil on September 10, 2009, 09:44:37 PM
:huh:
Wow.
Big city liberals and crazy froth. Two things that always come together. :(