Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Democrats Interrupt 2006 Bush Speech, Cheer Obstructionism on Entitlement Reform
Congressional Democrats interrupted President Bush's speech on entitlement reform in 2006. Bush's opponent cheer wildly as they rise in response to Bush's assertion that Congress did not act on his reform agenda in 2005. Via Gateway Pundit. Then-Senator Barack Obama was one of the Democratic obstructionists in attendance.
"Obstructionists"?? Look, Donald, it wasn't just Democrats who were cheering that Bush wasn't able to destroy Social Security. A majority of AMERICA was cheering for that, too. That's why the Republican-controlled Congress backed down. The only "obstructionism" we did was to not give political cover to Bush's politically stupid idea.
And as a reminder, Reagan also learned his lesson after trying to "reform" Social Security. Reagan had campaigned on privatizing it, but by the time he saw the political hell he had unleashed, he completely backtracked and ended up saving Social Security by raising payroll taxes. But of course, those weren't the only taxes Saint Ronnie increased. That's the difference between Bush and Reagan: Reagan listened to the polls and compromised with Democrats. Bush rarely did. Their legacies reflect that.
Democrats are a weak,pathetic,desperate group of sissies. Their king mummbled on and on for an hour saying nothing. The entire day they spent crying and whining about over a man that said two TRUTHFUL words 'YOU LIE'!.
Republican Rules of the House, for those conservatives who still believe in the rule of law and whatnot:
"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.”" - Committee on Rules - Republicans
I'm afraid liberals revised the standards of conduct over the last 8 years (this video is an example). And yes, the president is intellectually dishonest, he is a hypocrite, and he is a liar. Is he cowardly? I don't know yet.
"Obstructionists"?? Look, Donald, it wasn't just Democrats who were cheering that Bush wasn't able to destroy Social Security. A majority of AMERICA was cheering for that, too. That's why the Republican-controlled Congress backed down. The only "obstructionism" we did was to not give political cover to Bush's politically stupid idea.
ReplyDeleteAnd as a reminder, Reagan also learned his lesson after trying to "reform" Social Security. Reagan had campaigned on privatizing it, but by the time he saw the political hell he had unleashed, he completely backtracked and ended up saving Social Security by raising payroll taxes. But of course, those weren't the only taxes Saint Ronnie increased. That's the difference between Bush and Reagan: Reagan listened to the polls and compromised with Democrats. Bush rarely did. Their legacies reflect that.
Oh, Dr. B., you'll give the conservatives here an attack of the vapors if you mention that Reagan raised taxes! What kind of a doctor are you?
ReplyDeleteDemocrats are a weak,pathetic,desperate group of sissies. Their king mummbled on and on for an hour saying nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe entire day they spent crying and whining about over a man that said two TRUTHFUL words 'YOU LIE'!.
Republican Rules of the House, for those conservatives who still believe in the rule of law and whatnot:
ReplyDelete"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.”" - Committee on Rules - Republicans
repsac3:
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid liberals revised the standards of conduct over the last 8 years (this video is an example). And yes, the president is intellectually dishonest, he is a hypocrite, and he is a liar. Is he cowardly? I don't know yet.
Emily:
ReplyDeleteAs you're not a member of the House, speaking in the chamber, you can say such things without breaking REPUBLICAN House rules.
Representative Wilson, on the other hand, did not have that luxury when he heckled the President.
The fact that you share his sentiments--or that I do not--doesn't change that rule or the fact that Mr. Wilson broke it.
Booing (or applauding) the President is not covered by these rules.