So I'm sitting here watching the interview of Pres. Obama by the anchor from Fox news, and a couple of thoughts. First, from the beginning of the interview wanted to be anywhere else but where he was. As a matter of fact, he looked angry and upset that he had to take the time out of his day to explain something to anyone, and in particular to someone from a network that he really really does not like. There is an almost arrogant look about this man eddies across from Fox news person, as if to say I shouldn't have to answer to anyone what I want to do and what I want to implement as my policy as president of the United States.
Second, I understand that to the extent the president has to be loyal to his party. However, at what point does present have to be loyal to his party at the expense of telling people, the people he was elected by, what he truly thinks about something. The first part of the interview, the Fox news reporter asked about the so-called "Slaughterer rule" which the House of Representatives seems determined to use in this situation. Although Pres. Obama said he wanted the vote to happen, he would not say that this parliamentary rule which Speaker of the House Pelosi is enamored with is the wrong way to go about business.
Parliamentary rules exist to allow things to get done, but they are not there to avoid people having to take responsibility for the ultimate votes. The people that we elected to the Congress whether they be Democrat or Republican are ultimately responsible to us and therefore they are unwilling or unable to execute their duty by either voting yes or no on what ever bill there is in front of them, then they need to resign or we need to replace them.
At the end of the day, this is a Republic in which our representatives democratically elected. for one party to hijack the process, by allowing bill to be passed and sent to the president for his signature, is a betrayal of our form of government. If this were to happen, whether it be this week next week we're six months ago, I should hope someone would bring case in the federal courts that even the most liberal activist or the most strictly constructionistic conservative judge would be able to look at this and realized that this was not what the Constitution says or means. Because failing that, we would no longer live in a democratic republic but in some sort of weird dictatorship where party leaders act as were the arbiters of what is right for the people and the people have no say in the final outcome, whomever they choose to elect.
when pressed by a reporter, argued back that the raid/conservatives in this country were focused too much on process and not enough on the substance of the bill. However when he was asked about the substance of the bill, he flipped and talked about the process and said how ugly it all was when it came to making laws in this country. What he was either unwilling to a knowledge, or unwilling to say, a double arm court and in our government if the process is corrupt, then no matter what Bill is produced no matter what law is inactive the system is corrupt and loses legitimacy. The fact that our representatives feel that such rule is ever allowable or that such a process can ever be permitted is wrong and if either party had courage there would be not only a rule, a law prohibiting it.
I don't know what is in the bill that speaker policy wants to get past. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure anyone in this country knows the entire contents of the proposed legislation. It's been promised the proposed health care bill will be posted for everyone to read it online. The question is, whether anyone in Congress will read it, or if they're just too desperate to serve their own agendas that one side or the other must win and the other must lose irrespective of what will happen to the American people.
Debate on the CFPB's arbitration rule
1 hour ago