From NY Daily News: (emphasis mine)
So sayeth Rep Charlie Rangel, the most ethical man ever to serve in our fine upstanding government institution.
Rep Rangel, does not speak for me. And I do care how legislation is made. I do care about procedure. No matter what he and the President say. I was uncomfortable with the "nuclear option" (as it was called when Sen. Frist was considering it) for President Bush's judicial appointments, and I'm uncomfortable with it now. Especially considering the magnitude of the legislation involved.
Other points of note after yesterday's summit. Powerlineblog has a post about Rep. Ryan's awesome explanation of the funny math that the Dems keep highlighting regarding defecit costs. I saw the tail end of this live, and Obama's cloudy expression really says it all. The guy really does look mean through parts of the Ryan's remarks.
My biggest thoughts after listening through the thing ... The President talked too much. I want to see debate, yes. I want to see the committee meetings. I want to see the hashing out between the two parties as they reach agreement (or disagreement). I do not need to see the President speak about the bill for hours on end. He's signing the thing, yes, and his part of the process is important, but he really didn't need to talk that much.
In fact, if they had a more compotent VP, I think this would have been a wonderful opportunity for the VP (the President of Senate) to help the deliberative process. But Joe being Joe, I guess that couldn't be done.
I've read many reports (obviously from the right) that said the President demeaned the position by reducing himself to a moderator and in some cases talking down to those that were speaking. There were many cases of that, but there were many cases where he was friendly and seemed to want to get along.
He did not seem that way when dealing with Alexander, Ryan, McCain, or the Doctor who's name I can't remember off hand. He seemed like a petulant child who could not believe that someone dared say he was wrong on anything.
He also, I thought, made an idiot out of himself for calling the bill a "prop." I really did a double take when he said that. How could it be a prop? Wasn't that what they were there to discuss? Granted, it looks bad because it's so enormously massive, but it is the topic of the day. What I couldn't understand is why the Dems didn't have papers on their desks. Why didn't they have aides handing them notes and figures like the Reps did?
Now, President Obama is a master debater. He did really well to start arguing a point someone had made, fillibuster for a moment, then change the subject so that the individual being countered could not go back to the original argument, the conversation had already moved on. This was infuriating to watch, but it's genius debating.
His low points:
1 - saying "the election is over." We know this, you know this, everyone knows this. It's just mean and petty to keep pointing this out to the loser. He should be better than that.
2 - The bill is a "prop."
3 - His facial expression when Rep Ryan was speaking. I'm really amazed that Ryan held his gaze. I'd have folded like a lawn chair. And maybe cried.
His high points:
The one that stood out the most to me - was when he went after the doctor that said catastrophic insurance was not a good option. I happen to disagree with him, I think it's an offering that has some uses, but for the group of people he's speaking to (sub $40k a year) I think the idea of having catastrophic only is the darkest of nightmares.
I'm sure there are other highs - like he did okay without the teleprompter. He didn't flub up too much. Joe Biden was hysterical. He broke in at one point and said something so incomprehensible that I blinked a bunch and went, "huh?" He's a funny dude. I actually like him. I saw him at the Olympics with his wife and he was charming. And I saw him once on Bill Mayer and he was interesting there too. He was calling for dividing Iraq up into regions based on ethnicity (which is assinine), but he was interesting.
Last point on yesterday - Senator Bunning (R-KY) and the Dems trying to pass more and more spending bills (stop-gap bills) without honoring their "pay as you go" rules recently adopted. From Red State:
The decision Obama may have to make is to use a Senate rule that allows Senate legislation affecting the budget to be passed with a simple majority, and not the 60 votes often required.
Sen. John McCain argued that using that budget reconciliation measure was too drastic of a step.
"I think it could harm the future of our country and our institution," McCain said.
But Obama and other Democrats brushed off the GOP warnings.
"The big problem Americans would have [is] why does it take 60 votes to get a majority?" said Harlem Rep. Charlie Rangel. "People aren't concerned with the debate - they're concerned with what you're going to produce."
So sayeth Rep Charlie Rangel, the most ethical man ever to serve in our fine upstanding government institution.
The House ethics committee said on Thursday that it had admonished Representative Charles B. Rangel for violating Congressional gift rules by accepting corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008.
But the ethics panel, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, did not issue findings in its continuing inquiries into more serious matters concerning Mr. Rangel’s fund-raising, his failure to pay federal taxes on rental income from a Dominican villa, and his use of four rent-stabilized apartments provided by a Manhattan real estate developer.
Rep Rangel, does not speak for me. And I do care how legislation is made. I do care about procedure. No matter what he and the President say. I was uncomfortable with the "nuclear option" (as it was called when Sen. Frist was considering it) for President Bush's judicial appointments, and I'm uncomfortable with it now. Especially considering the magnitude of the legislation involved.
Other points of note after yesterday's summit. Powerlineblog has a post about Rep. Ryan's awesome explanation of the funny math that the Dems keep highlighting regarding defecit costs. I saw the tail end of this live, and Obama's cloudy expression really says it all. The guy really does look mean through parts of the Ryan's remarks.
My biggest thoughts after listening through the thing ... The President talked too much. I want to see debate, yes. I want to see the committee meetings. I want to see the hashing out between the two parties as they reach agreement (or disagreement). I do not need to see the President speak about the bill for hours on end. He's signing the thing, yes, and his part of the process is important, but he really didn't need to talk that much.
In fact, if they had a more compotent VP, I think this would have been a wonderful opportunity for the VP (the President of Senate) to help the deliberative process. But Joe being Joe, I guess that couldn't be done.
I've read many reports (obviously from the right) that said the President demeaned the position by reducing himself to a moderator and in some cases talking down to those that were speaking. There were many cases of that, but there were many cases where he was friendly and seemed to want to get along.
He did not seem that way when dealing with Alexander, Ryan, McCain, or the Doctor who's name I can't remember off hand. He seemed like a petulant child who could not believe that someone dared say he was wrong on anything.
He also, I thought, made an idiot out of himself for calling the bill a "prop." I really did a double take when he said that. How could it be a prop? Wasn't that what they were there to discuss? Granted, it looks bad because it's so enormously massive, but it is the topic of the day. What I couldn't understand is why the Dems didn't have papers on their desks. Why didn't they have aides handing them notes and figures like the Reps did?
Now, President Obama is a master debater. He did really well to start arguing a point someone had made, fillibuster for a moment, then change the subject so that the individual being countered could not go back to the original argument, the conversation had already moved on. This was infuriating to watch, but it's genius debating.
His low points:
1 - saying "the election is over." We know this, you know this, everyone knows this. It's just mean and petty to keep pointing this out to the loser. He should be better than that.
2 - The bill is a "prop."
3 - His facial expression when Rep Ryan was speaking. I'm really amazed that Ryan held his gaze. I'd have folded like a lawn chair. And maybe cried.
His high points:
The one that stood out the most to me - was when he went after the doctor that said catastrophic insurance was not a good option. I happen to disagree with him, I think it's an offering that has some uses, but for the group of people he's speaking to (sub $40k a year) I think the idea of having catastrophic only is the darkest of nightmares.
I'm sure there are other highs - like he did okay without the teleprompter. He didn't flub up too much. Joe Biden was hysterical. He broke in at one point and said something so incomprehensible that I blinked a bunch and went, "huh?" He's a funny dude. I actually like him. I saw him at the Olympics with his wife and he was charming. And I saw him once on Bill Mayer and he was interesting there too. He was calling for dividing Iraq up into regions based on ethnicity (which is assinine), but he was interesting.
Last point on yesterday - Senator Bunning (R-KY) and the Dems trying to pass more and more spending bills (stop-gap bills) without honoring their "pay as you go" rules recently adopted. From Red State:
Last night, while most Americans were watching the Olympics, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) was standing strong for the American people on the floor of the United States Senate. Oh, it won’t be portrayed as such - believe me. But when no other Senator, including anyone in Republican leadership, would stand up, Senator Bunning took to the floor to object to a unanimous consent request to call up and pass the House-passed extension of a number of expiring so-called “stimulus” and other benefit programs, because Bunning dared to ask the simple question of how these extensions would be paid for.Read the whole thing.
Comments