Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The point is, Congress people will act like Congress people. They're concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas.
Oh? I never heard that before. Something new . . . or something you have observed by your more realistic understanding of contexts? I double checked the official guide on how and for what Congress people act--the Constitution. It lists 18 things in which Congress has the responsibility to act. None of the 18 says that members are to be concerned primarily with personal impact and one sided agendas. Each of the 18 are enumerated as duties not agendas. And they are very specific, not encumbered by conflicting or various "sides."
This is crystal clear with the current House behavior. Cruze's motivation is establishing himself on the National stage to run for President,
The House behavior to which you refer was about the funding of a law which was imperfectly written, and which itself has been an "agenda" of progressives for a century. An agenda that is not listed as one of the 18 ways on which Congress is supposed to act. And, yes, Congress can override Supreme Court decisions. It is actually the final arbiter of what is federal law, not the SCOTUS.
I understand, however, that you have no truck with such notions. The Constitution, for you, is an outdated document which was written in a different context than that in which we currently live. High sounding concepts such as liberty, especially individual liberty, no longer apply. We are all totally interdependent in such a way that individualism is an obstacle to efficient social order and good governance thereof. And it is through government, highly centralized and staffed with expert bureaucrats, that we must achieve what is good for all.
The "perception" that a Cruze could be acting honorably to perform his Constitutional duty to country and constituents is probably for you, naïve. Your reading of the relevant context, with its variables and relative agendas, is that what he is doing is only for a run at the presidency.
House Republicans are generally terrified that more Tea Party candidates are going to back stab them in the primaries.
Actually, the Tea Party has felt that it has been back stabbed by Republicans whom they helped to victory, and who have abandoned promises that helped them get elected. Any new candidates the Tea Party runs to replace back stabbing Congress people will be to right the ship.
Obama simply said that as President he saw you need a broader perspective.
-spence
|
Yes, yes, the "perspective" thing. I know, I know, the official guide to what the POTUS's perspective should be is irrelevant. That perspective is much narrower than what modern presidents must have. They are responsible for so much more, just about everything, so that one person couldn't actually handle it and do it well--that jack of all trades but master of none syndrome. So as a mere Senator, or regular person, one could not be "perceived" as being capable of understanding budgetary problems, especially involving trillions of dollars. But, being elected to the presidency, the master of all things, one evolves into a wider sphere of vision, of contexts, of variables, of relativities, of a massively broad perspective which encompasses the totality of the American nation.
Really?