Question...
WHAT THE HELL IS NANCY PELOSI DOING IN DAMASCUS!?!
Did I miss something? Did the boat leave? I think the boat left and I wasn't on the boat. Since when is it the function of our bloody legislators to act as ambassador plenipotentiaries?
For those out there who haven't read the damn Constitution, that's the function of the Executive branch of the federal government. Its that branch's responsibility to pick out the ambassadors, since one of the manifold hats worn by the president is that of chief ambassador of the US. The only say the legislative branch has in the naming of ambassadors is in their approval. They can't even suggest people, officially. If the legislative branch doesn't like what the executive branch is doing (in the absence of their doing something illegal), they can't do anything about it until the next election except for piss and moan. They CERTAINLY cannot take it upon themselves to do another branch's job for them.
And now the speaker of the House jumps the gun and opens a dialog with a government body the White House doesn't want anyone talking to. Despite their reasons for doing so (which I don't really agree with), it is still their call to make. It is not the function of her position to make policy and act like an ambassador.
Here's an example: Let's say I left work tomorrow to go sit in on a meeting with a customer out in California, or up in DC, or in Baltimore, or wherever else the discussion might be going on. Even though I might have been doing some work for the company, I would have been fired the instant my feet hit the red soil of Huntsville because I wasn't DOING MY JOB!!!
What's next? Are John Kerry and Ted Kennedy going to organize an international golf outing with President Ahmedinejad? Is Newt Gingrich going to sit in for Chief Justice John Roberts when he has a cold? Is W. himself going to drive down the road to the Capitol and preside over the House!?!
Her job is to stand behind that damn podium, gavel in hand, and preside over the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Period. Paragraph. END OF ^#&@ING STORY!!!
I hope all of the shit in her office is packed up and her staff fired by the time she gets back. That would only be fair.
We're in some seriously deep shit if the legislative branch of the federal government won't even abide by its own rules now. They are there to provide oversight for the other branches of government, not control.
They try to control the military.
They try to dictate policy through the passing of bylaws. (Illegal, by the way)
They try to act as ambassadors.
And everyone is still bitching about G.W. Bush. For the last time, he's not the problem. Even if every decision he makes from now to the end of his LAST term (which ends in '08) is terribly detrimental for our country, that's only policy. The next guy in office can come in and wipe everything clean. With Congress, however, it takes just shy an act of God to retract a decision that they make. Getting something repealed takes ten times as much work as it did getting it passed in the first place.
They're there to act in the best interest of our nation and the people who live in it.
They're not.
Their function is to debate and compromise until they come up with the best decision available at the time, rather than pursue political in-fighting.
They're not.
Their job is to pass laws for the protection of the life, benefit, and welfare of US citizens, rather than the benefit of corporations and governmental bodies.
They're not.
Robert Heinlein once said that diplomacy and politics were the greatest invention of mankind. It gives people the opportunity to resolve important and often dangerous issues without resorting to bloodshed and war. However, when politics give way to political agendas, that's when it all breaks down.
Did I miss something? Did the boat leave? I think the boat left and I wasn't on the boat. Since when is it the function of our bloody legislators to act as ambassador plenipotentiaries?
For those out there who haven't read the damn Constitution, that's the function of the Executive branch of the federal government. Its that branch's responsibility to pick out the ambassadors, since one of the manifold hats worn by the president is that of chief ambassador of the US. The only say the legislative branch has in the naming of ambassadors is in their approval. They can't even suggest people, officially. If the legislative branch doesn't like what the executive branch is doing (in the absence of their doing something illegal), they can't do anything about it until the next election except for piss and moan. They CERTAINLY cannot take it upon themselves to do another branch's job for them.
And now the speaker of the House jumps the gun and opens a dialog with a government body the White House doesn't want anyone talking to. Despite their reasons for doing so (which I don't really agree with), it is still their call to make. It is not the function of her position to make policy and act like an ambassador.
Here's an example: Let's say I left work tomorrow to go sit in on a meeting with a customer out in California, or up in DC, or in Baltimore, or wherever else the discussion might be going on. Even though I might have been doing some work for the company, I would have been fired the instant my feet hit the red soil of Huntsville because I wasn't DOING MY JOB!!!
What's next? Are John Kerry and Ted Kennedy going to organize an international golf outing with President Ahmedinejad? Is Newt Gingrich going to sit in for Chief Justice John Roberts when he has a cold? Is W. himself going to drive down the road to the Capitol and preside over the House!?!
Her job is to stand behind that damn podium, gavel in hand, and preside over the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Period. Paragraph. END OF ^#&@ING STORY!!!
I hope all of the shit in her office is packed up and her staff fired by the time she gets back. That would only be fair.
We're in some seriously deep shit if the legislative branch of the federal government won't even abide by its own rules now. They are there to provide oversight for the other branches of government, not control.
They try to control the military.
They try to dictate policy through the passing of bylaws. (Illegal, by the way)
They try to act as ambassadors.
And everyone is still bitching about G.W. Bush. For the last time, he's not the problem. Even if every decision he makes from now to the end of his LAST term (which ends in '08) is terribly detrimental for our country, that's only policy. The next guy in office can come in and wipe everything clean. With Congress, however, it takes just shy an act of God to retract a decision that they make. Getting something repealed takes ten times as much work as it did getting it passed in the first place.
They're there to act in the best interest of our nation and the people who live in it.
They're not.
Their function is to debate and compromise until they come up with the best decision available at the time, rather than pursue political in-fighting.
They're not.
Their job is to pass laws for the protection of the life, benefit, and welfare of US citizens, rather than the benefit of corporations and governmental bodies.
They're not.
Robert Heinlein once said that diplomacy and politics were the greatest invention of mankind. It gives people the opportunity to resolve important and often dangerous issues without resorting to bloodshed and war. However, when politics give way to political agendas, that's when it all breaks down.