Congress needs to get some sense
As I see it, there's a reason why Congress's approval rating is at an all-time low of 29%: they don't debate issues but rather find distractions and debate those instead.
Rather than debating Iraq and all things related to it, Congress and the Senate spend a couple of days debating whether or not to condemn a MoveOn.org ad blasting Gen. Petraeus. It's an ad from a liberal group (which should be given no credence whatsoever in the first place), but as I see it, it's protected by our First Amendment right of free speech. While we may detest what someone writes, as the Voltaire quote goes, we should give our lives so that those can continue to write. So we spend a couple of days debating this ad instead of children's health insurance, a balanced budget, reformed spending, the national debt, Medicare, etc.?
That was the Republicans' turn. Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduces legislation condemning Rush Limbaugh (conservative radio commentator, so again, no credence) for his "phony soldiers" comment. Again, free speech, so he can say it, regardless of how tasteless or what not it is. Now the Senate is debating whether or not to condemn Limbaugh's comments publicly.
What's more important? A balanced budget or condemning someone's right to free speech? Iraq policy or an ad by a liberal group?
Before the 2006 mid-term elections, Jack Cafferty (CNN) said that "we should vote everyone out of Congress and start again", or re-elect nobody. I guess I agree with him now: I mean, if Congress's approval rating is 11%, how much worse could it be?
I'm sorry, but I saw these two news stories and I had to comment. It's angering that our elected leaders can't set their priorities straight.
EJ (paukenschlag)
Rather than debating Iraq and all things related to it, Congress and the Senate spend a couple of days debating whether or not to condemn a MoveOn.org ad blasting Gen. Petraeus. It's an ad from a liberal group (which should be given no credence whatsoever in the first place), but as I see it, it's protected by our First Amendment right of free speech. While we may detest what someone writes, as the Voltaire quote goes, we should give our lives so that those can continue to write. So we spend a couple of days debating this ad instead of children's health insurance, a balanced budget, reformed spending, the national debt, Medicare, etc.?
That was the Republicans' turn. Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduces legislation condemning Rush Limbaugh (conservative radio commentator, so again, no credence) for his "phony soldiers" comment. Again, free speech, so he can say it, regardless of how tasteless or what not it is. Now the Senate is debating whether or not to condemn Limbaugh's comments publicly.
What's more important? A balanced budget or condemning someone's right to free speech? Iraq policy or an ad by a liberal group?
Before the 2006 mid-term elections, Jack Cafferty (CNN) said that "we should vote everyone out of Congress and start again", or re-elect nobody. I guess I agree with him now: I mean, if Congress's approval rating is 11%, how much worse could it be?
I'm sorry, but I saw these two news stories and I had to comment. It's angering that our elected leaders can't set their priorities straight.
EJ (paukenschlag)