The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on December 19, 2014, 04:32:15 pm
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/227669-boehner-invites-obama-to-deliver-state-of-union (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/227669-boehner-invites-obama-to-deliver-state-of-union)
By Scott Wong - 12/19/14 10:30 AM EST
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Friday officially invited President Obama to give his annual State of the Union address in the House chamber at 9 p.m. on Jan. 20.
But the invitation came as congressional Republicans have ripped Obama for abusing his executive authority. They sued Obama this year for unilaterally making changes to his health care law. And they've clashed with him in recent days and weeks over his executive actions on immigration and normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba.
Some conservatives in Boehner's GOP caucus had even urged him to block Obama from giving his annual address, even though it is part of the president's constitutional duties.
Boehner's invitation was friendly -- he even wished Obama a "Merry Christmas." But the Speaker also noted Obama, for the first time, will be addressing a Congress fully controlled by Republicans.
"The new year will bring a new American Congress, and with it, the opportunity to continue our work to build a stronger economy and secure a better future for our country," Boehner said in his invitation to Obama.
"In that spirit, it is my honor to invite you to address a Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 so that you may fulfill your duty under the Constitution to report on the state of the union and recommend measures for our consideration. Your report will inform our efforts to address the people’s priorities."
-
Crying couches all around.
-
I wonder what would happen if Boehner didn't invite him...a firestorm on Cap Hill like we have never seen before I bet..lol
-
Some conservatives in Boehner's GOP caucus had even urged him to block Obama from giving his annual address, even though it is part of the president's constitutional duties.
Now this, this is pure insanity. Don't we have better things to do than look like a bunch of idiots messing around with a traditional dog-and-pony show?
-
Has it ever not been done before?
-
Has it ever not been done before?
Who really cares? Why give the democrats a treasure trove of ammunition over something that is really meaningless but is also a constitutional requirement.
-
Now this, this is pure insanity. Don't we have better things to do than look like a bunch of idiots messing around with a traditional dog-and-pony show?
From Thomas Jefferson until Woodrow Wilson, the SOTU was simply a written report sent to Congress. There was no speech actually given; it was simply read by the clerk.
-
From Thomas Jefferson until Woodrow Wilson, the SOTU was simply a written report sent to Congress. There was no speech actually given; it was simply read by the clerk.
I'll say it again: Why give the democrats a treasure trove of ammunition over something that is really meaningless but is also a constitutional requirement.
-
Who really cares? Why give the democrats a treasure trove of ammunition over something that is really meaningless but is also a constitutional requirement.
I agree with the first part of your statement...it would be a treasure trove indeed. Besides, more and more Americans prefer watching a sonogram than this tripe.
But the Constitution requires a report on the State of the Union. This requirement can easily be met via the written word. The televised SOTU is a modern tradition, not a Constitutional requirement.
-
I agree with the first part of your statement...it would be a treasure trove indeed. Besides, more and more Americans prefer watching a sonogram than this tripe.
But the Constitution requires a report on the State of the Union. This requirement can easily be met via the written word. The televised SOTU is a modern tradition, not a Constitutional requirement.
Fair enough on the second part.
-
Has it ever not been done before?
Washington, after his first State of the union, refused to attend again, and sent a letter every year. There's precedent in spades. Why the F*CK invite the Grifter in Chief to your building, KNOWING he's going to lie to your face?
-
Washington, after his first State of the union, refused to attend again, and sent a letter every year. There's precedent in spades. Why the F*CK invite the Grifter in Chief to your building, KNOWING he's going to lie to your face?
Until we can call him what he is - the enemy - we cannot defeat him. This is NOT how you treat your enemy!
Is that not nice of me?
Xin Loi.
-
I'm in favor of the Worm being invited to give the state of the Union address in person.
Of course, if I was asked, I might "accidentally" pull the fuses to the teleprompters just as he started. Let's see the great orator without his crutch, in his own words, and in front of a politely hostile audience.
-
Washington, after his first State of the union, refused to attend again, and sent a letter every year. There's precedent in spades. Why the F*CK invite the Grifter in Chief to your building, KNOWING he's going to lie to your face?
So then what about all of the precedents set between Washington and now?
Washington had slaves, and some wanted to make him a King. FDR was elected four times, during my mother's lifetime.
Precedents?
-
So then what about all of the precedents set between Washington and now?
Washington had slaves, and some wanted to make him a King. FDR was elected four times, during my mother's lifetime.
Precedents?
The precedent under discussion involves whether or not the President must be present to deliver the State of the Union address. It has nothing to do with which Presidents held slaves when slavery was legal, nor which Presidents [President, actually] chose to exceed the traditional, one might say precedetial, voluntary two term limit in office. For most of the 18th and 19th century the answer was a resounding 'NO'. As to your first precedent: [1] Irrelevant, and [2],at the time of Washington's Presidency, legal. As for the second 'precedent' you cited, that matter was settled by Constitutional Amendment, a process the Teleprompter in Chief seems to find cumbersome in his dealings with Congress and the Constitution. And if Washington could not tell a lie, Il Douche cannot tell the truth. Why give him a forum.
-
The precedent under discussion involves whether or not the President must be present to deliver the State of the Union address. It has nothing to do with which Presidents held slaves when slavery was legal, nor which Presidents [President, actually] chose to exceed the traditional, one might say precedetial, voluntary two term limit in office. For most of the 18th and 19th century the answer was a resounding 'NO'. As to your first precedent: [1] Irrelevant, and [2],at the time of Washington's Presidency, legal. As for the second 'precedent' you cited, that matter was settled by Constitutional Amendment, a process the Teleprompter in Chief seems to find cumbersome in his dealings with Congress and the Constitution. And if Washington could not tell a lie, Il Douche cannot tell the truth. Why give him a forum.
You give him the forum, just as every president in recent memory got the forum. You act with traditional respect for the office.
You avoid the fringe tendencies, with no upside and plenty of downside. I would expect Sen. Cruz would give you the same advice.
-
You give him the forum, just as every president in recent memory got the forum. You act with traditional respect for the office.
You avoid the fringe tendencies, with no upside and plenty of downside. I would expect Sen. Cruz would give you the same advice.
Exactly.
At this point in time, I think that the best thing to do is to have as many of his lies and obfuscations as possible on record. For the sake of history and the endless ammunition that it will give future generations when looking for an example of what constitutes a bad President.
-
Exactly.
At this point in time, I think that the best thing to do is to have as many of his lies and obfuscations as possible on record. For the sake of history and the endless ammunition that it will give future generations when looking for an example of what constitutes a bad President.
Why should we worry about such pomp and circumstance when we should be worried about what executive order he'll be issuing next? The main focus and goal should be stopping the Obama insanity. Everything else is really secondary. If we don't stop his agenda, we won't need to worry about much else as we won't have a country left.
-
Exactly.
At this point in time, I think that the best thing to do is to have as many of his lies and obfuscations as possible on record. For the sake of history and the endless ammunition that it will give future generations when looking for an example of what constitutes a bad President.
:thumbsup:
-
Why should we worry about such pomp and circumstance when we should be worried about what executive order he'll be issuing next? The main focus and goal should be stopping the Obama insanity. Everything else is really secondary. If we don't stop his agenda, we won't need to worry about much else as we won't have a country left.
Should the GOP ask the DNC whether or not they are OK with the reasons why Obama won'r be invited to deliver the speech?
I'm sure that if we don't they won't ask us when they start not inviting a sitting Republican President.
Not inviting Obama to give the speech is petty and accomplishes nothing more than giving the left the opportunity to continue painting the right as bitter and petty haters.
-
Not inviting Obama to give the speech is petty and accomplishes nothing more than giving the left the opportunity to continue painting the right as bitter and petty haters.
I agree. They don't have a "thumbs up" bigger than the one I used above, or I'd use it here. This issue comes up every year. I'd like to see people start protesting by not showing up (like SCOTUS. They should not have come again after Obama used a SOTU speech to rag them out in public).
-
[[ I'd like to see people start protesting by not showing up (like SCOTUS.) ]]
Agree.
The entire Republican delegation should call in sick that night.
Let Obama give his address -- to a more-than-half empty chamber.
Is this guy still around?
Maybe we should send just him in:
(http://c9900913.r13.cf2.rackcdn.com/03-15-20_rep-joe-wilson_original.jpg)
-
Joe Wilson. He disappointed me then because he apologized for "You lie!" It turned out he was telling the 100% truth, and he apologized for doing so. Very disappointing.
-
I agree. They don't have a "thumbs up" bigger than the one I used above, or I'd use it here. This issue comes up every year. I'd like to see people start protesting by not showing up (like SCOTUS. They should not have come again after Obama used a SOTU speech to rag them out in public).
With that I completely agree.
-
I agree. They don't have a "thumbs up" bigger than the one I used above, or I'd use it here. This issue comes up every year. I'd like to see people start protesting by not showing up (like SCOTUS. They should not have come again after Obama used a SOTU speech to rag them out in public).
I agree the SCOTUS could/should pass on the SOTU, I think the optics of GOP representatives not showing up for the speech are just as damaging to the GOP brand as not inviting the President to Congress to explain why he is such a screw up. With all the perceived problems in the USA, not showing up screams "Meet the GOP majority...Same as the rat Majority. My way or the highway." When Wilson called the President a liar the voters were not ready to hear it. The voters don't like Obama as much as they used to, but the GOP should privately thwart and stall President Obama at each turn, and outwardly they should smile when the mention the President and talk of a new working relationship with him.
-
Until we can call him what he is - the enemy - we cannot defeat him. This is NOT how you treat your enemy!
Is that not nice of me?
Xin Loi.
The NEW GOP Majority - declaring itself an enemy to half the voters. That has a nice ring to it if you believe America is longing for a new civil war.
Is that really the only way to defeat Obama? I'm not so sure.
-
The NEW GOP Majority - declaring itself an enemy to half the voters. That has a nice ring to it if you believe America is longing for a new civil war.
Is that really the only way to defeat Obama? I'm not so sure.
I agree completely. It would provide great optics for the networks to portray the Republicans as something they're not.
Would like to see a parliamentary atmosphere however, like the British.
-
Once-Ler wrote above:
[[ The NEW GOP Majority - declaring itself an enemy to half the voters. ]]
That's because to approximately half of "the voters", a "GOP majority" IS "the enemy".
And they're going to remain the enemy regardless of what the GOP does in trying to "be nice".
So let them stand up and ACT LIKE they are opposing "an enemy" -- the enemy of the left and all that it represents!
von Clauswitz:
"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means."
Fishrrman:
"Politics is war waged through electoral means."
What the Pubbies need is a modern-day Lee Atwater...