McHenry County Blog

This might have a little more merit if Dennis could learn the words to the National Anthem...maybe you weren't aware, but at a recent ceremony, he was mummbling and fumbling through the whole song! It may sound a bit petty, but for pete's sake, he's a Congressman and long term public servant who should know the words by now! Just my opinion.
 

sunegirl - Hey maybe we should cut his pension beacause of it too.....glad you have decided to value his career of public service on a bad rendition of the national anthem. Doesn't it count that he spent his time putting the words of that song into practice rather than practicing memorization of the words?

What a great message it would send to our youth.. worry about wether you have the words down, don't worry about executing to the meaning!

And don't worry about it sounding "a bit petty", because it sounds allot petty!
 

Monelson, it isn't about PETTY...it's about a SENIOR congressman third in line to the Presidency...speaker of the HOUSE of Representatives of the most powerful nation on this earth who should be setting an example for just those same youth....Doesn't it count that a person such as himself should actually take the time to learn the words of the national anthem? How do you think his 'service' is viewed by people of other nations who DO learn their national anthems and sing them with pride? This is the Land of Lincoln, not the land of Hastert. The reason is that this is the Land of Lincoln is because, Lincoln, a Republican, was willing to lose half the country on an issue he believed was right and just, ie the abolition of slavery. Mr. Hastert, wouldn't come down on the side of righteousnes unless it got him three votes....show me where he stood on the floor of the House, power as Speaker, and rallied on the side of righteousness against the encroachment of the federal government on personal liberties as was demonstrated in the Terri Shaivo case; show me where he stopped pork barrel legislation for bridges to no where; show me where he went up to his Republican fellows and said, "this year, we need to not vote for bridges to nowhere legislation, because we are in a war in Iraq, and our soldiers need body armor....that is where our monies should go"....Opportunity is missed by most people not because it does not knock at their door, but because it is dressed in overalls, and is disguised as work.
I don't doubt his public service, but I think what you do in office is what warrants getting you a statue. I think statues should go to patriots....not people who just put in their time and were more worried about getting voted in year after year, so they just went along with the crowd, rather than be a patriot.
just my opinion.
 

Sunegirl -

I really don't understand your comments. Who was the speaker when republicans voted for armoring humvies and body armor?

As for Lincoln, he was not willing to lose half the country to abolish slavery, which is why he fought a five-year war over it. And be careful how much nobility to attribute to that cause. Could that war have been fought over economics? Could it have been the owners of the new mills of the North East trying to force southern farmers to sell them cotton instead of sending it to England for processing? Could they have been trying to take the south’s labor (be it slave) advantage away from them?

As for your comment about opportunity dressed as work, it is beyond belief that you suggest the speaker-avoided work. Look at the record.. Few have worked harder or longer in that job. No your way off base. And worse than that, your reason is politics. As for the Terri Shaivo case – have you bothered to read the legislation? All it does is clear up the issue of jurisdiction. It says the Federal Court in Florida has jurisdiction and can hear a case. It does not suggest how that court should rule. Further, If I remember right, the Shaivo case was not about Ms. Shaivo’s rights, for she had been in a comma for 14+ years, it was about which relative got to decide her fate – her husband or her parents. All the legislation did was allow any relative of hers to bring suit in federal court.

As for “Mr. Hastert, wouldn't come down on the side of righteousness unless it got him three votes.... show me where he stood on the floor of the House, power as Speaker, and rallied on the side of righteousness”, you seem to have forgotten that Sarbanes-Oxley passed on his watch. You also have forgotten about the Patriot act. Now you may politically differ with some of the legislation passed under his term, but how can you say he did not take a stand?

Get real Sunegirl, the speaker did a great job as speaker, your petty arguments are that you don’t like some of what congress, which is made up of 435 politicians, did. The speaker is not responsible for that. No one person in congress is.
 

Au Contrare
First of all, white collar crime reform bills aside, Mr. Hastert presided over a House of REpresentatives during a time when two of the biggest bankruptcies in world history occured causing people to lose their whole livelihood for LIFE, ie Enron and MCI World Com....a crime bill after the fact, that was fought by the Congress for over two years before passage, was hardly helpful to anyone who ended up without their job, or their pension....where was Mr. Hastert when all this was going on...and wasn't he involved in the energy meetings with Cheney in the early on crisis meetings that alluded that Enron was definitely in trouble?....and he and the others at that meeting knew ahead of time there was a problem with Enron, yet he chose to back the Vice President and kept the content of those meetings a secret, while thousands lost their livelihood and pensions and Californians were charged bazillions of dollars for inflated energy that obviously was not delivered....The body armor legislation was about 1500 dead soldiers too late....let's remember that Rumsfield said, "we don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you have." Well, the army our Republican house voted to have was an army that was not outfitted properly....duh.
Now, you can argue and say that 435 members are responsible for that,but, their esteemed leader I am sure could have rolled up his sleeves and done a little more to move that legislation along a little more quickly, thus possibly saving more soldier's lives and limbs...the excuse pales in the eyes of the parents who buried their young sons and daughters while waiting for decent armor legislation to pass.
As for the Schiavo case...well there's something quite interesting...
Legislation that NOW says the FEDERAL government can hear the case of what once was the platform of the Republican party of state's rights as their basic tenets... ie, the Republicans vehemently defended the state's rights to be the deciding jurisdiction in personal rights cases...the Republican party has always taken the stance that the federal government should stay the heck out of personal rights, like prayer in school, gun control, abortion, etc. This legislation is one in a series recently that has thrown our party's doctrine of 240 years out the window...now everything is the federal government's jurisdiction...everything is fair game...imminent domain for instance, is just one of those...how much personal encroachment are you comfortable with?? hmmm? Personally, I expected more of the Republican camp to be the ones to say, "hey, leave it at the state level...but NO! they flew home on a week end and listened to Bill Frist diagnose Terry Schiavo on Congressional Record, and he had never even seen her as a doctor! Don't you think the Speaker could have slowed those wagons down a little and said,"wait just a doggone minute here..." but he didn't....he was not a statesman...he was not a patriot...and now we have the federal government encroaching even more into our lives and even our death and those of our loved ones....now, you can't even die peacefully if some crazy relative decides to sue! Give me a break Mo!
Your speculation about Lincoln is just that, speculation...
I just know that when he could have enticed the two warring sides to continue the hate, he chose instead to have Dixie played on the day when the surrender was signed, when the North wanted to continue to punish the South when all the people in Washington at that time wanted to make the south suffer......Lincoln chose contrition...that to me is the sign of a statesman....a patriot...not a party man...not a politician...a Patriot. Mr. Hastert is no patriot...not in my book...but, that's my right and my opinion, unless the federal government takes that away too.
and what about the elimination of the right to habeus corpus? That happened six weeks ago...and was largely his downfall of not being re=elected. This basic tenet has now been eliminated. This is one of the pillars of the Bill of Rights...the right to face your accusers; the right to know what you are being accused of; and the right to counsel. This is the basis of our entire jurisprudence. This is the same so called democracy that we are supposedly trying to introduce to the Iraqi's...hmmm. Now the federal government, under Dennis Hastert's watch as Speaker, can come into your house with or without a federal warrant, not let you know they've been there, have the library spy on your selections, have your internet provider turn over information as to what websites you frequent, and then have that information used against you, without benefit of counsel, in a secret court...In five years, we have gone from protecting individual rights and pursuit of personal freedom to a government Domestic Survellience Act that logs the contents of your phone conversations, your travel, your purchases, your everything.....and is monitored in such a way, that you now do not have the freedom you think you have. Where was Dennis Hastert when this was passed? Hmmm?? Everyone is now NOT EQUAL under the law...peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the establishment of justice....without justice, there is no law...without law, there is only chaos and bloodshed.
Is this your idea of Patriot?
If there are any statues to be built, shouldn't the subject of statuary be someone who embodies justice, peace, and pursuit of personal freedom, ie democracy? His voting record does not reflect that.
The statue I want to look up at is the one where the statesman stood up and said, "wait, I am with you on the whole terrorist war and all, but shouldn't we be preserving the freedom that we sacraficed 250,000 soldiers in WWII for? and shouldn't we be preserving that which the terrorists abhorr? otherwise, what are we actually protecting from the terrorists?" To me, that would be someone who deserves to be looked up to.
 

where to start.

Yes at the begining - are you really suggesting that Dennis Hastert is in anyway responsible for the thievery that Ken Lay and crew perpetrated? Have you any rationale that can support your opening? That's like saying that Earl Warren is responsible for lee harvey Oswald...

As for the body armor, it's the Democrats that shot that down, after voting to invade Iraq.

Understand, I admire Lincoln greatly, but you also seem to confuse my comments. Lincoln was the tool of the money in the north east. It's not speculation. Who came west to "find" the Lincoln and talk him into becoming a candidate? Who funded his campaign? Are you niave enough to believe he came out of Illinois and swept the nation with his charm? get real...

By the way, Lincoln did not choose to play Dixie at the surrender. It was Grant. Lincoln was the man who sent Sherman to burn his way across the South. It was Grant who choose the terms of surrender and sent the southerns home.

By the way, speaking of Lincoln, are you aware he suspended the writ of habeous corpus for the duration of the war and placed thousands of suspected southern sympathisers in asylums without any due process? How does that fit with your noble vision? It was a practical and nessecarry way to deal with a threat during a time of war, yet as you say.. it infringed on all our rights. Why? cause for every war since, the president has used similar powers, including the current administration.. where do you think the concept of enemey combatants and Club Gitmo come from?

get off your high horse and get real. While you have every right to blame every thing you don't like about the last 14 years on the speaker, it doesn't make you right...

get real...
 

Did you not read the entry with understanding? Mr. Hastert attended the meeting regarding the energy crisis issues that spoke of Enron's instability, and INSTEAD of saying something about it, or doing something about it, he chose to coddle the administration and look the other way;had he done differently, there might have been some jobs and pensions saved, and people in California might not have been paying the extortionist prices for electricity that did not exist...hence their brownouts. So, NO I am not blaming him for Ken Lay and the others' decisions to bilk their companies of millions, but I do hold him accountable for his complicitous lack of stance when it mattered. This is not the hallmark of a statesman....it's a hallmark of a politician, though. And if putting up a statue to that makes you feel "real" inside, well good for you. One of the things I notice about you Mo, is that when you are pressed to the wall with good debate, you become nasty and throw personal digs out at whomever you disagree with. This is weak oratory on your part. You can tell me to "get real" all you want, but Mr. Hastert's potential statuary is the subject here, not my "realness." Arrogant jabs serve no educational or debatable purpose, and it might serve you better to take a step back and ask yourself if it's worth it to slam people on this blog over and over again as if you are some superior thinker. You aren't, any more than myself or anyone else here.
The beauty of being able to talk about issues with one another here is that it provides not only a forum to express ideas, but to exchange differing ideas WITHOUT bullying and attitude.
Why is it that you are unable to express what you have to say without telling me...."GET REAL"?
I have a right to believe what I believe, just as you do.
My points are well researched and hold just as much merit as yours...your information of Lincoln's presidency may differ from mine, but it doesn't mean my viewpoint isn't real or meritous. The legislation that has passed in the last five years in this country has been really appalling. My point to that is that the third in line to the Presidency of the Unite States of America rarely countered those appalling legislative processes...how is this representative of his constituents when his constituents clearly told him otherwise? Yes, the dems did vote down the bill concerning body armor....because there were OTHER things attached to that bill that not only shouldn't have been there that would have cost the taxpayer billions, but there was useless legislation attached as well. Don't blame them for what has been a common practice among politicos in Washington to do to get some pork barreled self interest appropriation passed. Mr. Hastert obviously didn't step up to the plate on that one either...and that should be a Speaker's job...TO LEAD! If you are speaking of the Presidents's right regarding War Powers Act, yes, you are correct that in times of war, our President has had the power to suspend certain personal freedoms for the country's good. This last piece of legislation isn't the same thing, and you know it. This is our Congress making LAW, which is not the same as the President TEMPORARILY suspending freedom for the good of the country. This is now forever law in our country and does not "lift" when and if we are no longer "at war".
That isn't okay with me, and I know it isn't okay with many Americans, especially in light of all the primrose path speeches this administration has given us about going into Iraq in the first place. The last time this kind of legislation was laid upon a population it was printed in black and white and was in German or Russian. Is that what you would describe as DEMOCRACY? I recommend you read a book call "American in the Gulag" by Alexander Doltzhein (sic) It may not still be in print, although there are libraries that can obtain it for you. It is a true story. And it is real.
 

Sunegirl -

First, read your own words. You attack me on a personal level that I never attack you on. When I say get real, I challange the rose colored glasses view you have, not you personally, but look at what you say about me? Who seems against the wall and lashing back with personal attacks? There is a difference between challanging a view and a personal attack.

What is also clear is that your perspective on all of this is politically different to mine. Name me a national leader you admire in the last 15 years, and you will find them attending something with Enron at it. National energy policy is generated by such meetings. But you suggest that because the speaker attended one meeting, he should have solved the Enron crisis before it was known there was one. You have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

As for my information about Lincoln, the purpose of my proof point was to suggest you look deeper. Look for the hands that position and move the politicians. It's way too easy to blame it all on the leader at the top.

unfortunately, I do not have the time to rebut other arguments you have made this am. Maybe later...
 

Sunegirl-

Interesting that you call the legislation the last five years as apalling. Now the the make up of the congress has changed, I may end up thinking the same about the next four years. But the point is that that legislation will be based on the vote of our representatives. As the democratic fillibusters of the last four years have shown, the speaker and his party do not have all the power in this game.

Again, your assertion that the legislation has bene apalling is your opinion and is an opinion which does not sqaure with the then majority of the electorate and thier elected representatives over those five years. Hope you like what the new majority does better.

But regardless, the speaker did his job. Maybe you have an expectation of what his job is that is not in the code that defines the job...mmm
 

More appalling was the complete lack of oversight during the Republican-led Congress.

I heard a statistic comparing the amount of hours spent investigating Clinton's behavior (many hours) to the number of hours spent investigating allegations of torture (few hours). I wish I could remember the numbers: they were very different!

Those decisions are not put-up for a vote; the leadership sets the congressional schedule.

I certainly wouldn't want to pay for a statue honoring a politician who has "looked the other way" so many times.
 

Rusus -

I don't think the leadership decides the agenda alone, but rather the majority party itself. Especially when it comes to impeachment. Bet the statistics you almost cite change dramatically now that we have a different majority party.

I accept your statement about not wanting to pay for statue to a person who looked the other way so many times. Who would you put a statue up to - Earl Warren ? Tip O'Neal? Bill Clinton? John Kennedy? Abraham Lincoln? Franklin Roosevelt?

My point is still the same as it has been. Are your objections based on real wrongdoing, or simply you disagree with his politics? I bet most of the people on this list you would agree to put a statue up to. Yet I can site actual wrong doing that each of them participated in, not merely my disagreement with their policies. The interesting thing is, I would pay money (and probably already have) to put up statues to honor each of them for what they did contribute. I would honor their positive contribution in an attempt to motivate others to strive to do the same.

So really – what did the speaker actually do wrong as opposed to running a congress that passed laws you don’t like? And if you use the same litmus test – that their policies had to be agreeable to all Americans instead of a majority before they rate a statue - wouldn’t you have to tear down most of the statues in the US?
 

Point well taken Rusrus.
To Monelson:
What exactly was a personal attack at you? In your words,"there is a difference between challenging a viewpoint and a personal attack."
I never told YOU to "get off your high horse....get real....take off your rose colored glasses..." now did I? In fact, I challenged your viewpoint....and YOU resorted to PERSONAL attack...please...re=read the blog Monelson...there is no personal attack at you, and if you took challenging your viewpoint that way, then you absolutely proved my point! I did say that your history with others here on the blog as well as myself, have been jabbed with personal remarks by you, and that you might want to take a step back from that and examine it....that it appears arrogant and that you seem to have some sort of superiority thinking over others here on the blog...my intent was not to personally slam you, only to point out that sometimes, in your effort to convince me of your "correct" position, you weaken your point when you have to do it by putting someone else's point down...
I don't know if you have ever done any serious debate, on a college or say, in defending a thesis, but this is one of the cardinal signs that an "opponent" as it were does not have a strong stance in their knowledge base or their subject matter. This isn't a personal slam against you....it is just observational. You have a choice of learning from others, or believing that you have arrived and you have no more to learn...while I am trying to see where the rose colored glasses comment came from, (because for the life of me, speaking of fragmenting our personal freedoms one by one hardly seems rosey), I guess what you were trying to say to me is that I might have expectations and perfectionist views of public servants. You pointed out that many in your view, had flaws and had made mistakes, and yet they seemed to acquired statuary in their honor.
I would agree with that. But the OTHERS are not the subject here...and it is foolish to compare FDR or Lincoln to Hastert...they are different people, with a different congress, in a different era and set of circumstances. Why would you compare apples and oranges, as it were?
The subject here is Dennis Hastert and whether a statue in his honor should be built. In my personal viewpoint, as rosy as it is, I don't think so....He may have put in more time than some, but my position is and will always be, that statues should be built for those who do something extraordinary as a public SERVANT.




As for your comment regarding
 

Sunegirl -

Does any of this sound familiar? Tell me this isn't a personal attack -

"One of the things I notice about you Mo, is that when you are pressed to the wall with good debate, you become nasty and throw personal digs out at whomever you disagree with. This is weak oratory on your part. You can tell me to "get real" all you want, but Mr. Hastert's potential statuary is the subject here, not my "realness." Arrogant jabs serve no educational or debatable purpose, and it might serve you better to take a step back and ask yourself if it's worth it to slam people on this blog over and over again as if you are some superior thinker. You aren't, any more than myself or anyone else here. "

If that is not a personal attack, then what is it? it certainly isn't cogent political analysis...
 

Sunegirl -

Let me be clear, I do not believe you have "expectations and perfectionist views of public servants". I think you have appraised the speakers performance from your political agenda. I believe you disagree with the soon to be previous majority in the congress and are expressing it by laying blame for things on his door step. I further suggest, you are using 20/20 hindsight to identify clear evidence of that like the hearings on the brownouts in California. You claim it is clear that he saw the signs and ignored them. I clearly remeber the reporting of it at the time and the signs were not as clear as your vision from here.

You seem to delight in rewording what I say -

I said: " bet most of the people on this list you would agree to put a statue up to. Yet I can site actual wrong doing that each of them participated in, not merely my disagreement with their policies."

You rephrase it to say:"You pointed out that many in your view, had flaws and had made mistakes" which is a complete fabrication of what I said. I said they participated in wrong doing (Earl Warren as attorney General of California imprisoned all the japanse Americans during the war, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeous corpus illegally, Mr Clinton was impeached for lieing to a grand jury(although not convicted for his errors), John Kennedy invaded a soveriegn nation - Cuba with no proper authority (Bay of Pigs). These are not just flaws but flagrant violations of the law. I suggest it again points out how you see things through your political agneda (what I referred to as your rose colored glases).

What seems most apparent is that you were offended by the phrase get real, which you have repeated here almost half as many times as I originally used it.(which is how I cam eto my conclusion). If for some reason it offended you, I se=incerely appologize. My use of it was to emphisize my perception that you were being unreal about the speakers performance because you had an axe to grind. I still believe that and still suggest, at the risk of enflaming you more, that you get real about the speakers performace and judge him not from your political agenda, but from his accomplishments and service.
 

Who would you put a statue up to - Earl Warren ? Tip O'Neal? Bill Clinton? John Kennedy? Abraham Lincoln? Franklin Roosevelt?

None. I would erect statues to none. AND, I would restrict "statues" to be funded solely by private funds (maybe that's how it is currently done...).

Why would we want to spend money from ALL of us to "honor" someone who only served SOME of us?

So, let's go forward and NOT publicly fund statues for anyone. If people want to get together and privately fund statues to whomever they choose, go right ahead! Far be it from me to tell anyone how to spend their money.
 

Well articulated Rusrus.

So I guess in your book, we should take down statues of anyone who did not serve some of us?

Who shall we start with - how about Lincoln - as president he only served someof us during his term (certainly not the states that left the union).

And maybe stop the King memorial being built in Washington, because he clearly did not serve everyone (for sure the guy who shot him).

And clean out the capital routunda, because those rogues surely did not represent everyone.

Or maybe those five Marines and a Navy hospital corpsman (Sgt. Michael Strank, Cpl. Harlon H. Block, Pfc. Franklin R. Sousley, Pfc. Rene A. Gagnon, Pfc. Ira Hayes, and PhM. 2/c John H. Bradley, USN) that are on the Marine Corp War memorial - certainly they could not be serving all of us?

oh, by the way Rusrus, which part of some of us did these people not serve that they should not have statues?
 

Monelson,
Yes...I pointed out to you that you come off sounding very harsh and sometimes really arrogant in your oratory....which by definition and study in debate circles is a sign of a weak argument(you can find information about true debate on line at the websites I list below...if you think that was a personal jab at YOU, then I apologize....it was meant as observational and was meant to encourage free flow of ideas without the jabbing...because many people would like to express their opinions here, but some don't like engaging people who , while may be passionate about their beliefs and opinions, are often bullied....it is a form of bullying, and whether or not you choose to accept that observation, is your choice...but just know, it's not okay with me to be told, "get real!...get off your high horse....rose colored glasses...etc." I have a right to express my opinion and beliefs without that attitude coming back at me....and I do believe you swung first....did you not? I have a right to stand up for myself...and I have a right to state my opinion without someone saying those things....
Stick to the subject, is what I am saying...leave the personal jabs alone....if you believe me pointing out to you that you come off sounding harsh and arrogant and that it weakens your argument as being a personal jab, then I guess you are one of those people who has a hard time accepting criticism...even if it holds merit.
If you felt put down by that statement, I apologize....but again, I felt very offended by your statements, and I think you owe me and the other readers here an apology for lashing out at person whom you don't even know, and have never met before...
I just think that when people resort to those kinds of exchanges, the subject of discussion gets really lost....my "agenda" that you believe I somehow have is not the point...nor is my rose colored view...nor is my getting real or not....the point is statuary, Monelson...the subject is statuary for Dennis Hastert and whether or not one should be erected in his honor for his years of public service....I happen to believe that he isn't deserving because he has turned his head the other way on so many issues that he otherwise could have chosen differently on.

I have no political ties or leanings one way or the other...quite frankly, I think our country is a big fat mess...thanks to misdeeds, mistakes, breaking of the law BY BOTH PARTIES.
You don't even know me, yet you judge me as being something I am not, and doing things that are clearly not there at all....
This should be a sign to you that if a person cannot even have a simple opinion about some random political thing without being told they are wearing rose colored glasses, or that they need to get real, or that they have some political agenda, then you CLEARLY do not understand the ideology of political dialogue and discussion.
Bullying doesn't stop on playgrounds in grade school. Adults engage in it as well...just because I called you on it, doesn't mean I have a political agenda...it means I prefer to stay on subject. It doesn't mean I am personally jabbing you, because I didn't attack your personhood by telling you that your tone offends me. It is what it is...offensive to tell someone "get real!" or "get off your high horse"....I didn't say ANYTHING like that to you..nor would I....but I do reserve the right to tell anyone that their tone of dialogue has stepped out of the arena of debate and has plopped itself into the arena of personal jabbing....
Enclosed are a couple of websites that discuss rules of debate and what is the usual expectation of behavior from true debaters. I hope you find some resource from those who study and master a valuable tool used in our legislative process of government today. I can tell you unequivocably that telling someone to get real, or get off their high horse is not included in their rules...truly.

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//courses98/rules.htm

http://www.apdaweb.org/old/guide/rules.html

sincerely, sunegirl
 

oh, by the way Rusrus, which part of some of us did these people not serve that they should not have statues?

...as soon as you write the law that determines "statueworthy..." Until then, in my opinion, statues should solely be funded by PRIVATE dollars - not PUBLIC dollars.

I'm sure there are people in this country who would want statues erected to people NOT on your list. Should your taxes be tapped for such an honor?

Not to say that we can choose how are monies are spent, but theoretically, public money shouldn't be spent to honor questionable heroes.

Feel free to spend your entire life savings honoring whomever you choose. It's a free country.
 

Sunegirl

Understand that I believe you have a right to your opinion. I also have a right to mine.

You have spent a lot of energy here suggesting my argument is weak. But that suggestion is based only on style, you never seem to refute my position that your real issue with the speaker is he made decisions you don’t like - they are contrary to your political agenda. I am not saying that you align with any party, etc, but rather your views of what the congress should have done are your reason to suggest he not be honored. While you have your right to that opinion, isn’t judging public service based on what outcomes you wanted seem somehow limited? Especially when your judgment is has the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and is based on selective issues that you disagree with? How will we inspire the leaders of the future if we only honor those who everyone agrees with? Are there any such people?

My arguments have not been weak. You have taken issue with my style only. Your arguments have always retreated to the supposition that you are entitled to your opinion and the claim that my style suggests my argument is weak. You even have been arrogant enough to suggest I need to better understand approved debate techniques and style. But what you have constantly done is failed to bring forward any issue in which the speaker actually error’s. You do bring forward every policy decision made by the full Congress that you disagree with and lay that at the feet of the speaker as his failing.

Now Rusrus has brought up a sad fact of our congressional behavior in the last 20 years. The party in power in the congress tends to try to exploit through congressional hearings and investigations the other parties leaders. While I think these political witch hunts serve no valued purpose, the speaker did participate in that with the presidents impeachment because there was evidence of wrong doing – lying to the grand jury.

What you really don’t like, I think, is to have your opinions challenged in the way I do it. But the Internet and blogs are not the college debating society. To suggest my style is in appropriate, especially the suggestion that it is because of a lack of education is extremely galling.

Political discourse in this country is no longer the staged debate under the oak tree in town square that it was in Lincoln’s time. It no longer conforms to Roberts’s rules. It is a no holds barred, open discussion of the issues. When you take a position, you should be able to defend it. Frankly, retreating to the “well I have a right to my opinion” is an opt out, not an argument.

So do you have any other argument other than you don’t like what congress has done or failed to do the last 14 years as your reason not to honor the speaker?
 

I just saw this thread and I have to say that it is amusing.

Mo, the purpose of Sunegirls comments seem legitimate in that her request for a bit of decorum is warranted. What you call "style" is what has been driving people from politics in droves. You say that people should be able to have a position and defend it, but cant that occur in a format that isnt so heated and angry?

As for the discussion on Hassert and the need/want to erect a statue in his honor here in Illinois, my problem isnt the policies he took or the outcomes that later occurred of those policies that were fought for or against, it is ( and I think this is what sunegirl has been trying to convey) the positions he DIDNT take that allow me to arrive at a conclusion that says we should not build that statue to him.

Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, Kennedy etc., are all considered great leaders because they choose to speak when others remained silent. We debate the correctness of those decisions and their impact on the country afterward, but that debate would not happen had they not stepped up to the mic.

Hassert has remained on the sidelines on crucial moments that could have defined his leadership. He was in the meeting where the vice-president and execs from Enron talked about the energy crisis and reportedly Ken Lay told everyone in the room that Enron's collapse was imminent.

I dont care that he was in the room, rather I take issue with someone who is charged with the responsibility to protect the general welfare, then upon hearing of a tidal wave that is coming decides not to warn people.

He may have legitimate reasons, but he has remained silent, refusing to release the notes of the meeting or calling for their release. That is not leadership, that is follow-ship.

He has allowed the House to end its workweek on Wednesday. Thats a three day work-week. What Fortune 500 company do you know has such a schedule? If they did, how long do you think they would remain one?

But again he remains silent. Not giving an answer on why our representatives, each of whom are paid 4 times the average us citizen's annual salary, need 4 days off each week.

We are in a time of war, as we are so often told, and our boys and girls are fighting 24/7 in a place none of us want to be. I think a leader should answer the question why the Congress isnt putting a 1/8 the effort into either better supplying them, figuring out a way for their success or getting them them the hell out of there.

We have spent close to $1 trillion on the war in Iraq and made severe cuts in programs across the board. From education to border patrol, healthcare to our justice system, each has seen their budgets decline as taxes are cut and money is allocated to fund the war.

Whether this is ok, is for a different discussion, but in previous times of major warfare, the public was asked to sacrifice, be it through the draft, rations, etc., no such surfaces has been offered this time. This could coexist with the spending practices of the past 5 years, if other non-essential spending was curtailed. But again, we have appropriation bills being passed with bridges to nowhere and studies on topics that border on useless.

Now both sides of the aisle are guilty of this, but as Speaker, doesnt Hassert have the power to decide what bill reaches the floor and what bill get voted on. Could he have said, "This is a time of war, we all must sacrifice and I dont think that our economy would benefit from rationing or a draft, but we here in the Congress can make a difference by refusing to allow pork legislation over $_ amount to go forward." But again...silence.

Our history is largely the story of our efforts to honor our founders' charge to form a "more perfect union." At every turning point, we have chosen union over division: in the early days of the Republic, by building a national legal and economic system; during the civil war, by preserving the Union and ending slavery; in the early twentieth century, as we moved from an agricultural to an industrial society, by making our government stronger to preserve competition; and in the sixties and seventies, by advancing civil rights and women's rights. In each instance, while we were engaged in the struggle to define, defend and expand our union, powerful forces tried to stop the flow of progression.

These forces acted in a tug of war, in a fierce debate of what about our past to keep and what should be changed. We have always chosen Union over division.

But I have noticed that as the rhetoric and heat of debate has intensified, as people have left the voting pool and as the gap between the have's and the have-less has widened, Hassert (and many, many more) have been silent.

Our country is neither ennobled nor enriched by silence and it never has.

What I take from this is that we, the people, must be silent as well when it comes to offering a tribute to Hassert in bronze.
 

potusdan

I agree with you about the value of decorum. I would agree with you that the rancor of political discourse during elections is both non productive and disdainful.
What I will not agree with is your suggestion that any of my comments contain anger. There is absolutely none in my words. There may be a passion, but no anger. Again, though, her accusation appears to be a weak retreat from any real discussion. I would agree with you that the rancor of political discourse during elections is both non productive and disdainful.

Couple of points on what you have said. First, I note that your leadership examples are all presidents, no speakers of the house. There is a notable difference. Sunegirl and you seem to suggest that the speaker of the house has more responsibilities than those they are chartered with by house rules. The speaker’s position is one that is not established in law, but covered by the rules of the house. It is in point of fact, an administrative job. Those administrative roles (managing the order in which legislation submitted by congress persons is addressed, naming committee assignments & heads, assigning office space, etc) are where the politicians who take the role have derived the power we have come see. One cannot get to be speaker if one speaks out in the same way a president does. Can you name the speakers of the house that have gone on to be president? Only one – Gerald R. Ford. He was not elected, but appointed to be VP and succeed to the Presidency after Nixon resigned. In fact generally, it’s the Minority leader who is most vocal. The ascendance of Ms. Pelosi to speaker is an interesting occurrence. Along with Newt Ginrich, she may be the only speakers I can remember who are outspoken on issues (yet it remains to be seen whether her outspoken approach will continue).

Now for Enron. You say he was in the room when Lay admitted Enron was about to collapse. Did Mr. Lay say he and his CFO had manipulated the companies books? No. How did Mr. Lay express that the company was near collapse? How he did it was to ask for federal assistance in changing the prices he could charge at the state level. He was asking for the feds to interfere in state issues. He spoke specifically about the cost of producing power in California and the limiting factors on how much he could charge. Now the question is, is it the role of the speaker of the house to initiate and drive legislation to somehow save a public corporation from bankruptcy? Is that what he sould have done? I don’t think so. That Lay and friends were able to manipulate the books, etc was a travesty. It resulted in Sarbanes-Oxley. But the reason it happened is in the tax code and the SEC act of 1933, before the speaker was even born.

If you believe that Congresspersons only work three days a week, you are extremely naïve. Look at cspan. The house is in session most weeks all week with committee hearings etc. Secondly, is a Congressman’s work only done in Washington? I once had the chance to sit with the junior Senator from Georgia on a plane from Atlanta to Washington. We occupied three seats on one side of the plane in coach. He was generous enough to share some of his time. It was Sunday and he was returning to Washington after a three day weekend at “home”, which he shared with me meant six visits to organization in the state that wished him to speak to them (he wasn’t due for re-election for 4 more years), and a two half of a day sessions meeting citizen walk-ins at his public offices. Sounds like he was working. Oh and during our two hour plane ride, he went through a 15 inch high stack of folders that occupied the middle seat between us which he explained contained legislation he needed to read, news breifs, constituent requests, administrative work (payroll, purchases, etc to run his Washington office as well as his offices in Georgia) and some analysis of issues and legislation his staff had generated for him. So maybe you are not looking at that rule clearly?

My postulate still remains, your problem and Sunegirls with the speaker is that he is a member of the presidents party and you are angry about the policies of the last six years and want a change. You are expressing it by laying all the policies you disagree with at the speakers feet instead of his party or the president himself.
 

Again, view of history and political landscape from a perspective that is not all together correct:

"Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, Kennedy etc., are all considered great leaders because they choose to speak when others remained silent. We debate the correctness of those decisions and their impact on the country afterward, but that debate would not happen had they not stepped up to the mic."

While I agree each of those you cite were great leaders, please consider:

Lincoln did not start the debate on slavery; it was started years before by the abolitionists. You say we chose Union instead of division. We did that through force, not reason. The South did not choose Union, It succeeded and northern industrialists demanded it be re-united by force. Only after its army was defeated, it’s leaders killed or imprisoned did the south actually rejoin the union. Lincoln led the North to subdue to revolt by the south in a bloody civil war. In doing so, did he speak out when Sherman’s men burned thousands of homes on their march to the sea? Not just the farms and economic units, but thousands of homes. Not a word from Lincoln.

Roosevelt did many great things – the SEC, SSA, lead us through a world war, etc. But in 1938 when Hitler invaded Poland and started the death camps, Roosevelt knew it and said nothing. For three years, he said and did nothing about it (other than lend lease).

Kennedy said many great things. He challenged us to go to the moon. He stood against Wallace and racist views in the South. He did lead with his rhetoric. But he actually accomplished little. It was Johnson who passed the voting right act, and the other social reforms of the 60’s. Kennedy’s actual legacy on accomplishments is the Cuban Missile crisis. He also had the CIA invade Cuba, sent military advisors to Vietnam. He saw poverty and did nothing about it. He saw other injustices and did nothing about them.

Reagans vision of a shinning America on the hill is the quintessential example of the great orators ability to be eloquent. Yet his economic policies lead to 18% interest rates, etc. This caused millions to become jobless and many to lose their homes. Seen in it’s true light, the economic period of the early 1980’s was one that was harsh to many. Yet Dutch could and did still wax poetically about his shinning vision.

I mean not to belittle any of these men. I actually agree that they were great leaders of our country. Men of their times who met the challenges of their times. Often by ignoring other issues which might keep them from their visions. And yet you say that the speaker should not be honored for doing the what you claim is the same thing – ignoring some issues while fixing what you think is the most important at the time (homeland security, Sarbanes Oxley, etc).

I reaffirm your right to your opinions, But I also assert my right to cat light on them and expose them for what they truly are – political agenda.
 

Your own words bely your real angst (maybe even anger?) : “I think a leader should answer the question why the Congress isn’t putting a 1/8 the effort into either better supplying them, figuring out a way for their success or getting them the hell out of there.” So your real issue is the war and your frustration over it? Maybe you are really so upset with the president and the administration for starting it without a real understanding of how to end it? (you certainly don’t seem to be upset with the near unanimous congress that voted to go to war and grant the president war powers).

You and a lot of other Americans expressed your deep concern this past month.. (Yet two years ago the majority still supported it…mmmm). And yes, along with almost the entire congress and senate, the speaker supported getting into the war and all that has been required to support the troops. You will have your chance to express it again in two years.

(Please do not confuse the above with suggesting I support the war. I said then and I still maintain, we should never unilaterally invade a sovereign nation. If the injustices or threats in a sovereign nation are real, then they are visible to all nation states and we should be able to find other nation states that see it and want to stop it. The real failure here was not getting Arab support for this move and having an Arab coalition to manage it afterward in my humble opinion)