A few more days' worth of PA Senate Journals have been released. I'll have more on this tomorrow, but here are two quick notes.
1) On March 27, p. 12 of the pdf version, a Senate Democratic leader made (another) long speech on Pres. George Bush and his policies. In this he refers to Bush as King George and King George the Terrorist. I think this is out of place. I don't like Bush, didn't vote him, and plan to do a dance on the joyful, happy day that he leaves office. But until then he is Pres. Bush. In my view, it is unseemly for someone in a leadership position to use inflammatory and belittling language in official state senate chambers to describe another elected official, no matter how much we might all dislike him. It lowers the overall level of civility. Just my opinion. (If you want to know who it was you have to read the Journal online.)
2) I couldn't help but notice Senator Washington was on personal or legislative leave for all 9 days the Senate met in March. Not that there's anything wrong with that..... I just noticed, that's all.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Two Notes from the Senate Journals
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I agree with you about Fumo's calling President Bush "King George".
While it is one thing for the rabble (like me) to refer to the President that way, it is unbecoming to do it from the floor of a legislative body. Indeed, I think those among us in public service need to maintain a level of dignity, respect and civility that those of us on the outside throwing stones need not.
But, there's another reason -- I think it weakens the argument. It distracts the listener/reader from the substance of the argument, of course.
More, though, when the argument is so good, so powerful, and strong, as the one against this administration is, it is more persuasive to marshal the facts and arrange the argument in a way which leads the listeners to develop their own pejorative, rather than supplying one for them.
Good for you for bringing this up.
I actually feel differently. I think that its refreshing to see someone in office standing up and making more public his views on issues that affect the state. What else would you like him to do? Sit back and do nothing?
And please dont try to tell me that Bush policies are not affecting states.
Of course he should be commenting on these things -- no one intended to suggest otherwise.
It is the childish name-calling which detracts from his statements that I thought he could do without.
It's apt comparison calling GWB "King George" although the "terrorist" part
is over the top. Go back and read the list of particulars against King George III in the Declaration of Independence. It's amazing how many of them can be applied to this country under the adminstration of Bush XLIII.
Well, you guys have a point. Sorry I misunderstood what your point was. Perhaps name calling is a bit childish, but it does get some attention which I think is what the senator is trying to do, though I haven't seen his speeches covered in the MSM and I kind of think they should be. At least it should be said that a state senator has actually gotten to the point of publicly criticizing the BWH on the senate floor. Now isn't that an interesting story? Someone saying "hey, I can't do much, but I'm doing what I can here!"
It was the name calling that I was referring to. Plus, in his speech he was at least nominally honoring PA soldiers who had died in in Iraq and the families may not have appreciated his comments. I don't know, it just didn't seem appropriate given the circumstances, but you should read it through yourself to see.
Personally I don't care for juvenile name calling, even if the name is accurate. I think it makes the person speaking seem small and petty. And I agree with BFS that it weakens the argrument. I also agree with him that in this instance, where the case is so strong, that just setting out the facts is more than sufficient.
Really referring to Bush as "King George" barely qualifies as name-calling. Now if Bush had been called "smirky", "chimpy", "commander bunnypants", "commander kookoobananas" or any of the other ephitats that are around on the net, that would have been worthy of condemnation.
But a senator from Philadelphia, the place where the real revolution against King George began, should be
able to make that very apt comparision. There's more and more reference in the regular media to Bush's "imperial" presidency, too.
Post a Comment