Eric Black Ink Borowitz satire: Obama declares National Day of Gloating Share this:EmailFacebookTwitterPrint By Eric Black | 10/17/2013 Satirist Andy Borowitz of the New Yorker:Residents of the District of Columbia were roused from their sleep by a massive fireworks display over the White House just after midnight, as President Obama declared what he called “a national day of gloating.” Share this:EmailFacebookTwitterPrint Comments (11) Submitted by Neal Rovick on 10/17/2013 - 11:50 am. Yeah, sure. Gloat now. But it will be the same bucket of crap in 3 months. Do you really think a budget will be adopted and passed? Again, shutdown. Again, default threatened, or this time achieved. The lesson the hardcore are taking away from this round is that they weren’t hard enough. Next time perhaps they follow through with the scorched-earth strategy of forcing default, and then impeaching Obama either for acting unilaterally to prevent default or not acting unilaterally to prevent default. Don’t think that there are not a roomful of conservative law scholars gaming that idea out right now. And look for the drumming up of another scandal like “Benghazi” to weaken or impeach Obama. But hey, what do you think the Republican party ‘s chances are, playing the same game well into an election year? Log in to Reply Submitted by Pat Berg on 10/17/2013 - 12:17 pm. Gloating would be counterproductive Hopefully this situation helped everyone see how critically we need bipartisan cooperation and productive compromise to come back into the process. Nothing would kill that faster than gloating over the “win”. Let’s hope they resist the temptation to do so. Log in to Reply Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/17/2013 - 12:23 pm. No, no gloating I don’t feel much more than disgust. Disgust that the whole country was held hostage by a few thugs in Congress who either knew they would not prevail, or were completely divorced from reality. Disgust that some of those thugs actually stepped up to say that it wouldn’t be so bad if the US defaulted on its debts. Disgust at knowing that few, if any, of them will suffer no consequences at the polls, and the fools who elected them will send them right back to Congress after the next election. Mostly disgust from having every reason to believe that these nihilistic disgraces to the nation will, as Mr. Rovick points out, be right back at it again in a few weeks. They will have learned nothing, except that they must “fight harder next time.” Log in to Reply Submitted by Ray Schoch on 10/17/2013 - 01:17 pm. A combination seems appropriate Neal is correct, I’m sure, that the roomful of right wing legal scholars he mentioned is already plotting the next outrage. Pat is correct that gloating, at least publicly (I have no problem with the private variety, and enjoy it myself from time to time), would be counterproductive. Let the people who call themselves “conservative” stew in their own juices without additional help. I also share RB Holbrook’s disgust at the whole sorry episode. According to my Webster’s, far too many of the current crop of Republicans at every level qualify as “fascist” (…Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.). A lot of people died, and many more risked their lives a couple generations ago to prevent fascists from exercising any meaningful political power. Ironic that the ideology now betraying the survivors in their dotage is the same one they thought they’d defeated in 1945. Log in to Reply Submitted by Dennis Tester on 10/17/2013 - 03:20 pm. “Right wing legal scholars” otherwise known as Constitutionalists. This exercise laid bare the Left’s attempt to undermine and usurp the constitutional separation of powers, where the executive branch has unilaterally taken over the budget function by declaring that any items that don’t appear in the budget offered by congress, as their role dictates, will be summarily dismissed without even an attempt to negotiate in good faith. So yeah, rest assured Ted Cruz et al aren’t going away. Log in to Reply Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/17/2013 - 04:54 pm. When did that happen? Is my short term memory going? Because as I recall the events of the last few weeks, the House was not going to pass a continuing resolution without adding in items that the Senate would not pass. I’ve also looked through a copy of the real Constitution, and I don’t see anything that says the President has to negotiate with Congress. I remain unclear as to how items that don’t appear in the budget can be dismissed, summarily or otherwise, but we needn’t go into that now. Log in to Reply Submitted by Dennis Tester on 10/17/2013 - 10:18 pm. Congress has the power of the purse All spending bills are supposed to originate in the house of representatives. The president submits a wish list, the senate submits their budget and then conference committees are supposed to hammer out the differences between the house and senate versions. The house submitted a budget but the senate never did. They just told the house of representatives that theirs was not acceptable. There were no competing budgets to be reconciled. There was only the president telling the senate leader not to accept congress’ budget without all of the provisions in it that Obama wanted. That’s unprecedented in modern history. By refusing to negotiate a budget and threatening to shut down the government if he didn’t get everything he wanted in the budget, he essentially hijacked the legislative process, usurped the congressional role and violated the separation of powers. And what’s worse, the press let him get away with it by not reporting the truth to the mis-educated masses. A media watchdog report today showed that the three major networks did 41 stories on the shutdown, 41 blamed the republicans and none, zero, blamed the democrats or the president for the shutdown. Some have said that if he tries that again, they have articles of impeachment drafted and ready to go. Log in to Reply Submitted by Lora Jones on 10/18/2013 - 07:39 am. Dennis, get your “facts” straight the senate submitted a budget and House Republicans and Calgary Cruz refused to name conferees to “hammer out the differences.” Obstruction. Log in to Reply Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/18/2013 - 09:23 am. What? When did the President tell Senator Reid not to “accept” the House’s budget (assuming there was such a thing)? Could Senator Reid not have come to that decision on his own? If the President really did tell Senator Reid anything, is that really unprecedented? Did the Senate not march to President Bush’s direction when the Republicans controlled it? Incidentally, “bills to raise revenue” must originate in the House. By tradition, appropriation bills also originate in the House, but that’s not a legal requirement. Log in to Reply Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/18/2013 - 09:43 am. Some corrections The House is supposed to propose budgets and the Senate approve them. All expenditures must originate in the House. The only party proposing new legislation was the Republicans (at least their right wing). The Democrats were simply insisting on the continued funding of legislation that had already been approved by previous Congresses. Are you suggesting that each Congress is a new body that is not bound by the actions of previous ones? I’ve seen that proposal made. And the President cannot TELL either house of Congress what to do; just veto it (subject to a supermajority override) if he doesn’t like it. The media are reporting that the Republicans are largely responsible (for the shutdown, if little else) because they were, as is acknowledged by most Americans. Are the unspecified ‘some’ who are drafting articles of impeachment (that would have to be members of the House) basing it on PWB? I doubt that the Senate (who would have to approve an article of impeachment) would regarded asking Congress to do its job as a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’. A return to impeachment as harassment, first tried against FDR in 1942. Log in to Reply Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/17/2013 - 11:25 pm. Yeah, Canada wouldn’t take him back. and from Wikipedia: “As Cruz was born in Canada, various commentators from the Austin American-Statesman and the Los Angeles Times, discussed Cruz’s legal status as a natural-born citizen. Because he was a U.S. citizen at birth (since his mother was a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as required by the Nationality Act of 1940), most commentators believe Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States. After hearing that according to legal experts he is a dual citizen of Canada and the U.S., Cruz announced on August 19, 2013 that he would renounce his Canadian citizenship.” Waiting to hear from the birthers…. 😉 Log in to Reply Leave a Reply Cancel replyYou must be logged in to post a comment.