The gentleman will observe regular order and sit down!

On Thursday night, House Democrat from New York, Rep. Anthony Weiner, was outraged over Republican opposition to a bill that would give medical compensation to 9/11 first responders. This was an outrage that was interrupted by a House Republican, Rep. Peter King, who is also from New York. Weiner yelled for King to be quiet and sit down because he was, apparently, wrong. Something else Weiner does is accuse republicans of wrapping their arms around republicans rather than caring for our heroes. The republicans do have a since of brotherhood and this can be seen in Congress. They do say no often, sometimes just to say no, and they are using pure strategy to wait it out until midterm elections. But, to say that they don't care about our heroes of 9/11 just because they don't support a bill to help them is definitely out-of-bounds.

When you sign up to be a policeman or a firefighter, you are making a commitment to keeping people safe and a pledge to doing whatever it takes to do so, even if that means putting your life on the line. The first responders to 9/11 were brave men and women who happen to now have some medical conditions due to the harshness of their job. Should they receive compensation for doing their job? I don't think so. If they were in a situation where they weren't intended to risk their lives, it would be different. You don’t join the military not knowing that you could get hurt, just like you don't become a policeman or a firefighter not knowing that you would be risking your life every day.

Weiner blew up and should not have. Yes, the Republicans do have problems with saying no to good legislation, but no Weiner, you are wrong.

I think what really burst him to enrage was the fact that House leadership did not allow amendments and republicans hinted that they would say yes to the bill if it could be changed. This would make me upset. If I were representing the heroes in New York and I was told that medical compensation would be passable if it were procedurally different. On the Republicans' side, this was unfair to tease Democrats, specifically Weiner.

Everything about this incident shows how ruthless, aggravated, and confusing our Congress is in their law-making. It is just unfortunate.

A Failing Climate and Bill

Over the past year the Senate has only talked about climate with very little action. Lee Wasserman, director of Rockefeller Family Fund, posted an article today, July 26th, on the Huffington Post entitled "Four Ways to Kill a Climate Bill." In this commentary, Wasserman speaks on behalf of the failing climate bill and discusses its demise as a result of the nation "weaving four coordinated threads into a shroud of inaction." These sewed in threads include tip-toeing around the real issues due to polling, working for historic polluters and not the American people, allowing the bill to become over-engineered performing very simple tasks in a very complex fashion, and the lack of a public outcry.

Based Wasserman’s cynically, artistic language, he intended to reach a more liberal, pro-active audience. However, he does criticize the entire congress, not just Republicans, as well as President Obama. He speaks to an audience that is aware of congressional happenings as well as the scientific effects of climate change. His references to our historical past, Rube Goldberg politics, and the climate bill being sewn on a loom, suggests his audience is educated. His credibility is awarded through his work with the Rockefeller Family Fund, a fund to help inspire public activism. Wasserman is not just an old man outraged over a failing bill about the environment; he has knowledge and experience to back up his arguments.

Wasserman referring to the climate bill, he states the president and congress have let it bypass due to lacking support from those who have caused the problem. Though not started during the Obama administration, instead of starting a new change of existing problems, “the president quickly took his place at the loom.” Because of polling, the president and Congress have backed off from specific wording weakening any legislation that might be passed and making vague any possible solution. Wasserman quotes Peter Orszag, budget director, about the climate bill proposed as, “the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States.” They are devising a bill for polluters not the American public. Most proposals were filled with “policy contraptions impossible to even explain,” so many interest groups just dived in this pool of misguided attempts at policy-making. Obama is criticized for not following through with his “simple market-based bill.” That would have had polluters paying for the bill. Lastly, a key in a failing climate bill is the lack of public support. Without it, interest groups and historic polluters are the only ones who have a say.

The commentary makes strong criticisms to the president, congress, and the public, tagging all three as major factors in destroying the climate bill. I believe his argument is valid and consider it the harsh reality. Just as hard to hear that fossil fuels are being used up and the ozone is decaying is hearing that we all are standing in the way of prevention.

How will midterm elections effect Obama?

With the continual decline in the economy, the BP catastrophe, and ever-long battle over healthcare reform, Democrats are nervous that Obama may become a one-term president. Democrats current control Congress and the executive branch, but after the upcoming midterm elections Democrats may have to pass the Congressional torch to the GOP. Though Democrats remain scared of this eminent change, Ruben Navarette Jr. argues that Obama could benefit from this change. Ruben wrote a commentary for CNN.com on July 15th entitled "Obama could benefit from GOP takeover." In his commentary, Ruben argues that a switch of political control in the White House could aid in Obama's effort toward change by removing the obstacles of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist, an NPR commentator, and a regular contributor to CNN.com. He produces regular commentary on the Obama administration since the beginning of Obama's term addressing issues important to the Latino community in America. Coming from a Latino background himself, he approaches the issues facing Americans today with fervor for justice and equality. In the commentary, Ruben explains that the public is "disappointed, angry and doubtful" the Obama has what it takes the lead our country. He justifies this claim with a Washington Post-ABC News Poll showing that "nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country." Though this is just around half, it is a much greater percent than when Obama first took office.

Ruben also points out that in the midterm election, if Congress does shift to Republican control, then "items that Obama intended to get to in 2011 might not materialize." At the same time, Republicans would have to learn, "it's more fun to be on the side throwing rocks than on the inside having to lead and be accountable to voters." Their accountability is therefore dependent upon them to pass bills and pursue policy with the interest of the country in mind. This could help Obama because the Republicans would have to be more cooperative than they are being now. Obama would have to move his agenda to the front of the table in order for a change to be able to help him stay in office.

His final claim is about Obama's possible post-midterm election ability to find solutions to controversial issues like immigration by working with pro-business Republicans. He argues that Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who tries to protect "organized labor from having to compete with foreign workers" and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who tries to protect "Democratic members from having to take a vote on a controversial issue" are Obama's two biggest obstacles in pushing legislation and avoid being a one-termer.

No matter what happens this election, Obama certainly has a stressful two years ahead of him. With an increase in public criticism and the fighting GOP, he must decide whether to use his efforts to campaign to keep Democratic seats or to embrace the Republican takeover with a strategic stance. Ruben does an excellent job bringing forward big concerns for Obama this year.

The GOP says 'NO' because they can?

By now, many of you know that President Obama nominated Elena Kagan, appointed Solicitor General, to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. There have been numerous articles about the confirmation hearing, but this particular National Public Radio article wound me up:

GOP Pushes For More Votes Against Kagan.

It has been on the television, the internet, and in the newspaper, and critics are not being open-minded. There are enough Democratic votes to confirm her, but the GOP is rallying up "no" votes "not because of anything she said or didn't say at her confirmation hearings". The GOP is just trying to stick it to Obama. The article goes further to explain the NRA's push on citizens to phone their senators for no votes even after she states her support of the Second Amendment's legitimacy. The end of the article sums up the failed attempts by the GOP and the NRA. They are "searching for a silver bullet" because it's election year and "they are in the mood to take scalps". This article is worthy of your time because it shows the truth behind the scrutiny of Kagan and puts the GOP's actions into perspective.