Skip to main content

President Obama + Iran deal = a distraction from Obamacare according to John Cornyn

Following the Obama administration's historic deal with Iran this past weekend, Texas Senator and Congressperson voted most likely to have failed Kindergarten - John Cornyn - tweeted this message:

"Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care"

Sadly, this kind of thinking is far from an aberration for the Republican Party. Remember when the president tried convincing Congress to make a deal on student loan interest rates, because the lower rates were about to expire and students are paying too much money for tuition as it is? Some members of the GOP declared that the president was only trying to talk about such matters as a distraction from headlines pertaining to the IRS and NSA.

I have a crazy message for Senator Cornyn and those like him, whom feel the president only tries accomplishing things when there are negative headlines swirling, to try and distract the public from those headlines. Barack Obama was elected twice to lead this country as our president. That's his job. It's his job to represent the people of this country and attempt to move us forward as a nation. This means that even if Congressional Republicans don't approve of how he's doing his job, he's still going to try and get things done. I know - it's the craziest thing, isn't it?

When news broke about the IRS and NSA, while it was President Obama's job to stand up to reporters, answer questions regarding the matters, and hopefully clarify things to the majority's liking, he couldn't cross off everything on his to-do list just to appease Congressional Republicans. There was more going on in this country than talk about the IRS and NSA abusing their powers. The same thing is happening now. While healthcare.gov has experienced its share of problems, the president has spoken at length about the subject, assured us they're working hard to improve the site, delayed deadlines, and even constructed a plan B for people whom are still having trouble with the site, and guess what? He has more on his plate than just that.

I thought the Republican Party was full of business savvy individuals. What do they expect the leader or leaders of a business to do if a bad headline is pointed in its direction or some controversy surrounds the business? Shut it down and lose money as a result? Actually, given the fact House Republicans shut the federal government down and cost this country $24 billion, perhaps that's a stupid question on my part.

A true leader shows his or her strength when they're able to stay focused and move things forward amid distractions, and President Obama has faced his fare share of those - often times thanks to Congressional Republicans. To John Cornyn and those like him, this isn't about believing the president is trying to divert the public's attention away from a negative headline. It's about trying to dominate the news headlines and make the president and the Democrat Party look progressively worse so that they have a better chance of winning elections in 2014 and 2016. If President Obama put the government on hold every time Congressional Republicans had a problem with something he said or did, the federal government would have been shut down since the president's first inauguration in 2009. The only possible thing he could do to satisfy them is for both he and Joe Biden to resign, so that House Speaker John Boehner became president.

In other news, word has it that the healthcare.gov site has improved pretty dramatically in the past week or so, but nevermind about that - John Cornyn would simply think I was attempting to distract from the more negative news surrounding the website in recent weeks. Why try to learn from mistakes and move forward as opposed to dwelling on those mistakes and not giving oneself the chance to do so? I don't know either, but John Cornyn seems to for some odd reason...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/23/john-cornyn-iran-_n_4331856.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"