Both parties can stubbornly debate
“Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.” That was the first sentence I learned in typing class. It was a relief then to be actually typing words. Up to that time, we were just learning where the letters were and doing exercises to the questionable rhythm of Mr. Lasher’s voice.
“J u j space” he would say over and over and then finally we would get to learn the keyboard and be able to type a sensible sentence. Except I find myself wondering today if that sentence is still sensible.
It is beginning to look to me like the two-party system might be heading for oblivion. At least, it looked that way as I watched the “debate” over the health care that the House of Representatives passed last weekend.
It was a debate in which each member had about a minute to present his or her argument for or against the bill. Both parties had announced their intentions beforehand.
The Republicans would unanimously oppose the bill and the Democrats would at least try to be unanimous (a first for them).
So each side of the aisle used their one minute in pretty much the same way. Sometimes they would go over their allotted time and the chair would remind them to stay within the rules. Apparently, each side had someone with a big block of time who “yielded to the lady or gentleman” from one of the states. If the yieldee went overtime, the yieldor would have the leftover, usually about 1½ seconds “charged” to his original block of time.
At one point, a Republican representative brought his 7-month-old granddaughter and asked her if she wanted to pay for this bill. A few minutes later, a Democrat brought two grandchildren to the podium. The chairman pounded his gavel and reminded the rest of the congressmen that guests were not allowed on the floor of the House while legislation was being debated.
Each representative was asked, “For what purpose does the gentleman or lady rise?” That did not take long to answer but in the aggregate it added several minutes to the (non)proceedings.
Then, something new happened. Several congressmen on both sides rose for unanimous consent to “revise and extend” their remarks. I didn’t want to hear further remarks, so I turned the set off.
Later that afternoon, I turned on a call-in program to hear a lady ask the talking heads, “Why all this debate? Can’t we just take care of each other?” This resulted in no answer from the talking heads who went on jabbering their personal agenda. They could not take a few seconds away from their politics to deal with a simplistic question.
I had my own question. If both sides are stubbornly glued to their own thoughts, then their conclusions are pre-determined and there really is no need to debate. Why can’t the vote be taken right away?
The answer seems to be because they each need political exposure for a year from now. If that is OK, then one of our own representatives was slighted. Something parliamentary interrupted her, and they never got back to her.
Yes! It may well be right for us to rid ourselves of two stubborn parties and start learning our keyboards with that quick fox that jumped over the lazy dog.
At least he was going somewhere.
Keep in touch.
Richard Learned can be reached at 279-4039 or wiseguy@metrocast.net, or by writing in care of The Sunday Telegraph, 17 Executive Drive, Hudson, NH 03051.
