The Walk Of Shame: Incivility Within The Walls Of Congress

The Washington Dispatch ^ | February 11th, 2003 | Frank Salvato

[The Rant]

Watching the State of the Union speech President Bush gave earlier this year one wouldn’t have noticed the walkout staged by a group of the most liberal Democrats, which occurred about ten minutes before President Bush's speech ended, but it did happen. As the president was talking about the serious problems that face the United States and the world with regards to Iraq, North Korea and the War on Terror, serious matters that no doubt should have commanded everyone’s attention and which prompted Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke to the United Nations Security Council recently, a group of the most liberal members of the legislative branch boorishly & disrespectfully walked out of the annual speech.

According to a Democratic leadership source, the indignant protest was nurtured and approved prior to the speech by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who not only saw nothing wrong with her caucus behaving rudely but also encouraged them to “react visibly” to the president’s speech “whenever emotions moved them.”

Now, correct me if I am wrong on this but isn’t the Congress of the United States one of the most important legislative bodies in the world? Aren’t they at a level where their personal feelings on any given issue are supposed to be tempered with their duty to represent their constituents no matter what their political affiliation? They are public servants, right? I can’t help but feel that those who walked out of one of the most important speeches of any given year, if not our time, somehow haven’t grasped the idea of political representation.

By walking out of a speech where national policy is being proposed these representatives of the people, in essence, denied their constituents their representation which is established by their duly elected representatives attendance. In effect, they were delinquent in doing their jobs. To be sure, if a group of employees were summoned to a meeting at any company in the world and a portion of those summoned simply got up and walked out because they disagreed with the CEO who was speaking, they most certainly would be terminated. Why, because they would have been delinquent in doing their jobs. In this case though, termination is not as easy as the CEO firing someone for insubordination. In this case it is the people of the individual legislative districts who have to “fire” their representatives and this is only achieved by making sure that they aren’t elected again.

This is a classic demonstration of the modern-day Democratic Party liberal acquiescing to the unbridled allure of power and loosing site of what government is supposed to be doing for the people they represent. Empowered by an electoral victory these representatives of the people have completely forgotten that they did not win one hundred percent of the vote in their legislative districts and that they are responsible for representing the constituents within their districts who don’t necessarily agree with their personal positions on any given issue, as well as those who do. For a representative of the people to disregard the opinions of his or her constituents, to deny his or her constituents representation during a speech outlining national policy in favor of coupling with their national political party to assert a political agenda is tantamount to being delinquent in the duties of their office.

Of course these representatives of the people are not alone in their misguided actions. While giving credit where credit is due is the appropriate thing, placing blame where it is warranted must also be considered appropriate. As an elected leader in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, one of the most liberal of Democrats, has a duty to lead not only those within her far left caucus but all of those who are members of the Democratic Party which she represents. By encouraging factions of her party to demonstrate their indignation by walking out of the State of the Union speech without doing so herself is to put into play the use of partisan and divisive politics which should have no presence at a speech to the nation as a whole. By endorsing the actions of those who walked out Ms. Pelosi is joining in the disenfranchisement of the constituents who were denied representation during the end of the president’s speech. These are not the moves of a leader; these are the moves of someone who only has the agenda of her political party in mind. These are the moves of someone who has caucused with those who were not elected to office (Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the non-publicly elected DNC) and who practice the “win-at-all-cost” divisive politics of the 1990’s spearheaded by Bill Clinton and which is still embraced today by a dying breed of Democrat headed by McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton. This type of politician is a slave to the aphrodisiac of power and this type of politics is extremely corrosive to the well being of the country.

Although all of these points are indisputably valid there is a bigger point to be made here. The government of the United States is one that has always been based on the sharing of viewpoints whether they are agreed upon or not. Some of the most defining moments in American history have been brought about by heated debate within the walls of the Capital Building or within the walls of a chamber that housed our Congress during those times when Congress didn’t meet in Washington. By walking out of the State of the Union speech these representatives of the people have terminated that process which has served this country impeccably for over two hundred years, they have terminated that history. They have also brought a sense of incivility to the Congress of the United States and this is something that should be despised at the highest level for if we are not civilized what are we?

[Nebr FAL owner]

How about a mass mooning of Clinton?

[BufordP]

Mooning the Clinton crowd might be dangerous. With them you'd probably find an unwelcome hand on your @ss.