September 04, 2011

Only "unprecedented" if it's GOP against Democrats

Think John Boehner's refusal to let The Messiah speak before a joint session of Congress (when he wanted) is "unprecedented?" That's what the MSM would like you to believe:

In an extraordinary turn, the House speaker fired back his own letter to the president saying, in a word, no. Might the president be able to reschedule for the following night, Sept. 8?

Congressional historians said Mr. Boehner’s move was unprecedented.

“The Senate Historical Office knows of no instance in which Congress refused the president permission to speak before a joint session of Congress,” Betty K. Koed, associate historian with the Senate, said in an e-mail. “Permission to speak in a joint session is given by resolution of the House and Senate, and arrangements are made through the leadership offices of each chamber.”

Um, oops:

The June 24, 1986, edition of The Wall Street Journal featured a story headlined, “President’s Bid to Address the House On Nicaragua Is Rejected by Speaker.” That’s right, no quibbling over the date and time, just a flat-out rejection. In that case, President Ronald Reagan wanted to address the House before its critical vote on funding for the anti-communist “Contra” rebels in Nicaragua. Then-Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neil said that he was willing to host a Reagan speech if it was expanded to include the Senate in a joint session, or he would allow the President to speak to the House alone if the President would also agree to take questions from lawmakers. Otherwise, there would be no Reagan speech in the House chamber. Reagan already had the votes to prevail in the Senate, and Mr. O’Neil wanted to avoid having the spotlight turned on the House, which would make him and his colleagues accountable to the public if Contra aid were rejected.

So "technically" Ms. Koed has a point about a joint session refusal; however, such a technicality is trivial. Tip O'Neill flat out said "no" to Reagan's request to address the House -- unless he agreed to the Speaker's conditions.

What a surprise. But hey, bringing up 'ol Tip doesn't fit The NARRATIVETM, after all. I'd also bet, back in 1986, that The NARRATIVETM meant that the MSM was cheering O'Neill's move against The Gipper. Because, y'know, those dastardly Contras were just "bad news" for those poor, nice ol' Sandinistas.

HAHAHAHAHA!! Good one, Gip ... but I'm STILL not letting you speak!

Posted by Hube at September 4, 2011 05:56 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)