Senate Israel/Palestine

Ender Sai

Well, I'm wondering if Boehner will or can attempt to fill the empty seats with staffers or perhaps other officials, or if those seats will be empty. I'm not sure the average American will even be paying any attention, or care about the speech in general, but longtime joint session watchers will notice the empty seats.

 

It is a speech before a joint session. I doubt the empty seats will be noticeable.

 

You really think so? If it was a dozen, I would agree, but 50 empty seats is a lot. They'll all be clustered to one side, too, particularly for the House section. If it was more evenly distributed between the GOP and Democrats, I think I would be more inclined to agree.

 

Well, I just read that link. It's not 50. It's actually 56-57. I would guess it depends on the seating and what Boehner decides to do. You know he's thinking about ways to minimize the visual. Everything is choreographed.

 

The Democratic/Republican seating divide is a longstanding tradition, so far as I know. Goes back long before anyone in the area tomorrow was born. Can Boehner really break with that? I suppose in theory he could, but the Democrats who do attend may not let him without making a production out of it.

Edit: propped up some hideous grammar.

 

Not sure. I don't think he can. You're right. It might create more fuss if he tries to cover it than if he just lets it go. I still think they're discussing it though. Yeah the right/left seating is at least a tradition if not something right in the rules of the house.

edit:

This is one reason I don't expect much from the speech tomorrow:
If this is his best evidence to use at the UN, what will he provide tomorrow more compelling? That bomb looks like something Boris and Natasha drew up.

 

It already has been. There has been major network coverage for weeks.you also might basically double those numbers. It's not so much the total number of absentees especially with two Republican majorities. It's the percentage of democrats missing relative to what anyone has ever seen before.

 

I'm not sure there's any modern precedent (going back to perhaps Wilson, since he got the state of the union thing going) for such a mass absentee rate. There's usually some small deal made about the "designated survivor" for the state of the union speech. One thing's for sure-- if anything catastrophic does happen, the future government will lean rather heavily Democratic.

 

Jabba-wocky
So you're saying the boycott is already a success because it's been discussed in the media? Good point. They likely wanted to make a statement and make their positions known. We're talking about it(social media) and the news media is.

But when you say "you might also basically double those numbers" are you suggesting the number not attending will grow substantially?

lol KnightWriter

 

So this is a ploy by Bibi to take out the U.S. government?

 

But what is means is that 1 in every ten seats, taking the 560-ish combined houses totalled, will be empty. So it's hard to say that, over the entire audience, it'll be visible or not.

 

The percentages. Ender is saying 10% of the whole Congress, but that really means something over 20% of Democrats. He shouldn't be counting the fact that John Boehner, who issued the invitation, plans to attend.

 

Ah yeah. Gotcha.

 

Why would I be disregarding that?

 

I don't think you were disregarding it. You just mentioned raw numbers and Wocky, percentages.

 

I think upwards of 50 people missing will be noticed.

 

Can Boehner have the senate attendees move up and fill the empty house seats or is there house members seating and senate seating? If he can't have senators move up on the democrat side, then yeah, that will be noticeable as the majority, 50, are house members.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31716684

"The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that Iran poses a "threat to the entire world", in a contentious speech to the US Congress."

How can anyone take this guy seriously. He's a yahoo.

 

He was talking about Bibi, not you, OZK.

 

OZK is not a Yahoo. He's a Google.

Well, the speech was pretty much as expected. Netanyahu said Iran presents a danger to the whole world. Etc, etc.

But what is most interesting to me now is the house members are really out of the loop regarding any agreement. The Senate will be the one who would have to sign off on any agreement if one is crafted by State and Iran. Much of the commentary I'm reading suggests the speech solidified senators opinions on what should be done towards signing off on any deal that is reached.
What specifically does that mean? It means the focus now shifts to the senate.
Would they ratify any agreement that kicks the nuke weapon can down the road another 10 years while allowing nuclear energy as the president wants?

 

Some great comments in one of my favorite places for comments:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-disgraceful-spectacle-in-congress/

My favorite comment: http://www.theamericanconservative....e-in-congress/comment-page-1/#comment-7299340

 

Does the Senate sit in here too?

 

Regarding our relationship with Israel, the U.S. should stop to ask, "Yes, but is it good for the Americans?"

Like I said to a Palestinian friend yesterday, what does Israel do for us that makes them such an important ally? The Saudis at least sell us oil. What does Israel give us? My omeprazole?