"For the American people."

Today Yahoo.com carried an Associated Press (AP) report by Andrew Taylor titled, "Dems, GOP still at loggerheads as clock ticks."*  The article quotes President Obama:

"'There is very little time,' President Barack Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. He called for an end to political gamesmanship, saying 'the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.'"

Obama claims "there is very little time."  His administration's messaging has been that on August 2nd the government will begin to default on its obligations.  So, based on that messaging there is indeed very little time.  We're almost there, so he says, 'the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.'"  And, what is his solution to reach a compromise, end "political gamesmanship."

Now let's enter the POLITIZONE and see what is really going on. 

To reach a compromise he called for an end to "political gamesmanship."  Why did he say that?  Because it makes him sound presidential.  He is attempting to build the perception that he is above the fray and is displaying leadership.  But, what he is really doing is acknowledging the fact that the political games the parties and their leadership (of which he is one) have been engaged in have precipitated the very crisis we now face.  My question is, if the games must now be ended as he contends to reach a compromise, to what ends have they been pursued up until this point?

I find it so disingenuous when politicians invoke the interests of "the American people" when they speak.

Has it been in the interests of the American people for the parties and their leadership to engage in their political games?  Obama stated that, "the time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now."  Think about that comment for a moment.  Why now?  Why not months ago?  If our politicians really cared about the interests of the American people wouldn't they have reached a compromise much sooner and avoided a crisis?  Now the administration scares the old and infirm by threatening their Social Security payments.  Doesn't that constitute political gamesmanship? 

Political careerism creates a conflict of interest for our elected officials.  Political gamesmanship is a euphemism for the actions and behaviors they engage in as they pursue their long careers in "public service."  We elect them to serve us and represent our interests.  However, their natural tendency is to act and behave in ways that enhance the chances of advancing their careers.  Consequently, their self-serving interests supersede the interests of constituents and the imperative need to find long term solutions to the Nation's problems.

*The link to the AP story is:
http://news.yahoo.com/dems-gop-still-loggerheads-clock-ticks-074111936.html