House Dems Will Introduce Resolution Today Condemning Wilson — But Not What He Said
After meeting last night, House Dem leaders have decided to proceed with a resolution today condeming Joe Wilson for his “you lie,” outburst, leadership aides say — but the resolution will sidestep the immigration-related substance of Wilson’s attack on the President.
“A resolution of disapproval will come to the floor today, likely in the afternoon,” Kristie Greco, a spokesperson for Dem Rep. James Clyburn, emailed me.
Greco confrmed that the resolution won’t discuss Wilson’s claim that Obama lied when he said his health care proposal wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants, and instead would only focus on Wilson’s conduct. “The resolution will be simple, non-partisan and address the breach of conduct during the Joint Address,” Greco said.
The decision to sidestep what Wilson said suggests Dem leaders may be reluctant to engage in a debate with Republicans over the veracity of Wilson’s immigration claim. Both sides will speak out today on the House floor about Wilson, and Dems may worry that a resolution addressing Wilson’s claim would give Republicans an opening to amplify his case.
It’s interesting to contrast this with the GOP’s handling of the House’s 2007 resolution condemning MoveOn for dissing General Petraeus. Today’s Wilson resolution will be the lowest form of condemnation available, while Repubs didn’t flinch from attacking MoveOn’s conduct as “reprehensible” and condemning it in the “strongest possible terms.”
What’s more, while House Dems voted en masse to condemn MoveOn after intense pressure from the right, today House GOPers will mostly side with Wilson.
Today Dems will forego the opportunity to use this resolution to contest the accuracy of what Wilson actually said — a claim that has become central to the health care debate — even though non-partisan observers have done just that and sided with the President.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg, or may be the “the lowest form of condemnation available” is a rope for the repugs hang themselves since as you say house goopers will mostly side with wilson. Or may be the President didn’t want an another distraction to be ginned by the media and rw noise in the run-up to HC bill and told Nancy to soft-pedal it. Possible no ?
amk — no doubt. but I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that Republicans will use this occasion to attack the health care reform plan for coddling illegal immigrants even though Dems are avoiding a mention of it in their reso…
Republicans have been pushing for a national I.D. card, and now may get one. Better remember to take your passport, birth certificate, and 5 other forms of I.D. if you go to the ER. You might bleed to death if you don’t have the proper I.D.
Greg, The repubs making monkeys out of themselves today is a given. But this “writing another letter” (as sbj loves to say) kind of mild rap on the knuckle will win more cookie points from the moderate repubs and the indies, I am sure. I would even go on to say this is a smart move from the dems …. nah, most probably the edict came from the President.
3 things
1. How stupid is it that we are basically turning away money by saying illegals can’t buy their own insurance without subsidies through exchanges guaranteeing that we will still be subsidizing them in ERs? All because Democrats in the Senate and the White House are pretty much cowards on immigration issues.
2. How frustrating is it for Joe Wilson and his supporters to be able to claim victory because of the capitulation?
3. What is the over under on Democrats in the House voting against the resolution? Im going with 10 and the over.
The so-called immigration issue is a tough one for Dems. Even a big percentage of Dems get crazy on illegal immigration. Every now and again, California gets into an uproar about letting illegals get driver licenses. Heads explode over that one, on both sides, even though if you think about it, you are forcing undocumented truck drivers to drive without insurance and without testing for basic competency and knowledge of traffic laws. It’s silly and irrational, but there you go. Sg is right, why NOT let them buy health insurance?
BTW, undocumented people are NOT eligible for medicaid and don’t receive it. They only become eligible for emergency medicaid if they have submitted an application for work permit or citizenship. It’s called PRUCOL (which makes them NOT illegal). And emergency medicaid is very limited, as the name implies.
I’m not one to promote punishment just for the sake of vengeance (two wrongs don’t make a right and all that) but this seems to be a clear breach of conduct and also a clear case of Dems letting the Republicans score points by not giving more push back about the strength of illegal-excluding language in the bill. The inefficacy of Democrats in the current media environment rears its ugly head again. Luckily they are at least better at governing.
The (shall we term it) ‘intimidation differential’ is really quite an interesting phenomenon. I’m for balance.
A simple rebuke for rudeness in the Chamber is appropriate, and for all who would vote against such a measure, we will be watching to see just how much honor you place on our legislative body, over partisan politics. A simple censor for violating acceptable conduct is a no brainer. Either the Republicans stand up for our noble institutions, or they pander to the soft white underbelly of our culture! -Kevo
It will be interesting to see how the conservadems and the blue dawgs vote today for the resolution. It would be kinda drawing the line in the sand, isn’t it ?
“Joe, who’s the nut who yelled out, you lie?” Mrs Joe Wison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfVIaP4SFGc&feature=player_embedded
“Joe and I met at teenage Republican camp” Mrs. Joe Wilson
The whole Wilson flap, teabaggers, birthers, the success of Fox News makes my head swim in irony.
As someone getting close to Medicare age it’s nothing short of amazing to me at how the positions have reversed…in the 60’s it was the left at the barricades, chanting, marching, and generally disrespecting the establishment. Popular music was the Fox News of the day and the other major difference was it was young people and a diverse group, now it’s old white people from the right. Certainly the young folks had their splinter wackos like the weathermen, SDS, Black Panthers..but by and large it was peace and love and a genuine sense of patriotism..an attempt to improve a country they love.
Now we have this past weekend’s demonstration with signs “We won’t come unarmed next time” and talk of secession from people as influential as the Repub Governor of Texas. I guess this is simply the way things work…every 50 or so years the right and left, young and old simply change positions…or perhaps it’s simply a swap of tactics.
Remembering the 1968 Democratic Convention has me truly looking forward to the 2012 Republican Convention when Conservatives may reap the whirlwind they have sewn.
For the last two days I have been stuck in a time warp – it’s 2003 and everybody is trying to get a comment on the board before Eschaton crashes again. Which it used to do about every 15 minutes until Duncan upgraded the site.
The more things change…
As far as the vote goes – it’s a good beginning, I want to see a trend develop – people held responsible for their bad behavior.
Otherwise, what remains of “polite society” is doomed.
Greg, you need to move your servers from Lithuania pronto.
“reg, you need to move your servers from Lithuania pronto.”
Either that or get some fresh hamsters for the wheel.
what exactly are you guys experiencing?
It seems to me that the resolution is completely appropriate. Wilson, like anyone else, has the right to call the president a liar. What was inappropriate was to direct it personally at the president during his address to Congress. Shouting any comment directly at a speaker is inappropriate regardless of the content of the comment.
Given that the “lie” claim has been debunked, and no one who still believes it will have their minds changed if the content of the remark is included in the resolution, it makes no sense to ratchet up the stakes by pressing it on the floor of the House. There was a clear breach of decorum, and it’s best to leave it at that rather than stir up bogus arguments that Democrats just want to silence anyone who disagrees with them on the basis of content.
Greg, open dns problem. Many times today.
Greg – Last night instead of Plumline, I got an Apache Tomcat administration page. Or else the message that the server could not be located
Your server needs help – the traffic is killing it.
And what amk said.
The House Parlimentarian has now said the rules of debate don’t apply during a joint session address (otherwise, the Democrats would be equally guilty for their unruly cheering and applause).
But little things like that don’t ever stand in the way of Democrats and political retribution or opportunism. They have become a party of political gangsters running the government like a mob racket at all levels.
quarterback: “The House Parlimentarian has now said the rules of debate don’t apply during a joint session address (otherwise, the Democrats would be equally guilty for their unruly cheering and applause).”
I can see a difference between generalized applause, or even booing, and an accusatory comment directly addressed to the speaker.
I can also see a difference between expressions of approval or disapproval of a policy and a comment directly disparaging someone’s integrity while they are speaking. (If everyone was allowed to yell at the speaker, we eventually wouldn’t have much of a speech.)
These do not seem like particularly difficult distinctions to me. And as a later post by Greg points out, most Republicans think Wilson’s shout was out of line. So I don’t see where the claims of retribution and “mob racket” comes from on this particular issue, since the sentiment seems to be bipartisan (possibly the only bipartisan agreement that may happen this session).
dsimon,
The Dem party line has been that Wilson should be censured because he patently violated a specific rule against saying the President (or anyone else) lies. It happens that this isn’t true. My point is that Democrats will not let that get in their way, since their motivation has nothing to do with preserving decorum rules and everything to do with lashing out at a Republican, tarring him as a racist for having the audacity to challenge Obama, etc. Democrats stand on the rules to achieve their ends, and ignore them when they aren’t convenient.
In this case, you claim you see a difference between the booing and hissing against George Bush, and the angry shouts of “No! No!” we can hear on those video tapes. Previously, the difference was supposed to be that the Democrats’ rude and crude behavior was not technically a violation of the rules. (Of course, we can only here what is audible in those recordings. No one can say what other kinds of comments were being shouted or spoken by Dems, and I would expect that they said more tha “No!”) Now, that claim has been refuted, but Dems still claim there is some difference that justifies formally condemning Wilson when they were not condemned for their unseemly conduct in joint sessions.
You say you see a difference. I see nothing but arbitrary retribution for partisan purposes. And I think Republicans would be smart to say exactly that. Let the Democrats trump up some phony violation, since they have the power to do whatever they want, but never cease calling them out for their unprincipled, partisan behavior.
Most Republicans thought Democratic rudeness to Bush was inappropriate. By your logic, it should have been formally condemned, and the failure to do so makes this current episode an exercise in hypocrisy. If your problem with Wilson’s comment is that he breached etiquette by charging dishonesty, then you will have to explain why Obama himself was not just as guilty, since he explicitly said his opponents were lying and not acting in good faith. If your problem is that it was loud and disruptive, then you have to deal with the more disruptive behavior of your own party.
The bombardment of American voters at the doors of Congress must be heard, to make E-Verify a permanent illegal immigrant enforcement tool? It’s incredulous that we are winning small wars against our lawmakers beneficiaries–the special interest lobby. LEGISLATORS ARE FINALLY HEARING OUR ANGRY VOICES. Rep. Joe Wilson C-SC opened the eyes of millions of Americans, who are been left unaware of the cloaked–AMNESTY–committees that is going to rip the fabric of every voters life apart. Any detail in the national media has been subdues or intentionally omitted, as with the crowds of Tea Party opponents. Sen. Harry Reid could be stretching his neck out for the headsman in his re-election campaign, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They both have used their political influence in trying to overturn E-Verify. Pro-Illegal alien lawmakers could table it, under the “Sunset Provision” on September 30?
President Obama’s direction towards an unmentionable path to citizenship for all those who broke our law is abhorrent. After the controversial eruption in the Session of Congress, they surely must be aware that imposing immigration reform on the people could break them? Americans taxpayers are already supporting business welfare? Corporate entities want these destitute people here to exploit, but don’t want to pay for their health care, schooling or towards the massive numbers surviving in prison. They leave that to the fading middle class taxpayers who carry the tax burden? Over a decade has passed since illegal people started coming here in droves and with little or no laws, to blockade their arrival we are now talking over 20 million. Nor does it stop there? Owing to the clarion call of Amnesty ringing out in the slums and ghetto’s of foreign criminals, sick, elderly and those without means, from all over the world will descend on us. IT MEANS OVERPOPULATION?
Bad as it may be now, who is going to subsidize the new arrivals? Not the business cartels that’s for sure? Once again taxpayers will be heavily taxed to pay for the new shipment of poor, uneducated from every region. How can we expect to have any government public option for our own people, when our gates remain wide open for “Anchor Babies” and the illegal millions expecting a free handout? A nurse in a Nevada hospital indicated they have a row of beds of illegal immigrants on dialysis, which was costing weekly $18.000 dollars for each treatment. Tell me who pays for that? The US government pays a small portion; the rest is acquired from the hospital or taxpayer.
I want a single payer system for homeless veterans, seniors, single mothers with children and poor American families. But I refuse to pay for everybody who climbs, crawls under the fence or bluffs the Federal officer at shipping ports and airports of entry. It’s not our responsibility. DON’T WAIT! PESTER YOUR SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY AT 202-224-3121? Find true facts by GOOGLING NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIAL WATCH & IMMIGRATION COUNTERS
quarterback: “The Dem party line has been that Wilson should be censured because he patently violated a specific rule against saying the President (or anyone else) lies. It happens that this isn’t true.”
I wasn’t disputing your statement regarding the rules. If what you say is correct, then the rules are the rules. But that doesn’t affect the distinctions I have noted.
Morevoer, your statement may not be correct, because the “rules” are not that clear-cut. See http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_health_care_heckling/2009/09/14/259967.html:
“House Parliamentarian John Sullivan agreed that the House’s rules on debate probably don’t apply to the incident. But he and others said the House has wide latitude in interpreting its general code of conduct that says ‘a lawmaker shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.’”
“A lawmaker doesn’t have to violate a specific rule to get scolded.
“‘This probably is not a question of decorum in debate as much as a question of decorum generally,’ Sullivan said.”
“You say you see a difference. I see nothing but arbitrary retribution for partisan purposes.”
I think those who can’t see the differences I pointed out are letting partisan purposes cloud their judgment. It should be quite obvious that permitting one-on-one heckling would soon bring to a halt any kind of speech. And it’s certainly inappropriate in a joint session of Congress, regardless of the rules.
“Most Republicans thought Democratic rudeness to Bush was inappropriate. By your logic, it should have been formally condemned, and the failure to do so makes this current episode an exercise in hypocrisy.”
They did not heckle him personally or direct a personal comment at him while he was speaking. Or at least I can’t recall one. Nor has one been brought to my attention. If you want to do the research to find an example, please do so.
“If your problem with Wilson’s comment is that he breached etiquette by charging dishonesty, then you will have to explain why Obama himself was not just as guilty, since he explicitly said his opponents were lying and not acting in good faith.”
I explicitly posted above that the problem has nothing to do with the content of Wilson’s statement. And I fully support the right of his opponents to call anyone they like a liar in a non-disruptive context.
“If your problem is that it was loud and disruptive, then you have to deal with the more disruptive behavior of your own party.”
As I wrote above, applause (and occasional boos) do not pose a real danger to the ability to give an address (and I know of many instances where Republicans “interrupted” addresses by Republican presidents with applause). Allowing one-on-one shouting and catcalls does pose such a problem. Again, it seems pretty obvious to me, and I don’t care which side it’s coming from.
Can we at least agree that Wilson’s comment was completely inappropriate in that situation?
dsimon,
“‘a lawmaker shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.’”
“A lawmaker doesn’t have to violate a specific rule to get scolded.
“‘This probably is not a question of decorum in debate as much as a question of decorum generally,’ Sullivan said.””
So now we have a resolution based on supposedly not acting at all times to reflect creditability. You can’t seriously want to start down that road. Need I start listing the acts of Democrats just currently bringing extreme disrepute on the House? How about the liar, tax cheat, and crook Rangel? And yet none of these are “disapproved” by resolution in the House controlled by their party. What possible reason for this disparate treatment is there but partisanship? None.
“It should be quite obvious that permitting one-on-one heckling would soon bring to a halt any kind of speech. And it’s certainly inappropriate in a joint session of Congress, regardless of the rules.”
I have no idea what you mean by “one on one heckling” or why whatever it is you believe it especially abusive in comparison to, say, an entire chorus of Dems drowning out George Bush, which is exactly what they did.
“They did not heckle him personally or direct a personal comment at him while he was speaking. Or at least I can’t recall one. Nor has one been brought to my attention. If you want to do the research to find an example, please do so.”
No, please look it up for yourself. I have posted links before, and they are quite easy to google up. They absolutely did “interrupt” him with personal heckling.
“As I wrote above, applause (and occasional boos) do not pose a real danger to the ability to give an address (and I know of many instances where Republicans “interrupted” addresses by Republican presidents with applause). Allowing one-on-one shouting and catcalls does pose such a problem. Again, it seems pretty obvious to me, and I don’t care which side it’s coming from.”
Again, you are obviously unacquainted with the facts of what occurred during Bush addresses, or do not want to recall. I suspect you are the only person in the world who imagines that what you call “one on one shouting and catcall” (which you impute to Wilson) someone poses a greater “threat” to the ability to give a speech than the loud choruses of jeering by Democrats during addresses by Bush.
No, I actually don’t think that “Wilson’s comment was completely inappropriate in that situation.” The “situation” was that a President came to the well of the house on national TV and gave a harshly partisan speech in which he called opponents demogogues, said the were lying, and said they were acting in bad faith. And, as it happens, there is not much room for debate that he was lying himself.
Based on the standards set by past conduct, and by Obama’s own abuse of the forum, I can’t agree that Wilson’s comment was “completely inappropriate.” He dissented. He “spoke truth to power.” And he answered back in kind to someone who had just called him a liar on national television. Obama is President, not King.