Joe Wilson won't apologize again

What it comes down to is that House Rules expressly forbid making a direct personal attack on any Member of the House, Senate, or President and his administration.

If this decorum is breached, the standard operating procedure is to immediately vote to have the Member's words taken down. A vote is called, and if the vote passes, the Member's speech is stricken from the Congressional Record and the Member is forbidden to speak on the Floor of the House for the rest of the day.

In recent years, starting with Tom Delay, this rule has become completely ignored for political reasons. A vote called to have a Member's words taken down can ignite a political firestorm. The sanctioned Member becomes a martyr to his political party and the is more news generated by the punishment than there would be if the breach of decorum is ignored.

Which brings me to the admonishment resolution against Rep. Wilson. This particular form punishment has never been used before. Speaker Pelosi declined to have Wilson's words taken down at the speech, and the statute on having a Member's words taken down expired at midnight last Wednesday. However, other Members of the Democrat Caucus wanted Wilson to have some form of rebuke.

Basically, this resolution will create a new for of punishment for breach of decorum, and if I had to guess will simply become a new weapon to use against political opponents. I know Democrats believe that the Republican Party is dead and never coming back, but U.S. History has shown us time and again that the American people are fickle. Do you really want the Republicans to have precedent that would allow them to admonish any Democrat for making a speech that they don't like?

 

Yes, because it would spare us from them doing greater damage like they did from 1994-2006.

 

Nice work bmb. It is good to have more intelligent conservatives in this forum.
I don't know why the Democrats are only using the rule as a reference for reprimand and not the speech itself. I felt other reasons were justifiable but perhaps those reasons are too abstract and arguable so why not keep this concrete, short and simple.

The fact that the Republicans have never enforced their own rule does not mean anything in this discussion. They created the rule. They never enforced it because public opinion would not have backed them when GW's approval was low and many of the American public thought he lied.
Here, there is a very disrespectful interruption aimed at the President himself. The public will understand this one. It is not arguable. Even if they think one apology is enough, everyone can understand that this was horribly wrong and ... why can't someone apologize again but this time to the House for this embarrassment?
Whether the Republicans enforced it or not does not matter at all. The rule remains. If the rule can be used for a political agenda, that is the creator's fault and not those enforcing the rules. I, however, think this rule should be gotten rid of. We merely need to say that there should not be such interruptions.

I disagree with bmb that we need the minutes to have the interruption validated. We all saw it, it is recorded by video... why do we need the minutes to prove something that there is already plenty of evidence for? Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm not familiar with the details of the rules. Can we have some sort of citation?
As for my belief that this would be a bipartisan reprimand, I guess I could be wrong, but I'd be very surprised.

As for the discussion that Republicans created this rule themselves is only meant for humorous irony.

 

Again, Republicans only expanded this rule to include Senators. The original rule only covered Members of the House and the President and his administration.

I guess my biggest issue with the whole thing is the creating of a new form of enforcement after the fact.

Ultimately, this amounts to having a company policy that prohibits wearing blue to work. Under the current policy, if you wear blue to work your supervisor has the right to send you home for the day. If your supervisor chooses not to send you home, then there is not penalty. Then suddenly, the company policy changes, you can't wear blue, and anyone that does wear blue gets and automatic pay-docking, and by the way, it is retroactive to last week. Anyone who wore blue last week will have their pay docked.

I have no problem with the House passing a rule that would allow for future breaches of decorum to be punished with admonishment, but making it retroactive just doesn't set well with me.

 

The saddest part to me is that crudely calling the President of the United States a liar in front of hundreds of people while he is speaking to the country (thus, heard by many millions) is now a rallying cry for many Republicans and has raised Joe Wilson a million dollars for his campaign.

That's what's truly sad: rudeness as a rallying cry.

 

How about this. which I think is a MUCH better analogy. The speed limit says 35 mph. People often go 5 mph higher than the limit. Cops never enforce the speed limit if you go 1-5 mph over the limit. However, when it is egregious, it needs to be enforced.
I sometimes go 45mph in a 35 in front of cops and they don't do anything. Once though, the bastards got me! I was going 60 in a 40 I think, my only speeding ticket ever. I didn't say, "What the hell copper, why is this only being enforced now when I've been breaking the rule all along!!!"

That is what is happening here. What Wilson did is far more horrible than anything the conservatives in this thread have referenced.

You want to enforce strict compliance. If that was so, then anything that remotely seems as if it could be an accusation to the President would require a vote. Quite ridiculous in my opinion. Does not seem to be the intent behind the rule.

I want to enforce by degrees, which seems like a much more practical application of the rule, and therefore its likely intent. When the violation is clear, and ALSO extreme, then we can and should enforce this rule.

 

Joe Wilson calling Obama a liar on the Floor is worse than Pete Stark saying that the troops were getting their heads blown off for Bush's amusement (yes the speech was directed at President Bush)?

And as far as your speeding analogy goes, it would be like speeding through an entire troop of cops, not getting pulled over, and the the cops showing up at your house a week later and taking you to jail for a new law that makes speeding punishable with jail time.

There was already a law on the books against speeding, and there was a specific penalty that could be accessed for speeding. However, the police chose not use the measures already in place to enforce the rule. Why should you be taken to jail a week later after the law changes?

 

he didn't stand up and scream during the state of the union did he? The setting matters, as much as you want to pretend that it does not. All kinds of stupid things get said in half-empty house chambers and put on the record. It's not the same thing though, for reasons that you are smart enough to realize.

 

FWIW, Joe Wilson never stood up and screamed during the State of the Union.

That said, never once did I say that what Joe Wilson did was appropriate. I think it was a poor decision that showed a lack of self control. However, the rules that govern an "empty House" during debate are the exact same rules that govern a full House during the State of the Union. Making a new rule to retroactively punish a Member of Congress when you had the opportunity to enforce the current rules and simply chose not to sets a horrid precedent.

 

I'm well aware of this, but I couldn't very well have said "Bush's big speech in front of congress on health care reform," could I? Or is this some part of nit-picky angle?

 

How about, "Speech to a Joint Session of Congress."

 

I don't understand. Perhaps you can help me understand your point. You are saying that this is akin to the cops showing up a week later? Is this because the House did not reprimand him the day after? Or take the minutes immediately after the speech? Simply put, we can't analogize EVERYTHING. Cops and the House of Reps. work on a different time table. Things move more slowly in the House than with police. In fact, the House's vote is a fairly quick response in politics.

While I applaud one of the more intelligent conservative discussions i've seen in a while, I still have to point out that you keep focusing on your weak arguments/ what Sam called "nit-picky angle." (unless I'm mistaken about what you are saying)
Obviously Stark's comments are directed at President Bush, when I said "addressed at" President Obama, I thought it was obvious that what I was emphasizing that it was in person interruption of the President's speech that was the worst. At a joint-session of Congress no less. This interrupts the President's speech so it is focused on Wilson. An apology is needed not only to the President but also to the House and the American public for injecting himself into the speech that is for the benefit of the American public. Simply put, ruining a joint session is far worse than the kooky things that go on a House floor.

OFF-TOPIC (so no need to address it if you like)
Not only did Wilson interrupt President Obama, WILSON WAS WRONG!
CNN just did a segment that I watched 10 minutes ago. It went into detail about Wilson's allegations and his background.

1) Wilson's accusation that the President is lying is not true.
CNN looked over the Act and there is Sec. 246 and I think 248 addresses it as well.
CNN said Sec. 246, specifically says that this act will not provide insurance for illegal immigrants. This Section is controlling over the whole act. CNN then said that there was an amendment to the act, a long time ago, that gave some insurance to illegal immigrants, but that amendment had been stricken out a long time ago. Wilson doesn't seem to do his due diligence? CNN then concluded that Wilson was flat-out wrong.

2) Wilson was a member of the Sons of the Confederacy. I don't think I need to explain that this is a VERY racist organization. It is not exactly in the group's mission statement, but everyone with a brain knows that their leadership is very racist and many of the things they do are of a racist agenda. I didn't believe the accusation that Wilson was racist but... this doesn't help.

2) CNN also looked into Wilson's past voting record. Wilson drafted? or voted for a bill that gave health insurance to illegal immigrants.

Wilson is a liar and a hypocrite. It is a shame that it came as a member of the House at the expense of the President's speech to the American people. All of whom he owes apologies to. Can't believe he used it to gain votes and money for his campaign... a sincere apology to the President. Reprimand is justified.

 

If his seat seems at anyway in jeopardy, I expect to see some swift boating of his Iraq war veteran.

 

thank you, pimphand.

The apology is warranted just on the merits of being so totally and demonstrably wrong and defamous. Then add on the etiquette, and you've got a stellar pile of fail coming out of his sons-of-the-confederacy-of-dunces piehole.

 

How crazy that THIS is what politicians deam worthy of fighting for based on principle. From both sides, really. Wilson gets the instigator penalty, certainly -- and an unsportsmanlike conduct -- but the admonishers get at least a delay of game.

 

Yes, I am equating this to cops showing up at your door to arrest you for an infraction that you committed a week ago in front of law enforcement and that at the time was only punishable with a fine.

From Politico

The Speaker of the House was informed of the action that she could take in regards to Rep. Wilson and opted not to. Instead, they have created a new rule and chosen to invoke it retroactively. My issue has never been that what Joe Wilson did was appropriate. i just believe that creating new rules to retroactively punish any Member of Congress, whether Republican or Democrat is ludicrous.

Create a new rule going forth, but if you're not going to apply the rule to every idiot that said something on the Floor of the House in the past, then retroactive punishment is inappropriate.

As for my nit-picking, it's meant in good fun.

 

has anyone else shouted something as bad directly to the POTUS while the POTUS is in the middle of his speech on the Floor of the House?

there are grave things that happen for the first time and it doesn't mean it can go to pass unpunished

 

But... but... but...

LIBERAL MEDIA!!!

 

There have been interruptions of Joint Session speeches vastly more egregious than Joe Wilson. However they have come from entire parties rather than individual Members. The nastiest that I can think of is in Bush's 2006 SotU when the Democrats interrupted the President's speech and cheered Bush's failure to pass social security reform. When the party dynamic shifts again, and the Democrats are rude to a Republican President should the entire party be admonished from here on out?

This has never been a thread about whether or not what Joe Wilson said was correct or not, just the way he said. I'm not going to debate whether Obama lied or not in this particular thread. We all know that no opinions are going to be shifted on that particular belief.