Reprimanding Wilson

US Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC)Whether we wanted to or not, just about everyone in America knows that Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) called out President Obama during the POTUS’ recent speech on Health Insurance Reconstruction before a joint session of Congress. President Obama tried to convince people that illegal immigrants wouldn’t be covered and Rep. Wilson bellowed, “You Lie!”

Now the Liberals who’re running the US House of Representatives want to pass a Resolution of Disapproval against Wilson.

OK, to sane people this is a near criminal waste of Congress’ time. A Resolution of Disapproval is utterly meaningless and carries no penalties whatsoever; the victim doesn’t even have to be in attendance to here it, unlike the more serious Resolution to Censure where the victim does have to stand before the House and here the resolution read aloud. It serves little or no purpose except to distract from the real issues at hand.

On the other hand, the grievance-mongers in the inherently racist Congressional Black Caucus are demanding that such a waste of time be committed. They seem to believe in what passes for their minds that the KKK will rise again and burn them all out if Rep. Wilson isn’t rebuked.

I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside, intimidating people,” he said. “That’s the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked.

— Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Congressional Black Caucus

Of course people in America have to learn to expect such things from the Congressional Black Caucus. They’re the sort of Blacks who can’t here a sentence come out of a White’s mouth with out believing that it contains a sub-vocalized or unspoken “Boy” or “Nigger” in it somewhere.

But they’ll get their way in this, at least so far as having the resolution debated and voted upon. Whether or not it’s passed is slightly open to debate since not all Democrats want to go down that road. It sets a precedence that they don’t want to later be on the wrong side of. 😉

The GOP’s Amnesiac Response

House Republicans are obviously dead set against such a resolution of disapproval against Rep. Joe Wilson. They can be expected to vote en mass against it, not that they can balk it, or anything, if the Dems decide to force it through. That’s expected in these partisan days. What’s not quite so expected is the GOP’s very public outrage.

If we are going to march Members down to the well of the House to apologize, Joe Wilson is going to have to get in line behind Nancy Pelosi, who attacked the intelligence community who protects us, Charlie Rangel who cheated on his taxes, Jack Murtha – a walking scandal, and we all know how the Democratic leadership tried to protect William Jefferson.

Democrats don’t want an apology. They want a side show – something to shift the focus away from their government-run experiment on health care.

— RNC Chairman Michael Steele

I sympathize with Mr. Steele’s position. I very much feel the same way and feel that the previous behavior of the Dems v. President Bush abrogated any right to outrage or offense they might have once had. But I also remember Pete Stark (D-CA) on October 18, 2007 and the GOP’s response to his lack of decorum and any vestige of respect for President Bush.

Rep. Stark hated President Bush and was not shy about saying so or degrading the POTUS and the US Military before Congress, though he, unlike Wilson, did not do so directly to the Presidents face.

First of all, I’m just amazed that they can’t figure out– the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional ten million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you gonna get that money? You gonna tell us lies, like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have the money to fund the war or children, but you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we could get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.

~*~

But, President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up… in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto

— Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)
Failed override vote of Pres. Bush’s veto of S-Chip

Back then in 2007 the Republicans were overwhelmingly outraged by Stark’s statement. They felt that the statement was both vile and a blatant violation the rules of the House. The Republicans did not, however, settle for a Resolution of Disapproval; they forced a Resolution to Censure, a more serious penalty, which the House Democrats voted down.

If it was wrong then, then it is wrong now. If it was right then, it is right now. Gods, I have had it with these motherfucking idiots in my motherfucking Congress!

This is a case where I believe that the Democrats and the Republicans both need to just move on. Their ridiculous, bipartisan hypocrisy is disrespectful to the People who employ them to perform a job, not to whinge, whine, and rail at each other to no purpose.

Gods above and below! It’s so bad that the only one who’s been consistent is Speaker Nancy Pelosi; she disapproved of both Stark’s and Wilson’s outbursts but didn’t want to bother formally reprimanding either one of them.

Related Reading:

Republican Like Me: How I Left the Liberal Bubble and Learned to Love the Right
The Health Care Handbook: A Clear and Concise Guide to the United States Health Care System, 2nd Edition
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration (The Politically Incorrect Guides)
Understanding the Insurance Industry: An overview for those working with and in one of the world's most interesting and vital industries.
What You Should Know About Politics . . . But Don't: A Nonpartisan Guide to the Issues That Matter

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |

11 Responses to “Reprimanding Wilson”

  1. zhann Says:

    Congress seems to love to waste time. This is case in point. Of course, making a remark like Wilson’s in inappropriate, but it is over. The entire world knows of this event, and the majority have made it obvious that he was wrong in doing so. I am sure that he is aware of this, and more than likely truly regrets it. If he doesn’t regret it, this resolution will do nothing to sway his feelings.

    As for congress’s lack of seriousness, the problem is simple … we allow our congress, and government officials in general, to be tied to big business. Personally, I like Rupert Murdoch’s approach to getting rid of soft money, but anyway it is done is fine with me. Until government is completely separated from business interests we will have this kind of crap in office. Our government is run by business interests and primarily works when their pockets are properly lined. They don’t care about the people that elected them, so long as they don’t do anything that vastly opposes the will of their constituents. Unless the people raise enough stink about business interests in public office, including but not limited to soft money, officials will always find ways to waste time. It is just a circus act, nothing more.

  2. jonolan Says:

    I don’t think the issue is either as simple as you make it out be or that you’re solution to it is useful or correct, zhann.

    A large number of politicians are not particularly tied up with big business, especially the Democrats. They’re tied up with other special interest groups instead, ones largely antithetical to American businesses. Removing “big business” from the equation would only address part of the problem. Indeed it would unbalance the situation and make it worse for everyone.

    You saw my earlier post on the Big Donors. Remove the “big businesses” from that list and tell me if you want to see who’s left running things.

  3. Diakrioi Says:

    zhann,

    Take the time to look at jonolan’s Big Donors list. You will notice that most entities are not “big business” but “big labor”. All of their money goes to Democrats while “big business” tends to cover all their bets by giving money more or less equally to both parties. So, who benefits most from this system?

    About Wilson’s words. I take comments like the following into account when judging Wilson’s comment.

    “you’ve heard all the lies” -Obama characterizing the criticisms of opponents to HR3200 in a labor day speech.

  4. Liberal Are Calling Americans That Are Against Obama’s Policies Racist: Video « Goodtimepolitics Says:

    […] Reprimanding Wilson Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)What if naked liberalism’ is just VERY […]

  5. Goodtimepolitics Says:

    The Democrats keep saying that the house is the people’s house, well since itsour house we need to evict a few congressmen! Plus since its our house maybe they should start listening to the owners!

  6. jonolan Says:

    That sounds like an idea. 😉 We can start in 2010.

  7. zhann Says:

    Sorry for not being too clear, my intent by using the term big business was meant to be taken as ‘organizations’. I didn’t consider special interest at the moment, but they are also a major problem.

    Let me reword this in a small way, then. The only people who should be able to contribute financially to any electorate is the individual, no groups or organizations. Individuals, of course, need a cap on their contribution limits like, say $2000. Obviously, this makes things substantially more difficult for organizations.

    Just curious, but has anyone found a link to Rupert Murdoch’s solution to political soft money? I only heard it reference in TTC’s Game Theory lectures, and it sounded extremely interesting … I am curious why it fell through (probably both parties unanimously refused to participate). For those that don’t know the offer, the short version is that he was going to put up $1 Billion if the parties agreed to hold a vote on the elimination of soft money. If the bill passed, so be it. If the bill failed, however, he would contribute $1 Billion to the party that held the most votes in favor of the bill. There were other details, but this was more or less the meat of it.

  8. ichabod Says:

    Hi jonolan;

    I concur with your post.

    It is common courtesy to allow the person at the podium to speak, as that is why people go to these things, to listen to the speaker.

    I am neither a liberal or conservative. I think Wilson’s frustrated outburst may be forgiven considering what has happened in America this past decade.

    I never heard Wilson say anything in respect to race or showing disrespect because of color. How racism got to be an issue is beyond me.

  9. jonolan Says:

    zhann,

    OK! That makes a lot more sense and would be a great improvement over how we do it now.

    ichabod,

    Racism got into the issue because Obama’s supporters realized that it was, at the time, effective means of shutting down arguments against their Messiah. After all, nothing a racist says could be right…

    Well that and pandering to the Blacks was necessary in order to defeat SWMNBN in the Democratic Primary.

  10. Diakrioi Says:

    The racism claims are very simply ad hominem attacks. This logical fallacy is used to shut down debate when the user has no logical arguments against the facts.

  11. Reprimanding Wilson | Mizozo Says:

    […] Originally on Reflections From a Murky Pond […]

Leave a Reply