As You See It: Sept. 17, 2009

[Ricardo]

Okay, Liberals - would you be upset if it was Barbara Lee calling Bush a Liar? Didn't you laugh when that Iraqi guy threw the shoe at Bush? So, your concepts of decorum and civility are like your morals - situational at best.

[dON hEICHEL - sOQUEL]

john Reece just doesn't get it. You can be opposed to any policy you want you just cannot stand up and call the president (any president) a liar in Congress. No matter how many birther,teabagger,lou dobbs talking points you cram down your throat, you cannot justify conduct that embarrasses all Americans. The fact that you would publicly defend such conduct says a lot about your upbringing. What would your mom and dad say?

[dON hEICHEL - sOQUEL]

Keeth wrote:

The same is true for all of us out here in the real world. You break a rule you agreed to follow, you are held accountable.

Flame on.

That depends on what the definition of is is.

Bill Clinton broke the LAW, not some silly rule the Democrats already ignored under Bush.

Clinton served how much time for the crime?

Senator Ted Kennedy received no special treatment after he drove off a bridge into water and returned to his hotel for a nap while a woman in his vehicle died.

Maybe there was no crime here, just her stupidity for gettin' in his car?

I'm certain Keeth can put his teeth into these questionable monents in time and find a way to blame Republicans for them.

BTW, Obama did lie to the Congress and the People.

Hey, let's focus on the rude behavior!!!!

What's a few lies among Libs in a good cause?

Blame on!

[little ricky]

Sorry john reece...i don't take advice from a deluded teabagger who pines for the days of yesteryear when the confederate flag flew. You had your 8 years under Bush and look what happened...he ran the country into the ground.. Instead of parroting Glen Beck and Lou Dobbsyou should be saying a million Hail Mary's for screwing this country up. Remember Iraq ?

[Keeth]

dON hEICHEL - sOQUEL wrote:

<quoted text>
That depends on what the definition of is is.
Bill Clinton broke the LAW, not some silly rule the Democrats already ignored under Bush.
Clinton served how much time for the crime?
Senator Ted Kennedy received no special treatment after he drove off a bridge into water and returned to his hotel for a nap while a woman in his vehicle died.
Maybe there was no crime here, just her stupidity for gettin' in his car?
I'm certain Keeth can put his teeth into these questionable monents in time and find a way to blame Republicans for them.
BTW, Obama did lie to the Congress and the People.
Hey, let's focus on the rude behavior!!!!
What's a few lies among Libs in a good cause?
Blame on!

I'm talking this situation, Mr. Wilson, and the House rules that he agreed to follow. Period. I'm not talking anything else. You're the one trying to blame others by bringing Clinton and Kennedy into this debate where they have no place and no relevance. Blame on, indeed, Don. Look in the mirror and see what you claim others to be.

[scat pittle]

ricky ricardo: I did not laugh when the Iraqi threw a shoe at Bush...I cried.....because he missed. p.s. the difference Bush actually did lie so calling him a liar was the truth.. a complete defense. P.S. pendajo Joe wilson made his claim in Congress

[treehugger]

Remember that book about "All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten"? I'm sure one of the things learned was to take turns talking in class. Another was that you don't get your way by shouting louder than everyone else.

To me it seems as though Wilson and many of the protesters this summer never made it that far in school, at least not in their social development.

[Andy]

Keeth wrote:

I'd wager it wasn't just Democrats booing and groaning over Bush's warning of higher taxes. At the time of the Bush booing, the GOP were in control of both houses of Congress, so it was up to them to hold offending members responsible if they broke House/Senate rules. Apparently the situation either did not warrant this or else the leadership was incompetent. Did Reid et al violate a rule of the Senate when calling Bush a liar on the Senate floor when Bush was not present? I don't know. Who does? House and Senate rules are not the same.
What Reece and so many others don't seem to understand is that Wilson broke a House rule that he (and every member) agreed to follow, and so he has been held accountable by the leadership. The same is true for all of us out here in the real world. You break a rule you agreed to follow, you are held accountable. I thought the GOP was the party of personal responsibility that also had respect for the rule of law. Just cuz the GOP leadership in 2005 did not hold anyone responsible for their actions does not mean Wilson should not be held responsible for his.
And Wilson is no more a "man" for his outburst. A real man keeps his cool; a child throws a temper tantrum. Try this at your workplace and see how long you stay employed.
Flame on.

Well said.

[pythias07]

today nancy pelosi named a financial crisis inquiry commission about acorn!! phil angelides was named to head the commission!! he is a long time participant in left wing politics such as van jones - apollo alliance which angelides chairs!! also a long time membe of acorn who strongly supported his gubenatorial run!! looks like the fix is in and acorn will be elevated to sainthood and the graft and corruption will continue to flow!!

[disabuser]

There's no dispute that Wilson's outburst was a breach of decorum. But it would be difficult to argue that it didn't directly lead to both the Obama administration and the Senate Finance Committee addressing the concerns of Wilson, which House Democrats had refused to do, which are shared by much of the American electorate. After all that's why the President said what he said, declaring unequivocally something that was at least somewhat misleading. So people can both understand the decorum issue yet be glad that the failure to adhere to it lead to their government being forced to address their policy concerns.

[trisha0790]

Tired of it wrote:

Here's an idea...don't watch Fox news or any other stupid talking head make up stories for 24 hours of news station.
Instead, get out and do something with your life.

Best post of the day!!!

[scat pittle]

disabuser: perhaps you need to abuse more not less.

[Soquel by the Creek]

Keeth wrote:

... SNIP ...
What Reece and so many others don't seem to understand is that Wilson broke a House rule that he (and every member) agreed to follow, and so he has been held accountable by the leadership. The same is true for all of us out here in the real world. You break a rule you agreed to follow, you are held accountable. I thought the GOP was the party of personal responsibility that also had respect for the rule of law. Just cuz the GOP leadership in 2005 did not hold anyone responsible for their actions does not mean Wilson should not be held responsible for his.

Agreed. Congressman Wilson's comments were disrespectful, inappropriate, unproductive, and broke House rules and he should receive an appropriate punishment. Funny though how Congressman Wilson received the House's first ever in the 220 year history of the Republic rebuke for his comments. Really? For yelling out, "You lie!"? Excellent! I'd like to see all our Representatives and Senators hold themselves to a higher ethical standard.
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z... :)

So, with so many other obvious examples of blatant ethics or legal violations, why decide that Congress Wilson is the proverbial last straw (I mean, other than he's the most politically expedient)?

Why not Congressman Charlie Rangel from New York, who "forgot" that he had a few extra million dollars and "forgot" to pay taxes on them. Then, when confronted with allegation, he provided "campaign contributions", i.e. bribes, to members of the oxymoronically-named House Ethics Committee. And this is not the first of many accusations. Yet, Congressman Rangel's behavior receives nary a unkind word from Congress, there in Washington, District of Corruption. Instead, Congressman Rangel continues to hold the Chairman's seat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee--you know, the one that writes the very tax laws that he chooses to ignore. Why is Charlie Rangel seemingly protected?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editoria...
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/0...

Or how about Congressman Murtha? Or how about Congressman Frank? Or how about Congresswoman Richardson? And those are just the names from the top of my head.

Yet, Congress wonders why there is so much anger at our political leaders and why their ratings are so very low. In frustration, Congressional leaders call those that would dare question their authority names like "racist" or "brown shirt" and claim that all such dissent must be manufactured "Astroturf". Could our anger possibly stem from Congress' arrogant disregard and disrespect for the electorate and Congress' highly situational ethics?

Keeth wrote:

And Wilson is no more a "man" for his outburst. A real man keeps his cool; a child throws a temper tantrum. Try this at your workplace and see how long you stay employed.
Flame on.

That's one characteristic that I particularly admire about President Obama. The man definitely keeps his cool despite the chaos around him.

I've worked for companies with a health dose of screaming conflicts. I've also worked for flawed companies where employees very politely stab each other in the back. Peace is not the absence of confict.

[Just Sayin]

Keeth wrote:

<quoted text>
When the president addresses both houses of Congress (in the House chamber, the larger of the two chambers), it is called a "joint session of Congress" -- therefore, both the House and the Senate were in session at the time.

Sorry, but a 'joint session' does not mean they are 'in session'. The two houses cannot vote on legislation together - they are seperate entities. If they were in session, which rules do they have to follow? Those of the House, or the Senate? Who is in charge, Reid, or Pelosi? Or are you saying that the rules of a joint session are just that everyone has to shut up and listen? Can you quote the House rules which state that? Senate rules?

Wilson isn't being taken to task for speaking, but for what he said.

[Reality Check]

Ms. Hudson, do expound on why 'You lie' is 'frankly racist'. If Wilson had said the same to Pelosi, would that have been sexist? If he'd said it to Reid, would it be ageist? Or was it just rudeist?

Wilson was out of line, no question. But there's no evidence that his outburst was due to the color of Obama's skin, vs. the content of his (incorrect, IMO) assertion.

[Really - no really]

So... following your logic... President Obama is a child for speaking his mind "off the record" regarding Kayne West. Correct? BTW I never agreed to many things but am forced to live with the threat of the consequences. How does that work?

Keeth wrote:

I'd wager it wasn't just Democrats booing and groaning over Bush's warning of higher taxes. At the time of the Bush booing, the GOP were in control of both houses of Congress, so it was up to them to hold offending members responsible if they broke House/Senate rules. Apparently the situation either did not warrant this or else the leadership was incompetent. Did Reid et al violate a rule of the Senate when calling Bush a liar on the Senate floor when Bush was not present? I don't know. Who does? House and Senate rules are not the same.
What Reece and so many others don't seem to understand is that Wilson broke a House rule that he (and every member) agreed to follow, and so he has been held accountable by the leadership. The same is true for all of us out here in the real world. You break a rule you agreed to follow, you are held accountable. I thought the GOP was the party of personal responsibility that also had respect for the rule of law. Just cuz the GOP leadership in 2005 did not hold anyone responsible for their actions does not mean Wilson should not be held responsible for his.
And Wilson is no more a "man" for his outburst. A real man keeps his cool; a child throws a temper tantrum. Try this at your workplace and see how long you stay employed.
Flame on.

[Soquel by the Creek]

Sharon Hudson wrote:

Wilson's statement was rude, offensive

When Rep. Wilson yelled "You lie" during President Obama's speech the other evening, it was rude, disrespectful and frankly, RACIST (emphasis added). No matter how it is painted, the picture is clearly the same. Period.

Racist? Really?

Most reasonable people can tell the difference between political dissent and actual racism. Even President Obama and the White House agrees.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8260109.s...

So why brandish the "racism" claim? Is it just a convenient and well-worn club to stifle dissent and to distract from the matter of debate? Sorry, I'm not buying the "racism" charge. There are real and significant policy differences here. Shouts of "racist" won't make those differences disappear any more than if I start shouting "communist" every time someone disagrees with me.

[Pet Kitty]

When Rep. Wilson yelled "You lie" during President Obama's speech the other evening, it was rude, disrespectful and frankly, racist. No matter how it is painted, the picture is clearly the same. Period.

Sharon Hudson, Aptos

So what? Now I am a racist if I call someone of color a liar and a White Supremicist if I call an Anglo trustworthy. Sharon, it is people like you that are putting my County in the toilet.

[ohreally]

Keeth wrote:

I'd wager it wasn't just Democrats booing and groaning over Bush's warning of higher taxes. At the time of the Bush booing, the GOP were in control of both houses of Congress, so it was up to them to hold offending members responsible if they broke House/Senate rules. Apparently the situation either did not warrant this or else the leadership was incompetent. Did Reid et al violate a rule of the Senate when calling Bush a liar on the Senate floor when Bush was not present? I don't know. Who does? House and Senate rules are not the same.
What Reece and so many others don't seem to understand is that Wilson broke a House rule that he (and every member) agreed to follow, and so he has been held accountable by the leadership. The same is true for all of us out here in the real world. You break a rule you agreed to follow, you are held accountable. I thought the GOP was the party of personal responsibility that also had respect for the rule of law. Just cuz the GOP leadership in 2005 did not hold anyone responsible for their actions does not mean Wilson should not be held responsible for his.
And Wilson is no more a "man" for his outburst. A real man keeps his cool; a child throws a temper tantrum. Try this at your workplace and see how long you stay employed.
Flame on.

Yeah, Wilson broke a rule and should be held accountable, yeah he was rude, yeah he embarassed himself and his supporters, yea he should have kept his mouth shut, but no, his outburst was not racist.

[Keeth]

Just Sayin wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but a 'joint session' does not mean they are 'in session'. The two houses cannot vote on legislation together - they are seperate entities. If they were in session, which rules do they have to follow? Those of the House, or the Senate? Who is in charge, Reid, or Pelosi? Or are you saying that the rules of a joint session are just that everyone has to shut up and listen? Can you quote the House rules which state that? Senate rules?
Wilson isn't being taken to task for speaking, but for what he said.

If the House was not in session during the president's address and House members did not need to follow House rules, then the House parliamentarian and House clerk would have called the resolution against Mr. Wilson out of order, invalid, or illegal (however they name it). Seeing the absence of such calls from these two nonpartisan people, a reasonable person might believe that the House was in session during the president's address and that the House members were bound by House rules.

I sent some questions to the House clerk on this matter just now, asking if the House is "in session" when the president addresses a "joint session of Congress", and I also asked which rules, if any, Reps and Senators follow during the president's address. I hope to have an answer for you soon.