House admonishes Wilson for his 'You lie' outburst

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

Can you explain why the MSM was not outraged when Democrats boo'd Bush in the State of the Union speech? Can you explain the lack of outrage when Harry Reid called Bush a "loser" in the senate? Of course not, because the MSM manipulates the outrage in all of you.

Because Harry Reid did not interrupt Bush during an address to congress.

An Admonishment is certainly nicer than a Censure which he could have received.

He could have also been referred by his peers in the House to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for Ethics Violations.

Lastly, with 50 more votes, he could have been excused from Office, leaving his seat in the House of Representatives vacated until the State of South Carolina voted a new Representative into office.

So, considering the alternatives, Admonishment seems like barely a slap on the back of the hand.

It's not like he's facing multiple Admonishments, Censures and Investigations like former Representative Tom DeLay!

Admonishments happen frequently in Congress. Part of the reason why breaches of decorum are Admonished, and grievous violations of Rule are Censured, or unethical practices are referred for judgment to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is to deter this kind of behavior because it does interrupt the proceedings of Congress when there are far more important issues that are at hand.

No one likes it in Sports when a Ref calls a foul and all the Refs have to take a time out to review the play and vote on a ruling before the Big Game can continue. However, it has to be done in the sake of Good Sportsmanship. Such, is the same in Politics.

The Refs have consulted, voted, and Wilson received a Yellow Flag. Game on!

reply to post by Aggie Man

Because Harry Reid did not interrupt Bush during an address to congress.

Come on man, you've seen the video. They boo'd Bush in the middle of the State of the Union! This wasn't even a big speech. Its one of Obama's many, many speeches. What about Pete Stark? For some reason the MSM wasn't outraged and no apologies were needed. Why is that?




[edit on 15-9-2009 by Wimbly]

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Because Harry Reid did not interrupt Bush during an address to congress.

Come on man, you've seen the video. They boo'd Bush in the middle of the State of the Union! This wasn't even a big speech. Its one of Obama's many, many speeches. What about Pete Stark? For some reason the MSM wasn't outraged and no apologies were needed. Why is that?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Wimbly]

I will only comment by saying that booing is not an accusation. Where as calling someone a liar is. I'm not familiar with the Pete Stark incident, but I would guess that he did not break any rules of protocol.

There are several reasons why this situation is different than Bush being boo'd during a Union Address.

1.) EDIT: I was wrong on Reason #1. As there is no Strike-Out I just removed it.

2.) Congressional Code of Rule changes from year to year. These Rules are defined/refined with each new session of Congress. The Rules of the 111th Congress are probably going to be slightly different than the Rules of the 109th Congress.

3.) The Bush State of the Union Address occurred on 2nd February, 2005 more than than 3 years before the adoption of H.Res. 895. The Joe Wilson incident happened more than 4 years after this Resolution. The former was not subject to that Resolution, the later was.

4.) The Harry Reid incident did not occur in a Session of Congress, but at a High School. Although he did not violate any code of ethics, he was chastised by the political Right at the time until he personally called Bush to apologize.

5.) The day after the Bush State of the Union Address the U.S. Senate reviewed Ethics and 6 days later the U.S. House reviewed Ethics and discussed Admonishment.

So, those things are slightly different issues, but decorum and ethics are treated fairly regardless of what Party is in control of Congress and regardless of who violates ethics or rules...but are treated differently only based upon the circumstances.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by fraterormus]

reply to post by octotom


Nobody cares.
Waste of time.

Personally, I feel that a speech of any kind - given by anyone, an elected official or not, hell even a school speech - should be allowed to conclude before interrupting or interjecting. However, I feel that this censure is incredibly unproductive. I also find it sad and ironic that Obama's speech made some concessions to the opposition party, and urged his own party to work with them. This censure is only going to stimey any chance of cooperation on health care or anything else for that matter. In this case it's as if his own party is becomming his worst enemy.

Wilson apologized to Obama, and Obama accepted his apology. This should have been sufficient in my opinion.

So, Wilson told the truth and called BHO a liar concerning illegal aliens having access to health care insurance. They already illegally have access to health care, and are driving up the costs to the hospital and driving up the cost for Americans, who have to foot the bill.... in more ways than one. One hospital in California, alone, were $6 Billion in the red because of this very thing, and may have to close it's doors.


I know...... it all depends on which version of the bill you read; there's three of them (four, now with the Baucus Plan), but I read every line of 3200, three times, and there is nothing there that would allow a hospital or insurance company to first check on a persons citizenship, so Wilson was right. Actually, BHO lied about pretty much everything he said concerning health care. If state run (Socialized / Marxist) health care isn't the end game, then there's no reason for government to change anything. They simply want control of one-seventh of our economy.

Americans have elected the enemy to this country, and every day more and more people across the political spectrum are finding that out. The sad part, is that Barny Fwank, the one person above many who caused the economic downturn because of housing loans, now wants to chair the very office HUD, and wants to do MORE of what got us in this mess to begin with.

Wilson wasn't the first to do this..... the Dems have done it multiple times, but not one of them was censored.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by octotom

 

Nobody cares.
Waste of time.

Amen

reply to post by Aggie Man


Here is the problem with this. They didn't admonsih him over where he was when he jumped up and called the POTUS a liar, they admonsihed him over what he said to the POTUS. The democrats are the damn LAST group in this country who should be shaking fingers at what representatives say to the sitting president or what they call him in public. It was because of them that we already had a discourse in the House regarding "No, you may not call the president a liar."
rawstory.com...

"Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) offered a lengthy criticism of Bush’s record toward the end of Thursday’s hearing, which included a statement that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq in 2003," writes Susan Davis. "Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) offered an objection on the grounds that Watt’s words were 'unparliamentary' and violated House rules on debate and decorum that forbid personal attacks on Members, the president or vice president."

but curiously, Democrat rep Linda Sanchez rebutted:

"Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) countered that the words were not 'unparliamentary,' which parliamentarians and leadership aides on both sides of the aisle later agreed was the wrong procedural call,"

...fast forward to this week. The vote tally:
clerk.house.gov...

YEA'S
*SNIP*
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky

Well, well, well...

The times they are a' changing... on BOTH sides of the aisle. As was already said, this "admonsihment" was nothing more than a partisan stunt aimed at giving Nancy Pelosi something to waggle her turkey neck waddle over on TV.

Originally posted by fraterormus
An Admonishment is certainly nicer than a Censure which he could have received.

He could have also been referred by his peers in the House to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for Ethics Violations.

Lastly, with 50 more votes, he could have been excused from Office, leaving his seat in the House of Representatives vacated until the State of South Carolina voted a new Representative into office.

So, considering the alternatives, Admonishment seems like barely a slap on the back of the hand.

I'd argue that such mechanisms shouldn't even exist in our government. He's a duly elected official sent to serve the people of his jurisdiction. Install some mechanism for the PEOPLE to recall him from office if THEY find that he has acted inappropriately. After all, have you ever heard of someone being fired by their co-workers? Hell no, you're fired by your boss... that's us... the voters. Not the Pelosis, Reids, and Waxmans in DC.

Bush Booed And Called Liar 2005

Where was nancy at this time????

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by octotom

 

Nobody cares.
Waste of time.

you coming in here to say that was a waste of time...so you fail

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

Can you explain why the MSM was not outraged when Democrats boo'd Bush in the State of the Union speech? Can you explain the lack of outrage when Harry Reid called Bush a "loser" in the senate? Of course not, because the MSM manipulates the outrage in all of you.

Because Harry Reid did not interrupt Bush during an address to congress.

So does that mean Wilson can call Obama a liar during his State of the Union address?