Secretlivesofscientists’s Weblog











{September 15, 2009}   Bravo, Democrats!

Via MSNBC

WASHINGTON – The uproar over Rep. Joe Wilson’s shouting “you lie” at President Barack Obama returns to the House floor Tuesday for what could be a contentious and highly partisan debate over whether to formally criticize the South Carolina Republican.

The decision by Democratic leaders to bring a resolution of disapproval to the House floor was derided by Republicans, who said Wilson had already apologized for his remark during Obama’s health care speech to a joint session of Congress last week.

But it was also met with skepticism by a senior Democrat, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., who said he would vote against it. “I think it’s bad precedent to put us in charge of deciding whether people act like jerks. I don’t have time to monitor everyone’s civility.”

Wilson apologized to the White House for his outburst, and Obama said he had accepted the apology. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi initially said she was not inclined to take the matter further, saying it was time to move on to the more pressing matter of health care.

But other Democratic leaders, including Wilson’s fellow South Carolinian James Clyburn, said the egregious breach of decorum could not be ignored. Wilson in turn rejected suggestions that he go to the House floor on his own and apologize.

Clyburn, in an interview last week, said Wilson’s outburst was “indicative of the combativeness he displays all the time when it comes to politics.”

Clyburn, a leading member of the Congressional Black Caucus, perceived it as a snub that Wilson held a town hall meeting on health care this summer at a school in Clyburn’s district — where Clyburn’s children attended — without telling Clyburn.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio sided with Wilson and said he would vote against the resolution.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele issue a statement accusing Democrats of “another stunning example of hypocrisy.” He said Democrats “are wasting taxpayers’ time and resources on a legislative measure to censure Congressman Joe Wilson so they don’t have to talk about their exceedingly unpopular health care plan.”

Ok, so basically, because Wilson, who had ISSUED A PUBLIC APOLOGY WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE PRESIDENT, refused to do so again on the house floor, the house Dems feel it is pertinent to divert their energies away from the constructing and fine-tuning (which they *ought* to be focussing on in order to win support for) their proposed health care reforms and officially slap him on the bottom for being a naughty boy.

Fanfuckingtastic, really. Not only are they spending less time working on healthcare reform, but they’re going to tick off voters by beating a dead horse, and are also sure to deter the progress of the bill by virtue that more people – voters and congressmen alike – will heighten their wariness over the increasingly apparent underlying political powerplay agenda that goes with those reforms.

These Dems really ought to heed the example of Barney Frank and Pelosi, who have more or less said it is in their best interest to move on. It’s too bad for them that Obama has busied himself with jumping on the “Kanye West is a gigantic tool” bandwagon, when what he really should do (and most ricky-tick) is tell the house Dems to drop the Wilson issue before they torpedo themselves with a size 10 enema (ok, that was a low blow but I couldn’t resist. If Obama does warn the house Dems against furthering this congressional pissing contest, I’ll duly update this post). Bringing about a concressional resolution of disapproval against Wilson is such an unnecessary and poorly thought out political move on their part that I almost hope they go through with it. I could use a good chortle.



tgirsch says:

Meh. I don’t think the censure motion is as big a deal (either way) as you make it out to be. Political theater? Sure. Is it distracting anyone from anything significant for any significant amount of time? Nah.

And for what it’s worth, Joe Wilson did the Democrats a huge favor with that outburst. He drew a nice, clear connecting line from the nutjob, gun-toting, Glenn Beck-parroting teabaggers directly to the institutional GOP. Bravo, indeed!

FWIW, Frank voted “present.”



secretlivesofscientists says:

As did Pelosi!

According to the rules, the motion was justified. You’re right that there’s no significant waste of time, and the sad reality is that public is probably way too interested in the latest Jon and Kate drama or something Kanye West said to even notice that this happened.

Really? You don’t think the house insistance that he should make a redundant apology and their subsequent action indicates that they’re primarily concerned with the 2010 elections and that their ideas are so weak that it is pertinent for them to drag the entire house of reps into a pissing contest in order to hush the criticism of ONE person?

I think it would’ve been a much stronger move – taking the high road – if you will, to avoid said pissing contest (because that part, I think remains true. This was a pissing contest) rather than up the ante by acting petty. And you know it was petty, what the Dems did. Wilson acted like a jerk, and apologized, but the fact that he did it on his own volition after realizing that he had f***ed up was something that I don’t think the Dems liked. They wanted a publicity stunt, they wanted to be able to raise the media and show that they had bigger cahones than Wilson, but when he beat them to the punch, they couldn’t accept it because it’s pretty much a rule that Republicans must be shown to act like unapologetic cowboys at all times (thanks to that stupid chimp face hillbilly, W). It was good enough for Obama, wasn’t it? It was good enough for Frank and Pelosi, wasn’t it? Why wasn’t it good enough for the rest of them? I think if they had ideas that were worth supporting, they wouldn’t be trying to turn a pissing contest in more than what it is – just a pissing constest.



tgirsch says:

Wilson did not apologize of his own volition. He made the classic non-apology apology after being pressured into doing so by members of their own party who realized he’d screwed their pooch, and then he promptly put up a fundraising video on his website essentially defending his actions.

Do I think this was “a pissing contests?” Of sorts, sure. Do I think the Democrats should have just let it slide and look the other way? On that, I’m not so sure. Ignoring the other side’s lies, bad behavior, etc., and taking the so-called “high road” hasn’t exactly worked out all that well for Democrats over the last decade or so. Remember when John Kerry tried blowing off the lies the Swift Boat vets were pawning? That didn’t work out so well for him.

Frankly, I think there’s no way for the Democrats to win with you on this one. If they let it go, they’re a bunch of spineless pantywaists. If they fight back, they’re wasting time. Heads the Republicans win, tails the Democrats lose.

In any case, I think you take it WAY the hell too far if you think that a tiny bit of political theater is some broad indicator that the party as a whole lacks decent ideas. If that’s the case, then no politician in the universe has even a single idea worth supporting. Trying to use this as a proxy for anything else is just intellectual laziness, pure and simple.



secretlivesofscientists says:

“Ignoring the other side’s lies, bad behavior, etc., and taking the so-called “high road” hasn’t exactly worked out all that well for Democrats over the last decade or so. Remember when John Kerry tried blowing off the lies the Swift Boat vets were pawning? That didn’t work out so well for him.”

…and when it didn’t work out for them, like the with the SBV fiasco (which was soooo hitting below the belt, if you ask me) they essentially decided that the proper choice of action would be to follow in the example set by republicans – the same tactics that they critized during the Bush years. So, is it working for them like it worked for the GOP? You betcha. I’m now convinced (should say increasingly convinced) that both sides will match eachother’s pettiness indefinately.



tgirsch says:

OK, so who have the Democrats “swift boated?” You find me an example of a Democratic campaign clandestinely paying a third-party hit-group to spread demonstrably false allegations about a prominent GOP candidate, without apology, and I’ll grant you the equivalence. Until then, I’m not buying the Broderism.



secretlivesofscientists says:

I never said the Democrats have “swift boated” anyone, T. I never claimed that they’ve paid a third party group to make false allegations. But tell me this, is that the *only* definition of fighting dirty that you’ll accept? I think the pattern of behavior is likening itself to that of the GOP. THat’s all I’ve ever said here.

And if you want an example of fighting dirty (you’ll forgive me if it’s not exactly the same goddamn thing as “swift boating,” culo), remember when both the McCain and Obama camps promised to put a moratorium on the release of negative ads on Sept. 11th, and then Obama’s camp released the add which made fun of McCain’s war injuries (“Can’t even email”) on Sept. 11 and then Obama’s campaign manaager asininely refused to admit the mistake or apologize for it?

That was fighting dirty. So fucking what if it’s not the exact same thing as what the SWiftboat people did? It was *still* a damn disrespectful and very below the belt blow, not to mention dishonest.



tgirsch says:

But don’t you see? This is _precisely_ why I accuse you of Broderism — you can’t just ignore frequency and degree. I’ve never claimed that the Democrats are wholly above fighting dirty. All I’ve ever argued is that they’re nowhere near as bad as the Republicans and don’t stoop anywhere near as low. It’s a huge pet peeve of mine when people try to draw false equivalencies like that, no matter what the context. Technically, a convicted murderer and a guy who got convicted for carrying two ounces of pot are both “felons,” but that doesn’t mean they’re anywhere near on the same level as one another.



secretlivesofscientists says:

I didn’t draw a false equivalency, but I’m not going to overlook something or take an easier slight on it just because it’s not as bad as what the other guys have done.



secretlivesofscientists says:

Also, just wanted to say, I’d love to stay and play right now, but my boss will have my balls if I don’t get a paper in to a co-author today. Maybe we can pick up our discussion of Broderisms vs relativisms later.



tgirsch says:

[You] they essentially decided that the proper choice of action would be to follow in the example set by republicans – the same tactics that they critized during the Bush years.
[You, later] I didn’t draw a false equivalency

The prosecution rests.



secretlivesofscientists says:

I’m standing by my same tactics comment, and I don’t think it’s a false equivolency; saying that the dems have used the same dirty tactics as the GOP did is not equivocating anything other than the tactics themselves. This is not the same as saying that the democrats use it to the same frequency/degree.

You’re willing to let the Dems off the hook by making the relativistic judgement call that “they’re not as bad as the GOP.” I think that’s a pathetic excuse, at worst, and at best is a weak basis that is not going to hold a lot of water. If that’s the card the democrats and their supporters are gonna play when their character is pressed by their actions, I’m gonna call it a bluff.



tgirsch says:

I don’t think pointing out that they’re not nearly as bad — which they’re not — is the same thing as “letting them off the hook.”

Anyway, until you can point to Democratic-led smear campaigns that rely on demonstrably false allegations, your “same tactics” allegation is a fail. Unless by “tactics” you just mean a generic “going negative,” which all politicians have been doing since the beginning of politics.

I’ve also demonstrated that I’m more than willing to debate health care on the merits, so your accusation of playing the “GOP is worse” card to somehow avoid debate is also a fail.



secretlivesofscientists says:

“Anyway, until you can point to Democratic-led smear campaigns that rely on demonstrably false allegations, your “same tactics” allegation is a fail.”

Remember when the Obama campaign took advantage of McCain’s inability to send an email – which is due the fact that he can’t type because of his war injuries, releasing the add on Sept. 11th after both campaigns had agreed to put a moratorium on negative adds for that particular day, AND THEN representatives for the Obama campain lied their faces off about it?

Well, you certainly seem to think that playing the GOP-is-worse card gets you the winning point in the debate, so yeah, I would say you’re weaseling out of debates by playing that card.
:-)



secretlivesofscientists says:

Here ya go, baby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsrup8Z3vZY&feature=related

He’s downright dodgy and smarmy, and, oh that’s right, Obama appointed him as deputy press secretary.



tgirsch says:

I have no intention of “weaseling out” of this debate, especially since the only debate going on here is whether the Democrats are using the “same tactics” as the Republicans. I say they’re not. (Well, to be sure, they’re using SOME of the same tactics, but not in the context you’re accusing them of here.)

Maybe I’ve become desensitized to politics but “so-and-so doesn’t know how to send e-mail” doesn’t strike me as in the same city, county, state, or region as “so-and-so lied extensively about his war record, and faked injuries to obtain commendations,” or as “so-and-so has an illegitimate black child,” for that matter. The latter two are bona fide smears (although the first of the two, if true, would absolutely be relavent). The first one is a dime-a-dozen dig of the kind which, as I said, pretty much all politicians have done since the beginning of time. That you’re making a mountain out of that particular molehill I think tells us everything we need to know about just how much substance you have behind your claims.

In any case, I can’t find any substantiation of your repeated claim that the Obama ad on this subject broke the 9/11 ad moratorium. The only thing I was able to find was a few articles accusing the McCain campaign of violating the pledge, and those accusations were probably also false. From what I can glean, the McCain campaign released an attack ad on 9/10, and Obama’s came out on 9/12. Neither ran on 9/11.

(P.S. Can’t type because of war injuries? Stephen Hawking can’t move below the neck, and he can send e-mails. Anyway, FactCheck to the rescue.)



tgirsch says:

One note: It does look like someone from the Obama campaign uploaded the ad to YouTube on 9/11/2008, but there’s no evidence that the ad aired on television.

And further evidence for my claim that your apples are not the same as those oranges over there, at the same time the Obama campaign was running the ad dinging McCain for not knowing how to send e-mail, the McCain campaign was running an ad accusing Obama of championing comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners. One of these things is decidedly not like the other. Trust me, you do NOT want to get in a tit-for-tat battle on this particular count.



secretlivesofscientists says:

I don’t think saying “well, Stephen Hawking can do it” is relevant to a whole lot of arguments in general, and it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with what we were discussing. No matter, here’s another goodie for you:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/09/18/would-obama-amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants-mean-free-healthcare.html

So, basically, after all the Joe Wilson hubub, Obama made a speech about granting amnesty to millions of immigrants here illegally, which would pretty much mean that those who are here illegally now would in fact be covered by the health reforms. This is not a new motif; he’s been saying this stuff since before he was elected, so, basically, he was lying in his speech to congress, and he knew it, and I’m sure congressional Dems were aware of it, too.



secretlivesofscientists says:

I don’t care about tit-for-tat battles. You said provide an example. I gave you two of them. Anyways, I’m gonna have to respectfully decline your invitation to up the ante, due to having to make a work deadline about 2 hours from now.

By the way, I think a “Stephen Hawking can do it” meme would be awesome.



tgirsch says:

Wow, you sure are gullible when it comes to right-wing spin. That’s going to make this a lot more difficult. Hey, it’s an oft-repeated talking point in the right wing media, so it MUST be true. The text of Obama’s speech is here, and at no point does he promise amnesty or anything like it. In fact, other than vague platitudes to immigration reform, he doesn’t give any specifics at all. Show me the Obama-supported bill that grants amnesty to the nation’s illegal immigrants, and we’ll talk. Until then, yawn.

And for what it’s worth, FactCheck disagrees with you on the correctness of Wilson’s accusation.



tgirsch says:

Based on the weak kung-fu of your two examples, I’m willing to let it end there, too. I’m confident any impartial observer would look at your examples as compared to mine and say “nope, not even close to the same thing, but thanks for playing.”

And yes, I’m in on a “Stephen Hawking can do it” meme.



secretlivesofscientists says:

I’m thinkin’ the Stephen Hawking meme should be a variant of the Chuck Norris memes.



tgirsch says:

As usual, the Daily Show did a better job of addressing the apology nonsense than either one of us.



Leave a Reply

et cetera