Associated Press Writers – 2 hrs 13 mins ago
Democratic leaders are planning a House vote early next week on whether to admonish Republican Rep. Joe Wilson if he does not apologize on the House floor for yelling "You lie!" during President Barack Obama's health care address.
Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said Friday that party leaders decided they will likely move forward with a resolution of disapproval against Wilson if he doesn't apologize to Congress.
Wilson Faces House Vote
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "has agreed the House should vote next week on scolding Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) for his outburst during President Obama's speech unless he apologies on the floor of the House," The Hill reports.
Said a spokesman: "There was a violation of the rules of the House. It needs to be resolved by an apology or a resolution."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) will likely introduce a "resolution of disapproval" Monday or Tuesday unless Wilson formally apologizes on the House floor. The House returns Monday.
Wilson Faces House Vote -- Political Wire
House plans to admonish Rep. Wilson over insult - Yahoo! News
Sometimes my party pisses me off. There is no reason to do this, no point to it, and is just a waste of time.
I was about to say "nobody's going to want to focus on that stupid incident" then I had the "a-ha" moment realizing that here I am... discussing that stupid incident, lol.It will successfully keep people focused on that incident.
Nevermind that Wilson was factually correct and the Dem Congress had voted the "SAVE" provisions off the bill so there was no legal way to determine residency prior to delivering care.
nice, but a complete waste of time and of my money.From the linked 'Hill' article:
"It is against House rules to impugn the integrity of the president when speaking on the floor or in committee meetings."
Wilson SHOULD apologize on the floor of the House. Failing that, a vote is completely appropriate.
that's right, never mind any of that. none of THAT is the issue, the issue is his behavior.Nevermind that Wilson was factually correct and the Dem Congress had voted the "SAVE" provisions off the bill so there was no legal way to determine residency prior to delivering care.
FAIR has a point that illegal immigrants would likely be able to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange.
nice, but a complete waste of time and of my money.
Nevermind that Wilson was factually correct
FAIR has a point that illegal immigrants would likely be able to buy insurance on the national health insurance exchange.
Censuring Wilson?
Josh Marshall | September 11, 2009, 3:50PM
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Democrats had signaled that a censure vote for Rep. Wilson (R-SC) was not in the cards. But new reports have the Dems and particularly Speaker Pelosi telling Wilson that he must either apologize to the House or face a censure motion. On a strictly political calculus, it's a little hard to figure. When someone is doing so much to damage themselves and their party, generally you try not to get in their way. The key, however, seems to be Wilson's increasingly unrepentant attitude over the last two days and his refusal to go down to the well of the House and apologize to the body for his actions.
I find myself a bit conflicted about this one. Whatever the politics of it, what Wilson did is simply so outrageous in the context of the history of Congress and really American history, that it really should not be allowed to stand. With all the outrageous stuff that goes on these days, with all the nonsense we chronicle here, this was simply shocking. When I heard the outburst during the speech I was certain it was someone in the galleries. The idea that a sitting member of Congress would scream out calling the president a liar to his face during an address to a joint session of Congress is simply unheard of.
People note the raucous sessions of the British House of Commons where there are all manner of hoots and hollers and jeering. And they have different traditions over there. Remember, the Prime Minister is a member of the House of Commons. But I believe it is actually forbidden, even there, to call any member of the House, let alone the PM, a liar (indeed, it's true)
What I guess it comes down to is that I'm not sure of the politics but I think it's probably just the right thing to do, notwithstanding the politics.
There is one other thought that occurs to me though. Given how many the tea-bagging right has rallied around Wilson, I don't think many House Republicans want to have that vote. They don't want to vote to censure him. On the other hand, voting in support of him would be a little troubling for a lot of voters too. So maybe there's better politics to this than I thought.
Censuring Wilson? | Talking Points Memo
From your own link . . .
The Congressional Dems voted the "SAVE" provisions off of the bill so there is no legal way for a provider to determine residency before providing care/benefits.
No Enforcement Provision = No Denial of Care
i'm not conflicted. but it accomplishes exactly nothing.I am not conflicted about it, I don't care if the politics of it are bad or good; censuring is the right thing to do.
However, what was Obama talking about: "the reforms I'm proposing" ... or ... "what the congressional Dems voted for?"
i'm not conflicted. but it accomplishes exactly nothing.
This is a ****ing joke if I was Rep. Wilson not only would I tell Speaker Pelosi to go pound sans but I would make it quite clear if they try this then I would be taking the House to United States Supreme Court for Violating my 1st Adm Rights.
And before anyone points out Article I Section 5 in the Constitution the House can't make rules that stimmy Free Speech. I would ask Speaker Pelosi to show me were in Article II Section 3 were it states that you can't heckle or say anything else when the President is giving a Speech to a Joint Session of Congress.
Free Speech is that Free
that's right, never mind any of that. none of THAT is the issue, the issue is his behavior.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?