As the article notes, Democrats did something similar in 2005. The difference – Joe Wilson apologized quickly. I never heard an apology in 2005.
I do agree that it was in poor taste, but I also understand you can only bite your tongue for so long.
“This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.”
Good to see you put it in reference. I don’t agree with what Wilson did as it threatens the clear majority we have against the President’s so-called health care “reform” bill; but I understand the sentiment
If you’ve ever seen videos of bratty behavior in the Aussie or British parliment, you’d be amazed that anyone is making a fuss about this.
American politicians may be better behaved than the Aussies and the Brits, but the Brits and Aussies are much better debaters. If politicians argued about issues directly, and if they actually had real back-and-forth debates about the issues during their meetings, maybe we wouldn’t need sideshow clowns like Beck and Olbermann.
Wilson was right to call Obama a liar, but wrong to do it at that time and place and in that manner. I think this is pretty much understood by everybody with any sense….
American politicians may be better behaved than the Aussies and the Brits
It never used to be this way, in the 19th century Congress was known for people nearly killing each other over political issues. My speculation is that it occurred after WWII with the U.S. being seen as the only “World Leader”. I mean, how is it for the sole power (right after WWII we were almost exactly that) that was trying to rebuild the world to show such rabble-rousing behavior in it’s legislature?
If a Congressman wants to call the President a liar in public, he’s free to wrangle an invite from a news or talk show, stand on a soapbox somewhere back in his district, or schedule a timeslot to speak to the C-SPAN cameras on the House floor any time the House is not conducting business. The State of the Union address is the President’s time; Wilson was wrong to shout and absolutely right to apologize afterwards.
I think one point some folks are overlooking is that many of the MSM “analysts” expressed great shock at such an out burst.
They were saying things like “I’ve never seen such a show of disrespect to a President in my life!” and “What has happened to civil discourse in our country?” with an unspoken reference to the supposedly unhinged right wing radicals at the Town Hall meetings.
But the second clip at Dean’s link shows Democrats (plural) booing and jeering Bush during a State of the Union speech a few years ago. It sounds like some of them are saying “No, No” in response to some of Bush’s claims.
I think even heard one of those fake sneeze “bullshit” sounds in there.
OK, I made that last part up….
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the analysts who claimed such shock last night will now spin it as, “Well, the Democrats didn’t say “You lie” to President Bush.” But I would argue that taken in context, there is no difference between the outbursts.
OK, can I ask a dumb but completely genuine question? Why would Obama (or anybody) want to covertly allow the coverage of illegal alieans into any health care reform bill? It’s not like they can vote, so what would be the motive for such a move?
The custom in the Congress has been, for generations, that the sort of verbal ejaculations and interruptions that are features of how business is conducted in the House of Commons are not proper decorum in Congress. Decorum is an important component of civil governance, particularly in the highest reaches of power.
Why is it okay in Commonwealth countries and not here? Perhaps because there the head of government, the Prime Minister, is a member of the same house that is abusing him. He is not a member of the legislative branch, but head of the executive.
Indeed, the members of such parliaments would never jeer or shout out at the Queen, who is the head of state. But the President is, unlike a parliamentary prime minister, head of both the government and the state. Therefore this American rule of decorum is entirely appropriate!
There are two reasons I’ve heard for covering illegals.
1) They are already covered for emergency healthcare. So if we covered them for preventative care as well, it would actually be cheaper in the long run.
2) The “wet dream” of many ultra liberals is that amnesty will soon be granted, and all those illegal aliens will become voters. And the vast majority will no doubt become Democrats, if for no other reason then to pay back those who fought so hard for their rights.
I don’t necessarily agree with either, but those memes make the rounds of both the DUers and the Freepers, so some people obviously believe them.
Indeed, the members of such parliaments would never jeer or shout out at the Queen, who is the head of state.
The Queen is a politically powerless figurehead. Jeering at her would be like jeering at Laura Bush or Michelle Obama.
I just read the transcripts for political speeches because I can’t stay awake watching them. Partisan arguments between pundits are annoying, but if the people in power are arguing, they can actually be useful (or they could at least be entertaining ).
Any how. Like I said, I disagree with what Wilson did both from a tactical and a decorum standpoint. But make no mistake about it, the President of the United States used a national address to call Sarah Palin a liar and call the majority of Americans who disagree with his health plan liars.
My thought when Wilson made his yell was “Come on, Joe, you’re better than this common street thug”
Did you even click Aziz’s link? It specifically addresses the issue your article brings up. Their conclusion is basically that the issue of verification of citizenship is entirely different from the issue of healthcare reform. The new bill, if it doesn’t make it harder for illegal immigrants to access state-funded health care, it certainly makes it no easier – which I (maybe unsurprisingly) think is a pretty fair point.
Mike,
Will there be death panels? Yes or no. And why are you picking on Aziz here? The only comment he’s made in this thread is that Wilson was factually wrong.
Zach, Did you check out the language of the Stimulus package? Look up “fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research”. Yes, it isn’t (at present) in the health care bill. So on that small technicality Obama is correct. But it exists. So Obama calling Palin a liar on this makes him a …..LIAR
and I never “picked on” Aziz. He made a false statement about Joe Wilson and never made a comparable statement about Obama. And I said “Didn’t think so” because I know from reading him that he is a Kool Aid-drinking Partisan.
What “new bill”, zach ??? There IS no “new bill”, only vague campaign promises 8 months after the campaign ended.
The only “bill” that currently exists, HR 32oo, exludes illegal aliens from one thing and one thing only – health insurance subsidies. If there is a public option included – as there IS in HR 3200, then they are NOT excluded from that, nor the requirement that everyone carry health insurance.
And, as you point out, even the single area of the bill that deals with illegals has no means for verifying citizenship and when an amendment was introduced that would have used the current verification system utilized under Medicare, it was defeated by the Democrats.
Stating that the proposed bill won’t cover illegals, is, in fact a LIE. And if the Democrats don’t want it that way, its their bill and they can change it any time they like.
As to WHY they would want to cover illegals, well because there is a massive hispanic lobby that wants basically all US rights extended to their illegal brethren, and doesn’t want any action taken against them. THAT is why.
And yes, sorry zach, as pointed out in the comments of this very blog on numerous occasions before, though there is no verbatim reference to “death panels” in HR 3200, language regarding end of life consults was removed as a direct result of the death panel comment from Palin. And unless you are either dishonest or not very bright you and I both know that all the “Medicare savings” is very likely to come from end of life health care rationing, decisions that will ultimately be made by a committee of bureaucrats, aka death panels.
And Kool Aid drinking partisan is being generous, Mike.
end of life consults were something everybody agreed was a good idea until like 6 weeks ago. no need to insult anyone’s intelligence. i’m an honest guy and a phd and i still think the death panels bs is just that.
Mike, Sarah Palin is a liar. she knows full well there ar no death panels. I’ve said so as much on my blog, and quoted the text of the Hr 3200 htat Palin also referred to to underscore how full of crap she is.
Obama never called opponents of health care reform liars. thats a lie too. I linked to the transcript, i invite you to find exactly where he says that you are a liar. he was refering to Palin, and rightly so.
The link you gave, purportedly explaining why illegals are assuredly covered under the health care reform, was specifically rebutted by teh link I gave previous. theres no new mandate for immigrants to get health care in this reform. If yo want to argue that the lack of any further law to furthe rexclude immigrants from receiving health care amounts to “permitting them” to get it, then fine, ytou can argue that if you like, but its still nonsense. bottom line – joe wilson lied when he said obama lied.
If you want to take a more intlectually defensible position, then argue that part of reform shoudl be a further tightening of immigrant exclusion. thats reasonable and i might even agree with you. Still, pointing to HR 3200 is kind of dumb right now since that sone of like 7-8 bills between house and senate alike. who knows whats in eth final version.
Let’s make it much simpler: given that we already provide free health care to illegals, how is it that that’s suddenly going to stop under Obamacare? Is that included with the unicorns and rainbows?
(N.B. I don’t have much of a problem with the idea of covering them, myself. I just don’t like hearing lies from the President.)
I think it is somewhat disingenuous for opponents of socialized medicine (I count myself as one) to pretend that things like “rationing” and “death panels” don’t exist right now, both for the insured and the uninsured. The same goes for health care for illegal immigrants.
Aziz, just because you don’t understand someone’s arguement doesn’t mean it’s a lie.
Consider “Liverpool Care Pathway”, and how the UK decides that’s the appropriate treatment for someone. That looks very much like a “Death Panel” to me.
I believe the groundwork for that is set in HR3200 with the comparative effectiveness boards.
dishman, its the insurance companies tha ration care and make life or death decisions.
and the relevance of the UK to our debate is zero, since the UK has a nationalized health care system and we rae talking about health insurance coverage reform.
its nice you believe that but what you believe has no bearing on reality since 1. theres nothing in the text of Hr 3200 to support your “belief” and 2. HR 3200 is just one of 8 bills that have produced, all of which need to be reconciled.
OK, can I ask a dumb but completely genuine question? Why would Obama (or anybody) want to covertly allow the coverage of illegal alieans into any health care reform bill? It’s not like they can vote, so what would be the motive for such a move?
Because illegals do vote in places that don’t require picture ID.
Curiously, those are virtually all Democrat areas.
Aziz, insurance companies do not ration health care, they do ration thier support for health care. If you need it & an insurance company will not pay for it, you can still get it — you have to figure out how to pay for it.
If there is a single point controlled health care system and if the single point refuses to pay for it then you have to go black-market or to another country. If there is a government controlled health care system…do you remember when the Fed Gov required all States to reduce speed limits to 55 mph? With the Fed Gov, purse strings come with controls; I don’t really have a problem with Fed Gov trying to be efficient, I have a problem with the Fed Gov taking away my choices. And since Fed Gov makes the rules, there is no real recourse in a conflict.
Wrong truth, wrong power, wrong kind of dissent. The “right-wing”* protests against Obama are a mirror-image to the protests against Bush. Almost identical in form** but opposite so it must be evil.
* “right-wing” meaning: Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Liberals, Greens, etc; anyone who says even the slightest bad thing about Obama and his policies.
** “Almost Identical”, yes there were crazies there but not the way over-the-top crazy-ass moonbat sh*t that we saw since before Bush was even nominated in 2000.
On the day a man is released from prison for throwing a shoe at a U.S. president (simple assault in a U.S. court, and arguably one of the the worst personal insults you can make in his world), the Democratic Party is requiring a man to throw himsel fon his sword (figuratively) for calling out “That’s a lie.”
I don’t know what to make of it excpet: “Do we live in a great country or what?”
{ 38 comments }
As the article notes, Democrats did something similar in 2005. The difference – Joe Wilson apologized quickly. I never heard an apology in 2005.
I do agree that it was in poor taste, but I also understand you can only bite your tongue for so long.
“This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.”
Good to see you put it in reference. I don’t agree with what Wilson did as it threatens the clear majority we have against the President’s so-called health care “reform” bill; but I understand the sentiment
If you’ve ever seen videos of bratty behavior in the Aussie or British parliment, you’d be amazed that anyone is making a fuss about this.
American politicians may be better behaved than the Aussies and the Brits, but the Brits and Aussies are much better debaters. If politicians argued about issues directly, and if they actually had real back-and-forth debates about the issues during their meetings, maybe we wouldn’t need sideshow clowns like Beck and Olbermann.
Wilson was right to call Obama a liar, but wrong to do it at that time and place and in that manner. I think this is pretty much understood by everybody with any sense….
Dean,
What’s wrong with speaking truth to power? You seem to have forgotten that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
(Incidentally, doesn’t dissent being the highest form of patriotism make the president unpatriotic by definition?)
Mary,
Would you call them “master debaters?”
Ha. Ah-ha. Haaa.
I’m 12.
American politicians may be better behaved than the Aussies and the Brits
It never used to be this way, in the 19th century Congress was known for people nearly killing each other over political issues. My speculation is that it occurred after WWII with the U.S. being seen as the only “World Leader”. I mean, how is it for the sole power (right after WWII we were almost exactly that) that was trying to rebuild the world to show such rabble-rousing behavior in it’s legislature?
If a Congressman wants to call the President a liar in public, he’s free to wrangle an invite from a news or talk show, stand on a soapbox somewhere back in his district, or schedule a timeslot to speak to the C-SPAN cameras on the House floor any time the House is not conducting business. The State of the Union address is the President’s time; Wilson was wrong to shout and absolutely right to apologize afterwards.
Eric,
That wasn’t the State of the Union. It was just a speech Obama gave before Congress.
Dang, you’re right. Brain cramp. For some reason, I was thinking it was a SOTU, probably because the press was treating it like one.
It’s still rude, then, as Obama was presumably technically an invited guest of Congress, but not quite as bad as if it were a SOTU.
It’s not like the new Joe Wilson is being lauded as a hero for throwing his shoe at president.
Unfortunately, the discussion about manners has preempted the discussion about the truth of the statement.
I think one point some folks are overlooking is that many of the MSM “analysts” expressed great shock at such an out burst.
They were saying things like “I’ve never seen such a show of disrespect to a President in my life!” and “What has happened to civil discourse in our country?” with an unspoken reference to the supposedly unhinged right wing radicals at the Town Hall meetings.
But the second clip at Dean’s link shows Democrats (plural) booing and jeering Bush during a State of the Union speech a few years ago. It sounds like some of them are saying “No, No” in response to some of Bush’s claims.
I think even heard one of those fake sneeze “bullshit” sounds in there.
OK, I made that last part up….
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the analysts who claimed such shock last night will now spin it as, “Well, the Democrats didn’t say “You lie” to President Bush.” But I would argue that taken in context, there is no difference between the outbursts.
the statement was factual – Wilson was wrong
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/09/illegal_immigrants_left_out_of.html
Wow. NPR agrees with a liberal Democrat. I’ve never seen that before!
Aziz, no. Wilson was right.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33299
OK, can I ask a dumb but completely genuine question? Why would Obama (or anybody) want to covertly allow the coverage of illegal alieans into any health care reform bill? It’s not like they can vote, so what would be the motive for such a move?
The custom in the Congress has been, for generations, that the sort of verbal ejaculations and interruptions that are features of how business is conducted in the House of Commons are not proper decorum in Congress. Decorum is an important component of civil governance, particularly in the highest reaches of power.
Why is it okay in Commonwealth countries and not here? Perhaps because there the head of government, the Prime Minister, is a member of the same house that is abusing him. He is not a member of the legislative branch, but head of the executive.
Indeed, the members of such parliaments would never jeer or shout out at the Queen, who is the head of state. But the President is, unlike a parliamentary prime minister, head of both the government and the state. Therefore this American rule of decorum is entirely appropriate!
Elizabeth,
There are two reasons I’ve heard for covering illegals.
1) They are already covered for emergency healthcare. So if we covered them for preventative care as well, it would actually be cheaper in the long run.
2) The “wet dream” of many ultra liberals is that amnesty will soon be granted, and all those illegal aliens will become voters. And the vast majority will no doubt become Democrats, if for no other reason then to pay back those who fought so hard for their rights.
I don’t necessarily agree with either, but those memes make the rounds of both the DUers and the Freepers, so some people obviously believe them.
Indeed, the members of such parliaments would never jeer or shout out at the Queen, who is the head of state.
The Queen is a politically powerless figurehead. Jeering at her would be like jeering at Laura Bush or Michelle Obama.
I just read the transcripts for political speeches because I can’t stay awake watching them. Partisan arguments between pundits are annoying, but if the people in power are arguing, they can actually be useful (or they could at least be entertaining ).
Look at this debate between Tony Blair and John Major. This is entertaining.
So Aziz, are you gonna get up in the face of Obama about slandering Sarah Palin as a Liar? Didn’t think so.
Any how. Like I said, I disagree with what Wilson did both from a tactical and a decorum standpoint. But make no mistake about it, the President of the United States used a national address to call Sarah Palin a liar and call the majority of Americans who disagree with his health plan liars.
My thought when Wilson made his yell was “Come on, Joe, you’re better than this common street thug”
Mark,
Did you even click Aziz’s link? It specifically addresses the issue your article brings up. Their conclusion is basically that the issue of verification of citizenship is entirely different from the issue of healthcare reform. The new bill, if it doesn’t make it harder for illegal immigrants to access state-funded health care, it certainly makes it no easier – which I (maybe unsurprisingly) think is a pretty fair point.
Mike,
Will there be death panels? Yes or no. And why are you picking on Aziz here? The only comment he’s made in this thread is that Wilson was factually wrong.
Zach, Did you check out the language of the Stimulus package? Look up “fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research”. Yes, it isn’t (at present) in the health care bill. So on that small technicality Obama is correct. But it exists. So Obama calling Palin a liar on this makes him a …..LIAR
and I never “picked on” Aziz. He made a false statement about Joe Wilson and never made a comparable statement about Obama. And I said “Didn’t think so” because I know from reading him that he is a Kool Aid-drinking Partisan.
What “new bill”, zach ??? There IS no “new bill”, only vague campaign promises 8 months after the campaign ended.
The only “bill” that currently exists, HR 32oo, exludes illegal aliens from one thing and one thing only – health insurance subsidies. If there is a public option included – as there IS in HR 3200, then they are NOT excluded from that, nor the requirement that everyone carry health insurance.
And, as you point out, even the single area of the bill that deals with illegals has no means for verifying citizenship and when an amendment was introduced that would have used the current verification system utilized under Medicare, it was defeated by the Democrats.
Stating that the proposed bill won’t cover illegals, is, in fact a LIE. And if the Democrats don’t want it that way, its their bill and they can change it any time they like.
As to WHY they would want to cover illegals, well because there is a massive hispanic lobby that wants basically all US rights extended to their illegal brethren, and doesn’t want any action taken against them. THAT is why.
And yes, sorry zach, as pointed out in the comments of this very blog on numerous occasions before, though there is no verbatim reference to “death panels” in HR 3200, language regarding end of life consults was removed as a direct result of the death panel comment from Palin. And unless you are either dishonest or not very bright you and I both know that all the “Medicare savings” is very likely to come from end of life health care rationing, decisions that will ultimately be made by a committee of bureaucrats, aka death panels.
And Kool Aid drinking partisan is being generous, Mike.
end of life consults were something everybody agreed was a good idea until like 6 weeks ago. no need to insult anyone’s intelligence. i’m an honest guy and a phd and i still think the death panels bs is just that.
Mike, Sarah Palin is a liar. she knows full well there ar no death panels. I’ve said so as much on my blog, and quoted the text of the Hr 3200 htat Palin also referred to to underscore how full of crap she is.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2009/08/sarah-palin-is-lying-about-dea.html
Obama never called opponents of health care reform liars. thats a lie too. I linked to the transcript, i invite you to find exactly where he says that you are a liar. he was refering to Palin, and rightly so.
The link you gave, purportedly explaining why illegals are assuredly covered under the health care reform, was specifically rebutted by teh link I gave previous. theres no new mandate for immigrants to get health care in this reform. If yo want to argue that the lack of any further law to furthe rexclude immigrants from receiving health care amounts to “permitting them” to get it, then fine, ytou can argue that if you like, but its still nonsense. bottom line – joe wilson lied when he said obama lied.
If you want to take a more intlectually defensible position, then argue that part of reform shoudl be a further tightening of immigrant exclusion. thats reasonable and i might even agree with you. Still, pointing to HR 3200 is kind of dumb right now since that sone of like 7-8 bills between house and senate alike. who knows whats in eth final version.
and i personally support giving illegals basic insurance, so we can avoid the hit on our ERs (which comes out of county taxpayer expenses).
Mike didn’t provide a link. That was me.
Let’s make it much simpler: given that we already provide free health care to illegals, how is it that that’s suddenly going to stop under Obamacare? Is that included with the unicorns and rainbows?
(N.B. I don’t have much of a problem with the idea of covering them, myself. I just don’t like hearing lies from the President.)
I think it is somewhat disingenuous for opponents of socialized medicine (I count myself as one) to pretend that things like “rationing” and “death panels” don’t exist right now, both for the insured and the uninsured. The same goes for health care for illegal immigrants.
Let’s debate about the policies, not the labels.
Aziz, just because you don’t understand someone’s arguement doesn’t mean it’s a lie.
Consider “Liverpool Care Pathway”, and how the UK decides that’s the appropriate treatment for someone. That looks very much like a “Death Panel” to me.
I believe the groundwork for that is set in HR3200 with the comparative effectiveness boards.
dishman, its the insurance companies tha ration care and make life or death decisions.
and the relevance of the UK to our debate is zero, since the UK has a nationalized health care system and we rae talking about health insurance coverage reform.
its nice you believe that but what you believe has no bearing on reality since 1. theres nothing in the text of Hr 3200 to support your “belief” and 2. HR 3200 is just one of 8 bills that have produced, all of which need to be reconciled.
2. HR 3200 is just one of 8 bills that have produced, all of which need to be reconciled.
That makes it really difficult to say something isn’t in the proposals. That adds up to something like 10,000 pages of junk to understand.
and the relevance of the UK to our debate is zero,
Thanks for taking the time to understand my point, Aziz.
Because illegals do vote in places that don’t require picture ID.
Curiously, those are virtually all Democrat areas.
Aziz, insurance companies do not ration health care, they do ration thier support for health care. If you need it & an insurance company will not pay for it, you can still get it — you have to figure out how to pay for it.
If there is a single point controlled health care system and if the single point refuses to pay for it then you have to go black-market or to another country. If there is a government controlled health care system…do you remember when the Fed Gov required all States to reduce speed limits to 55 mph? With the Fed Gov, purse strings come with controls; I don’t really have a problem with Fed Gov trying to be efficient, I have a problem with the Fed Gov taking away my choices. And since Fed Gov makes the rules, there is no real recourse in a conflict.
The man spoke truth to power. You’d think the Lefty radicals would make a hero of him.
CC,
Wrong truth, wrong power, wrong kind of dissent. The “right-wing”* protests against Obama are a mirror-image to the protests against Bush. Almost identical in form** but opposite so it must be evil.
* “right-wing” meaning: Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, Liberals, Greens, etc; anyone who says even the slightest bad thing about Obama and his policies.
** “Almost Identical”, yes there were crazies there but not the way over-the-top crazy-ass moonbat sh*t that we saw since before Bush was even nominated in 2000.
On the day a man is released from prison for throwing a shoe at a U.S. president (simple assault in a U.S. court, and arguably one of the the worst personal insults you can make in his world), the Democratic Party is requiring a man to throw himsel fon his sword (figuratively) for calling out “That’s a lie.”
I don’t know what to make of it excpet: “Do we live in a great country or what?”
Comments on this entry are closed.