Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Delahunt, Frank vote for “G.O.P. Shouter”

By

Newsweek

How They Voted:

Democratic Nays (12)

Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)

William Delahunt (Mass.)

Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.)

Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.)

Paul Hodes (N.H.)

Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)

Dan Maffei (N.Y.)

Eric Massa (N.Y.)

Jim McDermott (Wash.)

Gwen Moore (Wis.)

Gene Taylor (Miss.)

Harry Teague (N.M.)

Democratic Presents (5)

Eliot Engel (N.Y.)

Bill Foster (Ill.)

Barney Frank (Mass.)

Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.)

Ike Skelton (Mo.)

Republican Yeas (7)

Joseph Cao (La.)

Jo Ann Emerson (Mo.)

Jeff Flake (Ariz.)

Bob Inglis (S.C.)

Walter Jones (N.C.)

Tom Petri (Wis.)

Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.)

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. A rebuke is simple and appropriate. There’s no reason to vote against it.

    <

    p>Barney fears retaliation, it sounds like. FYI, Congressman — if they have a reason to whack you over the head, they’ll do it and not worry how you voted on this.

      • But it was something to the effect of “We shouldn’t judge rudeness. I’m rude all the time.”

        <

        p>To be clear, retaliation was a poor word choice; I don’t think he fears retaliation against him. I think he fears an endless cycle of “partisan” rebukes from the party in power.

        <

        p>

    • Source

      <

      p>

      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.

      • It amounts to the same thing. He doesn’t want an endless round of these.

        <

        p>As Elwood pointed out on Blue Hampshire, though, anyone claiming this is a distraction is a bit hypocritical. There are dozens of meaningless votes on things like National Apple Day.

  2. Rohrabacher and a fellow SC Republican voting to rebuke Wilson…and along with Frank, Carol Shea Porter votes present.  With Hodes running for Senate, I understand the vote…interesting that Eric Massa, a Kos darling, and Kucinich also voted no.  All and all, not inportant enough to try and dechiper.

    • Kucinich.  He marches to his own drummer, like Barney Frank; and for that I respect him very much. (though I might disagree with some of his politics)

    • All and all, not inportant enough to try and dechiper.

      But just the same, good to leave a marker about acting with respect to the office, if not the person, of the President.

  4. “I’m not going to play this stupid game.”

    <

    p>I’m not sure I agree, but that is certainly what I get from Franks’s remarks as reported here.

  5. explicit punishment for this type of outburst. By doing this, they could remove the “politicalization” of the punishment aspect. By clearly delineating what is acceptable behavior and was it not, all the members could be warned in advance that shouting (or whatever they define) will be punished by Censure, suspension of voting… otherwise partisans will play politics.

    • and decide what violates decorum and what doesn’t, and be consistent with their votes regardless of the political party in the majority or the political party of the offender.

        • And have always done.  That’s why people are so angry. Joe Wilson is the first such disruption.

          <

          p>Glad to see you arguing for censure.

          • My past diary for Charlie Rangel to step down also has nothing to do with partisanship. People of either/any party need to be punished when they break rules/laws no matter which party is in power including Rangel and Wilson.

    • It was a resolution of disapproval.  All it says is that we disapprove of Wilson’s actions.  It does not take a position on the merits of what he said.  To me this is a no-brainer, but based on this vote apparently 179 members actually approve of shouting “you lie!” to the President in the House Chamber.  If it were true censure I might think about it a little harder, but something this soft (not even a wrist-slap so much as shaking a finger in his face) should have passed unanimously.

      • “Against rebuke,” I should have said. My point stands that one could be against that and not for Wilson, but I agree with you, it was an easy vote. The nos stand out (some wanted to, I suspect).

  7. I am more offended that the House bothered to waste an entire day on this while we have men and women dying in two wars with no defined exit strategy, thousands dying a year because they have no health insurance, millions suffering because they have no health insurance, and nearly 1 in 10 Americans are out of work. Those issues are far more important than Mr. Wilson’s 15 minutes of fame.

    <

    p>He is already going to lose his House seat (money=votes and his opponent has more money) and any political capital he had within the House. Moreover he already apologized to the President who graciously accepted, probably to avoid this stupid vote and focus on whats important.  

      • The debate was interesting and worth the time.

        <

        p>Hoyer and Clyburn spoke for the Ds.  

        <

        p>Boehner, Wilson are a few others spoke for the R’s.  Wilson argued that they should be debating a health care bill on the floor. It was funny becuase his outburst (you know he said it twice, right?) is what sucked all of the oxygen out of the room for six days.  

        <

        p>Hoyer had left a time slot open for him to come to the floor and apologize in the well on Friday.  Wilson passed.

        <

        p>Wilson has raised over a million “being attacked by liberals.”  Rob Miller his D challenger has too.  

        <

        p>After complaining about wasting time, Boehner asked for a count of he yea’s and nea’s thus wasting 15 more minutes.  

  8. Has there ever been a time when Gene Taylor voted with his party? I just don’t get this guy. He’d obviously have an easier time getting re-elected and would be happier as a Republican. He would likely have more influence within that caucus. And his is a seat we can afford to lose. It just doesn’t make sense.

    • As long as he’s not heading up any social program committees, I’d rather a Blue Dog Dem to a Wingnut Repub… and you can be pretty sure that if they elected a Republican, it’d be a birther, deather, crazy go nuts kind of Republican.  Personally, I hope they start throwing money at it and losing, like they did in the first half of the 90s.

      <

      p>Taylor has found a nice fit with the Dems methinks.  He does strong work on defense issues, and is a strong buy-American kind of guy.

      <

      p>I’d rather get the vote of MS-4 half the time than none of the time… and in that sense, Gene Taylor is alright with me.

      • I did some more research and the guy is pretty good on Social Security and the minimum wage. I disagree with his protectionism but if one considers the alternative better Taylor than another Wilson.

  9. Most Americans disapprove of Wilson’s outburst
    By Tony Romm – 09/15/09 11:46 AM ET

    While lawmakers debate whether to sanction Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) for his now-infamous outburst, it seems voters have already formed their own opinion: about two-thirds disapprove of the congressman’s interruption, a new poll finds.

    About 68 percent of voters responding to Gallup’s latest poll said they opposed Wilson’s behavior during the president’s speech. Slightly below one-quarter of respondents said they supported it. link

  10. If I were in Congress, that’s probably how I would’ve voted.  I don’t think there was any point to this censure, really.  I also think we pay too much deference to the concept of “civility” as a way to stamp out dissent in the presence of the President.  I do believe yelling out “you lie” in the middle of his speech is a gauche, rude thing to do – but I also think it’s the sort of thing that may be justified in some circumstances, and is not worthy of a Congressional censure.

    <

    p>I’m personally much more upset at the substance of Joe Wilson’s rudeness, than its form.  Republicans are spreading lies as scare tactics to avoid engaging the health care legislation on a substantive level, and when Joe Wilson yelled “you lie” he was not only lying himself – while the president was not – he was also supporting that widespread attempt to scare the public with inflammatory lies.  Doing that in the middle of a presidential speech is indeed beyond the pale, IMO.

    <

    p>However, if Congress were to censure him for that, then they’d be censuring him for the content of his expressed views, which seems like a dangerous thing to do.  Congress clearly didn’t claim to be censuring him for that, they claimed to be censuring him for the form not the content.  And that is not worthy of a censure resolution IMO.

Archives