Remarks in debate (which may include references to the Senate or its Members) shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding personality.
–Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress
Rule XVII, Section b
If you want to see the decline of American political civility, it exists in the person of Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. Wilson, unwilling to deal with the President of the United States stating the fact that the current health care proposals will not aid undocumented aliens,12 Wilson shouted out, “You lie!” on the floor of the House of Representatives, interrupting the speech in the fashion of a Code Pink protester or teabagger.
This is, to be blunt, completely outrageous, and unbecoming of a U.S. Representatives. And I would have said the exact same thing if a Democrat had done this to George W. Bush, even as Bush did lie, repeatedly. The simple fact is that there are rules of decorum, ways you are supposed to comport yourself on the floor of the United States Congress. These rules are in place to smooth out the partisan rancor, to force representatives to disagree without being disagreeable. You can think someone’s an ass; that’s fine. But you don’t say it on the floor, because that’s not the way you conduct yourself.
I doubt Wilson will face a penalty for this, but he should. Indeed, the Rules of the House allow him to be censured for making a personal remark in debate; calling someone a liar would certainly rise to that level. Calling someone a liar when they’re telling the truth, however, remains standard operating procedure for the GOP.
UPDATE: This is the least he should do, but at least he did it:
“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 [sic] to the President for this lack of civility.”
Representative Wilson’s later statement appears to maintain that he *believes* the President to have been lying, he just regrets having been so rude as to shout about it during the joint session of Congress. (The contact page on Wilson’s website is down for maintenance. I suppose the office is having a busy night.)
Maybe because I’m not American, I was naive enough to think that the idea of respecting the office of President would hold true even in the face of fear-mongering and racism. I’m so disappointed to be wrong.
Jeff, you are exactly right.
As far as your footnote goes – I’m told that the current House bill contains language banning aid to illegal aliens but contains no language requiring the determination of the citizenship or immigration status of people receiving aid. If that is so, it seems to me that without the latter the former is not particularly useful.
lilacsigil, I’m not seeing how Rep. Wilson’s remark (intemperate and out of order as it was) was racist.
the way these thing go is like the obama speech to children hullabaloo. repubs act like asses and dems are shocked, shocked i tell you, because its unprecedented, only is not, so then the dems will make all sots of fine distinctions as to why one is acceptable but the other not.
I sure tapes will emerge of dems heckling a repub prez and the same play will be repeated. the dog barks, the caravan keeps moving.
This is the least he should do, but at least he did it
The very, very least: Wilson’s sincerity in the apology is questionable, given that it was not spontaneously made, but was prompted by the preference of his party’s leadership. “Last night, I spoke to the leadership, and they wanted me to contact the White House and say that my statements were inappropriate.”
In other words, Wilson is unembarrassed by the fact that it did not occur to him on his own to apologize for being an ass, as he has no problem telling the media that it was the party leadership that made him do it.
I’m told that the current House bill contains language banning aid to illegal aliens but contains no language requiring the determination of the citizenship or immigration status of people receiving aid. If that is so, it seems to me that without the latter the former is not particularly useful.
If you’re speaking of HR 3200, you know it’s easily available online in a text-searchable PDF where you can find out what it says for yourself instead of relying on someone else to tell you. What’s the enforcement mechanism we already have on Medicare to ensure that illegal immigrants can’t receive those benefits? Why do you think we won’t just use that existing mechanism for any expansion of health care coverage by the federal government?
Moreover, I’m really disturbed by conservatives’ obsession with citizenship status. People who are permanent residents are also entitled to any benefits; they’re legal residents with the proven intent of remaining in this country permanently, and they’re paying just as much (if not more) in taxes as citizens are.
so then the dems will make all sots of fine distinctions as to why one is acceptable but the other not.
Yeah, because there’s no difference between Congressional Democrats’ investigating the president’s use of taxpayer dollars for a broadcast made less than a year before he is up for re-election;
and Republicans all over the country saying it is just plain wrong for the president to speak to schoolchildren, while pulling their children out of school for the day or successfully demanding that the school not broadcast the speech at all.
No difference between sniping about the use of Education Department dollars being used for such a broadcast at the same time the budget for education was being restricted in the name of the deficit;
and declaring that the broadcast would “spread President Obama’s socialist ideology” and constituted “an invasive abuse of power,” and accusing the president of “creating a cult of personality.”
Or, sorry, it’s merely a “fine distinction” between what occurred in each case.
It was rude of him (very) – but I think he’s right. It’s a lie and the regulations that end up being actually passed will end up giving health care to all comers, including illegals.
well, the way one justifies the distinction as not so fine is to construct the most partisan narrative possible, take the strongest arguments from one side and the weakest from the other, and then declare them completely different.
Robert,
It’s a lie and the regulations that end up being actually passed will end up giving health care to all comers, including illegals.
Any interest in betting on that? My money says that the Secretary of HHS will include in the requirements of eligibility some form of verification of status, probably the same verification used for Medicare (which even Republicans are not claiming to be insuring illegal immigrants). If the bill passes, we should know by about this time next year what the implementing regs are.
well, the way one justifies the distinction as not so fine is to construct the most partisan narrative possible, take the strongest arguments from one side and the weakest from the other, and then declare them completely different.
OK, what’s your narrative in which declaring that the broadcast would “spread President Obama’s socialist ideology” and constituted “an invasive abuse of power,” and accusing the president of “creating a cult of personality” (quotes taken from Republican political leaders) is just like “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students. And the president should be doing more about education than saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.'”
I’ll be glad to make my standard Internet bet with you, PG. $1ooo to the charity of the winner’s choice, ten years downstream, with a neutral party as mediator of our mutually-agreed criteria. We’ll have to wait until the bill gets passed, though, as either of might change our position based on the black-letter text. Drop me a note offline (docrocket at gmail dot com) and we can make the arrangements.
Robert,
Look here:
http://www.longbets.org/
That is awesome. Thanks.
Robert,
Why 10 years for something we’ll know fairly shortly? If the program goes into effect without the Sec of HHS promulgating any regs about how to verify eligibility based on residency status — something that would be incredibly bizarre in the modern administrative state — I’m happy to say you’ve won, without having to wait 10 years to see if regs get promulgated down the road. The LongBets.com minimum of 2 years is far more appropriate.
Well, if one were interested in dealing with the stronger aspects of an idiotic argument one would address the accusation that:
1.obama has actually created a cult of personality around him,
2. that one school actually showed that creepy celebrity �I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama� video
3. that the original proposition was to have children write letter on how they plan to “help the president”
4. that “Students at an elementary school in New Rochelle, NY, a largely Democratic suburb of New York City with a City Council and School Board dominated by Democrats, were recently assigned an in-class assignment to color in drawings of Barack Obama to mark the occasion of the inauguration of the 44th President. The drawings depicted Obama in various heroic poses, flags waving in the background, but one drawing went beyond adulation into overt political activity disguised as a pedagogical exercise. The drawing is a campaign button, in the center of a circle Barack Obama is smiling surrounded by another circle with the words â��Students for Obama 2008â�³.
5. that one obama-supporting teacher browbeated a student into near tears by tleling her ” that means that your daddy could stay in the military for another hundred years!”
6. that “Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools”
that’s the loophole. nothing is just like the other thing. you can always find a difference. so calling bush a nazi is not just like calling obama one because bush is not obama. the loony right are racist birthers but the looney left aren’t anti-Semitic truthers. you can boo bush but heckling obama with “liar” is totally different.
and of course republicans will say at least they didn’t start an investigations, so its totally not the same. the dems are worse!
It’s .org, not .com, if anyone is trying to find it.
What’s the enforcement mechanism we already have on Medicare to ensure that illegal immigrants can’t receive those benefits?
Good question. For all I know we don’t have one and illegal aliens are getting Medicare.
Why do you think we won’t just use that existing mechanism for any expansion of health care coverage by the federal government?
Because I don’t know one exists in the first place. I also don’t know whether the current administration will commit sufficient resources into such a mechanism to make it effective, but that can follow the establishment of such a mechanism in the first place.
Moreover, I’m really disturbed by conservatives’ obsession with citizenship status. People who are permanent residents are also entitled to any benefits; they’re legal residents with the proven intent of remaining in this country permanently, and they’re paying just as much (if not more) in taxes as citizens are.
The topic at hand is whether illegal aliens will get benefits, not whether or not resident aliens will. Conservatives tend not to use the word “immigrant” to refer to illegal aliens. It’s only on the other side of the aisle that talks about “immigrant rights” (for example) when they really mean rights for illegal aliens and not rights for resident aliens and for immigrants who have also become citizens. I’m not aware that there is a move to exclude resident aliens from access to publicly-funded health care.
RonF,
Are you saying that you’re against the bill because you’re ignorant? That’s a new low in the debate.
Total devil’s advocate, but: “entitled to any benefits” under what theory? Permanent residency =/ citizenship. There’s no constitutional requirement that we treat them the same, unless you argue that there’s a broad constitutional requirement for benefits.
Mind you, I agree that treating permanent residents similarly to citizens makes sense in 99% of circumstances. But that’s a matter of choice, not of entitlement.
RonF,
Illegal immigrants are paying a ton of money in FICA taxes that they’ll never get back. The SS# that is sufficient to get a job won’t get you Medicare and SS benefits. Employers just require that employees provide a name that matches ID (generally a driver’s license) and SS number; they generally do not require the documentation that Medicare and Medicaid do: U.S. passport, certificate of naturalization, birth certificate, etc.
The U.S. is not divided into “illegal aliens,” “resident aliens” and “citizens.” The immigration laws of the United States refer to immigrants, nonimmigrants, and illegal aliens; the tax laws of the United States speak only of resident aliens and nonresident aliens. There is actually a quite intense debate, one in which informed conservatives are participating, about whether the health care reform law should reach all kinds of non-permanent residents such as folks on work visas, educational visas, etc. As currently written, it appears to be requiring a lot of non-citizens who are legally present in the U.S. to obtain health insurance, while excluding them from any subsidies in obtaining it.
Jake Squid,
Are you saying that you’re against the bill because you’re ignorant? That’s a new low in the debate.
You evidently haven’t been paying attention if you think this is a new low. I’ve been discussing the bill with many of its opponents, and have yet to encounter one who has actually read it in its totality. There’s also the problem of the folks who have read it in bad faith and who are very ignorant of what terms mean in the context of health care, and thus don’t understand what they’re reading.
Even intelligent opponents can do this; a Republican friend was trying to convince me that the bill COULD empower the Secretary of HHS to require people to make electronic payments to their health insurers (one of the common lies floating around), because of a provision in Sec. 163 that says, “enable electronic funds transfers, in
order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice.” Except, of course, that “health care payment and remittance,” in the part of the SS Act being amended by that section, is clearly defined as referring to payments made by insurers to providers for health care, NOT to payments made by beneficiaries to their insurers (such payments are always called “premiums”).
This makes this debate really frustrating for me because so many people don’t think they are obligated to bother actually learning anything about our existing health care laws, regulations and private sector practices in order to talk about it. It’s like meeting Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber everywhere you go: people assume that because they have an interest in getting health care, they must know enough about it not to sound like dumb-asses.
For me it’s a frustration kind of peculiar to this subject, because my other main interests that lend themselves to debating (economics and law) do afford me many people who have been trained to understand them, who nonetheless have different ideas about it than I do, so there’s plenty of opportunity for sound debate. Unfortunately, my pool of acquaintances who are knowledgeable about health care yet strongly opposed to the Democrats’ reform proposals is really tiny. Even my dad, lifelong Republican who donated thousands to GOP candidates just last year, periodically suggests that he’d prefer to go to a single-payer system, which is far more radical than any of the popular proposals in Congress.
Manju,
1. obama has actually created a cult of personality around him,
I don’t suppose you noticed that NONE of your following points provide any evidence for the first one. They’re all about over-enthusiastic Obama fans, not about Obama’s doing anything to create such a cult. Try again.
3. that the original proposition was to have children write letter on how they plan to “help the president”
We really are failing to educate some people, who evidently didn’t learn the skill of “Reading in Context,” which is a target skill in most statewide standardized exams. When one reads in context, one derives the meaning of a text from its totality, rather than reading each sentence as isolated and unconnected to its fellows.
So let’s try reading that original lesson plan in context:
In context, it’s fairly clear to a person with a high school level education that the sentence refers to “what they can do to help the president in his desire for them to achieve their goals for themselves personally and academically, as well as for their community and country.” The entire rest of the text block is about their goals, nothing about the president.
The Ed Dept, which admittedly should have the statistics to know better, foolishly thought that Americans were capable of this Reading In Context skill. Conservatives quickly proved the Ed Dept wrong, which is the only reason the original language was changed in order to spell out, in a manner that even the unskilled reader could understand, what was meant.
As for Kurtz’s article about Obama’s “pushing radicalism,” I really can’t take seriously as a commenter on education a man who believes that ‘Mr. Ayers is the founder of the “small schools” movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to “confront issues of inequity, war, and violence.”‘ The small schools movement predates Ayers’s interest, and is actually just what the label says: an effort to shift from the large, impersonal schools that are particularly toxic in urban areas where low-income students slip through the cracks, to smaller schools — sometimes housed in the same buildings as before — that increase principals’ accountability.
and of course republicans will say at least they didn’t start an investigations, so its totally not the same. the dems are worse!
I don’t understand this idea that an investigation pursued by a nonpartisan body (like, say, the GAO, which is who actually did the investigation into Bush’s use of Ed Dept funds) is a bad thing. What do Republicans want to investigate with regard to Obama’s speech? I could probably FOIA anything they want to know. The trouble is that they *don’t* want to know; they prefer to fantasize about Obama’s brainwashing their kids into communism through his “cult of personality.”
Perfect example of a made-up fine distinction. that there’s a cult of personality surrounding obama isn’t too controversial as even his supporters have noted it, but no, the mountains of evidence of this is not enough for you to see how (admittedly) ridiculous partisans could view an obama speech to kids differently than other presidents. no you want to see evidence that obama created this cult, and presumably if thats presented you’d want eveidence of intent.
that’s how you choose to see it but its vague enough to trigger hyperpartins like those who justify investigating the bush talk to kids. after all, the doc refers to to “community and country goals”
another irrelevant distinction. the point is sayers support a highly politicized education
of course you don’t. dems ordered the GAO to investigate and summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for hearings after denouncing bush speaking to children is perfectly reasonable and has no paralell to wahts being done to obama. nothing to see here. keep moving.
o but now you see the inaneness. what a surprise.
Manju,
Notice your method of argument:
assertion: “1. obama has actually created a cult of personality around him”
refusal to actually back this assertion with evidence
disclaiming that this actually was your assertion (I have no idea why people pull this sort of thing on the internet when what you just said is RIGHT THERE on the page): “that there’s a cult of personality surrounding obama isn’t too controversial as even his supporters have noted it, but no, the mountains of evidence of this is not enough for you to see how (admittedly) ridiculous partisans could view an obama speech to kids differently than other presidents.”
stating that you won’t bother providing evidence for your assertion because I surely won’t accept it: “no you want to see evidence that obama created this cult, and presumably if thats presented you’d want eveidence of intent.”
Of course, the definition of a cult personality requires that it be done by the leader in question, with intent. “A cult of personality arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.”
that’s how you choose to see it but its vague enough to trigger hyperpartins like those who justify investigating the bush talk to kids.
The concern about the “talk to kids” was that it used taxpayer monies for what may have been an electioneering communication (having been made a year before a closely contested presidential election that Bush ended up losing). The investigation was solely of how the money was used and whether the communication constituted campaigning materials. There was no inquiry into whether Bush was “brainwashing” or trying to tell the kids something “dangerous.” There are legal restrictions on using taxpayer monies for campaigning. If you are opposed to those restrictions or find them “inane,” please make that argument instead of pretending that the Democrats were calling Bush a danger to children.
another irrelevant distinction. the point is sayers support a highly politicized education
That may have been your point. My point is that Stanley Kurtz is an ignoramus about modern education movements who assumes anything he doesn’t agree with must be “highly policitized,” and he’s therefore not a reliable describer of what Obama and Ayers were doing.
dems ordered the GAO to investigate and summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for hearings after denouncing bush speaking to children is perfectly reasonable and has no paralell to wahts being done to obama.
Again, they didn’t denounce his speaking to children. Bush (and his First Lady) spoke to children all the time. Bush II was speaking to children when the planes hit the World Trade Center. The concern was about his using taxpayer, DOE dollars to make a broadcast so close to a presidential election.
for those not looking to make apologies there’s not much of a difference between “obama has actually created a cult of personality around him” and the non-controversial”“that there’s a cult of personality surrounding obama” for the sake of this argument. You want to bog down the argument with minutiae in order to justify the dems behaviour on the basis of a technicality.
another technicality. its unclear why we should be concerned about electioneering in bush’s case but not in obama’s. the stated reason, he did ths one year before an election while Obama did it one year beore a midterm sounds like another distinction without a difference. one year out. the new October surprise.
adhomeem. attacking the person rather than the argument.
but yet you fail to note Michele O speaks to children too
the non-controversial”“that there’s a cult of personality surrounding obama”
You’re asserting it’s non-controversial even after I’ve pointed out that the definition of the term says “when a country’s leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image.” It’s pretty much impossible to create a cult of personality around a living politician in a country with more than one party, so long as the opposing party has any access to mass media, because they’ll constantly use their own media — newspapers, magazines, TV, radio — to tear down the positive image portrayed by the pro-leader media. And of course this is what we have been seeing in the U.S. as soon as the Republicans realized Obama was a credible threat (rather than just the guy who would impede Scary Hillary Rodham). So what you declare to be “non-controversial,” I’m pointing out is a dubious judgment based on ignorance of what the term actually means beyond “adored by some people.”
its unclear why we should be concerned about electioneering in bush’s case but not in obama’s.
And if the criticism and concern about Obama’s speech to children had been about electioneering on behalf of Congressional Democrats, I’d consider it just as valid as the concern about Bush I’s speech. Unfortunately, the concern was all about how Obama would brainwash children into socialism.
adhomeem. attacking the person rather than the argument.
An ad hominem is only a logical fallacy where the flaws one is pointing out are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. If, for example, I had said that Kurtz is ugly, that would be an ad hominem because his appearance is wholly irrelevant to his evaluation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In contrast, whether Stanley Kurtz understands educational theories is highly relevant to his capability of assessing the work Ayers has done on schools. The WSJ editorial you linked was a series of adjective assertions about how “radical” Ayers is, without any links to supporting evidence or quotes from Ayers’s work that would allow the reader to assess this radicalism for herself. Kurtz considers bilingualism an inappropriate focus for a school, even though schools that teach all students in two languages produce students with a valuable skill (this is distinct from ESL education, which is essentially remedial).
but yet you fail to note Michele O speaks to children too
This is relevant to school districts refusing to show her husband’s speech because … ?
No, it’s not. That’s simply not how an ad hominem (not adhomeem) works.
Frankly, I see this logical fallacy misused way too much to let something like this go by without comment.
—Myca
EDIT: Also, what PG said. ;-)
Sure. i don’t see why Obama escapes that criticism as your definition nowhere mentions a one party state. You’re defaulting to a hyper technical definition of COP in order to strawman up the argument against obama’s speech and in turn make their (admittedly) absurd argument seem even more absurd so you can distance it from the dem argument.
But yet even dems hae made the observtion:
“I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.”
–Paul Krugman
That was part of the argument. You just chose to address the weaker part because its more convenient.
An ad hominem is only a logical fallacy where the flaws one is pointing out are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument.
Fine. its ad-hom lite. you didn’t address the argument directly, that ayers pushed for a radically politicized education. but more importantly, you failed to mention it as part of the reason conservatives were opposed to obama speech while simultaneously painting Dem’s concerns about bush’s speech in the most favorable light possible.
well you thought it relevant that “Bush (and his First Lady) spoke to children all the time” but somehow obama and the first lady doing the same thing to no criticism is irrelevant. double standard.
I hope you two don’t mind me butting in, but
“That was part of the argument. You just chose to address the weaker part because its more convenient.”
Could you please show evidence that concern over Obama using the speech as a campaigning tool was part of the argument, Manju? Because I did not see this.
“Fine. its ad-hom lite. you didn’t address the argument directly, that ayers pushed for a radically politicized education.”
You have failed to provide any credible evidence for this argument, so P.G. does not have any obligation to engage in it.
“well you thought it relevant that “Bush (and his First Lady) spoke to children all the time” but somehow obama and the first lady doing the same thing to no criticism is irrelevant. double standard.”
If you had taken the time to read with any care, which judging by your unusually atrocious spelling and punctuation, I’m betting you haven’t done, you would have seen that P.G. did not mean this as a criticism of Bush at all. P.G. was, in fact, doing the exact opposite of that by pointing out that democrats were not in an uproar over Bush speaking to children, and that the president speaking to children is not a valid cause for criticism.
Again, sorry to speak for you P.G., but I cannot stand it when people argue without even really reading what others and even they themselves have actuallywritten.
I’ll admit that a lot of this discussion goes a bit over my head, so my apologies if this is derailing. I have, however, been incredibly frustrated with the debate surrounding the health care issue. Disagreeing with health care reform because it might lead to a few illegal aliens getting coverage? That just seems, well, silly.
In about 6 months, I will be without health insurance. I am a full-time student (at a community college, so no student health center for me), and work 30 hours per week (not enough to qualify me for health insurance). I am currently covered under my parents’ insurance but will age out of that at my next birthday. Being a full-time student, I am unable to qualify for any government assistance for health care, and have no ‘safety net’ in the bank to pay for health care on my own (ironically because I am still paying off medical bills I incurred while I had insurance).
So, my choices in 6 months will be to continue going to school and working and hope that I can ‘skate by’ without insurance, or quit school, find a full-time job, and hope I can finish school ‘someday’. Is it so wrong of me to be pissed at this? I recently decided that what I want to do “when I grow up” is be a nurse, after working towards a BA in English for 2 1/2 years. I’m looking at another 3 years of school because of this switch. My fault, yes, for being wishy-washy about my career choice, but I am still a contributing member of society. I have paid taxes all my working life (which isn’t very long, but still).
Why haven’t I earned health care I can afford? I will gladly pay for it, if someone can just make that monthly premium within my reach, because with the cost of living and paying for school, my $9 an hour doesn’t go all that far. I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence, but because it’s my anecdote, I can’t help but take this debate incredibly personally, and I’m a bit lucky, as the uninsured go. I know my parents will help me out as much as they can (which isn’t much) so I’m not totally alone, but I can’t help but think of all the people who are. And to see this debate get reduced to quibbling and semantics just means that those people are going to keep ‘skating by’ and hoping they don’t get sick, and in 6 months, I’ll be one of them.
Can someone explain to me how this situation is acceptable in the land of “justice for all”?
Regarding Medicaid: I wish I could remember in more detail, but when my in-laws applied for it, there were actually quite a few steps they had to go through designed to screen out illegal aliens. I just wish I could remember what the steps were.
i heard bill kristol say it on foxnews and micele malkin entitled one of her pieces on the subject “Obama’s classroom campaign.” but the speciousness of this argument is revealed by the fact that no dems showed any concern about obama’s “paid political advertising for the president” and no dem called it a “staged media event.” the 1yr ruse is an example of the hyper-politicized nuance apoligists like to engage in. i meanits a full 1yr before the election. silly season.
ayers advocacy of politicized education via the CAC is well known. But it doesn’t do anything for this argument to debate that point. for our purpose, all that matters is that conservatives make that point. the larger point is that PG avoided bringing up this line of argument because its more palpable than the ones she did bring up, though they both suck, as does the dems argument against bush, though PG attempts to put some lipstick on a pig with that one.
in other words, if one puts lipstick on a pig for one side but presents a cockroach for the other, one gets a skewed (but very convenient) version of reality.
ad homonym!!
But she failed to point out republicans have not criticized obama and michele for speaking to children in the past, was my point.
Manju,
I’m afraid I missed Bill Kristol’s pearls of wisdom on Fox News, but I did see Malkin’s column, and it isn’t about Obama’s misusing government funds for an electioneering communication at all — it’s the same old “he’s brainwashing our kids!” as is clear in her final words: “parents have every right to worry about their children being used as Political Guinea Pigs for Change.” Her title “Obama’s classroom campaign: No junior lobbyist left behind” refers not to any concern about taxpayer money going to campaigning, but rather to the standard criticism that Obama is trying to worm his way into the kids’ heads and manipulate them for his own purposes. Sorry, but you’re not showing any better Reading In Context skills when it comes to Malkin than you did on the DOE’s original lesson plan.
for our purpose, all that matters is that conservatives make that point.
I have no problem acknowledging that conservatives had multiple ridiculous and paranoid reasons to be freaked out by Obama’s being president, including his association with Bill Ayers on the CAC board. But that’s what all of these “reasons” come back to: this man should not be president! When you’re the frigging president, in terms of your control of education policy, broadcasting a back-to-school speech to kids is chump change. And conservatives know that; they’re simply going to strike out at every overt acknowledgement that hi, this guy’s president! that they can.
But she failed to point out republicans have not criticized obama and michele for speaking to children in the past, was my point.
A lot of the school speaking has been in relatively Democrat-friendly places: D.C., Northern Virginia, etc. This was the first time that Obama was going to be getting beamed into all the red counties’ schools as well. And I never said the Republicans feel obliged to be consistent about this.
Undocumented immigrants are not to be called “illegals” on this blog, ever. And that’s not negotiable.
“Undocumented immigrants” is the preferred term here, and “illegal immigrants” is accepted if not liked.
i didn’t say you did. What you have a problem acknowledging is ordering an investigation of the president for speaking to students a full 1yr before an election constitutes silly season.
I’d like to ask everyone to please avoid using the term “illegal aliens,” if you’re willing (eta: except when it’s genuinely unavoidable, such as describing the term’s use in federal law). The reasoning behind this is explained in this post.
Sorry, forgot your rule.
What you have a problem acknowledging is ordering an investigation of the president for speaking to students a full 1yr before an election constitutes silly season.
You’re really impenetrable. I’ve said over and over that the investigation was not for Bush’s speaking to students — something that, in itself, Democrats found unobjectionable — but for his using taxpayer funds to produce a broadcast that may have been a campaign communication. And apparently you don’t realize that a year before the election is still part of that election cycle for FEC purposes. Seriously, if you have a problem with this being the rule, argue the election law. So far you haven’t even tried.
You keep towing the party line giving every benefit of the doubt to one side while exhibiting extreme skepticism for the other. That certainly was the pretext for the dems complaint, michele malkin has her pretext too–“It’s not the speech, it’s the subtext”– but both are rather transparent and not very convincing in and of themselves.
The GAO found nothing illegal as such talks are common for presidents. but that didn’t stop dems from continuing to criticise the talk on budget grounds, as silly season practitioners often move the goalposts. the fact that they don’t criticize obama for his spending $$ during even tighter budget times just highlights the silliness. you present evidence that dems didn’t care about speaking to kids per se but ignore similar evidence on the other side.
this why silly season continues
That certainly was the pretext for the dems complaint
No, that was the totality of the complaint. There was no complaint made about Bush’s being an inherently improper person to speak to students. In contrast, the impropriety of Obama’s speaking to students — because he’s a socialist brain-washing radical disciple of a domestic terrorist who will force them to do his bidding — was the entirety of the Republican complaint against Obama. Malkin wasn’t using a pretext either: she’s repeatedly said that her problem is with Obama and his Administration, not with any particular speech he might give. She’s completely reinforcing my point that conservatives’ problem is with this president, regardless of what he actually says. From Malkin:
silly season practitioners often move the goalposts
Their concern was about Bush’s expenditure of taxpayer dollars. Where’s the moving of goalposts if they continue to criticize … the expenditure of taxpayer dollars?
the fact that they don’t criticize obama for his spending $$ during even tighter budget times just highlights the silliness.
(1) How much did Obama’s broadcast cost?
(2) Has Obama suggested restricting funding for the Department of Education? If you actually read the Democrats’ criticism of Bush I, a lot of it was about his using DOE money for this broadcast at the same time he wasn’t supporting funding increases for the DOE’s intended purpose of educating kids (indeed, Republicans agitate in favor of shutting down the DOE altogether — this is a consistent plank of the Texas GOP).
The entire complaint was a pretext for a politically motivated investigation (which predictably yielded nothing) that itself cost money.
That was part of it but there was more. There was Ayers and the CAC educational philosophy and the subtext of his “cult of personality,” to use paul krugman’s term. the point is notice how you dress up one argument but dress down another. that’s why silly season continues.
The moving of goalposts is when the argument went from using taxpayer dollars for political purposes/electioneering to using taxpayer dollars period.
I have no idea since the republicans aren’t using taxpayer money to investigate the costs. i know how much their date night to NYC costs though.
he called for the elimination of even start, a childhood education program. furthermore, .funding isn’t unlimited and unless he’s embraced every funding effort proposed or imaginary the criticism of bush would theoretically apply to him. yet it doesn’t. because the criticism and investigation was political.
The entire complaint was a pretext for a politically motivated investigation (which predictably yielded nothing) that itself cost money.
How so? Did the GAO workers charge overtime? I realize this can be confusing for folks who want the government to outsource as much as possible to the private sector, but there are quite a few people employed full time by the federal government. They include the president, the secretary of education, members of Congress and the drones at GAO. If everyone was already in Washington (as I believe the above generally are), then what was the cost of the hearings? Lamar Alexander had to walk his butt over to Capitol Hill? The folks at GAO had to buy some new reams of paper and a printer cartridge in order to produce the report?
That was part of it but there was more. There was Ayers and the CAC educational philosophy and the subtext of his “cult of personality,” to use paul krugman’s term. the point is notice how you dress up one argument but dress down another. that’s why silly season continues.
I’m not dressing down their argument. As you state it, it’s still ridiculous and 100% focused on ZOMG SCARY SOCIALIST RADICAL WHO WILL BRAINWASH US. I accept the entirety of what you say, and it sounds no better than what I’ve already said. Evidently there is no way, no matter how hard you’re trying, to “dress up” the conservative argument against the president’s speaking to schoolchildren. Referring to Paul Krugman doesn’t change that.
he called for the elimination of even start, a childhood education program.
It’s actually a family literacy program that includes adult literacy; Head Start is the program that focuses entirely on early childhood education. And he’s calling to eliminate it because it hasn’t performed well and the money can be more useful to education if used in other programs. He is increasing the overall education budget while redirecting money from unsuccessful programs to more effective ones. In contrast, Bush’s proposed increase in education funding was half of what would be necessary just to keep up with inflation.
Incidentally, Obama also wants to get rid of Civic Education’s funding for the We the People program, which, ironically, got a lot of kids interested in volunteering for Obama’s presidential campaign. So much for Malkin’s belief that Obama is using the DOE to manipulate students into working for his campaign…
opportunity cost
these are distinctions without a difference. the bottom line for this argument is that obama’s using taxpayer money that could go to much needed educational purposes just as bush’s 27K. that he justifies his budget cut for certain programs (as if bush didn’t, and as if others don’t dispute the fact) and is increasing the budget more than bush doesn’t make him immune to the criticism, it only provides cover for a double standard.
what makes him immune is the fact that the criticism wasn’t serious to begin with.
opportunity cost
I think this is the first time I’ve heard a conservative/ libertarian implicitly acknowledge that government employees don’t spend hours each day twiddling their thumbs as they count down to retirement.
is increasing the budget more than bush doesn’t make him immune to the criticism
Sorry, it makes sense to criticize a president for greater-than-inflation increases to the education budget because … ? You haven’t really made a case here (e.g., of why the Even Start program is effective). In contrast, there’s always a question of why a department’s budget increase is falling behind inflation, because in real dollars, that’s a budget cut.
becasue, education funds are still scare and “giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event” would still be a waste of money. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” or so the inane argument would go.
adhominym again!. My sex life is irrelevant.
becasue, education funds are still scare and “giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event” would still be a waste of money. “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,” or so the inane argument would go.
(1) Bush’s DOE outsourced the production of the broadcast to a private sector company, so it’s wasn’t just a matter of “opportunity cost” — it was an actual cost that otherwise would not exist at all.
(2) As Obama did his speech, it was presented to be an educational activity. The whole point of the DOE lesson plan, that Malkin et al. found so horrible, was for students not just to be passive watchers of the “boob tube” but for them to engage actively with what Obama was saying. So far as I can tell, Bush did nothing of the sort, which lent credence to the idea that it was like a campaign communication.
You’re still trying to ignore the difference between protesting Obama’s speech because you deem him a danger to children, and criticizing Bush I’s choice of how to use taxpayer funds, in terms of what each says about the legitimacy of each man’s being president. There’s been an ongoing campaign to deny the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, that even Bush II’s questionable ascension via Supreme Court decision did not raise.
Are you doing this deliberately?
If so, stop.
—Myca
This attempt at being a stealth fringe right winger is utterly transparent. The right wing fringe arguments, if I may be so generous as to call them that, are an utter failure. I’m somehow expecting the next response to PG to be “9/11!!!!!”.
look, money in a budget is like water in a pond. you can’t seperate it. if you use it it takes money away from another project. thats why when you give meny to a dictator to feed the people its still going to projects that ooprees the people, even though they’re alway saying they are using other money to do the oppression. liquidity is created.
anyway, all 3 projects—Goerge I’s speech, Bams speech, and the investigations–cost money and therefore took money away from other parts of the governemt. the outsourcing doesn’t change that.
if you read bush’s speech its substanially the same as Bam’s. stay in school, study hard, blah, blah , blah. so if that was political, Bam’s was too. the additional lesson plan just makes it more politcal, if dems woere to be consistent.
they’re both silly season but yes there’s a differnce in innaness there and the repubs are worse in that regard. the dems investigation was uncalled for but it wasn’t laced with of paranoia and bigotry, just politics as usual.
Disagreeing with health care reform because it might lead to a few illegal aliens getting coverage?
People keep trying to frame this debate in this fashion and it’s quite misleading. Opposition to HR 3200 or any of the other bills out there is not the same as opposition to changes in the American health care system.
Yes and no.
Opposing HR 3200 and the other variants doesn’t mean that you oppose changes to the American health care system as a matter of theory.
It does mean that, given the practical, real-world choice between HR 3200 (or something along those general lines) and the status quo, you prefer the status quo.
Or, alternatively, you prefer some third alternative but don’t realize that there is no realistic hope of the third alternative becoming law anytime in the foreseeable future.
(I feel pretty much the same way about liberals who oppose HR 3200 because they want single-payer.)
@Robert: Why not just give me the money when you lose? We can up the amount as well; $1000 wouldn’t cover my wisdom teeth removal.
Maybe I just don’t know what you’re trying to say, because your claim seems deeply stupid.
Or, alternatively, you prefer some third alternative but don’t realize that there is no realistic hope of the third alternative becoming law anytime in the foreseeable future.
I disagree. There’s a Senate bill which could give everyone something of what they wanted if everyone doesn’t take the attitude that “either I get everything I want or nothing”.
Funny how the news coverage on this goes. I was in our company’s fitness center yesterday doing one of my thrice-weekly 45-minute sessions on the elliptical machine. As per my custom, I tuned the TV on the left to CNN and the TV on the right to Fox. Between prep and cleanup I watched those TV’s for about 50 minutes. Most of the coverage was either 9/11 memorials or the anti-terrorism training exercise the Coast Guard conducted in some river that apparently alarmed some people. But both spent about 5 minutes on issues related to the President’s healthcare speech.
CNN spent all that coverage time on the fallout from Rep. Wilson’s outcry. Some of it was about demands for sanctions against him, and some of it was about items now for sale. Apparently you can now buy a baseball hat that has the Obama campaign logo on it with “Obamacare” across the top and “You Lie!” across the bottom, posters and hats that have the President’s face with “Obamacare” and “He Lies” on it, T-Shirts that say “Joe Wilson for President 2012”, etc., etc.
Fox discussed the illegal alien coverage controversy with attention to what HR 3200 does and does not say, and the fact that there are multiple bills before the Congress on the matter.
Who served the public interest better that hour?
@RonF: If “everyone” means insurance companies, then yes. Otherwise making everyone buy private health insurance does not give everyone something they want.
There’s not a single liberal in the Senate who is taking that attitude, Ron. It’s no secret that liberals wanted a MUCH more liberal bill than this; single-payer would have been nice. But all of them are nonetheless willing to vote for a radically compromised bill.
This isn’t a mystery; it’s politics. Republicans will do best in the next election if health care reform crashes and burns; it would be not be to their political advantage to seek out a compromise bill, rather than seeking to kill the bill.
* * *
That said, you didn’t contradict what I said at all. It’s true that if we lived in some alternate universe in which all Senators agreed that we should have health care reform and engaged in good-faith negotiations to get a bill passed, then we’d have more options than we do in the real world. So what?
In this world, things are incredibly partisan, and there is zero chance that a bill like Wyden/Bennett will actually become law.
The reality is, we are either going to get a bill along the lines of what Obama outlined in his speech Wednesday, or we’re going to get something like the status quo. Which do you prefer happens?
there is zero chance that a bill like Wyden/Bennett will actually become law.
Bingo. I saw David Brooks going on about how Wyden/Bennett was much better than HR 3200, and thought, “How about you convince everyone on your conservative side not to scream ‘But that will change the insurance you already have!’ and then we can try passing Wyden/Bennett?”
Anything that creates a fundamental change for everyone, such as effectively ending employer-based health coverage, is going to provide Republicans with a golden opportunity to scare the crap out of voters by telling them they won’t have their health insurance anymore. If it looked like Republicans would act in good faith and not use scare tactics, I’d love to see the Senate bill receive more consideration; I think it comes closer to what we need, which is making a fundamental change in how our system works.
Unfortunately, we have seen overandoverandoverandover that Republicans are not in good faith on this. We have Grassley, who is always treated like a very reasonable moderate type, saying that he will not vote for a bill, even one he personally thinks is good, unless it gets a certain number of other Republicans also voting for it. That is bullshit. Grassley said, “We should not have a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.” That is not good faith.
In the absence of good faith, we have legislation that tries to minimize the number of people who freak out, rather than maximizing the good it can do. Palin’s “death panel” stuff succeeded in killing the provision of the bill that would have reimbursed doctors for spending time counseling patients on living wills, advance directives and other options. Good job!
see? like clockwork, a left winger has now done exactly the same thing as joe wilson, in an obvious white house directed ploy designed to reward obama supporters. Now don’t you dare try making all sorts of fine nunaced distictions to excuse thist behaviour while cruxifying poor little joey. yeah, i’m looking at you, pg. its exactly the same thing.
Manju,
Kanye West Is Not A “Left Winger”.
he’s a fascist!
Ben,
I fear you make the mistake of believing that Manju comments in good faith.
I think it was a joke, but it’s really hard to tell with Manju. Sometimes, I think he’s playing around, other times I think he’s trolling, still other I think he actually believes some of the nonsense he types.
This is why I’ve just started telling him to stop with some of it, like the random misspelled shouts of ‘ad hominem’. It’s disruptive, and does not contribute to worthwhile discussion, and this is true whether it’s a joke, a troll, or intended sincerely.
—Myca
You’re brilliant and perceptive, PG. My comments are not sincere.
in all seriousness myca, i do actually believe in the nonsense i type, though sometimes i facetious while making a sincere point (like right now in referring to my own arguments as “nonsense’). i talk in a salty language but believe it or not i tone it down for this blog…one must be careful in the presence of deconstructionists.
but i get this aaaaaaaallll the time on progressive blogs, probably reflecting the fact that conservative thought appears rather prickly in a left wing bubble, so i’d like to reassure you i’m not just saying stuff for shock value. i also always get accusations of concern trolling. my comments appear that way probably because my brand of conservatism appropriates progressive rhetoric and values by annoyingly positioning left-wing politics as destructive to oppressed communities. ergo, the strident anti-communism and pro-oprahness.
so i was serious on this thread except for the sex joke in 45 and the intentional misspelling of ad hominem in 31 (because Chris criticizing my spelling is itself ad hominem) as well as 58 where I’m actually poking fun of myself (because some distinctions do matter, ie they’re not just rationalizations…which is the gist of my argument with PG here) and 63 which is a double-meaning in response to PG’s double-meaning…though i sincerely believe PG is rather intelligent and has spectacular forensic skills.
hope that clears things up.
Certainly that clears things up. From now on out, though, when you comment on this blog, stick to sincere discussion.
—Myca
In 2007 House Republicans unsuccessfully introduced a censure resolution against Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., for saying during debate that U.S. troops were being sent to Iraq “to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.” Stark later apologized to his colleagues.
Unsurprisingly, Rep. Wilson voted against the motion to table the censure resolution (in other words, he voted for censuring Stark). I guess he figures it’s better to insult the president to his face instead of behind his back.
Good point, PG. But what else was unsurprising?