The House of Representatives on Tuesday, by a vote of 196 to 173, voted to "table" a resolution censuring Representative Stark for his comments about Republicans wanting to fund the Iraq War so that Bush could blow kids' heads off for his amusement. For what it's worth, we agree with both decisions.
Stark shouldn't have been censured since the Republicans engage in uncivil behavior all the time and since their outrage was manufactured. On the other hand, Stark's comments were a distraction for the media and was hurting the Democrats' ability to get the media to focus on Bush's veto of SCHIP. All in all a good resolution for Democrats of this whole Republican created and media driven controversy.
Showing posts with label House of Representatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House of Representatives. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Manufactured Outrage Over Pete Stark's Remarks
Earlier we posted an entry about the "outrage" the radical right-wing and its media allies are manufacturing over Representative Pete Stark's remarks during the debate over S-CHIP. The reason why we believe that the outrage is being manufactured is that we don't think that the Republicans are so timid as to get really upset over Stark's remarks.
I mean, come on, Republican members of the House don't mind torture in the name of the United States, think that the civilian deaths in Iraq are acceptable collateral damage in the bigger "War on Terror", and take turns seeing who can say the most outrageous things about Hillary Clinton. We are supposed to believe that they are offended by Stark's remarks?
Putting the manufactured outrage aside for a moment, however, what is interesting is that no right-winger is able to point to a House Rule that Stark violated with his remarks. Typical is a post that appeared on the Cleveland Plain Dealer's blog. The writer spends paragraphs contrasting the supposed difference between the way that the media treated Representative Jean Schmidt and the way it is treating Representative Stark. The author argues that "Mean Jean" got treated a lot worse.
What he doesn't point out, though, is that Schmidt's remarks were aimed at a particular Congressman, John Murtha of Pennsylvania, while Stark didn't refer to a particular Representative by name. The distinction is not unimportant. This is from the Pocket Guide of Floor Procedure in the House of Representatives:
· Avoid characterizing another Member's intent or motives and discussing personalities.
House Rule 370 of the House Rules and Manual concerns statements made during debates and what is and is not permissible. The quote below is from an explanation of that section appearing on a web page of the House Rules Committee:
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
call the President a “liar.”
call the President a “hypocrite.”
describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
The House Rules also allow a member's words to be "taken down" or removed from the Congressional Record. This is the procedure that is used:
Words Taken Down: A Member should avoid impugning the motives of another Member, the Senate, the Vice President or the President, using offensive language, or uttering words that are otherwise deemed unparliamentary. These actions are strictly against the standing Rules of the House and are subject to a point of order. This is made by a Member "demanding that the gentleman's (or gentlewoman's) words be taken down." If this happens in the Committee of the Whole, the Committee of the Whole rises and the Speaker must return to the Chair and rule on the propriety of the words used. In the case of remarks regarding the Senate and the President, the Chair may take the initiative and admonish Members for unparliamentary references.
Often the offending Member obtains unanimous consent to withdraw the inappropriate words or the demand is withdrawn before the Speaker rules and then the Member proceeds in order. However, if the Member's words are ruled out of order, they may be stricken from the Congressional Record by motion or unanimous consent, and the Member will not be allowed to speak again on that day except by motion or unanimous consent (clause 4 of Rule XVII).
So, the question becomes whether any Republicans made the appropriate motion under the House Rules. If they did, we certainly haven't heard about it. If they didn't, then either they don't know the Rules or they knew that there wasn't a violation. In either case, they should stop their whining.
I mean, come on, Republican members of the House don't mind torture in the name of the United States, think that the civilian deaths in Iraq are acceptable collateral damage in the bigger "War on Terror", and take turns seeing who can say the most outrageous things about Hillary Clinton. We are supposed to believe that they are offended by Stark's remarks?
Putting the manufactured outrage aside for a moment, however, what is interesting is that no right-winger is able to point to a House Rule that Stark violated with his remarks. Typical is a post that appeared on the Cleveland Plain Dealer's blog. The writer spends paragraphs contrasting the supposed difference between the way that the media treated Representative Jean Schmidt and the way it is treating Representative Stark. The author argues that "Mean Jean" got treated a lot worse.
What he doesn't point out, though, is that Schmidt's remarks were aimed at a particular Congressman, John Murtha of Pennsylvania, while Stark didn't refer to a particular Representative by name. The distinction is not unimportant. This is from the Pocket Guide of Floor Procedure in the House of Representatives:
· Avoid characterizing another Member's intent or motives and discussing personalities.
House Rule 370 of the House Rules and Manual concerns statements made during debates and what is and is not permissible. The quote below is from an explanation of that section appearing on a web page of the House Rules Committee:
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
call the President a “liar.”
call the President a “hypocrite.”
describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
The House Rules also allow a member's words to be "taken down" or removed from the Congressional Record. This is the procedure that is used:
Words Taken Down: A Member should avoid impugning the motives of another Member, the Senate, the Vice President or the President, using offensive language, or uttering words that are otherwise deemed unparliamentary. These actions are strictly against the standing Rules of the House and are subject to a point of order. This is made by a Member "demanding that the gentleman's (or gentlewoman's) words be taken down." If this happens in the Committee of the Whole, the Committee of the Whole rises and the Speaker must return to the Chair and rule on the propriety of the words used. In the case of remarks regarding the Senate and the President, the Chair may take the initiative and admonish Members for unparliamentary references.
Often the offending Member obtains unanimous consent to withdraw the inappropriate words or the demand is withdrawn before the Speaker rules and then the Member proceeds in order. However, if the Member's words are ruled out of order, they may be stricken from the Congressional Record by motion or unanimous consent, and the Member will not be allowed to speak again on that day except by motion or unanimous consent (clause 4 of Rule XVII).
So, the question becomes whether any Republicans made the appropriate motion under the House Rules. If they did, we certainly haven't heard about it. If they didn't, then either they don't know the Rules or they knew that there wasn't a violation. In either case, they should stop their whining.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Congressman Mark Udall to Introduce Resolution Condemning Limbaugh's Remarks About "Phony Soldiers"
Talking Points Memo is reporting that Congressman Mark Udall, D-CO, will introduce a resolution on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh's remarks about soldiers who oppose the Iraq War being "phony soldiers." He is seeking co-sponsors for the resolution.
It will be interesting to see how the Republican and Democratic House members who voted to condemn the Move On ad about General Petreaus will respond to this resolution. Our guess is that Minority Leader John Bohner, aka Bonehead, will find some bs explanation on why when a right-wing hack denounces soldiers for being against the war it is okay. It will, of course, be ridiculous, but what else can he do?
It will be interesting to see how the Republican and Democratic House members who voted to condemn the Move On ad about General Petreaus will respond to this resolution. Our guess is that Minority Leader John Bohner, aka Bonehead, will find some bs explanation on why when a right-wing hack denounces soldiers for being against the war it is okay. It will, of course, be ridiculous, but what else can he do?
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Ohio Congressional Dems Split Over Bush's Wiretap Plan
Ohio's Democratic Congressional delegation split over support of the Bush's wiretap plan. Of Ohio's seven United States Representatives, five voted against the bill while two voted for it. The five who opposed it were Jones, Ryan, Sutton, Kucinich, and Kaptur. The two who voted for it were Space and Wilson. Before readers start to condemn Wilson and Space, it should be remembered that both of them will probably be on the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee's target list for the 2008 election. The actual vote results can be seen here. That's also overlooking the fact that both Representatives Space and Wilson didn't back the bill because they agreed with its provisions.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Anti-Escalation Resolution Passes U.S. House, Ohio Republicans Support Bush
Seventeen Republicans voted against the Bush administration's escalation of troops in Iraq on Roll Call 99. You can view the results by clicking on the link in this entry's title. A quick review shows no Ohio Republican voting for the Resolution, which means that they all decided to stick with Bush, including Republicans who had tight races like Pryce and Schmidt. Congressman Regula, OH-16, voted against the Resolution.
Although earlier this week, commentators were saying that as few as 12 or as many as 60 Republicans might bolt and support the anti-escalation Resolution, in the final analysis party loyalty apparently won out. Of course, if this plan doesn't work, then it will be very hard for Republicans to escape responibility for the mess that is Iraq in 2008.
UPDATE: Our apologies to Steve LaTourette, who was one of the 17 Republicans to vote with the Democrats on this issue. What's interesting is that he didn't have near the close race that Pyrce had, yet he managed to support the anti-escalation resolution.
Although earlier this week, commentators were saying that as few as 12 or as many as 60 Republicans might bolt and support the anti-escalation Resolution, in the final analysis party loyalty apparently won out. Of course, if this plan doesn't work, then it will be very hard for Republicans to escape responibility for the mess that is Iraq in 2008.
UPDATE: Our apologies to Steve LaTourette, who was one of the 17 Republicans to vote with the Democrats on this issue. What's interesting is that he didn't have near the close race that Pyrce had, yet he managed to support the anti-escalation resolution.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
House Republicans Splintering
According the article linked to in this entry's title, House Republicans, freed from the heavy hand of Tom DeLay and his henchmen are leaving their party to vote with Democrats on issues such as increasing the minimum wage, adopting PayGo budgeting, and authorizing stem-cell research. This in the face of the Republican's leadership claims that the GOP would fracture the Democrats.
One of the facts that most of the mainsteam media doesn't really talk about is the ability of Nancy Pelosi to keep the House Democrats united. On the minimum wage bill, not one Democrat defected. Last year when Bush unveiled his Social Security plan no House Democrat supported it. As we go deeper and deeper into this legislation session, Democrats should pick up momentum which doesn't bode well for the Republicans. Increasingly Bush will be vetoing popular legislation, which will set the stage for the 2008 election cycle.
One of the facts that most of the mainsteam media doesn't really talk about is the ability of Nancy Pelosi to keep the House Democrats united. On the minimum wage bill, not one Democrat defected. Last year when Bush unveiled his Social Security plan no House Democrat supported it. As we go deeper and deeper into this legislation session, Democrats should pick up momentum which doesn't bode well for the Republicans. Increasingly Bush will be vetoing popular legislation, which will set the stage for the 2008 election cycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)