Skip to content

House formally rebukes congressman Wilson, conservative nutjobs secretly rejoice

September 16, 2009

090910_wilson_one_297

In a move that surprised no one with a single functioning brain cell, the House of Representatives officially issued a rebuke to congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC), for his outburst at last week’s speech to a joint session of congress by President Obama.  The vote, 240-179, was almost along party lines. This is hardly a surprise, especially for a petty, bickering cluster bomb that is Congress.  Here’s my problem with this whole situation:  Wilson’s conduct was boorish and childish, already determined by those thinking clearly and objectively.  But this resolution is wrong for two reasons.

It is clearly a partisan attempt on the part of democrats to embarrass a man who quite frankly, cannot be embarrassed.  His apology to the president had to be induced by republican leadership, and his subsequent pressers  have been full of ambivalence and disdain.  To put it simply, he didn’t give a shit, and only apologized because he was told to.  The good congressman has even raised over a million dollars has a result of his petulant outburst (which was wrong by the way).

Democrats also run the risk of making Wilson a martyr to the cause of wacky conservative voodoo protest.  He’ll be seen as standing up to the socialists, ruining our great nation with evil policies and marxist ideas.  It’s probably already happening now.  This will fire up the republican base.  Why give them the ammunition?  They’ll just use it to blast holes into the policies that you create.

To sum up:  Wilson should have been admonished for his actions.  They were wrong and insipid.  Now democrats need to let it go.  Please.

Advertisements
4 Comments leave one →
  1. Tom Amlie permalink
    September 17, 2009 10:26 am

    You are correct that Wilson was wrong when he said “you lie”. The bill does NOT allow illegal aliens to be covered. The problem, from Wilson’s perspective, is that the bill does little if anything to exclude them.

    With that being said, one does have to wonder why an amendment specifically excluding illegals from coverage was voted down, especially in light of the minimal (virtually non-existent) requirements for people to show proof of citizenship in order to receive benefits.

    People can argue about whether it is moral or not to exclude illegal aliens from government programs. People get upset when politicians try to deceive them about the nature of what is being legislated.

    The President could have said, with the same degree of honesty, the the bill does not provide coverage for people with brown eyes. That is technically true: nowhere in the bill does is say that people with brown eyes can get coverage. The problem is that it doesn’t EXCLUDE them either, and to argue that people with brown eyes will not get coverage because they are not specifically named as recipients is absurd.

    • Matthew Wright permalink*
      September 18, 2009 7:17 am

      The Max Baucus plan recently released, includes language that implicitly states this. Your point is well taken.

  2. September 18, 2009 6:44 am

    I’m so glad I found this site…Keep up the good work I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say GREAT blog. Thanks,

    A definite great read…:)

    -Bill-Bartmann

    • Matthew Wright permalink*
      September 18, 2009 7:12 am

      Thank you so much Bill. I really appreciate that. I hope you continue to visit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: