Blogs and Stories
In Praise of Joe Wilson
AP Photo
The House voted 240-179 to punish presidential heckler Rep. Joe Wilson. But in Britain, his boorish behavior would be a cherished part of the political culture. Alex Massie on why American politicians are a bunch of wimps.
Far and away the most deplorable element of what we must now, presumably, call the Joe Wilson Affair is the fact that Rep. Wilson (R-SC) has felt the need to apologize for calling the president of the United States a liar during his speech on Wednesday night.
The second most deplorable aspect of this midget-size tempest was President Obama’s acceptance of Wilson’s apology. “We all make mistakes,” Obama said, adding that the congressman “apologized quickly and without equivocation. I am appreciative of that.”
Trivial though it may seem, this brouhaha highlights a great flaw in the American system: You elect a monarch.
Could anything be prissier than that?
The factual merits of Wilson’s cry of “You lie!” need not detain us, if only because it is an obvious truth that, sooner or later, all presidents speak less than the whole truth. Here was an opportunity for Obama to endorse the eternal value of the First Amendment; instead, he emphasized the idea that criticizing the president of the United States is, in the dread terms favored by puritans, killjoys, and charlatans everywhere, “inappropriate.”
Not that Obama was alone in considering this most minor rebellion a threat to the sweet decorum of the republic. The maiden aunts staffing The Associated Press’ Washington bureau clucked: “The nastiness of August reached from the nation’s town halls into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday as President Barack Obama tried to move his health-care plan forward.” If a two-word heckle passes the AP’s “Nastiness Threshold,” one wonders how the wire service would describe something truly monstrous.
• Watch: Joe Wilson: 'I Will Not Be Muzzled'
• Samuel P. Jacobs: Meet Joe Wilson Trivial though it may seem, this brouhaha highlights a great flaw in the American system: You elect a monarch. In olden days and on the old continent, criticizing the monarch might limit your life chances. So too, alas, in the American capital today, as the arbiters of acceptable Washington indecency—that is, the Davids Broder and Gergen—decry your shortage of civility and surfeit of vulgarity.
The convention that Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of the President in His Presence elides the great difference known to every Briton—that between insulting the head of state and insulting the mere head of the executive branch of government.
• Mark McKinnon: Send Joe Wilson HomeInsulting Queen Elizabeth is one thing; insulting Gordon Brown is practically an obligation. Disrespecting the former is an act of treason; disrespecting the latter and his office, a necessity: Every Wednesday, Brown must endure Prime Minister’s Questions, during which his enemies in Parliament grill him. Prime Minister’s Questions may not be the be all and end all, but it affords an opportunity for “telling truth to power” that does not exist in the regal American system.
America’s problem is that it has combined the head of state and the head of the executive branch into a single office, and it can no longer distinguish between the two roles. Obama’s health-care address was not given in his role as head of state. It was, rather, a political speech made by—pinch yourselves—a mere politician seeking to advance his own political agenda.
As such, there seems no compelling reason for supposing that it be listened to in respectful, forelock-tugging silence. Silly Joe Wilson for forgetting that.
For all that the office of the presidency has been glorified to be over these past 10 decades, it remains the case that no president is infallible, and nor should he presume that he only preaches to a flock of obedient true believers.
• Watch 7 Outrageous Political Outbursts It is sometimes said that American politics would be well served by adopting some aspects of the more confrontational British style of debating. There’s something to be said for this, and not only because it would provide entertainment for Beltway journalists. As it is, the president may preach but the congregation is supposed to remain silent, even if the gospel is taken in vain. And if it is, then it’s terribly rude to say so.
More important, it might demand that the president lift his game. I am reminded of the story of the 18th-century radical John Wilkes, who was once heckled, “Vote for you? I’d sooner vote for the Devil,” to which he replied, “And what if your friend is not standing?”
Which, in its own way, is rather what President Obama should have said to Rep. Wilson.
Bravo, however, to Mr. Wilson for doing what he could to remind us all that the president is just a man.
Alex Massie is a former Washington correspondent for The Scotsman and The Daily Telegraph. He writes for The Spectator and blogs at www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
Look Who's Irish!
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Edwards Sex Tape Details
Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist Diane Dimond has covered the Michael Jackson story since 1993 when she first broke the news that the King of Pop was under investigation for child molestation. She is author of the book, Be Careful Who You Love—Inside the Michael Jackson Case. She lives in New York with her husband, broadcast journalist Michael Schoen.
The Pure Greed of Obama's Phony Health-Care Reform
Michael Moore is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker and author. He directed and produced Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. He has also written seven books, most recently, Mike’s Election Guide 2008.
Will Britain's Conservatives Blow it?
Alex Massie is a former Washington correspondent for The Scotsman and The Daily Telegraph. He currently writes for The Spectator and blogs at www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie.
England Goes Hollywood
Alex Massie is a former Washington correspondent for The Scotsman and The Daily Telegraph. He currently writes for The Spectator and blogs at www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie.
Blair's Gutsy Stand
Alex Massie is a former Washington correspondent for The Scotsman and The Daily Telegraph. He currently writes for The Spectator and blogs at www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie.
Opinion
I see Mr. Massie's point,
however one must not forget that unlike the parliamentary system, the president acts as both symbolic head of a nation and chief executive. Secondly, this was not a debate session, but a formal address given by the president whereby decorum is to be expected.
bcaldwell
I have to agree, we seem always to treat the Chief Executive with some sort of reverance - no matter what party he's in. We forget, that in the end, he's nothing more than a politician groveling for votes.
I think I was only one of 10 people in the US that watched the Prime Minister's questions on CSPAN. It was a hoot!!!! I'll tell you what, that format forces the guy to be on his toes at all times because he never knows what an MP is going to blurt out. Blair was great at it and as I'm told so was Thatcher. Both could hurl back the comebacks to insults as well as use facts to shut their opponents down.
Can't use a teleprompter there, so Obama would be seen as the amateur that he is. Also he can't chose his questioners, the speaker does and he/she HAS to be fair in his/ her selection. Hey , democratic government can be messy and inefficient....no one said it had to be polite as well.
Still, Wilson, was an idiot because he sure as hell could have come up with something better than "you lie" and Obama could have come up with something a little more wiity than, " That's not true." in response.
Of course he lies. Wilson got that part right, at least he had the balls to blurt it out. Americans can be so puritanical at times. These are politicians not aristocracy....although McCain and Feingold would like them to be treated as such.
overdue
I know, I know, OT, but it wasn't the American Film Rating board that decided that Cohen's latest film was absolutely unacceptable for minors; it was his own country's board, in the UK, which deemed "Bruno" had to be changed in order for youngsters to see it, with OR without guardians.
How's that for puritanical?
WestVillager
Imagine if Sasha had disrespected the Queen.
WestVillager
By Sasha I mean Baron Cohen not Obama.
piktor
Mr. Massie, a British subject, forgets the U.S. president is not a member of congress, as the British Prime Minister is.
The U.S. president does not adress Congress that often. There is a protocol in place and when the president adresses Congress it is a special ocassion.
Go and shout at your Queen, Mr. Massie, if you so wish or deem unprissy. Write your own protocol but don't pretend you can teach us any lessons on democratic exchange.
possumdearie
We don't have Kings and Queens here, Piktor. Take a slow boat across the Atlantic, if you want to bow and scrape to a monarch. The President is the chief executive, more like the PM, as the author pointed out.
mugwump51
Mr. Massie is missing a very important point. The British Prime Minister is the head of government in Britain, as the President is in the US. However, the President is also our head of state. In Britain, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state. Now tell me with a straight face if someone were to publicly interrupt a speech by the Queen to call her a liar, there would not be a reaction similar to what Rep. Wilson deservedly received.
Embers
Obama's an amateur. That's rich.
ElLamer
hear hear
Obama is to amature as bus ist to..... environmentalist?... a fiscal conservative? something along those lines.
I think this whole be nice to the minority bipartisanship stuff while other side is calling you a granny-killer can be viewed as naive. I'll give you that. But at the end of the day he has a point that all this us against hem does distract from the real issues, if he beleaves we can get on to real discourse I hope he's right.
This user is no longer registered.
WestVillager
Doh! Is this true? Foreign names can be difficult but this is good stuff. The president's ability to better articulate his thoughts is a very nice change.
This user is no longer registered.
WestVillager
Thanks much Connie47.
oldpunk
Also do not forget his favorite book was from his childhood in response to a nation-wide literacy campaign by Pizza
Hut
"The Very Hungry Caterpillar"
However, "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" was published in 1969, the same year Bush graduated from Yale.
And "Sarah's Flag for Texas" his other choice was published in 1993 , a year before he became Governor.
Probably why he could not read those nasty Foreign names which other world leaders can say with no problem.
Embers
Thanks for posting that connie!
canditaylor68
connie47,
Obama can read his teleprompter but Bush spoke more than one language. I find it helps to use the phonetic spellings for different languages when I am giving a lecture or some type of public speaking engagement. Obama should have used the phonetic spellings on his teleprompter when he said gaffed on Cinco de Cuatro, Wesleyan University, Orion, Commiskey Field and Massachussets. Obama does not speak any foreign languages at all according to the star tribune article titled "Obama stands by remarks about country needing to be multilingual." Obama should try speaking English properly first. Phonetic spellings on his teleprompter could help him.
This user is no longer registered.
tarryh
This was a humor piece, right? I know the Scots like to poke their finger in the eyes of their neighbors just to prove their independence but this is a bit much. Freeing the Lockerbee bomber seems to us poor colonials to be one of those moments. Scotland telling the Yanks and the Brits to stuff it, And what is all of this about the Queen? Scots don't even like her. She's a Brit, after all. And Prissy????? Who wears skirts? Now don't get me wrong, I love listening to Prime Ministers Questions, but there is little of substance taking place. Just lots of parliamentary theatre. And bcaldwell you seem not to like much of anyone. You want a show, not reasonable discourse. Go to FactCheck.org please. Mr. Wilson is wrong. The house bill does NOT contain any clause permitting illegals to get health care...... tho, I believe if they move to Scotland they can.
zammie
Erm, the Scots are Brits too, just like the Welsh and the Northern Irish. The Queen is English, amongst other things. England is also part of Britain. You're not alone, lots of people are ignorant about these things.
possumdearie
The Obama administration knew of the Lockerbie bomber being released every step of the way. Eric Holder even advised on it.
phyllisinthemiddleDC
Sorry, Politifact and Fact Check all agreed that Wilson, however impassioned, was wrong.
JoshAus
This is a stupid article. Obama is the US head of State. The only comparable position in the UK is the Queen not the PM.
Imagine what would happen to an opposition MP that called the Queen a liar whilst she addressed the British parliament.
rowland
Did you miss the point of his article? Obama is not a monarch. If you believe that the President's equivalent in the UK is The Queen you demonstrate a complete understanding of history and the basic tenets under which this country was founded. Of course, you may very well believe that Obama is a divinely ordained representative of God endowed with a mandate to usher God's will unto earth. You wouldn't be alone in your delusion.
Obama's a politician. And if you believe that his proposal won't add a single dime to our deficit over the course of the next ten years, I'd like to make a bet with you. And no fair raising taxes to cover it.
tarryh
Rowland, dearest, you misinterpreted what Josh wrote. The point is there are two positions. Head of state and head of government. In many countries they are quite separate. The head of state is the president and the head of government is the prime minister. Usually these systems are parliamentary systems. We are not a parliamentary system. Therefore, the two positions are rolled in to one..... the presidency. Obama and the Queen each perform the head of state function. They are equivalent in that regard. The head of government position is held respectively by Mr. Obama in the US and Mr. Brown in the UK. This has nothing to do with Obama being a "king ordained by God." I am afraid you may be listening to Rush, Beckers, and Hannity a bit too much. This kind of stuff is exactly the kind of language they use. The three of them have little education or world experience and very often just say whatever comes into their heads. I would recommend that you get control of your rant gene and perhaps seek out a wider sample of news and information sources otherwise you will be doomed to making yourself sound like a silly twit.
easton
Get a grip rowland. When the Queen addresses Parliament she does the exact thing Obama did, which is to lay out the agenda of the ruling party. And learn English as well, "you demonstrate a complete understanding of history" makes no sense. And the part about divine will, well it seems the former President believed he was put on earth to be President, and many Republicans believed it, so you are just projecting.
Beyond that, why do you hate Jesus so much? Did he not say, that which you do for the least of my brothers you do unto me? Did he not say "I was sick and you looked after me" I didn't see anything like "I was sick and you looked after me, provided that no taxes were raised" Then he also added "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' So Rowland, if you want to go to hell, by all means, go. Don't think you can have a pass by saying "but Jesus, I wanted to take care of you, but it would have cost me money."
possumdearie
We most certainly do not roll both positions, the head of state and the head of government, into one. We have a system of checks and balances. Absolute power was something our Founders went to great lengths to prohibit.
unclelew
What is the childish obsession with teleprompters? Is it Obama's fault that Bush never learned how to read properly. Yes, your hero Bush did use teleprompters but couldn't make out words like I and Was and Wrong.
Anyhow, under Parliamentary rules, if a member calls another MP a liar he can be turfed unless he withdraws his remarks. Can you imagine Obama stopping in the middle of an important speech to deal with remarks from the peanut gallery from a little, disrespectful twit? Especially a little twit who was wrong. (Learn how to read bills, Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Wilson).
Imagine again that Obama engaged your Mr. Wilson in debate. I can only see one winner, and it wouldn't be the bile-filled Wilson.
milkman57
excellent post...wonder what he would think if someone called the "queen" a Liar, on a national broadcast in the house of Commons?
possumdearie
Unclelew, your side was quite childish when you called Bush a chimpanzee. You claimed he couldn't think for himself, but did what his handlers told him.
Your paranoia and immaturity has set such a low bar for the presidency that you elected a US Senator who had not even served one term before running for higher office. He never published anything at the Harvard Law Review. He voted "present" in the IL senate.
Now, all Obama can do is read his pretty speeches, pay off cronies and let Congress ride roughshod over him. He is a follower, a paid-off stooge.
isabella
Where were all you precious people when Democrats booed Bush during his State of the Union address in February, 2005?
President Obama made this event partisan by his visible anger about Republicans who oppose the healthcare plan. His speech was not directed at bipartisan co-operation. It was designed to paper over cracks between feuding elements of his own party. The Democrats added to its partisan nature by their servile standing ovations at every pause.
In any case, Wilson's two word objection pales in comparison to Democrats' viciousness to Bush. Apparently this president, or his supporters, cannot stand the normal push and shove of democracy and want him, alone among presidents, to be treated like royalty.
Willabay
Why don't YOU learn how to read the report 'Treatment of NonCitizens in H. R. 3200' put out by the Congressional Research Service, the "research arm" of the US Congress. It stated there were no verification procedures required to participate in Health Care Exchanges, including the "public option." These verification mechanisms exist in other federally funded programs, including Medicaid. FURTHERMORE, 2 amendments were offered by Republicans requiring verification to participate, AS IN MEDICAID but were REJECTED by the Dems. It's called stealth coverage; deliberately misleading the public by stating no taxpayer funds would be used to pay for insurance for illegals but intentionally not requiring any verification of status to participate. But guess what? Since Wilson's truthful "you lie", Obama has now said any bill will have a verification mechanism to participate. You see, most of us who keep ourselves informed knew about the CRS report. Especially after the outburst, the Democrats couldn't keep up their charade (intentionally omitting verification as they did with voting down the amendments)
AlanD2
bcaldwell: I suspect there are a few more than 10 watchers. In fact, I mentioned the Prime Minister's Questions on the first DB thread put up after Obama's speech.
RavenRaving
I don't want our legislative process becoming a Jerry Springer show like it is is Great Britain. We are not England, we do not have a monarch, and we are a country that has valued civil discourse, the rule of law, and manners. The business of running this country is serious business, and should not be allowed to degenerate into a 3 ring circus for the edification of a few royal worshipping bozos.
Hyeaghcheg
It doesn't matter what they do in Great Britain, because THIS is the United States. We broke off from the U.K. for a reason - we didn't like their politics. Joe Wilson is a disgrace. I'm a Republican and did not vote for Obama, because I happen disagree with his policies. I do, however, respect him, because he's my president!
It's idiots like Joe Wilson and Sarah Palin that are hurting the Republican party. They spew rubbish and behave irrationally, giving the everyone the impression that all Republicans are wack jobs! South Carolina voters, I feel bad for you. Your state must be desperate if your only options are to elect morons like Wilson and Sanford. Joe Wilson acted liked an uncivilized dog....put him on leash and keep him in your own backyard !!!
taranto
True the president is a man, and a campaigner, and he has a political agenda. But also true: there is a decorum in congressional addresses that is a standard. During the unflinching and tumultuous anger during the Bush years, you still never heard a peep during these addresses. And no matter how stagnant and diluted it makes opposition seem, they hold themselves to it.
I live in Australia and the PM Q & A sessions are absolute chaos, are even more politically charged and don't resolve anything. It's also the difference between rugby (raw and brutal) and US football (protected and obstructed by rules). 'Better' is subjective....but anyway the line was crossed
devilsadvocate
Not true....in fact it was during the Bush years when you first heard this kind of disrespect from members of Congress. Which is why the Democrats in Congress then have no room to talk now. Maybe the public does, maybe they can be outraged, and for good reason (Wilson was an idiot). But much of the criticism is coming from people who aren't in a place to be dishing it out.
overdue
So which Democratic Congress member called Bush a "liar" again? I'm so sorry , I guess I forgot.
This user is no longer registered.
DeaconDrJones
This is ridiculous. I'm sick of repugs acting like things were the mirror during the Bush years. That's just ridiculous. Who came up with the Free Speech zones, again?
WaltB31
You are lying, just like Bush and Cheney. Remember the Dixie chicks? One of them spoke out against Bush, and they were deemed "unpatriotic".
That was the common smear that Bush and the gutter dwelling repugs always statewd. "If you oppose Bush, you're unpatriotic"
What you saw Wednesday was just a lack of acceptance of Obama as President; primarily based on race.
You slimy pigs hide behind "policy differences" and "deficits" as a reason for your vitriol. So you a**holes scream Marxist, socialist etc; you really want to scream n**ger. But that's too over the top.
Devil, you people aren't fooling anybody. Where were the "deficit hawks" when Bush was bankrupting the country with the Iraq Oil war? Where were the "Nazi/fascist" statements when Bush was pushing the Patriot Act?
Your opposition is primarily rac*st in nature. That jerk Wilson just proves it.
pennsykid2000
That's BS. I've seen the video of Dems murmuring "no" during a Bush speech, but Repubs used to do that to Clinton all the time, and he'd come back with a great spontaneous zinger, which I was hoping Obama would do. Wilson was 7 years late; he should have said that during Bush's "yellowcake" speech in the run-up to the Iraq war. Then, not only would he have been correct, he might have done some good.
JohnnyCakes
The old argument of "false equivalency"; act like a disrespectful asshole and then say "He started it". It's childish and unfortunately our public discourse never rises above the schoolyard bully-boy tactics especially since the cowering/neutering of the democratic base after the Clinton / Lewinsky fiasco which along with the Uber-Patriotism of the post 9-11 years totally emboldened these dip-shits to greater depths of hypocrisy. They're secret credo; have no shame, integrity be damned, let cynicism reign. There is no level they won't sink to and have no problem with how demoralizing their tactics are to the Republic they are part of. The one big irony they are unable to perceive is how Un-American they actually are.
devilsadvocate
"During the unflinching and tumultuous anger during the Bush years, you still never heard a peep during these addresses."
That's what my "not true" comment was referring to. And while Harry Reid several times called Bush a liar, he did not ever do it in Congress or to Bush's face. Reid as we all know lacks a pair. But in Congress they did shout down some of the things Bush said regarding fixing a Social Security program that is running out of money. It was disrespectful then and it's still disrespectful now. Those members of Congress who were responsible for doing so then have no room to talk now. You have the right to criticize as long as you didn't shout in Congress, but in doing so, don't pretend it's never happened before.
As for the video, you can do your own research. I saw it myself, but it's not my responsibility to open your eyes.
Embers
devilsadvocate doesn't have a video. He doesn't have a source, or he'd post it.
devilsadvocate is full of crap.
devilsadvocate
Do your homework Embers....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxmEGG71PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Reid_called_Bush_liar_sto od_by_comment.html
I'm not a fan of posting links as others do. But it sometimes is fun to watch others eat their words.
And bear in mind, the President is the one with the microphone, which is why the boos don't sound as loud as he does, and why Joe Wilson's outburt still did not sound as loud as President Obama.
Embers
It's considered courtesy to post your source. You should have learned that in English 101.
possumdearie
Google is your friend. The 2005 SOTU.
JoshAus
You can't compare the daily question time in the Australian Parliament with Obama's address to Congress. The Australian PM is a member of the parliament.
Obama is the head of state of the US. ie he hold the same position as Queen Elizabeth holds under the Australian Constitution. This is the equivalent of a member of the Australian opposition calling the Queen a liar whilst she was addressing parliament. Imagine the outrage if that occurred.
isabella
Unlike Obama, the Queen is not elected to office. As monarch, she is not answerable to her "subjects". Except for the formality of assenting to legislation, her function is purely ceremonial. Her speeches say only what the government of the day directs. By design, the Australian head of state is removed from the political fray. That is not the American system.
If an Australian Opposition member heckled the Queen as she addressed Parliament it would be an outrage because she could not answer back, but why would anyone bother?
On the other hand, President Obama, elected to political office, responsible to the American people for his political acts, did answer back.
uhmmmm
The one weakness of your interesting argument? The House of Commons' own rule book states that Joe Wilson's tantrum passed what you term the "Nastiness Threshold." As Andrew Sullivan pointed out yesterday in his blog (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com), the one thing you are not allowed to shout in the Commons is that another speaker is a liar. As he explains: "Once the opposition starts yelling "You lie!" they have essentially abandoned the deliberative process, by questioning the good faith of a speaker. Without an assumption of good faith or a factual rebuttal, just calling someone a liar abolishes the integrity of the debating process. It ends a conversation. And parliament is about conversation." Here's the exact language from the Commons' rule book (a pdf of which can be downloaded from the Sullivan post): Language and expressions used in the Chamber must conform to a number of rules. Erskine May states "good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language". Objection has been taken both to individual words and to sentences and constructions %u2010 in the case of the former, to insulting, coarse, or abusive language (particularly as applied to other Members); and of the latter, to charges of lying or being drunk and misrepresentation of the words of another.
RoughAcres
Hear, Hear! You have cut to the heart of it: "once the opposition starts yelling, 'you lie!' they have essentially abandoned the deliberative process, by questioning the good faith of a speaker."
Pretty precise description of where we are right now.
Marionetta
I really wish that writers would research what they're writing about instead of plucking "facts" out of the air. In fact, in Britain, and in Canada too (which also has the Queen as Head of State) no politician in the Houses of Parliament is allowed to call ANY other politician a liar. If they do, they get tossed out of the House for a time. It is just not considered acceptable behaviour to call another member a liar. The rules of the Congress are a little different in that a member is not supposed to call the President a liar. Wilson violated the rules of the House. In addition, as a retired Colonel, he also was in breach of military protocol. Heckling is one thing; call someone a liar in violation of rules that he was well aware of are something entirely different.
drmc10
Agree, but I suspect Mr Massie knows perfectly well about parliamentary protocol in the UK and Canada.
There was once a great fuss when a British MP accused a minister of telling 'porky pies'. When the speaker realised this was rhyming slang for 'lies', the MP was reprimanded. Further, remarks are directed at the Speaker, not at the other MP or minister. Whilst it can seem strange making sometimes pointed comments in the third person ("The honorable member doesn't seem to know his arse from his elbow..." etc) it forces a small gap between the comment and the intended recipient and - if nothing else - adds the appearance of objectivity.
As a Brit, whilst I'm addicted to US politics, I do find the it a little odd that the US system should feature such respectful pomp inside the houses and such childish bickering beyond. I wonder if the culture of argument built into the UK, Canadian and Aussie parliaments goes some way towards mitigating the acrimony otherwise played out in the US TV networks. If you make proper debate (and not just idiotic point-scoring, or facile shouts of "You lie") part of the culture of either house, it helps ensure that the politicians focus their attention on the arguments rather than the person.
The most unedifying part of this issue is not so much the slightly pompous acceptance of Wilson's apology, but rather Wilson's self-serving profile-raising and his inevitable positioning as a truth-speaking man of the people. This wasn't so much a sudden outburst, as a cynical and inappropriate remark that echoes much of the red-faced shouting that has gone on at health-care town halls across the country.
Frenchmanaz
drmc10 explains the problem perfectly. I have lived on many continents in my 41 years on this planet and there is one very simple point that Mr. Massie fails to acknowledge. It is the fact that each nation has a right to it's own protocols and not shouting at the POTUS during such a formal ( televised ) speech to the nation, no matter where you live in the world, is crossing acceptable lines.
Despite Parlimentary rules accepting such behavior in session, I cannot imagine that if Gordon Brown was addressing the entire nation, not only parliement, that the British people would find this kind of childish behavior unbecoming.
During less formal, regular business day sessions, which we don't happen to have at this point in time, would be considered very differently. If you would like to petition for this Mr. Massie, I will sign your document, because I agree, if we had this kind of " let out your frustrations in less formal settings " we might get more accomplished. However, have you looked at the Republican party, since Obama's election. The thought that comes to mind is " I think not ". It would accomplish very little but give these imbeciles yet another forum to act like fools.
As drmc's so astutely pointed out, this outburst essentially put a big fat exclamation point on how the Republican party and their electorate has behaved contesting this dramatically vital issue in the well being of this nation. This is what caused the national uproar, not the act itself.
While Mr. Wilson, is without question a very low class imbecile, in the space of 2 words he became a lightning rod for a large portion of this populations disgust with the thugs, of which Wilson is a party, who have treated this as a political game. These cat calls and town hall insanities are not bred out of a genuine desire to find a bi-partisan solution but rather disruptions in the hopes that the process will falter and that NOTHING is accomplished.
So Mr. Massie, maybe if you take yourself out of your envied " we have national health " position and understand how much this country needs this , then you might understand why Mr. Wilson deserved the scorn he recieved.
Fortunately, as proven by drmc, and of course by the countless Brits I call friends, they do not view America with the the same pompous, self righteous, superiority complex that you do.
zammie
As another Brit living in the US I agree both with drmc10 and Frenchmanaz. I miss the National Health Service and strongly believe we need reform here( and last time I checked, Britain still wasn't a communist country) but not the pompous prigs who believe Britain gets everything right all the time. It's like Obama seems to realize, but many Republicans just cannot even begin to admit, there's good and bad on both sides and nothing is ever going to move forward if you won't accept that and take the good ideas, wherever they come from.
possumdearie
Wilson did not call Obama a liar, except he said, "You Lie!" That is pointing out the obvious, like the child who exclaimed that the Emperor wore no clothes.
The provisions in the House bill deliberately stripped any enforcement of the citizenship verification. Suddenly, it is being written back in. Just like those "death panels" that didn't exist were removed in the end. You know, the language was a little imperfect, nobody had a chance to read it, but we must double our deficit in five years and pass it now.
Ridiculous.
The Dems tried to challenge Wilson, and they directed their activist groups to donate money to his opponent. It backfired. He is in a solidly red district, and there are 70 phony Blue Dogs in similar districts who will need all of the help they can get in 2010. Shame about ACORN.
spinozai
I tell you what when the Republicans are willing to give us the same level of health care the British enjoy they can act like British politicians. Until then keep your mouths shut at joint sessions and try to act like they hold the offices they were elected to. They only have two hundred years plus years to reference if they need a reminder.
Frenchmanaz
Spinozai, lol beautifully stated
oakely
Even if they don't care about health care, they need to shut up when the president --any president -- is speaking. It's simply a proper decorum.
The Brits, with all their raucous, no-holds-barred exchange in parliament, still do not interrupt their prime minister while he's speaking. And as someone pointed out, would certainly not call him a liar.
possumdearie
Hypocrites. Bush had eggs thrown at him during his 2000 election, and the French, the Brits and lowlifes in general cheered on the Shoe Chucker. You have no respect for anything, and your Little Lord Fauntleroy has a thin skin.
possumdearie
Excuse me. Inauguration, not election. Remember? The moonbats said he cheated and stole the election from Al Gore, who couldn't carry Tennessee.
PadreOso
The egg-and-tennis-ball-throwers were arrested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_inauguration_of_George_W._Bush
Who, exactly, is calling for Wilson's arrest?
ACBaker
While I agree the tradition of heckling in the Westminster Parliament a fine thing, I'm afraid this essay is a case of category error. In Britain, the Prime Minister is also a Member of Parliament; in other words, the PM (and his/her gov't) belong to the legislature... thus the idea of 'prime' minister, as in, first among equals.
The President of the United States, on the other hand, is head of state. It is his job, not to represent this or that faction, but the common body politic... this is why we worry so much about the dignity of the office. If you want to compare apples and apples, try and imagine members of Parliament heckling the Queen (who like the President is head of state) during a speech. Rather harder to do, yes?
That said, it is deplorable that legislative 'debates' in DC tend to take place in front of television cameras, while the chambers of the House and Senate remain sadly empty. Perhaps one of the reasons Republicans and Democrats have so much difficulty speaking to each other is that they don't, in actual fact, speak to one another.
bcaldwell
While true that the President is of a separate branch, the electoral process has changed in the UK in that the PM is now elected more or less staright up from in years past when it was whichever party won the majority of seats the head of that party became PM.
It's one thing to call the Queen, Head of State, she's a mere figurehead and represents no party and her positions do not carry that much weight and she's really prohibited from officially taking sides, In the US, the President is a member of one of the parties in the legislature. While it is true that he is elected by the entire electorate and done so directly, he's still elected . That means he gets to take sides, that should leave him open to criticism from the peanut gallery no matter how amateurish like Wilson's "You lie."
I would like it if the President had to go in front of the House once a month and answer questions from the members. It would be interesting and maybe we would not get ridiculous assertions like Palin's death panels because the President could answer it directly. Also we could see if the Chief Executive really understood the details of the legislation he supports.... a lot of times, I don't think they do and this goes for Republicans as well. Think about it, Bush would have actually had to answer questions about TARP before it passed to see if he understood it and could explain the details. Even better would be to have the Sec of State, Sec of Def, Sec of Treas and the Atty Gen there too and they could answer questions as well.
devilsadvocate
The President does not have to face his opposition or back up his arguments in an open forum facing his opponents as Prime Ministers do in the British system.
AlanD2
devilsadvocate: Yeah. Can you imagine George W. Bush being grilled by all members of Congress during his administration?
devilsadvocate
No kidding!! I'm almost certain none of the recent US President's could survive what the Prime Ministers of the UK, Australia, and other nations have to go through each week. It's interesting that many previous Presidents describe the job as the "lonliest job in the world". It's the nature of the office and the duties of the President that keep him isolated this way.
spotted
DA - I'd beg to differ. I think Bill Clinton could meet them toe to toe and mop the floor with the lot of them.
SimoninEngland
What Wilson did would have had him thrown out of the chamber had he been an MP:
"Language and expressions used in the Chamber must conform to a number of rules. Erskine May states "good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language". Objection has been taken both to individual words and to sentences and constructions %u2010 in the case of the former, to insulting, coarse, or abusive language (particularly as applied to other Members); and of the latter, to charges of lying or being drunk and misrepresentation of the words of another. Among the words to which Speakers have objected over the years have been blackguard, coward, git, guttersnipe, hooligan, rat, swine, stoolpigeon and traitor.
The context in which a word is used is, of course, very important. The Speaker will direct a Member who has used an unparliamentary word or phrase to withdraw it.
Members sometimes use considerable ingenuity to circumvent these rules (as when, for instance, Winston Churchill substituted the phrase "terminological inexactitude" for "lie") but they must be careful to obey the Speaker's directions, as a Member who refuses to retract an offending expression may be named or required to withdraw from the Chamber."
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/G07.pdf
Andrew Sullivan has discussed this on his blog.
overdue
Really?!
And do tell, Mr. Massie, what would happen in the British Parliament if one of yours (I'm assuming you're British) were to call your leader a "liar"? He wouldn't be "called," and subsequently suspended for at least several days?
Hmm?
I know it's fun for the Brits to poke fun of us, but don't hide parts of your own rules in order to make yourselves loook better; it'll just turn "pear shaped" in the end.
Or, if marionetta, above, is right, and you just didn't bother doing your homework, well, you're forgiven: it wouldn't be the first time The Beast's editorial board turned a blind eye to shoddy reporting.
nb-roggie
Bear in mind that Britain is borderline irrelevant. In fact, London has the right to declare itself a sovereign nation. The rest of the U.K. should just brew us some beer and be done with it.
WestVillager
This is a great article, very amusing. We leave the shouting over each other to cable news.
Our politicians keep reminding us to support civilized debate and it's hard to always be if you really care about an issue. This sensitivity does not make for good theater, I know, but we haven't demonstrated we can dish it out and take it then get back to business -- yet.
possumdearie
You have obviously never heard of Pete Stark, Clare McCaskill or Sheila Jackson Lee. They're all scum, all politicians, and a President is no monarch.
jamesreid1
At first I was offended, not only by Joe Wilson's outburst but by all the pouty faces on the Republican benches and the churl who walked out early. I am encouraged by these behaviors as signs that change is inevitable and the behaviors are merely stages of grieving the passing of the way things used to be. Rather than label Joe Wilson a southern racist bigot, Obama had the grace to treat him with the respect Captain Picard always showed the Klingons on StarTrek. The same grace Jesus used to teach sinners - Wilson was clearly off the mark! Let us all pray for goodness and mercy - even for illegal aliens!
Snaggle2th
And recall George Galloway's appearance before the Congressional Committee and how he beat them into the ground with a contempuopus dismissal of their accusations.
princeminski
An excellent point--a very good sign that change is in the offing. I hate the comparitive diminution of civility in Congress, but I hope it is, at it seems, the howling of reactionary baboons at any encroachment of civilization. These clowns, Wilson in particular, are not speaking to the informed electorate but to the throwbacks in the piney woods who constitute their power base. Love the Picard reference, BTW-- bet it's the only time *his* name comes up in all of this.;)
gm1000
i'm tired of all this pious carryon about someone heckling a prez who seems to spend his entire time appearing on tv or tallking, talking, talking.....he needs more not less disrespect....
and westvillager, michele did diss the queen, she wore a gap cardigan...
WestVillager
lol. I meant Bruno/Ali G/Borat creator Sasha Baron Cohen. I didn't even think of the president's daughter. I should make it clear. :O
DeaconDrJones
These sad articles trying to justify bad beahvior by conservs are tiring.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.