At first it didn’t seem clear to those watching President Barrack Obama’s speech last Wednesday night who had yelled out “You lie” in the chamber of the House of Representatives for the joint session on health care reform.
Was it someone in the upper tier of the guest or press galleries, a non member on the floor of the House or, unlikely as it may seem, a member of Congress? You could see the consternation on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s face, where her eyes normally seem the size of saucers grew to oversized dinner plates and Vice President Joseph Biden just shook his head in disgust.
In the end, it wasn’t a real surprise that it was a member of the House. As we now know it was Rep. Joseph Wilson, R-S.C., who yelled out, interrupting Obama. It also wasn’t any real surprise that representatives from both parties were quick to snap at the offender and demand a public apology or more.
Within hours the member of the South Carolina delegation had apologized and all seemed to be over. Until the money started to flow. By Sunday, Wilson, who already had an opponent for 2010, was making it clear that no more apologies would be forthcoming. Again, no real surprise there.
Don’t expect this controversy to die down #— especially when campaign cash is involved. Representative Wilson, who has now put up a video asking for cash to “fend off attacks,” will milk this all the way to Election Day 2010, some 14 months away. While both sides, which are said to now have raised more than $1 million, won’t say it officially, they like the idea of using this event as a way to rally the base to get campaign cash into their coffers. It sure beats talking about issues. This has catapulted Wilson into a national political phenomenon, which will likely be watched closely by the media and pundits until the next election cycle.
What this sideshow may tell us more about is, if Wilson can raise significant cash and more importantly, win in November 2010, that this may be a road map for others to breach the normal decorum of the House, especially if doing so means campaign cash and victory.
Gone are the days, such as January 1995, when the Republican House leadership lectured members not to cat call or be vitriolic against President Bill Clinton on the heels of their takeover of the House the previous November, when he gave his first State of the Union speech.
Cosentino is a former mayor of Auburn and can be contacted at cozguytho@aol.com
In the end, it wasn’t a real surprise that it was a member of the House. As we now know it was Rep. Joseph Wilson, R-S.C., who yelled out, interrupting Obama. It also wasn’t any real surprise that representatives from both parties were quick to snap at the offender and demand a public apology or more.
Within hours the member of the South Carolina delegation had apologized and all seemed to be over. Until the money started to flow. By Sunday, Wilson, who already had an opponent for 2010, was making it clear that no more apologies would be forthcoming. Again, no real surprise there.
Don’t expect this controversy to die down #— especially when campaign cash is involved. Representative Wilson, who has now put up a video asking for cash to “fend off attacks,” will milk this all the way to Election Day 2010, some 14 months away. While both sides, which are said to now have raised more than $1 million, won’t say it officially, they like the idea of using this event as a way to rally the base to get campaign cash into their coffers. It sure beats talking about issues. This has catapulted Wilson into a national political phenomenon, which will likely be watched closely by the media and pundits until the next election cycle.
What this sideshow may tell us more about is, if Wilson can raise significant cash and more importantly, win in November 2010, that this may be a road map for others to breach the normal decorum of the House, especially if doing so means campaign cash and victory.
Gone are the days, such as January 1995, when the Republican House leadership lectured members not to cat call or be vitriolic against President Bill Clinton on the heels of their takeover of the House the previous November, when he gave his first State of the Union speech.
Cosentino is a former mayor of Auburn and can be contacted at cozguytho@aol.com
Citizen
Hot Jobs
Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 16 comment(s)
a.mom wrote on Sep 17, 2009 5:04 PM:
You're wrong though, or right, depending on which health bill you're looking at. Wilson was talking about the House bill HR3200, which the Congressional Research Service found "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."
The Senate bi-partisan group trying to write their own bill quickly moved to close the loophole brought to light by Wilson's outburst.
Karl, I feel sorry for you. It must be tough carrying water for the knitwits in DC day and night. That's how I felt about Bush during the build up to the Iraq war. I couldn't reconcile the action with the stated intent. What you have to accept is that your guy, your people are running the show now. They will be attacked for their ideas and it has nothing to do with the color of their skin. By screaming "RACISM" every time someone disagrees with the president, you are personally setting the Civil Rights Movement back another day, another year. Personally, I find it small and petty and undermines your ability to argue persuasively. "
movedsouth wrote on Sep 17, 2009 3:11 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Sep 17, 2009 2:30 PM:
True, but I was answering a specific question as to if we didn't cover illegals' health concerns, wouldn't we all be paying for it anyway?
The ironic thing is that, for illegals, their "Health Care" IS the ER! And the exorbitant costs there in the ER just ramp up the overall costs to all of us. So the question is, do we save money by offering coverage to Illegals so they DON'T go to the ER (thereby inflating the actual cost of the care) or do we just cut them out entirely and then keep paying those high, high costs--or sticking the hospitals with them, to close from debt?
As much as I hate to admit it, I don't have an answer. DO YOU? "
movedsouth wrote on Sep 17, 2009 1:37 PM:
BTW, karl, if this was directed toward me, you are SO WRONG. There is a big difference between emergency care and government funded insurance for illegals.
""GOOD!" or "SO what!" some from the South would say" "
liberal karl wrote on Sep 17, 2009 12:59 PM:
There is the train of thought that we all pay for illegals' health care anyway through the emergency room charges.
I agree with the idea that if an illegal is identified in the ER, they should be deported--but here's why it's unrealistic. Then you'd have illegals afraid to go to the ER. "GOOD!" or "SO what!" some from the South would say--but what happens if the illegal has some communicable disease? What if they carried some epidemic or something? The other thing is, you'd have to then staff virtually an entire army of Immigration agents to both detain and guard sick Illegals until they get well enough to deport. Could you imagine the cost--not to mention the chaos in the ER of that? And lastly, the idea would never float, because the increasing Hispanic population would go into riots at the first news reports of some mother dying in childbirth from what would have been easy maternal and post-natal care at the ER.
It's a sticky situation for sure. What to do--I don't have the answers, but I realize that it's not as easy as just saying "identify and deport them". What we NEED to do is to deport them FIRST, before they get sick--but that's a whole other issue in truth.
How about starting by lowering the cost of the damned ER visit? The charges are outrageous even for a legal American like me. I had to go in for a kidney stone a few years ago, and it cost me like $600 for one lousy shot--and I was literally writhing on the floor in extreme pain for 45 minutes until they saw me. Ridiculous. "
movedsouth wrote on Sep 17, 2009 12:27 PM:
movedsouth wrote on Sep 17, 2009 10:37 AM:
" whybother, unlike movedsouth, many people in our country are rational and care about their fellow man.
What the hell are you talking about, please explain. "
sensible wrote on Sep 17, 2009 9:20 AM:
whybother wrote on Sep 17, 2009 7:00 AM:
liberal karl wrote on Sep 16, 2009 7:38 PM:
It just makes you sound as stupid and as ignorant as those other people who obviously can't read or understand the following words; "...individuals must be lawfully present in a state in the United States...."
"lawfully present"--hmmmm..I wonder what THAT means?!?
D'UH?!?!? "
caliblaster wrote on Sep 16, 2009 6:18 PM:
liberal karl wrote on Sep 16, 2009 5:35 PM:
It very clearly states that no illegal aliens will be covered. You must be "of legal status".
Can't get clearer than that.
Wilson lied, and is a racist too. "
movedsouth wrote on Sep 16, 2009 1:23 PM:
OK, blame Bush, but if this passes in the healthcare bill, we can blame YOU. "
movedsouth wrote on Sep 16, 2009 1:10 PM:
* some illegal immigrants -- those who "meet the substantial presence test" -- would be taxed if they don't obtain health insurance that meets the requirements of the law;
* there are no immigration-related restrictions on who can participate President Obama’s proposed health insurance exchanges;
* to qualify for any subsidies for health insurance, "individuals must be lawfully present in a state in the United States." That does not preclude those in this country legally who have illegal immigrants in their family from qualifying for the subsidies.
That's the rest of the story.
Joe Wilson told the truth, Obama lied. "
liberal karl wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:22 AM:
Here is the non-partisan FactCheck.org's appraisal of the issue--YOU ARE WRONG.
"Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar."---from http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/
Secondly, where the hell did you ever get the idea that ratings = accuracy?! Plenty of people will tune in to hear hate speech--more so than will tune in to hear that their hate is unwarranted, because for some people, that's all they've got.
Lastly--Joe Wilson is an incorrigible cretin who has a history of rude and uncouth behavior not befitting a man of his position. His "apology" was NOT an "apology". He plainly admitted that his call to the president was because the Party leadership had basically called him and chewed him out and told him he'd better apologize. And anyone with a brain could see that his behavior afterward PLAINLY revealed that he wasn't sorry at all. He was just sorry that he knew he would have to pay for it.
A "revolution"? NO, more like a civil war. And it's going to be bloody. The hatred and race baiting being whipped up by Conservatives is indefensible, sickening, and anti-American. The "shot heard 'round the world" will be the first literal gunshot fired at the President by some Radical Right gun-carrying loon whipped up by the likes of Rush and Beck. And then all hell will break loose.
PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT ABOUT THIS IMMIGRATION ISSUE. You're holding onto this fallacy like it's your baby or something. "
a.mom wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:04 AM:
The problem is that Wilson was right. Before he served in congress, he was an immigration lawyer, so the specific issue that Obama fudged in his speech is near and dear to Wilson's heart. Obama said that illegal immigrants would not be covered in his health plan, and Joe Wilson was unable to contain himself, pronouncing "You lie," in response. What wasn't covered much in the aftermath of the debacle was that the senate quickly moved to close the loophole that made Obama's statement untrue. So, on the facts, Joe Wilson was correct.
Now Karl will arrive soon enough to lecture us about drinking the kool-aide of Fox News, etc. and all I can say to him is look at the ratings. There is a reason why the ratings are plummeting for the network news and all the cable channels EXCEPT for Fox. There is a reason why newspaper circulation is in a freefall, and it has nothing to do with the inherent racism of the American people. It is because the news organizations have decided that they must only serve what they deem newsworthy to the peons - that we cannot decide for ourselves, through our fog of racism and ideology, what reflects the truth about our political figures and the legislation they are writing. The people disagree with what the old news organizations deem news, hence the huge increase in ratings for radio, Fox, and online news sites.
We are witnessing the beginnings of a revolution. Hopefully, it will be a peaceful one. "