Selective Outrage
House Rule XVII, 1(b) on Decorum: (b)
Remarks in debate (which may include references to the Senate or its Members) shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding personality.
______________________
The day before Jean Schmidt’s House Floor speech (after which she was accused of calling John Murtha a coward, which she didn’t, and after which she apologized anyway in the interests of moving the debate over the immediate-pullout-from-Iraq resolution to a vote), Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) released a barrage of personal and Decorum Rule-breaking criticisms on the House floor that went largely unnoticed (video link can be found here; HT Amy Ridenour; bolds are mine):
“I’m absolutely amazed at you boys over there,” he said to Republican congressmen Jack Kingston of Georgia, Adam Putnam of Florida and Jeb Hensarling of Texas. “For you to come to this floor and attack the Blue Dogs on fiscal responsibility demonstrates an unparalleled display of ignorance, stupidity or just down-hard foolishness, I don’t know which.”
Then it got personal.
“I wonder what you’re going to be when you grow up,” he said, staring at Putnam, 31. “You are going to have to suffer the consequences like everybody else in the next generation.”
It was
on(then on to–sic) Hensarling.“I cannot believe you have the audacity to come to the floor with this assault on women and children and try to portray it,” Berry paused and pointed a finger at Hensarling “Howdy Doody-looking nimrod said he wanted to talk about family values.”
I have found no evidence of a Berry apology or of any constituent or party criticism of his outburst. Search for yourself.
In fact, he went out of his way to defend his behavior:
Berry took the podium and called out Republicans. He later issued a statement defending what he said late Thursday.
“I was offended last night during the debate on the budget, because I find it incredibly difficult to take a lecture from the House Republicans about fiscal discipline,” Berry said.
Rep. Berry’s temper tantrum and refusal to apologize haven’t received national attention or a “Saturday Night Live” skit. But at least he can say he has a web site and wallpaper that memorialize his hissy fit (yet another Amy Ridenour HT).
see, there’s a big difference… being called a nimrod is a good thing, as in the Mesopotamian king from the Bible. As for howdy doodie, he’s one of televishions all time great.
Seriously, has it come to you being the party of, well they do it too. How far things have fallen from the Contract with America.
Frankly, I’m surprised that the chair let the stuff stand. That’s a failure by their part. That doesn’t make what Schmidt said right.
BTW, all this twisting again makes me wonder if you know what the definition of is is.
Comment by Editor — December 5, 2005 @ 3:46 pm
#1 — OK, Schmidt apologized even though there’s a good argument she didn’t have to (which your hero Willie Cunningham also believes), and Berry ripped people and directly addressed them (as opposed to Schmidt reciting the contents of a phone call) and thinks he’s perfectly justified.
I do know what the meaning of “apology” is. At a minimum, the Schmidt apology clears the slate (and then some, if one believes she didn’t have to). The slate is not clear with “nimrod” Berry.
The GOP had better rediscover the essence of the Contract or they’re in deep do-do, but not from the left.
Comment by TBlumer — December 5, 2005 @ 4:12 pm
Who looks like howdy doody?
Who looks like a nimrod?
Judge the beauty contest.
Comment by howdydoody — December 6, 2005 @ 8:38 pm
If she didn’t call him a coward, she should not have apologized. The fact is, her statement is open to interpretation, and naturally the Democrats, sensing this, chose to interpret that she implied Murtha was in fact a coward.
But all this parsing of words misses the point. Schmidt stepped in it, again. And this time, she made her GOP colleagues angry because she shifted the focus of the debate from the 403-3 vote to her 1970’s gymnast outfit being mocked on SNL.
She’s a political clutz. Always has been, always will be.
Comment by Murtha's Ghost — December 9, 2005 @ 10:25 pm
#4 MG, There’s baggage from the past that I’m not familiar with, and it has to go WAYYYYY beyond tax increases she did or did not vote for. Nobody has ever bothered to grace me with the details of whatever those offenses were, and until they do (with support), all I’m taking from her past is that she voted in tax increases she shouldn’t have, that I’m not happy with that, that she’s the incumbent congressperson, and that she’s been saying and doing the right things on taxes and spending since she entered office. Period.
I know she ran a poor campaign after she won the primary, but she survived it. I think she’s smart enough not to run another poor campaign. We’ll see.
As to clutziness, I have no direct evidence of it, other than the speech, which I believe has, luckily for her, and despite your protests, worked out very well.
(You’re going to really not like this) George Bush is a bit of a “clutz” too; he’s not a great speechmaker, he sometimes is off his game, he presents lot of opportunities for his opponents to ridicule him–but I wouldn’t trade him for 100 smooth-talkers.
As to her speech (you won’t like this either)–You could even argue that her speech, with its shortcomings and even in spite of the apology, gave some “immediate withdrawal” Democrats cold feet and sealed the deal on the 403-3 margin.
You could go further and say that the fallout from what she did (and the 403-3 vote itself, of course) brought the Dem moonbats to such a boil that they prevailed on Dem politicians like Dean and Murtha, people who respond to who’s shouting the loudest and not on any broad-based principles, to totally jump the shark. And they have–even the WaPo is seeing the danger of a backlash and warning the Dems about it, because the backlash is strong.
So if you want to take it to the extreme, she may be the luckiest “clutz” on the face of the earth for that speech. You can make a case she is a major contributor to the turnaround in public sentiment about the war, and is one of many reasons why W is on the rebound (which explains the invitation to go to Iraq–if the GOP is angry with her, that’s a funny way of showing it).
She didn’t catch any grief at her public meeting last Saturday over what she did, was warmly received by the people there, got applause several times, and pulled off a very professional meeting. I’ve had two in-person chances to see this so-called clutziness, and saw nothing other than the smallest bit of occasional nervousness that I think most people wouldn’t, and didn’t, notice.
I like Jean Schmidt and what she has done in Congress thus far. I also like Tom Brinkman. The fact that I like them both appears to make me unique among all human beings on earth. I don’t personally dislike Jean Schmidt’s apparent challenger Bob McEwen, but I don’t want him as my representative for a well-known litany of reasons.
And please spare me further comment on the floor speech. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Comment by TBlumer — December 9, 2005 @ 11:01 pm