Rep. Joe Wilson: Republican VP Hopeful?
So we have the curious case of Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, shouting at the President during the latter's remarks to a joint session of congress last night. In the midst of reporting on that in today's press (e.g., the New York Times), some mention was made of the President's speech.
As I traditionally do, I read the speech rather than listened to it, although I heard a few excerpts that told me my memory of the cadence of Obama's speech was still accurate. There were things to like in the speech and some irritants — overall, I would like to hear something more resolutely liberal. Still, it's the outcome that I'll judge.
Mr. Wilson's juvenile behavior in the hallowed halls was inappropriate and scandalous, although we're so inured to inappropriate and scandalous behavior from the time of the previous administration that Wilson's seems almost impotent in addition to immature.
There is talk of how his shout was unprecedented. Maybe during a Presidential address to a joint session of Congress, but I'm still inclined to give former VP Dick Cheney the blue ribbon for inappropriate shouting in the hallowed chambers. You do remember the "Fuck You!" incident? Mr. Wilson carries on the Republican tradition.
I don't think it's any surprise that Mr. Wilson would debase the discourse by heckling the President, since such outbursts seemed to have become de rigueur during the town-hall "debates" of this past August, when conservative Obama critics tried to demonstrate that loud shouting was their idea of good citizenship and democracy in action.
What seemed unexpected was Mr. Wilson's reaction to the reaction to his outburst. Surprise? Shock? Dismay? He seemed almost alarmed that his fellow Republicans didn't all rise and shout "Long live the revolution!" When you expect the approval of your fellow revolutionaries, suddenly being revealed as a lone idiot and trouble-maker must make one feel very naked, and not in a good way.
Of the analyses I've read today, I think Chris Geidner came closest to the mark:
But, unlike the town halls, where the force of the incivility and lies was dispersed throughout the nation and allowed for skewed crowds, Wilson failed to read the temperature of the nation properly. He let the unreasoned few convince him of the mood of the many.
He found out tonight that he was wrong.
[Chris Geidner ,"The Lesson of the Day: Joe Wilson – and Rob Miller", Law Dork, 10 September 2009.]
We can hope, perhaps, that this rather bald example of being misled by the "unreasoned few" might lead to a more accurate reading on the part of the President and his colleagues in Congress and the White House to the temperature of the nation on health-care reform. They won't want to be left standing alone like Joe Wilson now, will they?
In an amusing bit of schadenfreude, Wilson's outburst did have one salutary effect. New of it spread so quickly across the internet that within hours thousands of dollars — tens of thousands — had been contributed to the campaign of Wilson's 2010 opponent for that Congressional seat from South Carolina, Democrat Rob Miller. In fact, the numbers have been going up so fast that I shouldn't be too precise, but last I heard some 10,000 donations totaling nearly $400,000 had been donated since the start of Obama's speech last night. Democracy in action!*
I was not terribly impressed with Wilson's "apology" today, in which he said "I let my emotions get the best of me". Of course it wasn't his emotions that got away from him but reality itself.
———-
* [Update on 11 September 2009:] It's midday Friday, about 40 hours after Obama's speech. Word now is that Rob Miller has raised more than $675,000 from 18,494 people (source), now surpassing by more than 50% the total campaign contributions Wilson has received from the health-care insurance industry. Wilson takes a page from the Palin-Prejean playbook and insists that his stupidity will not be muzzled.
In: All, Current Events, Splenetics, Will Rogers Moments
8 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Saturday, 12 September 2009 at 15.08
Permalink
as you point out, the post-speech media coverage tangentially mentioned the speech itself, but the bully pulpit seems to have been all but drowned out by two words from a congressman. and that is sad.
I understand that the far-right are now flocking to Wilson and supporting *him* too. I haven't read the text of the pending legislation, but I trust Rachel Maddow when she assures me that illegal aliens are explicitly NOT included in coverage – in direct opposition to Mr Wilson's assertions.
I also understand that there is a candidate for judicial election in Washington State who shares his name with the hot-headed congressman from South Carolina, who is now getting all SORTS of traffic on his facebook page from people who apparently can't tell the difference between congress and the judiciary, or Washington State and South Carolina (or Pacific and Eastern timezones, for that matter). Other than deleting the obscene posts, he's taking the "all publicity is good publicity" approach to this unwonted limelight.
I saw some GOPs minimising the gittering on about how in the British parliament (and indeed in ours) heckling is part of the tradition. Yes, well …
a) one *never* heckles the Queen when she's in Parliament – she's reading the Speech from the Throne (government policy statement) and is the head of state. as is mr Obama.
and b) perhaps more significantly, one of the very strongest of parliamentary traditions is that you can call your opponent all sorts of rude names(*), but you must never, ever, ever accuse another MP of lying. That is unparliamentary language, and will get you evicted post-haste. So Mr Wilson's shouted rudeness is very definitely NOT in the tradition of parliamentary heckling.
(*) witness this exchange on the parliamentary floor: "You, Mr. Wilkes, will die either of the pox or on the gallows." [–The Earl of Sandwich] to which came the riposte from John Wilkes: "That depends, my lord, whether I embrace your mistress or your principles."
on Saturday, 12 September 2009 at 23.19
Permalink
We're starting to hear talk of Palin/Wilson 2012, which sounds just too fabulous to me. You can rely, of course, on Ms. Maddow, whose team does research into facts vs. just making up stupid stuff.
Your remarks make clear what should be obvious, I'd think: the rules of conduct are arbitrary, they can change slowly, but they are the *rules*. It's like advice to job applicants: the potential workplace may have a casual dress-code, but don't make the mistake of thinking that a tie need not be worn to the interview.
Ah, l'esprit de l'escalier. Surely Wilkes had a writer and planned such a remarkably witty riposte, else he had a really, really clever moment. I always figured Wilde wrote down his good ideas and just waited for the right moment to arrive. It makes me feel inadequate to think that some of these people actually think of this stuff spontaneously.
on Sunday, 13 September 2009 at 20.16
Permalink
we all riff on things we've heard, I'm sure; though we do of course have times of originality.
at one point, the story goes, of St Teresa of Avila was travelling between points A and B in a cart, in truly foul weather, pouring rain, and the cart hit a pothole and she was thrown into the ditch and covered in mud as well. Struggling to her feet, Teresa shook her fist and shouted at the heavens "If this is how you treat your friends, it's no wonder you have so few of them!"
400+ years later, Oscar Wilde was in handcuffs and in the yard at Reading Gaol, being rained upon and life was generally miserable. Oscar said at the time, "If this is how Her Majesty treats her prisoners, she doesn't deserve to have any."
I've no idea if the faaabulous Oscar had heard the Teresa quote or not, but I'm sure he had a file of suitable ripostes in his head.
on Sunday, 13 September 2009 at 23.42
Permalink
There was a wonderful article in The New Yorker, many, many years ago (some time, I think, in the early 1970s, certainly when I was still living in Toronto), on "post-retardate Wildeanism," the practice of elaborately setting up incidents so that one could utter totally appropriate, and seemingly spontaneous, witticisms. Like arranging to have an aircraft crash into a Franciscan monastery so that the observer could muse, "Ah, I see, out of the flying plan into the friar."
It was one of the funniest things I've ever read. Almost worth buying the complete New Yorker on CD, but not quite.
Right up there with that one was another that pondered the question of why it was that so much of the very best English nonsense humour came out of Church of England vicarages (think Lewis Carroll, and there are many others). The author observed, as I remember it, that "this was actually a VERY difficult question to answer, or, God forgive me, it's not difficult at all."
on Sunday, 13 September 2009 at 23.50
Permalink
Ok, so I missed out some vital information. The "post-retardate Wildeanism" syndrome is coming up with the PERFECT thing to say in a particular circumstance, but only long after the opportunity to utter it has gone. Hence the scheming to arrange events ahead of time, fitting the occurrence to the witticism rather than the other way around.
on Monday, 14 September 2009 at 06.45
Permalink
this morning on the Beeb website, in the blog of their Washington correspondent Mark Mardell is commentary on unparliamentary language and the UK/US approach to same – and, as I mentioned earlier, perhaps some friction coming from Mr Obama being not just a politician, but Head of State.
There's also some comments on previous congressional misbehaviour and fisticuffs, much emanating from other people from South Carolina. Isn't that where they first fired guns in the civil war?
on Monday, 14 September 2009 at 09.11
Permalink
Your next-best option might be to ask a friend with the complete New Yorker on CD to have a look. I'll try to remember to do that.
on Monday, 14 September 2009 at 09.13
Permalink
South Caroline does seem to have had a disproportionately fractious history.