Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Rules of Conduct

Via Glenn Thrush, how to insult the President:

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

Who decided "nitwit" is okay but "hypocrite" is not?

What about lame-brain? Jerk? Intentionally misleading? And we can't talk about "alleged sexual misconduct"?

We're legislating words now? Seriously, though, where was the outrage when Dems were treating Bush badly in HIS speeches to Congress? Granted, nobody shouted "liar" from the floor, and I'm not excusing Wilson's conduct, but the faux outrage is nauseating.


yukio ngaby said...


So assuming I was in the House I could say that "The President is using legislative or judicial pork to disgrace the country while his half-baked nitwits are handling foreign affairs."

But I could not say that "The President is a lying hypocrite who is intellectually dishonest as he gives aid and comfort to the enemy in the form of sexual misconduct on the President's parts."

Got it.

Pat Austin said...