Interview: Rep. Joe Wilson (R) SC

Just wrapped up an interview with pro-legal immigration, former immigration lawyer turned politician Representative Joe Wilson (R) SC. Having posted on Wilson's "You lie" comment to Obama during Obama's speech, I wanted to understand the full context of the remark. Wilson has since apologized to the White House.

Wilson referred extensively to both his packed recess Town Hall experiences and close tracking of pertinent legislation through work with several committees to place his remark in context. While there may be some Republican critics of the comment, Wilson also mentioned several Republicans who have since told him he said precisely what they were thinking but dared not say given the occasion.

Wilson claimed that in over 20 years in politics, having hosted numerous town halls throughout South Carolina over the years, he has never seen anything quite like he witnessed during the recent recess. Crowds suddenly grew from an average of fifty attendees to well over a thousand and approximately 95% of those were there specifically due to concerns over any potential health care legislation. He mentioned several SC cities and towns where that was the case.

Given a great many constituent concerns Wilson has personally heard expressed, he went into the speech hoping Obama would genuinely reach out both to the people and across the aisle to address their concerns. Obama had claimed that would be his intent. Unfortunately, after Republicans were all but shut out of any pertinent on going negotiations in the House, Wilson felt Obama wasn't genuinely reaching out at all and certainly not honestly to the extent that he did.

All Republican amendments for verification, or enforcement regarding efforts to keep American taxpayers from paying for health care, or insurance for illegal immigrants have been defeated by the Democrats. The Congressional Research Service has indicated that, as it stands, there is nothing to prevent coverage for illegal immigrants under currently considered legislation.

Consequently, Wilson pronounced Obama's specific statement in that regard as "appalling". Perhaps Obama simply hasn't kept up on the legislation, being on vacation so much in recent days, as he has.

Wilson also stressed his concern for the existing high unemployment in South Carolina and the potential impact on jobs of new health care legislation. It's been estimated by some organizations that potential legislation could result in the loss of an additional 1.6 million American jobs as small businesses attempt to deal with new guidelines. That at a time when what America needs most is more new jobs, not fewer.

While claiming no desire to see Washington adopt anything akin to the British Parliament's habit of yelling at one another during debate, Wilson felt that constituent interests and emotion just got the best of him in this case. He said he was not angry at all, which is why he didn't go on at the time. Other than the single, short impromptu blurt, Wilson said he was in complete control of himself at all times. He now wishes that he had waited and held a press conference instead.

Perhaps like me and some others, Wilson just reacted naturally when confronted with an obvious misrepresentation dealing with something one has invested a great deal of time in thinking about. He sounded sincere and convincing in both his regret for the impromptu remark, as well as his insistence that, at the end of it all is the fact that Obama simply wasn't telling the truth as any objective observer would understand it in last night's speech.

Comments

[Seven Shange]

I'm sorry "North Dallas forty" but your an idiot! I guess John McCain and 99% of the Republican leadership are pretending to be Republicans because they're demanding respect for the office of the President of the United States of America. Since when is demanding this respect for the office "fawning over Obama" or anyone else. Obviously your alma mater owes you a rebate my friend! It's the lunatic fringe, which of course you obviously belong, that attempts to castigate any republican or anybody else that doesn't buy into your ignorant mis-informed rants. Screaming and throwing stones when your weak analysis is destroyed by fact. The fact is my friend that I am a proud republican and it's loony-toons like you that are destroying the party. A bit of advice; if you want to win a debate..............The way to do it is not to scream........YOU LIE!!!! I see why you idolize Joe Wilson. Your both excellent right wing nut job debaters!

[Bob]

"bob-
you honestly believe that people oppose obama just because he is black?
(rassmussen has obama's "strong disapproval" at 40%."

First, Mark, your over-reliance on Rasmussen -- known to have become even more biased towards conservatives in recent years -- puts you on the negative edge of any assessment of Obama's performance. A more recent CBS poll shows Obama to have majority approval for his handling of health care: 52% approval vs. 38% disapproval.

bob-
you honestly believe that people oppose obama just because he is black?
(rassmussen has obama's "strong disapproval" at 40%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5302288.shtml

But in any case, nobody is trying to deny conservatives the right to disapprove of Obama. However, they've crossed a line by treating Obama as though he were guilty of something -- even if they have to make up B.S. about him not being a REAL American and other such nonsense -- without any evidence that he's done anything wrong. Obama is ethical, and he's doing exactly what should be expected of a moderate liberal president. He's not destroying anyone's freedom, he's not trying to subvert the Constitution, he's not secretly plotting to turn over the country to our enemies, etc. He's pursuing a mainstream, moderate liberal agenda. Since conservatives lost the election, they need to respect Obama's right to pursue his agenda as the duly elected leader of this country.

Instead, conservatives are engaging in dishonest rhetoric and going out of their way to show disrespect to Obama simply because they can't stand that they lost the election. Disagreeing with Obama is within anyone's right, but to carry on the way many right wingers have done is disloyal. They've crossed that line way too many times now.

[mark l.]

i took dan's comment as 'sardonic'...

def-derisively mocking.

defining politics by race is the bottom of the intellectual barrel. we are a nation of individuals, who unite on issues.

the list of democrats who have sought to exploit race to appeal to the retards who would be motivated out of racial animosity is extensive.

a recent occurrence?
Van jones and his "white polluters" comment. Valerie jarrett didn't see this rhetoric as dangerous or misguided, but something that could be cultivated and used as a tool. That a politcal party actual invests in this strategy is disgusting, but even more troubling is that there are people who still buy into this crap.

I used to think I was absolved...my grandparents emigrated after the civil war, and grew up in a rather white area.

The catchphrase that now seems to cover me in the indictment of my race is "white-european"...
I'm part german, so therefore I am responsible for the holocaust?

we are all human, who make the same mistakes and abuses of power, regardless of race. to seperate the tragedies committed by the species man, along the lines of color, is to diminish one race and elevate another. In perpetuating this, the democrat party is the primary culitvator of racial animosity, largely because they need to benefit from it.

If african americans EVER stop voting 90-10 in favor of democrats, and just move to 65-35, the democrat party ends.

[mark l.]

"But in any case, nobody is trying to deny conservatives the right to disapprove of Obama. However, they've crossed a line by treating Obama as though he were guilty of something -- even if they have to make up B.S. about him not being a REAL American and other such nonsense..."

you ascribe a sentiment to conservatives, of which I am one, that I don't share. Is my opinion irelevant because other conservatives disagree with me?

try salting your words with "some".

along the lines of salting...
"moderate liberal president"?

I didn't know there was such a thing as moderate liberal. I guess if his budget needed 40 trillion of borrowed cash, he would just be a liberal?

"He's not destroying anyone's freedom"
he's going to destroy our currency, our future budgets, and the prosperity of the country.

"he's not trying to subvert the Constitution"

the premable of the constitution:

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

posterity is defined as

1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2 : all future generations

borrowing against the future generations of this country to pay for instant gratification is a subversion of the constitution.

9 trillion dollars.

[Elianastar]

As I watched the "speech" and the cameras went to the dour, disgusted, faces of so many on one side of the aisle... who came with the expectation that just maybe "bipartisanship" actually was a word with factual meaning for the President, only to be dressed down and dismissed and ridiculed... yet again... at almost every turn...

... all I could think is, "I could not sit there and listen to that! I wish every last one of them would just stand up, en masse, and WALK OUT!" Basically say, with their feet, "We've heard enough. We are tired of being lied to, minimized, used as your scapegoat, and otherwise dismissed as viable components of this process. Enjoy your party (pun intended) and carry on the charade of governance under the confines of the Constitution without us." Might actually instill some new respect for Conservative members of Congress if they just plain called the President and his cohorts on their ongoing disdain and condescension for anyone who does not march lockstep with them on every issue... which seems to be the new definition of the word "bipartisan."

Just when I thought I could not stand one more misrepresentation and distorted characterization of this entire issue, one lone voice rose up and stated what I'd been screaming at the tv through most of what passed for "healthcare information and clarification": "LIAR"... Not nearly as effective or as dramatic as my mental scenario, but equally as unexpected.

The President stated that when anyone misrepresents the Healthcare Reform agenda, they will be called out. Well, Mr. President. No time like the present. The single worst offender in that category has now been called out. If you call someone a liar who has not, in point of fact, intentionally set out to distract and distort the truth, an apology IS in order. If you call someone a liar who HAS intentionally, with malice of forethought, mislead and misrepresented verifiable fact, you have simply made a statement of fact and whether it is comfortable to hear or in defiance of "decorum" seems an irrelevant point. This bill... any version of this bill currently on the table... will fundamentally change what it means to be the United States of America and redefine words like "liberty, freedom, life," in fundamental ways. If ANYONE is lying about what it says or how it will function ANYWHERE, it is a patriotic DUTY to call that person out. When that person is the President of the United States standing before Congress in (yet ANOTHER) televised presentation, all the more so.

If the "Democratic" Party is so hell bent on "transforming" this Nation from what our Founding Fathers gave us, something unique from virtually every other nation that has EVER existed on this planet, there are nearly 200 other nations you can go to that already HAVE what you are trying to shove down our throats! There is only ONE U.S.A. with a Constitutional Republic. Leave us the hell alone and go somewhere that already IS what you are trying to make us into! I pray to GOD that people are waking up... finally... and realizing what has been taken from us already since 1900 and stand up for what we are SUPPOSED to have! If that means starting with calling out the President of the United States on the floor of Congress to get it going, so be it.

[Bob]

"borrowing against the future generations of this country to pay for instant gratification is a subversion of the constitution.

9 trillion dollars."

First, no it's not a subversion of the Constitution. Just saying something is not the same as proving it. Saying that Obama is subverting the Constitution has no real facts to back it up. But even if it did, Bush administration policies are responsible for a much higher share of the current budget deficit than anything Obama has done, including fiscal stimulus, TARP and healthcare reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html

I've posted this analysis several times. Why can't any right wingers acknowledge the fact that Obama's policies only account for something like 10% of the current budget deficit? Why was it not a subversion of the Constitution when Bush amassed much greater debts than Obama? Health care reform will be less expensive than Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and less expensive than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Were any of you protesting about deficits back when those policies were enacted? Of course not. That's why you have no credibility when you try to attack Obama now, especially considering that Obama has been much more fiscally responsible than Bush. I'm sorry, but the facts prove it.

Come on, Mark, you claim that you're not treating Obama as though he were guilty of some terrible wrong, and then in the same post you accuse him of subverting the Constitution using a factually dishonest analysis that ignores Bush doing the same thing you accuse Obama of doing, only on a much more massive scale.

What I'm trying to say is that conservatives are being exceedingly unfair, to the point where they are no longer a loyal opposition. Their willingness to engage in dishonest rhetoric simply for political gain, and to poison our discourse with outright hate-mongering, is damaging our democracy.

[Mark]

All Joe Wilson did was express what millions of Americans were feeling. Isn't this the point of representative democracy. I think this was an important moment. Joe just "channeled" the feelings of his constituents. Way to go Joe!

[Bob]

"If the "Democratic" Party is so hell bent on "transforming" this Nation from what our Founding Fathers gave us, something unique from virtually every other nation that has EVER existed on this planet, there are nearly 200 other nations you can go to that already HAVE what you are trying to shove down our throats!"

Sorry, dear, but OUR side won the election. Maybe YOU should leave. Maybe there's a banana republic somewhere that would suit your need for one-party rule.

[mark l.]

personally, i believe that the phenomena of blaming whites is simply another derivative manifestation of religious fervor.

i look at the observant jews, who believe that their persecution is a product of their god.

in many ways, the race baiters of the democrat party hold up white as the gods of blacks. Not loving gods...just gods who are responsbile for their individual failures. Joe wilson, to these race baiters, is just another prophet of the white gods.

forgive my social atheism, which departs from black liberation theology, but joe wilson is an individual.

how invested is obama is cultivating this 'religious' paranoia?
he's the freaking leader of this country...

his first speech in office should have been spent dismantling this delusional social religion.

from the gospel of st jeremiah-
aids was invented to kill black people?

the only problem is that either obama is a believer in this crap, or he knows its falseness, and doesn't want to diminish the tenets of the cult. which is worse?

our history is rife with racial cruelty that is undeniable...tuskegee for one...including and building a social belief system upon this other nonsense, without regards to its veracity, diminshes our nation's history for cheap political gains. Obama and all the other race baiters in the democrat party are the ones who are cashing the checks.

[Guardian]

Wow, a whole lot of passion. Take a step back if you will, this administration for all the hype is taking America for a ride that no one will care for. Have any of you read the so called health care bill? If so why would any clear thinking American promote it unless they want socialism? We are a free nation, stand up fellow Americans. The one thing in the health care reform act that should concern everyone is; the congress and senate is excluded from having too be covered under this bill. Please contact your representivies and ask why. Stand for freedom or fall for socialism. This is not about Republican v Democrat, this is about we the people.

[mark l.]

"Just saying something is not the same as proving it."

coming from a guy who said "cheney is a war criminal"? funny.

"Bush administration policies are responsible for a much higher share of the current budget deficit than anything Obama has done..."

no disagreement, but the context of 9 trillion is over the next 9 years. I can gripe about a 1.6 trillion deficit, but it was, in part left to him. .5 trillion though, represents increased spending, which is something obama is responsible for, along with all future increases that will outstrip our nation's growth.

"in the same post you accuse him of subverting the Constitution using a factually dishonest analysis that ignores Bush doing the same thing you accuse Obama of doing, only on a much more massive scale."

bob-are you serious?
bush's sins are his, and I judge accordingly. pretending that the bush deficits are anything like the obama projected deficits is absurd. you have no understanding of magnitude or scale, because of your love for obama and/or your loathing for bush.

just think, if you didn't have bush to at least attempt to justify obama's actions, you'd have nothing. your responses are the logic of "bush did it too..."?

and all this time I thought the dems wanted to hold obama up to fdr. guess it didn't fly.

going from 3.1 trillion dollar federal budget to 3.6 trillion would require a 16% growth in gdp to offset it. obama's budget projections consitently grow faster than our country can support.

If he can't balance the budget in 8 years, then should I be led to believe that no one can?

[Steve Harkonnen]

Joe Wilson has started a movement in this country. at first, I thought his statement would not help us. Instead, it's triggered a massive response. T-shirts depicting his comment, "YOU LIE" with the "O" showing the Obama symbol.

[Bob]

"bush's sins are his, and I judge accordingly. pretending that the bush deficits are anything like the obama projected deficits is absurd. you have no understanding of magnitude or scale, because of your love for obama and/or your loathing for bush."

The $9 billion projected deficit is mostly driven by debt-incurring policies that were initiated by Bush, combined with the effects of the economic downturn, none of which are Obama's fault. If you read the NYT article that contains the budget deficit analysis, they say the following:

"Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits."

So my statement about deficits is not due to my "love for obama and/or [my] loathing for bush." It's based on a study by expert financial analysts. What's YOUR rationale for blaming everything on Obama even though he's only been in office for 7 or 8 months?

In any case, the point is that Obama is doing exactly what should be expected of a moderate liberal Democrat. He's not breaking any laws or committing any ethical breaches. He's comporting himself in an honorable, respectful and restrained manner. I'm not trying to tell conservatives that they have to like him. But they SHOULD respect him and respect his office, rather than carry on as though there were anything illegitimate about him, or acting as though he didn't earn the right to be where he is. The Republicans LOST the election, and they just have to accept it with a tiny bit of grace.

[mark l.]

federal budget 2009-3.1 trillion.
federal budget 2010-3.6 trillion.

that's a 16% increase in one year, bob.

obama's only prayer is that we have record gdp growth. His 16% is going to have to be paid for by taxing the very businesses that are supposed to provide the growth.

his projections are based on three consecutive years of 4% growth. It will NEVER happen.

the 9 trillion is just the starting point. this thing winds up costing 12-14 trillion, minimum.

[Bob]

"federal budget 2009-3.1 trillion.
federal budget 2010-3.6 trillion.

that's a 16% increase in one year, bob."

Mark, are you just unwilling to take expert analyses seriously, or what? Here's a completely separate analysis (from just last month) of the federal budget deficit situation based on the most recent Congressional Budget Office report:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/08/deficit_numbers.html

The authors say,

"The revised deficit numbers reported by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget today show a lower deficit than previously estimated for 2009, with higher deficits for 2010 and beyond. Political opportunists will be busy looking for chances to score points over these numbers—pinning the dismal fiscal picture on the Obama administration.

The real story is, however, fairly obvious. The policies of the Bush administration, which included tax cuts during a time of war and a floundering economy, are clearly the primary source of the current deficits."

Obviously, policies and debts that were initiated under Bush are continuing to accrue while Obama is president, even though Obama is only the unfortunate inheritor of those debts and not the person who's ultimately responsible for them. As their analysis shows, Obama is himself responsible for only 16% of the current budget deficits, and that number is not expected to change significantly for the forseeable future. I don't know why you have so much trouble accepting this relatively straightforward conclusion of two separate sets of experts.

It's like I was asking (rhetorically) the other day in regards to the factual evidence that says that Medicare has consistently higher ratings from its enrollees than private insurance plans. At what point do you conservatives have to just accept factual evidence that says you're wrong? These things are not a matter of opinion -- they're scientific facts. How can you keep denying it?

[Seven Shange]

If one uses your twisted logic, John McCain and 99% of the Republican leadership are pretending to be Republicans for demanding respect for the office of the President. What exactly did you read in my comments that "fawn over" or "make excuses" for Barack Obama? How is it that you equate "Respect for the Office of the President of the United States" with attacking all Republicans? It's all a bit nutty in a right wing twisted logic sort of way! It's quite perplexing. Your argument is so weak as to almost warrant no response. I'm lying about being a "moderate republican"? How on earth would you know that? A bit of advice; screaming out "You Lie" is no way to win a debate! Making some sense is!

[Danny]

I think it time for Joe to resign before he make another ass out of him self. A person who would call someone a liar is no good. He should have stay home. He should be in the same chamber as the President whether he is a Republican or Democratic.

[Phillip N. Brader]

Well, Joe, you apparently stepped over the line (House Rules ?) with your outburst. So, shame on you and thanks for the apology.

However, I would note the following:

--- I really prefer the British system where you can call out when the facts are misrepresented. Maybe our lame Congress would be more productive if we could move to this protocol.

--- I think Obama is a good man at heart, but what's with "We can fix this problem without: 1) hurting any segment of our society, 2) not impacting the deficit." I don't think Obama is lying. I just think he is either 1) ill-informed, or 2) delusional.

--- I am sick of all the speeches on this "moving target".

But, my biggest issue is: How do we fix health care for the American people without tort reform ? We all know that fat cat lawyers are driving our costs. If BO did not bring up this subject (I didn't watch the whole speech), then his presentation was intellectually DISHONEST (and certainly does not go to HOPE & CHANGE).

So, Joe, good work, even if your timing was ill advised.

Ole Phil in Austin

[mark l.]

bob, you really stepped in the poop on your cap site.

take a look at their pie chart...

16% of the differences are obama's policies, which happen to match a certain 16% increase in the budget.

The pie chart is blaming bush for the federal govt's current funding. Not the increase when he took office, they are actually calling it a bush policy. This thing is so bad, winston smith would have wiped his ass with it.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I guess John McCain and 99% of the Republican leadership are pretending to be Republicans because they're demanding respect for the office of the President of the United States of America. Since when is demanding this respect for the office "fawning over Obama" or anyone else.

What might also be mentioned is that McCain and the Republican leadership also demanded the same respect for the office when the Obama Party and its members were screaming that Bush was a liar on the House and Senate floors.

What makes your behavior fawning over Obama is the fact that you supported people who namecalled Bush.

[mark l.]

their methodology is based on 2001 projections...

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy01/guide04.html
2000 and 2001 were supposed to have a 167 and 184 billion dollar surplus, respectively.

reality?
86 billion for 2000, minus 32 billion for 2001.

so do I blame bush for 300 billion accounting error?
his budget didn't start til 2002.

my mistake bob. I thought this was serious discussion and you repeat the sin that others have pointed out to you. Your sources are so bad, they aren't worth clicking on. I apologize for adding to the traffic of a truly miserably attempt at rewriting history. don't bother with links to support your delusions-they will go unread.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Meanwhile, what's really funny is watching the liar Bob babble about facts.

Especially when you figure out the facts that the liar Bob won't confront.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service states that, unlike Obama claims, Obama's bills WILL cover illegal immigrants.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamacare-wont-cover-illegal-immigrants--55021087.html

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that Obama's preventative care will not, unlike Obama claims, reduce costs -- and will in fact increase them.

http://politicalderby.com/2009/08/11/cbo-says-expanded-preventative-care-will-increase-cost/

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that Obama's health plans, rather than "bending the curve" of costs downward and saving money like Obama claims, will show no savings and will in fact vastly INCREASE costs.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html

These are all facts that demonstrate quite convincingly how Bob and his leftist sources all lie to cover up for Obama.

Now watch as Bob refuses to answer. What do you have against expert analysis, Bob? Is it because your bigoted ideology prevents you from dealing with facts? Why do you and Obama have to lie so much?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Your sources are so bad, they aren't worth clicking on. I apologize for adding to the traffic of a truly miserably attempt at rewriting history. don't bother with links to support your delusions-they will go unread."

And now, in preparation for the screaming tantrum that Bob will throw:

"Go out and cull a few dozen more links to web pages I'll never bother to visit. The thought of you wasting so much time based on something I wrote is endlessly entertaining. And the best part is, I don't even have to waste my own time reading your drivel.""

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/08/transcript-of-cheney-on-fox-news-sunday.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20120a53a0d1d970b#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20120a53a0d1d970b

Also remember that Bob himself stated that ad hominems and insults are perfectly acceptable and do not represent anything wrong.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/08/transcript-of-cheney-on-fox-news-sunday.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20120a5420cdc970b#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20120a5420cdc970b

So what we're going to see here shortly:

-- Bob will scream and throw a fit over mark I's statements about not reading links when Bob himself refuses to read other peoples' links

-- Bob will rant and whine about how awful it is to use ad hominems when Bob himself says it's perfectly acceptable to use ad hominems.

[Bob]

"The pie chart is blaming bush for the federal govt's current funding. Not the increase when he took office, they are actually calling it a bush policy."

Mark, sorry, but you're not even making sense. Of course Bush rightly gets the blame for his policies that continue to reduce gov't revenue (the Bush tax cuts that are still in effect) and add to deficit spending (the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the prescription drug benefit and the first rounds of TARP and economic stimulus). As has been pointed out, Obama's health care proposal is less than the sum of either Bush's tax cuts or the cost of the two wars.

Bush's biggest sin was taking the Clinton surplus and turning it -- all by himself -- into a trillion-dollar-plus deficit when it WASN'T NECESSARY. Now that Obama is forced to clean up the mess that Bush left behind, deficit spending to generate economic stimulus is the preferred approach in the economics profession, and it seems to have kept the economy from collapsing completely. Under the circumstances, a majority of economists think Obama is doing the right thing.

But as I keep saying, people who didn't complain about deficits during Bush's administration have no credibility when they suddenly develop a case of deficit-itis now that a Democrat is in the White House.

[donna]

PRINT THIS IF YOU DARE!

It doesn't matter if the PRESIDENT was not telling the truth. What matters is that JOE disrespected the HEAD OF OUR GOVERNMENT. WHO does HE think HE IS? If JOE is so impulsive that he can not control himself during a congressional assembly, he should get out of politics. If he had spoken that way to a JUDGE, he would be in jail right now for contempt. In this country we allow dissent, but we do not, under any circumstances allow the dispect of our HIGHEST OFFICE. I hated both Bushes, but in their presence, I would never dare to disrespect them because I hold in esteem the POSITION. My boss bugs me to no end, but I would NEVER call him a liar to his face, and especially not while he is making a public address. No apology will fix this. JOE should resign immediately. What's really going on?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"What matters is that JOE disrespected the HEAD OF OUR GOVERNMENT. WHO does HE think HE IS?"

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/09/024490.php

Now, Donna, since you claim to be a woman of principle, you're going to demand that Pete Stark resign immediately.

Or you're simply going to blabber and spin and show once more what a bunch of hypocrites you and your Obama Party are.

I will take odds at 100 to 1 on the former.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Bush's biggest sin was taking the Clinton surplus and turning it -- all by himself -- into a trillion-dollar-plus deficit when it WASN'T NECESSARY."

Funny, isn't it, how Bob and his blabbering ilk whine about how deficit spending is "necessary" in a recession.

Given that they and theirs were screaming and wetting themselves all the way through Bush's Presidency that we were in a recession, then, wouldn't it make sense then for Bush to be engaging in deficit spending, by their own logic?

http://mediamatters.org/research/200405010002

Of course not, because that doesn't fit their narrative. Everything Bush did was wrong, everything Obama did was right. That's why they are attacking Bush for deficit spending during what they insisted was a recession while defending Obama for massive deficit spending during what they claim is a recovery. The fact that this is totally contradictory completely eludes them.

This is, naturally, aided by their complete refusal to acknowledge facts.

"Of course Bush rightly gets the blame for his policies that continue to reduce gov't revenue (the Bush tax cuts that are still in effect)"

Um, no.

"Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year.

Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year.

So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/10/national/main2787123.shtml

Only in the strange and ludicrous world of the Obama puppet is an 11.2% increase and all-time record high tax collections a "reduction in government revenue".

[North Dallas Thirty]

And we see the mental state of the Obama addicts and puppets like Bob and Donna.

"It doesn't matter if the PRESIDENT was not telling the truth."

So the President can lie with impunity and Bob and Donna will support him.

Go figure. Obama can literally say and do whatever he wants, truthful or now, and Bob and Donna will scream and yell and wholeheartedly support it -- and call anyone who opposes him doing so or calls it out a racist.

[watson aldana]

Yesterday Congressman Joe Wilson talked to reporters about his claim that the President was lying about immigrants having access to health care subsidies under the President's health care plan. According to the NY Times:

“I’m for immigration,” [Wilson] said, adding that he had been an immigration lawyer, although he did not specify exactly what he had done. “But people who come toour country and violated our laws, we should not be providing full services.”

It struck me immediately that this would be bizarre if true. Going from representing immigrants to being a member of the virulently anti-immigrant Immigration Reform Caucus and getting an A- rating from anti-immigrant group Numbers USA as well as support from the anti-immigrant fundraising group ALIPAC would show a dramatic tranformation in one's views.

I've been practicing immigration law in the South for nearly 20 years and know a lot of my fellow immigration lawyers in this region. I didn't recognize the name Joe Wilson from West Columbia, South Carolina. So I decided to call some of my friends in the Carolina immigration bar - including some from Columbia - and no one is aware of Congressman Wilson ever handling immigration matters.

South Carolina's immigration bar is not large. And immigration in the state has only been substantial in recent years. Wilson left private practice in 2001 so the odds of him having an immigration practice that escaped the notice of the state's handful of other immigration lawyers is extremely remote.

Did Congressman Wilson - who is making national headlines for calling the President a liar - lie to the national media about his being an immigration lawyer? If so, why? Was it somehow to make it seem like his incorrect reading of the health care bill's immigration provision was accurate?

Congressman Wilson can clear this up by producing evidence of having filed immigration cases and actually having knowledge of immigration law. Former immigration clients of Joe Wilson - speak up and show the world your former lawyer is not the liar he accuses the President of being!

[Immigration Specialist]

According to all the evidence so far, Joe Wilson is not now, and never was, an immigration lawyer. I have practiced immigration law (representing mostly torture victims and other refugees seeking, and winning, asylum in the USA) since 1983; immigration law is as bad as tax law for complexity and illogic, and only an experienced lawyer can rightly call him/herself an "immigration lawyer" -- taking a case or two doesn't qualify. My South Carolina colleagues say he is not part of the club, and may not even have taken a case or two. Have a look here -- http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/did_joe_wilson_lie_about_having_been_an_immigratio.php -- and draw your own conclusions.

[KarenJ]

http://www.longislandwins.com/blog/in_the_news/joe_wilsonstill_not_an_immigra.php

IN THE NEWS
Joe Wilson LIED - Not An Immigration Lawyer?
By Patrick Young, Esq. CARECEN September 15, 2009 9:58 AM

Yesterday, I reported that Joe Wilson, the Congressman who yelled out "You Lie" to President Obama, might have himself lied soon afterwards. Wilson said that his explosion was not anti-immigrant (Obama was talking about immigrants at the time) saying that he himself was an immigration lawyer. Immigration Attorney Greg Siskind asked in his blog if this was true since no other immigration lawyer he knew was familiar with Wilson in that capacity. I added that Wilson's official biography describes him as a real estate attorney. Now the story is being taken up by other writers.

TPM Muckraker has one of the more interesting investigations of this issue.

One lawyer from Wilson's home county of Lexington -- who said he has known Wilson personally since 1985 and described himself as very familiar with Wilson's law practice -- declared flatly to TPMmuckraker: "Joe has never been anything but a real-estate attorney."

The lawyer allowed that it was theoretically possible that Wilson could have taken a few immigration cases on the side, or have worked in the field before 1985, but he described that possibility as remote. "You could call 150 lawyers down here and ask if Wilson did immigration law, they'd say: 'Hell no.'"

Another South Carolina lawyer who has practiced immigration law since 1988 said much the same thing. "I can't say that the group of us in South Carolina who practice immigration law think of him as having" worked in the field, said the lawyer. He, too, allowed that it's "conceivable" that Wilson worked in a niche of immigration law that didn't cross paths with his own. But, he said, "if he has practiced as an immigration attorney, I'm not aware of it."

And George Finnan, a South Carolina immigration lawyer who has worked in the field since 1993, likewise said he "doesn't know anything about" Wilson's alleged immigration work. Finnan stressed that the world of South Carolina immigration lawyers is relatively small and tight-knit, and judged it all but impossible that Wilson could have done substantial immigration work in the last 16 years.

Nor was the American Immigration Lawyers Association of any help in documenting Wilson's immigration work. A spokesman for the group told TPMmuckraker that no one named Joe Wilson from South Carolina is currently a registered member, and that no one shows up under that name in a member database that goes back "ten to fifteen years." We asked the spokesman to look up the name "Addison Wilson" -- the congressman's real first name -- and he pledged to do so, but didn't get back to us before the end of the day. We'll update if we hear back on that.

Late Update: AILA spokesman George Tzamaras confirms to TPMmuckraker that, according to an extensive search of the group's membership database, no one from South Carolina by the name Joe Wilson or Addison Wilson has ever been a member.

[Red]

I'd check my facts if I were you. According to a Sept. 14 report post on TMPMuckraker, the American Immigration Lawyers Association DOES NOT LIST Joe Wilson (under Joe Wilson or Addison Wilson) as ever having BEEN an Immigration layer. Immigration law, it seems, is a highly specialized practice. Joe was a REAL ESTATE attorney, NOT an immigration lawyer.

Here's their website. http://www.aila.org/ You can contact them yourself.

[Gary Swanson]

This isn't the first time that Joe wilson has played games with the truth. During an interview that he did on C-Span several years ago he denied that the U.S. was supplying weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran even though the Reagan administration was doing that and being quite open about. A few day later Wilson apologized to the congressman he accused of hating America when those transactions were pointed out during that interview. By the way, there's no record, even on Joe Wilson's very own official bio (www.joewilson.house.gov) of his ever practicing immigration law. The man is a real estate lawyer.

So, who's lying?

[Jay]

I'm from South Carolina and I have to say this idiot Joe Wilson really makes us look bad. Between him and our governor, we really look like a banana republic. Still, not everybody here is so messed up. In fact, South Carolina has a good side if you overlook the extreme politics/scandals.

[hustonritc]

tonne recent united oceans number