PDA

View Full Version : Fruitcake-gate?


Stelliform
Jul 23, 2003, 01:52 PM
I saw this story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92667,00.html) on FoxNews.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 01:59 PM
there's some serious stuff beneath all that. one Dem stayed behind (while the others went to the library) to keep the republicans from voting on the issue at hand w/ a unanimous vote. still, thomas called for the vote and banged the gavel a split second later, declaring the vote unanimous. that's what kicked off the fight.

Stelliform
Jul 23, 2003, 02:02 PM
....

Sayhey
Jul 23, 2003, 03:22 PM
Now, the Congress has a long history of fights breaking out in hearings and on the floor between members. If I remember correctly, after the Civil War one member beat another with a cane on the floor of the House. What's new here is the use of the police by one party to intimidate the other. But then Tom Delay set the precedent with the use of Homeland Security to track those Texas Democrats.

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 07:15 PM
If a Republican Congressman had made these comments, there would be non stop hysteria over it. Welcome to politics.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by macfan
If a Republican Congressman had made these comments, there would be non stop hysteria over it. Welcome to politics.

i excuse neither the stark comments nor the actions of thomas -- even before he called the cops.

notice two things:
1. thomas issued an apology today (which is proper)
2. few if any democrats are coming to stark's defense on his comments

pseudobrit
Jul 23, 2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by macfan
If a Republican Congressman had made these comments, there would be non stop hysteria over it. Welcome to politics.

If a Republican Congressman had made those comments, he would have made them against Barney Frank, which would have been cause for nonstop hysteria.

At least Congressmen aren't caning each other and challenging one another to duels anymore.

macfan
Jul 23, 2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
If a Republican Congressman had made those comments, he would have made them against Barney Frank, which would have been cause for nonstop hysteria.

At least Congressmen aren't caning each other and challenging one another to duels anymore.

There's no reason to think that a Republican Congressman calling a Democrat a **** sucker would automatically be talking about Barney Frank.

wwworry
Jul 24, 2003, 05:54 AM
Surprise surprise, another incomplete news story from Fox.

I spoke to someone who had just come form dinner with a congressional aid who was there (2nd hand). Stark's outburst was preceded by one of the republicans saying to him, "What's a matter old man, did you forget your pills?"

That's why he started ranting about the vitality of his opponent.

By tradition the revised bill is supposed to be given to all members of the committee one day before a vote. Thomas handed out the bill at midnight the day before. The dems did not want to vote on a bill they had not read and were miffed at Thomas for another autocratic display. They called for a reading of the 70 page bill, which is allowed, before the vote. Stark was left in the room so the repubs wouldn't pull any tricks. The rest of the Dems were in the other room planning.

That's when the "pills" comment came and then the rest.

What's interesting is that by an 1800s rule a congressman is allowed to criticize a bill, "This bill is dishonest." but not allowed to criticize another congressperson. If called on it, the insulting congressperson is not allowed to speak for one day. Obscure, but true.

mactastic
Jul 24, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by wwworry What's interesting is that by an 1800s rule a congressman is allowed to criticize a bill, "This bill is dishonest." but not allowed to criticize another congressperson. If called on it, the insulting congressperson is not allowed to speak for one day. Obscure, but true. [/B]

If that were enforced regularly, there whouldn't be a lot of talking coming from that branch of government. Might be nice for a while come to think of it.

IJ Reilly
Jul 24, 2003, 02:13 PM
All of this nonsense is mere loose change compared to what went on in the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday during the Pryor nomination "hearings" (a term to be used advisedly).

Apparently it has now become acceptable to label as "anti-Catholic" any Senator who questions a federal judicial nominee about his views on certain matters of Constitutional law. What's more, it's even acceptable to label Catholics as "anti-Catholic" when they ask these questions. All according to the esteemed Senator Hatch, of course.