Talking about dishonesty now frowned upon in Congress

Haha

After Congressman Joe Wilson accused President Barack Obama of lying during is national address last week, Congress has apparently been hard at work figuring out which words are OK to use. God these people are worthless.

As a guide for debate, it is permissible in debate to challenge the President on matters of policy. The difference is one between political criticism and personally offensive criticism. For example, a Member may assert in debate that an incumbent President is not worthy of re-election, but in doing so should not allude to personal misconduct. By extension, a Member may assert in debate that the House should conduct an inquiry, or that a President should not remain in office.

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.”

A member of Congress, therefore, can not call a president a liar, a hypocrite, or dishonest. They also would not have been allowed to discuss President Clinton’s “sexual misconduct.” How this is relevant today is curious. Do they know something about who Obama’s been rubbing up against that we don’t?