I agree with the editors of the Washington Post’s assessment of the newly-elected representative from the state of Montana:
“GIANFORTE GRABBED Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.†That was Fox News reporter Alicia Acuna’s account of how Greg Gianforte allegedly assaulted Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs, the day before Mr. Gianforte won a special election to fill Montana’s at-large congressional seat. Along with an audio recording of the incident, the eyewitness accounts confirm that the now-congressman-elect engaged in brutish behavior. That he subsequently tried to blame Mr. Jacobs for the incident, in which the reporter was merely asking an honest question, makes Mr. Gianforte’s actions all the more inexcusable.
Inexcusable means inexcusable. The House, led by Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who said “there’s never a call for physical altercation,†should have made clear that Mr. Gianforte would not be welcome in the chamber.
Historically, the Houses of Congress have had the power to limit their own membership. Ever since Powell v. McCormack the only grounds that either house of Congress has had for refusing to seat a member has been those specifically laid out in the Constitution. Shoving a reporter isn’t one of them.
I think that Paul Ryan should make it very clear to Mr. Gianforte that he’s not welcome in the House and do whatever lies in his power to follow through with that. Regardless of your feelings about reporters in general or the particular reporter involved, resorting to physical altercation is beyond the pale. Having principles means acting on them even when it goes against your interests.
Claims that this incident in Montana is emblematic of Republicans in general or of a grave disorder in our politics seem overwrought to me. There are more than a half million elected offices in the United States which means that there are more than a million candidates for office. One incident of battery doth not a trend make and claiming that it does sounds more to me like opportunism than analysis.
BTW, based on my experience as a juror in a case of battery, don’t be surprised if Mr. Gianforte is never convicted of anything or, if convicted, is merely given a nominal fine and probation. Battery is harder to prove than you might think. If my experience is any gauge it’s as indicative of malice on the part of the plaintiff as it is miscreance on the part of the defendant.
Stuart Stevens, strategist for Romney, tweeted that this was more an example of “rich Silicon Valley executives losing their cool.”
Gianforte has a rep as a hothead all around.
His supporters’ responses are the indications of problems in the party. “More, more.”
You’re the one who says there’s a civil war a-coming. Anyway, conservatives love this sort of thing when their side does it. It means nothing, nothing at all. Nobody’s remotely troubled and Paul Ryan won’t do anything and this guy’s ludicrous ideas about Noah and his 600 years of productivity negating the need for Social Security (as if Noah wasn’t getting plastered for the last 400 and sleeping in) will be treated as if they are normal.
My contribution is some examples of uncivil behavior from Canadian politics. There is Justin Trudeau shoving a women. Before that Jean Chretien, a PM who did a chokehold. And Pierre Trudeau gave the middle finger.
I note only Justin of the three felt enough backlash to apologize – and it is already forgotten. You never can tell what voters really care about.
The incident has received as much attention as it has because the object of the battery was a reporter, under the principle of never picking a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
Oddly, I think that organized violence in the streets that goes ignored by the police is a much greater threat to the Republic than one guy blowing his top at an overbearing reporter. I’m not justifying it. He shouldn’t have done it and deserves to be punished.
Oh I heartily disapprove what happened too.
It just recalled a more perculiar part of Canadian politics.
Most curious to me is what unwelcoming means? At what point is ostracizing an elected politician appropriate and when does it become disenfranchising voters?
It would only be disenfranchising voters if their district had no other possible candidates. The issue is one of relative priorities.
Just for the record I think that Powell v. McCormack was wrongly decided. There are higher priorities than re-electing incumbents.
Lets remember that after impeaching federal judge Alcee Hastings, for bribery, the House more or less welcomed him when he was elected as a Representative. Plus he was considered for chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at a later time.
So, ample precedent to hmmm overlook minor transgressions, etc.
While I think you are correct that we should not generalize from single incidents, all of the conservatives in my long running email group were totally supportive of Pianoforte attacking the guy. The journalist was a “snowflake”. The depth of hatred for any media that is not completely on their side is pretty profound.
Steve
Dave, I may have misread your reply. But if unwelcome you want to exclude Gianforte from Congress, then just say expulsion. Expulsion from Congress requires a 2/3rd majority — it does not require violating “good behavior” or high crimes or misdemeanors.
This got me interested at Powell v. McCormack and it has striking analogies to NLRB vs Noel Canning. The Constitution has given the (President/House) a power (appoint government officials/control who is a member). However the power is regulated by a primary method (senate confirmation / a 2/3 majority to expel) but a secondary “easier” method exists under certain conditions (recess appointment when Congress is not available / 1/2 majority on qualifications and election disputes). The Court rules to sharply limit “abusive” interpretations of the secondary method because it would otherwise render the primary method obsolete.
There is the matter of mootness in Powell v. McCormack, but otherwise the ruling seems pretty consistent how the Supreme Court views these things, hence NRLB vs Noel Canning. I note it was a 7-1 majority.
I’m curious, how was the case wrongly decided?
And it is disenfranchising whether to prevent someone elected from being a member of Congress or to expel them. More so then in other countries, the American system emphasizes the choosing of individuals over choosing of a party. To deny them their choice just because there are other candidates reminds me what the Chinese told Hong Kong regarding universal suffrage – everyone can vote, vote between the candidates we (the Chinese government) approve.
An unfair analogy, but an example of why I support the Court in ruling as it did.
Again, this is not a defense of Gianforte’s actions. I’m open as to exactly what should his punishment be beyond public condemnation, including expulsion if the case can be made that broader interests of the republic outweigh the costs of disenfranchising his voters.