The House of Representatives voted along party lines 240 to 179 to issue a symbolic (this is to say, toothless) resolution stating that the august body “disapproves” of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) interrupting President Barack Hussein Obama’s speech by shouting “You lie!” during the joint session of Congress held on Sept. 9, 2009,” reports The New York Times:  

“This is about the rules of this House and reprehensible conduct,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House and a home-state colleague of Mr. Wilson who led the Democratic argument for the resolution.

Democrats characterized the sanction as mild and said they would not have pursued any action at all had Mr. Wilson taken the floor and apologized to his colleagues for disrupting the address. …

While some lawmakers have suggested that Mr. Wilson’s outburst had a racial component, top Democrats played down that view and said they were acting strictly to uphold proper order in the House. …

The House historian’s office said no lawmaker had ever previously been held to account for behavior toward the president during an appearance on Capitol Hill - though lawmakers have been cited for personal attacks on a president during routine House debate when the chief executive was not present. House guidelines on the rules of debate say it is impermissible to refer to the president as a liar.

Given that the British Prime Minister is routinely subjected to blistering attacks in Parliament meant to hold them to account – on a daily basis, if necessary – the delicate sensibilities of Congressional legislators may be counterproductive.  

Wilson did not curse at Obama, or use a racial epithet to demean him (Maureen Dowd’s hearing impairment notwithstanding). And, technically, he did not call the president a “liar” – he said “you lie.” There is a subtle difference, explains The Wall Street Journal’s Eric Felton in an article that was presciently published before the brouhaha over Wilson’s behavior:

A century ago, even those in the rough-and-tumble politics of a rough-and-tumble age strove to avoid using what [Teddy] Roosevelt called the "short and ugly word" - liar. No more. Every political contest, every policy dispute these days, seems to dissolve into blunt accusations of lying. The most common epithet heard in the rumbustious town hall meetings of the past month - hurled from both sides - has been "liar." …

The short and ugly word is meant to wound, but it has dulled from overuse. In the early days of the Republic "certain slurs were off limits, tame as they are by modern standards," Joanne Freeman writes in her history "Affairs of Honor." Words like "rascal," "scoundrel," "coward" - and, yes, "liar" - "were fighting words, and anyone who hurled them at an opponent was risking his life." …

[W]hen it comes to telling tales that count, not everyone is a "liar." The term used to mean not just that one had told a lie in some particular instance, but that one was in the habit of telling lies. To call someone a liar was not to quibble about the truth of any particular statement, but to make a judgment about his character.

Wilson called the president out for a particular lie about a particular aspect of his health “reform” proposal, and did not suggest that every word out of his mouth on any subject is a lie.

Still, Washington lawyer and former special counsel to President Clinton, Lanny Davis, shrinks from the merest suggestion that a highly polarizing president (fourth item) with a radical agenda could “lie.” In this Washington Times op-ed, he argues:

Even if President Obama's claim was not true that his health care programs excluded illegal aliens, that does not make it a "lie." Lying requires intentional deception - not accidental or careless falsehoods. "To lie is to state something that one knows to be false," according to Wikipedia. Lying is a "false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive, an intentional falsehood," according to Dictionary.com.

I tested this commonly understood definition of "lie" vs. a "false statement" on my expert on the subject, my 11 year-old son, Josh.

"Josh, what's a lie?" I asked.

"It's when I tell you I did my homework when I didn't do my homework," he said.

"But suppose you thought you had done your homework, because you had done your reading but had forgotten that you hadn't done your math. Would that be a lie - or a mistake?" I asked Josh.

"A mistake," said Josh.

"So what's the difference between a lie and a mistake?" I asked Josh.

"I never lie to you, dad - only make mistakes."

To Davis, it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. Obama - a fellow lawyer and a former legislator and community activist - knows full well what is explicitly stated in the bill, and what is left deliberately ambiguous and open to interpretation when the regulations that put the legislation into effect are written. This window into Obama’s thought processes undercuts Davis’s thesis:

In 2001, Obama said it's a "tragedy" the Constitution wasn't radically interpreted to force redistribution of wealth for blacks, and it's still an issue of concern for him today. And he suggested he wants to effect "major redistributive change" through legislation. …

"One of the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change," he said while serving as a state lawmaker and University of Chicago lecturer. "And in some ways, we still suffer from that." …

"Maybe I'm sharing my bias here as a legislator, but I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," he added. "The institution just isn't structured that way."

Obama explained that justices felt uncomfortable forcing school districts to pay the extra expense to make the necessary changes to accommodate their desegregation rulings. They would rather not get involved in issues of direct remuneration. Legislators, on the other hand, would have no such qualms about making people pay.

He said the process of redistributive change and "economic justice" is "administrative and takes a lot of time" - things that are best left to a federal administration and legislature.

By ginning up “outrage” House Dems who voted to censure Wilson are merely trying to deflect attention from the infighting amongst their counterparts in the Senate over healthcare “reform” proposals. Predictably, Repubs ginned up outrage over the outrage, reports The Washington Post:

The raw emotions of American politics found full-throated voice Tuesday in and around the Capitol. At any given moment, someone was expressing outrage - or counter-outrage. …

Throughout the day, the "House triangle" - the spot where lawmakers speak to the cameras, the Capitol angling away in the background - was a scene of heavy traffic. First there was a health-care news conference at 10 a.m. with parents of disabled children. Then, at 11, the issue was same-sex marriage. At noon, the prayer vigil took place. As the vigil was breaking up, a gaggle of college kids poured into the triangle, some members of Congress and staff gathered, and a black Suburban pulled up and disgorged Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

"This is a big, big deal," Duncan said into the microphones. Everyone on hand knew he was referring to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 - "the largest investment in college education since the G.I. Bill."

But his media turnout was relatively feeble. The major news of the day Tuesday was the debate in the House over whether to pass the resolution targeting Wilson.

WaPo columnist Michael Kinsley, for one, has wearied of the farce:

Apparently, though, it is against House rules for a representative to call the president a liar during an official session of the House, even if you sincerely think he is one. Or, for that matter, even if he really is one - as all of them are, on occasion. The purpose of this rule is to attempt to enforce a level of civility in the political debate. The result, though, is just the opposite: It is simply another opportunity for a fusillade in the Umbrage Wars. … Taking offense at someone else's possibly over-vigorous exercise of free speech, demanding an apology and so on has replaced much serious discussion about, oh, health care, the financial crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, stuff like that. Umbrage is so much easier: You can do it in your sleep, or on talk radio.

Umbrage is itself, generally, a lie. The ostensible victim of the offensive remark (call him or her the "umbragee") is actually delighted at the opportunity, while the ostensible offense giver (call him or her the "umbragor") is sorry to have wandered into this thicket, or is made to feel sorry as the umbrage game plays itself out. The rules of the game are perverse but simple: I scream with pain until you cry "uncle."

By now, all of us are crying “uncle” and wish Congress would get back to the people’s business.