WASHINGTON — Democrats filed into the House chamber on Thursday — depleted and punch drunk — to vote for an overstuffed resolution condemning prejudice — and end, or so they hoped, a week of infighting that vividly illustrated the perils of policing their own speech.
“I hope this puts an end to all of this,” said Representative Robin Kelly, Democrat of Illinois, moments before the measure, which condemned anti-Semitism and virtually every other form of bigotry, passed with unanimous Democratic support.
It almost certainly will not. The measure, which began as a rebuke to Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota and a freshman lawmaker, and ended as a catchall declaration of tolerance that did not mention her by name, seemed to satisfy no one. Ultimately, the wrenching intraparty fight left unanswered a question that transcends partisan politics: In an era of shouting and provocation, how should Congress respond when its members say hateful or hurtful things?
Ms. Omar, who suggested that pro-Israel activists were pushing an “allegiance to a foreign country,” is hardly the first member of Congress to make offensive remarks. Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, spent more than a decade making bigoted comments — he once said Mexicans had “calves the size of cantaloupes” from running drugs across the border — before he was stripped of his committee assignments after he wondered aloud why the term “white supremacy” was considered offensive.
Plenty of others have skated up to the edge of racism and anti-Semitism with no consequence. Representative Andy Biggs, Republican of Arizona who branded Ms. Omar an anti-Semite, raised eyebrows in 2016 when he charged that the Jewish philanthropist George Soros was buying a local election for county attorney. Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, complained bitterly that last week’s anti-Semitism resolution had been watered down, just a few months after he accused Mr. Soros of collaborating with the Nazis during World War II. Patrick Gaspard, the president of Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundations, demanded Mr. Gohmert apologize for the “disturbing and false anti-Semitic slur.”
[Read also: “Why Some Republicans Voted Against the Antibigotry Resolution.”]
While Republicans did rebuke Mr. King and occasionally criticize President Trump’s language — such as when he said there were “very fine people on both sides” of the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. — rarely have they engaged in the kind of public soul-searching Democrats undertook last week. Now many Democrats worry they have set a new standard, creating a precedent that mandates a major response every time a member transgresses rules of rhetorical decorum that are ill-defined and subject to dispute.
“We have to be careful,” said Ms. Kelly, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, which fought to blunt criticism of Ms. Omar. “She was elected just like I was, and she has the right to say what she believes, just as I do.”
Then there is the question of what happens if there is a next time. Some Jewish groups are already demanding that Ms. Omar be stripped of her seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee — a step Democratic leaders have thus far been loath to take.
“That’s the real question: what if this happens again? What are we going to do?” asked Representative Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey, who was among those pushing strongly for a resolution focused solely on anti-Semitism.
There are virtually no rules governing a House members’ right to say whatever they please outside of the parliamentary regulations covering proceedings on the floor and in committees. The first article of the official code of conduct of members, enforced by the Committee on Ethics, contains only a broad declaration, that, “A member, delegate, resident commissioner, officer or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”
Punishing members for what they say, either through formal or informal channels, has been relatively rare since the 19th century, and representatives are far more likely to face a meaningful backlash by bucking leadership politically than for anything else they say.
“We can’t police everybody’s speech, but there is a line,” said a visibly upset Representative Lois Frankel, a Democrat who represents a heavily Jewish district in Florida. She said Ms. Omar had crossed that line — intentionally or not — by criticizing the motives of Israel’s supporters instead of the policies of the Israeli government. That left a “blemish” on a party that prides itself on inclusion.
“The King thing seemed like an easy call,” Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, said of Mr. King’s punishment. “Have we set a precedent that we now have to live with? It’s hard to know. But we can’t keep doing this. We can’t stay on the seesaw.”
Ms. Omar, 36, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, fled war-torn Somalia when she was a child and spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya. She has been fending off accusations of anti-Semitism for weeks; before last week’s uproar, Democratic leaders forced her to apologize for a comment she made in February, when she said support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins, baby” — a reference to 0 bills. Democratic leaders came down hard on her, and in her apology, she expressed gratitude to “Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes.”
So when she told a gathering of liberals that pro-Israel activists were pushing “for allegiance to a foreign country,” leading Jewish Democrats were furious. Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee — who had already warned Ms. Omar that such comments would not be “swept under the rug” — issued a statement calling her words “a vile anti-Semitic slur” that had “no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee” — an indication, many felt, that she was in danger of losing her seat.
Instead, Mr. Engel and other top Democrats settled on a resolution condemning anti-Semitism; at first they wanted to name Ms. Omar. But their plan went awry amid pushback from progressives and members of the black caucus, who noted that Ms. Omar herself was recently the target of anti-Muslim bigotry in West Virginia, where a poster linked her to the Sept. 11 attacks.
By Tuesday evening, Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who insisted that Ms. Omar not be named and who wanted a broader resolution — had stepped in, telling her members the resolution would be amended to include anti-Muslim bias; eventually, it was expanded to include a condemnation of all forms of bigotry.
Mr. King abstained from the vote, and 23 Republicans voted against the resolution, most of them deeming it a show vote. Some said Democrats should have handled Ms. Omar the way Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, handled Mr. King, by stripping her of her committee assignments.
Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, who has served in the House for a quarter-century, said there was no comparison between Ms. Omar’s situation and Mr. King’s transgressions. In June, when Mr. King retweeted a Nazi sympathizer, Republican leaders and fellow Republicans said nothing. Only after he secured his seat after his toughest re-election bid did they act.
“They put up with his outrageous comments for more than a decade, and they only took action because they thought it would damage the Republican brand,” she said.
Several Democratic members privately questioned Ms. Pelosi’s decision to bring up the resolution at all, arguing the matter should have been dealt with in private to avoid a messy and distracting public debate. Others likened the internal debate over the resolution to a weeklong family therapy session, a painful but necessary airing of grievances.
“That is the silver lining,” said Representative Hank Johnson, Democrat of Georgia, who came to power in 2007 after defeating a fellow Democrat who had also been accused of anti-Semitism. “We need to talk about things like this.”
Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and an author of the antibigotry resolution, said Ms. Pelosi had established guidelines for future behavior.
“If we don’t stand on principles and values we’re going to be chasing every legislator in Congress around and proofreading their remarks,” he said. In a seeming warning to Ms. Omar, he added, “And we expect everybody to live up to the high standards we set out.”
Democrats say they do not have the luxury of ignoring bigotry. With Ms. Omar, they are appealing to her own sense of responsibility to the party, and offering their own experience as a guide on how to move forward.
In 2010, Mr. Grijalva called on tourists and conventioneers to boycott his home state of Arizona after Republicans passed a restrictive immigration law. He was hit with a backlash that taught him to temper his tongue.
“It was a nightmare,” he said. “I felt like I was in a tunnel and couldn’t get out. But you learn. There is a muddy line between candor and civility — and civility is important around here. Whether you really mean it or not, that’s another question.”B:
165cohkm生财有道彩票网“【加】【把】【劲】，【把】【车】【推】【出】【去】。” 【绵】【绵】【细】【雨】【之】【中】，【拜】【伦】【一】【边】【指】【挥】，【一】【边】【不】【管】【身】【上】【沾】【上】【的】【泥】【污】，【跟】【随】【自】【己】【手】【下】【的】【士】【兵】【们】【一】【同】【将】【陷】【入】【泥】【潭】【中】【的】【马】【车】【推】【了】【出】【去】。 【马】【车】【的】【后】【轮】【刚】【从】【泥】【坑】【里】【出】【来】，【埃】【基】【尔】【松】【便】【马】【上】【跑】【到】【前】【面】【掀】【开】【盖】【在】【车】【上】【的】【毡】【布】，【那】【里】【面】【装】【的】【都】【是】【上】【好】【的】【亚】【麻】【布】，【要】【是】【被】【泥】【水】【污】【染】【了】，【肯】【定】【会】【跌】【价】。 “【货】【没】【事】
【慕】【沉】【把】【自】【己】【查】【到】【的】【事】【情】，【包】【括】【景】【麒】【亲】【口】【承】【认】【的】【内】【容】【都】【告】【诉】【了】【慕】【培】【新】。 【慕】【培】【新】【看】【着】【手】【上】【的】【这】【一】【份】DNA【鉴】【定】【报】【告】，【陷】【入】【了】【良】【久】【的】【沉】【默】。 【之】【前】【他】【只】【做】【了】【他】【和】【于】【蔓】【芝】【的】DNA【鉴】【定】，【并】【且】【还】【自】【信】【满】【满】【的】【认】【为】【这】【样】【子】【就】【足】【以】【证】【明】【景】【瑜】【的】【身】【份】【了】。 【可】【是】【现】【在】【慕】【沉】【拿】【来】【的】【报】【告】，【白】【纸】【黑】【字】【写】【着】【景】【瑜】【和】【于】【蔓】【芝】【之】【间】【的】DNA
【这】【母】【子】【俩】【一】【死】，【秦】【朗】【得】【到】【消】【息】【如】【何】【能】【忍】？ 【在】【他】【心】【态】【崩】【溃】【的】【时】【候】【动】【手】，【且】【他】【在】【明】【处】【自】【己】【在】【暗】【处】，【加】【上】【回】【京】【路】【途】【遥】【远】，【适】【合】【设】【伏】【的】【地】【方】【简】【直】【不】【要】【太】【多】，【得】【手】【的】【几】【率】【至】【少】【在】【八】【成】【以】【上】。 【八】【成】，【基】【本】【相】【当】【于】【成】【功】！【非】【常】【值】【得】【试】【一】【试】【了】。 【所】【以】，【那】【些】【流】【言】【虽】【然】【说】【是】【流】【言】，【但】【是】【其】【实】【跟】【真】【相】【基】【本】【上】【没】【差】【多】【少】。 【武】【王】【父】
【对】【于】【如】【何】【处】【置】【东】【芝】【社】，【沈】【默】【还】【真】【有】【一】【个】【不】【怎】【么】【成】【熟】【的】【计】【划】。 【原】【本】【的】【东】【芝】【社】【在】【八】【岐】【大】【蛇】【的】【经】【营】【下】，【已】【经】【将】【势】【力】【范】【围】【覆】【盖】【了】【整】【座】【岛】【国】，【操】【控】【了】【岛】【国】【大】【半】【的】【产】【业】【与】【社】【团】，【绝】【大】【多】【数】【的】【知】【名】【集】【团】【或】【者】【产】【业】【都】【能】【找】【到】【东】【芝】【社】【活】【动】【的】【影】【子】。 【如】【此】【庞】【然】【巨】【物】，【弹】【指】【间】【就】【能】【带】【动】【难】【以】【估】【量】【的】【财】【富】【与】【利】【益】【纠】【葛】，【如】【果】【仅】【仅】【因】【为】【八】【岐】【大】165cohkm生财有道彩票网【将】【两】【个】【半】【块】【青】【铜】【貔】【貅】【块】【拿】【在】【手】【里】，【宁】【耶】【不】【由】【得】【长】【松】【了】【一】【口】【气】，【点】【头】【同】【意】【撤】【离】。 【就】【这】【样】，【他】【们】【三】【人】【背】【着】【背】【包】，【提】【着】【获】【得】【的】【战】【利】【品】，【急】【匆】【匆】【地】【朝】【荒】【地】【外】【奔】【去】。 【而】【当】【他】【们】【奔】【到】【荒】【地】【边】【缘】【时】，【黄】【豆】【大】【的】【雨】【点】【已】【经】【噼】【里】【啪】【啦】【地】【打】【了】【下】【来】。 【他】【们】【三】【人】【一】【点】【也】【不】【敢】【停】【步】，【淋】【着】【雨】【飞】【也】【似】【地】【就】【躲】【回】【了】【荒】【地】【边】【缘】【那】【老】【夫】【妇】【的】【平】【房】
【顾】【北】【嘴】【角】【微】【微】【弯】【起】【一】【抹】【邪】【笑】，【身】【影】【一】【闪】，【直】【接】【冲】【了】【出】【去】。 【左】【一】【爪】【右】【一】【爪】，【几】【十】【只】【老】【鼠】【被】【他】【宛】【如】【割】【韭】【菜】【一】【般】，【一】【茬】【又】【一】【茬】【儿】，【很】【快】【便】【将】【所】【有】【的】【老】【鼠】【都】【给】【灭】【了】，【包】【括】【想】【往】【下】【水】【道】【里】【面】【钻】【的】，【也】【不】【例】【外】。 “【别】【怪】【我】，【要】【怪】【就】【怪】【这】【个】【残】【忍】【的】【世】【界】【吧】！” 【他】【看】【着】【堵】【的】【死】【死】【的】【老】【鼠】【洞】，【摇】【了】【摇】【头】，【直】【接】【先】【离】【开】【了】。 【下】
【在】【解】【开】【封】【印】【的】【瞬】【间】，【沈】【鑫】【就】【收】【敛】【了】【气】【息】，【他】【不】【想】【这】【些】【冥】【龙】【一】【出】【现】，【就】【对】【他】【惊】【骇】【万】【分】。 【因】【此】，【沈】【鑫】【在】【一】【群】【冥】【龙】【面】【前】【没】【有】【一】【丝】【的】【存】【在】【感】，【他】【淡】【然】【的】【站】【在】【一】【旁】，【饶】【有】【兴】【趣】【的】【看】【着】【群】【龙】【们】【靠】【近】。 “【冥】，【做】【的】【不】【错】，【我】【们】【冥】【龙】【一】【族】【终】【于】【自】【由】【了】。”【龙】【群】【里】【一】【只】【个】【头】【巨】【大】【的】【冥】【龙】【开】【口】【道】。 【欧】【若】【冥】【却】【是】【摇】【头】【道】:“【长】【老】，【解】