My Land, what is going on up there in the states? For the first time in American History, we had a congressman shouting insults from the House in the presidents face, during an official speech. And while, under pressure from colleagues, he reported phoned the White House to apologize, he refuse to make a public apology and is using the incident to raise campaign funds.
Every time I open a US paper there is another story about republicans behaving badly. People are packing guns to town hall meetings with the president and claiming the President is trying to corrupt our children (or even plotting to murder us all). A minister was reportedly praying for the President to die.
I know that there has been a long on going discussion here about whether or not right wing pundits are ruder than their counterparts on the left, but I wonder if there is can be any doubt left on the question. Rudeness and incivility in the republican party are no longer the province of the wacko fringe or the sensationalists, they've hit the political big time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For the first time in American History, we had a congressman shouting insults from the House in the presidents face, during an official speech.
Hardly the first time. And, really, to be perfectly honest with you, I wish that happened more often.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Tom's right. I don't really mind someone disrespecting the president -- it's creepy and obnoxious when people go on about how sacrosanct and holy the Office of the President must Be.
But that aside, Republicans are painfully stupid. I think Bill Maher put it best: Democratic political positions tend to be center-right, and Republican political positions tend to be "I like turtles."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think it's ironic you post this during the same week Van Jones was compelled to resign from a Senior White House post, at least in part because of the lack of civility in his public dialogue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, you're so sad, Lalo. You're such a bigot.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Hardly the first time.
Really, could you give some references? I know there are plenty of examples where people have made ruder accusations during campaigns. I know that democrats like Harry Reid publically called Bush a liar. But I know of no cases where a congressman has hurled epithets from the House floor during a Presidential address. If you know of such examples, please post. Until then, I will continue to consider this a new low in American political discourse.
quote:Hardly the first time. And, really, to be perfectly honest with you, I wish that happened more often.
Really? What advantages do you see to heckling during formal addresses?
I'm fully in favor of critical analysis of anything. I'd be happy to have politicians present well researched refutation of facts. I'd love to see misleading comments disputed in a cogent rational way. But I can't see how shouting epithets during an address accomplishes anything of value. Being able to shout down your opponent means only that you are louder.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think it's ironic you post this during the same week Van Jones was compelled to resign from a Senior White House post, at least in part because of the lack of civility in his public dialogue.
I hadn't heard questions about Van Jones lack of civility. What did he do that is comparable to shouting epithets at the president from the House floor during a Presidential address? Fox News reported that Jones resigned because he had signed a controversial petition in 2004 and called republicans assholes in an interview recorded before he was in a political office.
And furthermore, Glen Beck (the guy who lead the charge against Van Jones) is a better example of "incivility" than any well known left wing personality out there.
[ September 11, 2009, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.
Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
Sure, it was 150 years ago. But it sounds exiting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It does sound exciting White Whale and I'm sure its not the only time politicians have come to blows. But the case you cite is not only 150 years old, it also happened after the Senate had adjourned for the day, not as part of a Senate debate or formal address.
Rudeness is after all, the opposite of good manners. And good manners are in part a recognition that different types of behavior are appropriate in different settings.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Tom's right. I don't really mind someone disrespecting the president -- it's creepy and obnoxious when people go on about how sacrosanct and holy the Office of the President must Be.
This has nothing to do with whether or not we should consider the office of the President "sacrosanct and Holy". It has to do with rules for civil debate, that would be the same for anyone involved in a serious discussion of difficult and important issues. Shouting out epithets during a formal presentation should have no place in civilized debate.
If Joe Wilson wants to call a press constant to refute the Presidents claims or even just to call him names and accuse him dishonesty and deception -- I would have no problem. People should be allowed to say what they think about the president in many different forums.
But shouting epithets at someone during a formal address on an important issue is extremely rude, counterproductive to civil discourse, and something we should not tolerate in our elected representatives.
But then I believe civil discourse is a way to learn and find solutions to difficult problems. Joe Wilson and his ilk don't seem to share the ideal, but then I suspect they are far more interested in gaining power than in solving any problems.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.
Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
Sure, it was 150 years ago. But it sounds exiting.
It took Sumner 3 years to recouperate from that beating. Brooks wasn't alone, he had two men with him with guns blocking passage to any other senators who tried to come in and help Sumner.
Brooks only stopped when his cane finally broke, well after Sumner was unconscious.
It's a horrible story. I'm especially saddened because it was brought on by Sumner's outspoken views against slavery.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rabbit-
Do you feel the boos and heckles Pres. Bush got from Congressional Democrats during his 2005 State of the Union fall under the rubrik of civilized debate?
I agree whole-heartedly that the national political dialogue is suffering a bout of incivility (although I also agree with Tom that better political theater would probably be better for the country, as it would get less ideologically motivated actors interested and involved in politics, thereby decreasing polarization overall). I just feel that your claim that Republicans are obviously less civil than Democrats is unfounded.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
When one is of the opinion that the remaining GOP power structure is little more than an intransigent obstacle to reform, you're totally fine with Republicans acting obnoxious and retarded.
It's the Republicans themselves who should care about the whole acting-like-gits thing. It seems to be hurting them more than its helping them.
quote: For the first time in American History, we had a congressman shouting insults from the House in the presidents face, during an official speech.
This isn't the first time this has happened. American politics used to be far more acrimonious than a few snipes during a presidential speech. It's just that we should expect we've evolved some as a nation since the years in which we were having representatives cane other senators half to death in bloody, violent attacks on the floor of the senate.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Parliament is like Congress but with a two drink minimum.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Do you feel the boos and heckles Pres. Bush got from Congressional Democrats during his 2005 State of the Union fall under the rubrik of civilized debate?
I don't remember the details, from what I remember the boos from the democrats were matched by applause from the republicans. I don't consider booing any speaker to be conductive to civil debate, but shouting out epithets takes it too another level.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: This isn't the first time this has happened.
Please provide examples. Certainly the caning of a Senator in the Senate chambers is a low point in our history I hope we never repeat, I don't want to dismiss it. I know that politics in the previous century was more acrimonious and even violent than today. But I am still unfamiliar with any incidents where a member of congress was this rude during a Presidential address. I'd like to see examples not simple assertions that similar things have happened.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Boos and bad comments don't bother me all that much, although they are rude (when both parties do it). I am rather disturbed by the weapons at the town hall meetings and generally, by everything to do with Glenn Beck.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Rabbit- I agree whole-heartedly that the national political dialogue is suffering a bout of incivility (although I also agree with Tom that better political theater would probably be better for the country, as it would get less ideologically motivated actors interested and involved in politics, thereby decreasing polarization overall). I just feel that your claim that Republicans are obviously less civil than Democrats is unfounded.
I'm not quite sure where you stand politically. I know that as an admitted leftist, my personal biases may be skewing my views on this issue. But I do have many friends and family members who are centrist republicans and they are in full agreement that far right of the republican party are the most uncivil, rude, hateful group around. We've had this discussion before. I've asked for examples of the Left wing behaving as badly as the right wing does. And I've been given examples, but they always come from fringe groups and people who have no political influence. Whereas the incivility on the right is coming from people with national syndicated shows, best selling books, and elected officials.
Let me put out one example. When I was in Montana, Gov. Marc Roscicot signed legislation opposing the UN take over of our national lands. Talk about wacko conspiracy theories, but was he ever called to task for that when he was made Chair of the Republican Party? No, I doubt any of you have ever heard of it. Members of the house have been pushing for laws that would require Obama to produce an official birth certificate. (Which courts have already ruled has been done, more Wacko conspiracy theories), and does anything happen? Compare that to what happened to Van Jones for signing a petition calling for more thorough investigation of 9/11 and tell me that left wing wackos and right wing wackos are on equal footing?
[ September 11, 2009, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Boos and bad comments don't bother me all that much, although they are rude (when both parties do it). I am rather disturbed by the weapons at the town hall meetings and generally, by everything to do with Glenn Beck.
I guess that is what I'm getting at. Joe Wilson's misbehavior isn't an isolated incident. Its party of a growing pattern of Republicans acting like brown shirts and trying to get their way by intimidation, bullying and rudeness. Its a very disturbing pattern.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.
Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
Sure, it was 150 years ago. But it sounds exiting.
It was also a harbinger of civil war.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rabbit-
For every Michael Savage there's a Dan Savage. For every Sean Hannity there's a Michael Moore. For every Bill O'Reilly there's a Keith Olbermann. For every RealClearPolitics and Drudge Report there's a ThinkProgress and Daily Kos. For every protestor at a town hall calling Obama a Nazi there was a protestor at an anti-war demonstration calling Bush a Nazi.
Both sides are acrimonious; both sides have bellicose leaders who can be rude, dismissive, and primarily interested in their personal or political agenda at the expense of the country's best interests. Both parties, luckily, also have some classy leaders who are willing to work for the common good.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Paul Begala had an interesting op-piece on CNN where he opined that men like John McCain, Bob Dole, and G.H.W. Bush were of a diminishing breed within the party- men who viewed their opposites across the aisle as opponents, but not enemies. The phrase stuck with me.
My own political foibles being pretty clear, it wouldn't break my heart if more of the GOP's supporters began to feel the "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas" sentiment. But I worry that we would end up with a party that, while small, is ever only the smallest of margins away from incitement to actual violence; or worse, that they might succeed in bringing such levels of hostility even closer to the mainstream.
While Wilson has raised some money from his comment- and, quite frankly, ought to be ashamed of himself for playing it as some kind of "speaking the truth to power" moment after apologizing for the act- it's noteworthy that his opponent has raised more than three times as much from it. Every now and then I get an inkling that people might actually be fed up with this kind of... nonsense, and it gives me a little hope.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Seno--that doesn't really matter.
Saying, "They started it first" or "They do it too" didn't get me out of trouble when I stole cookies from a cookie jar. Why should it get politicians and talking heads out of trouble now? Don't you think they should be better behaved than your average 6 year old?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Darth-
I'm not excusing bad behavior; I'm pointing out that Rabbit's claim that one party is particularly to blame for the level of dialogue are unfounded. Both sides have their blow-hards, their idealogues, and their political opportunists. And both sides have their well-intentioned, responsible representatives. Neither side has a corner on truth or politeness (or prevarication or rudeness).
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I really disliked Bush politically (and I don't think I would enjoy a beer with him either and I can think of some Republicans who I could pass a pleasant evening with), but I was saddened when people booed him when he threw out the first pitch at a baseball game. I wish we could move beyond personal attacks when it comes top politics.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Rabbit-
For every Michael Savage there's a Dan Savage. For every Sean Hannity there's a Michael Moore. For every Bill O'Reilly there's a Keith Olbermann. For every RealClearPolitics and Drudge Report there's a ThinkProgress and Daily Kos. For every protestor at a town hall calling Obama a Nazi there was a protestor at an anti-war demonstration calling Bush a Nazi.
Both sides are acrimonious; both sides have bellicose leaders who can be rude, dismissive, and primarily interested in their personal or political agenda at the expense of the country's best interests. Both parties, luckily, also have some classy leaders who are willing to work for the common good.
You are missing the point. In a country of 300 million people, chances are you can find a foil for any individual. Its not a question of personalities alone, It's a question of power and influence. I'm sure you can find leftist wackos living on the streets of San Francisco who say much ruder things about Bush than Joe Wilson said to Obama, but that's a moot comparison. If you look at the money behind them, the audience they reach, and the positions they hold, you will see that the belligerent republicans have far more power and influence than belligerent democrats. Do the comparison.
I've never met any one in the left wing who thinks Olbermann is more than a crack pot, but I know dozens of republicans who regularly quote Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and O'Reily. These people have real power and influence -- look around you. There liberal counterparts don't cast a pale shadow by comparison. And that was just as true when the Republicans were in power as it is now when the Democrats are in power.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: It's a horrible story. I'm especially saddened because it was brought on by Sumner's outspoken views against slavery.
Sumner was against slavery, but he was also a horridly dysfunctional, cruel, and inappropriate acting individual who spewed venom and vitriol at every opportunity.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you look at the money behind them, the audience they reach, and the positions they hold, you will see that the belligerent republicans have far more power and influence than belligerent democrats.
How would you measure power and influence for such a comparison, and how would you determining "belligerence."
If you're argument is Limbaugh and O'Reilly reach more people with their factually challenged rants than Moore and Olbermann do with theirs I think you're wrong. If you're suggesting that Republican elected officials are more belligerent and bellicose in their politicking than their Democratic counterparts I think you're wrong. If you think rabid conservative blogs have a bigger readership than rabid liberal blogs I think you're wrong.
I will concede this point, though: I don't know of any national PACs who have opposed Republican candidates with the same slander and vitriol as the birthers, the Swift-boaters, and the people behind Hillary: the Movie. Not that the DNC pulled any punches on McCain last campaign, but these particular conservative PACs took smearing to a whole new level (in my estimation).
So if that's the sort of thing you mean, I'll give that to you. But if this is about Joe Wilson and his bad manners, you'll have to do a much better job convincing me of your argument that Democrats haven't behaved equally as bad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: I've never met any one in the left wing who thinks Olbermann is more than a crack pot
As much as I think there's a case to be made for the idea that more radical offensive conservatives have substantive political power, proportionally, than liberals do...I frankly have a very hard time believing you haven't even met anyone on the left who doesn't think Olbermann is spot-on.
And as much as I think there's a case to be made for the idea you're advancing, Rabbit, sometimes I do wonder if things wouldn't be different if so much of pop culture wasn't socially and politically left-leaning and liberal in tone. I'm not excusing anything, that's an honest wonder I have sometimes.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Well, let's see.
The chairman of the Republican party backs down and apologizes from criticizing Limbaugh. He defends patently untrue statements from Palin.
Fox News has variously reported a viewership at least twice that of MSNBC, and generally- to my perception at least- broadcasts far more consistently partisan content. It mocks war protesters during Bush's terms, and then has the sheer gall to sponsor anti-tax protest events while claiming that they're spontaneous grassroots uprisings.
Sean Hannity's book is called "Deliver Us From Evil", with a subtitle depending on edition of "Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism", or "Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism." Yes, liberalism shares billing with terrorism.
Ann Coulter's latest is "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America".
By contrast, Olbermann's latest book is: "Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values".
Moore's latest is "Stupid White Men: ...And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!", not counting his "election guide".
A modest perusal of each side's "whacko" literature generally seems to support an assertion that whatever ills it may harbor, the left is far more specific in its targets, both in persons and in issues, and their rhetoric, while occasionally very angry, doesn't tend to imply the targets are intentional enemies of America.
I'm getting really tired of this argument that both sides are equally hostile, equally guilty of hateful rhetoric, equally guilty of aiming low. The Democrats and "the left" have certainly done things they shouldn't be proud of, but fronting the notion that they're equally as guilty as their political opposites requires blinders.
[ September 11, 2009, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:sometimes I do wonder if things wouldn't be different if so much of pop culture wasn't socially and politically left-leaning and liberal in tone. I'm not excusing anything, that's an honest wonder I have sometimes.
I've wondered that many times myself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sterling, I wasn't equating Olbermann with Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter, I was skeptically questioning Rabbit's claim that she's never even met someone on the left who didn't think Olbermann was a crackpot.
Your comparison only serves to strengthen my skepticism, actually.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's really difficult to make an equivalency argument between the left and the right's incivility because it is very difficult to make direct comparisons; Olbermann seems to be the default skeezy leftoid but, as pompous and annoying as he can be, he can't be measured up directly against guys like glenn beck, with his conspiracy chalkboards, screaming episodes, and bluescreened holocaust imagery juxtaposed with Barack Obama.
Where you do find utterly contemptible liberal nutballs (and oh my do they exist in spades), they aren't nearly as influential or present in the dialogue as their utterly contemptible conservative nutball analogues. It is very difficult to find anyone in the liberal sphere who acts as an Ann Coulter, for instance, and holds the same amount of sway.
In addition, it's impossible to make an argument for the factual adherence of both sides being equal. The left doesn't have to deal very much with anything on par with swiftboating, birthers, et al. Generally when polled, liberals and registered democrats tend to be significantly better informed than conservatives and registered republicans, with conservatives usually exhibiting much higher rates of being factually misinformed.
I do not know what the long-term trends are with that but I know it has been present at least as far back as 2003 prior to the Bush-Kerry election; studies three weeks before that election showed 84% of Bush supporters believed Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, similar to the majority of Bush supporters who believed that Iraq was associated with the 9/11 attacks. Republicans also have a vast, vast chasm of factual grounding versus Democrats when it comes to issues like global warming.
I cannot claim to know the mechanism behind it either. The trend has persisted through modern republican electoral triumph and modern republican electoral disaster, through both expansion and contraction of the party ranks. If the same factuality gulf does not extend to before Bush's presidency, then one could assume that presidency and/or the techniques relied upon by the GOP during that period played a heavy part in it and that this is a remnant aftereffect.
I would like to believe that this is a non-legacy issue, and is instead something of a temporary issue that can (or has?) faded. I don't think it's something inherent to republicanism, nor do I think it is permanent, nor do I not think that democrats can achieve the same condition under the right circumstances.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.
Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
Sure, it was 150 years ago. But it sounds exiting.
It took Sumner 3 years to recouperate from that beating. Brooks wasn't alone, he had two men with him with guns blocking passage to any other senators who tried to come in and help Sumner.
Brooks only stopped when his cane finally broke, well after Sumner was unconscious.
It's a horrible story. I'm especially saddened because it was brought on by Sumner's outspoken views against slavery.
The way I remember it (cause you know, I was there), Brooks wasn't even a senator, he was a congressman. The week before, Sumner had given a scathing speech on the floor of the Senate denouncing Brooks' uncle or cousin or something, Andrew Butler (had to go back and check class notes for that) because of the Fugitive Slave Act. It was hardly enlightened discourse. Sumner ripped on both Brooks and Douglas (who frankly had it coming, the "little" punk), not just for policy disagreements, but on an extremely personal level for several hours. He'd rehearsed the speech days before so he could get it just right, and it was filled with personal attacks and vitriol.
I don't think the fact that he was an unabashed abolitionist helped matters at all, but Brooks caned the crap out of him because of southern honor and because Sumner had ripped his uncle apart in a very, very public Senate session, not because he was simply an abolitionist. If that had been his only purpose then it was a foolish one, as the attack was a PR coup for the abolitionists.
I can't think of a specific example off the top of my head, but the sort of halo proffering reverence that we treat the presidency with is a recent construction, and for that matter, the civility of Congress. Even presidential elections are considerably more tame now than they were even when Jefferson was running against Adams. Actually, that was a particularly vile election. Jefferson was a serious jackass, and lobbed all manner of lies and vicious rumors about Adams behind his back. I'm particularly bothered by his claims of infidelity, given both my love of the Adamses, their historically renowned love for each other, and Jefferson's own doubly hypocritical sexual dalliance.
I'm sure if I went back over the books and lecture notes I have from the 19th century, I could come up with dozens of examples of such behavior, but you also have to consider that, for the president anyway, there weren't really a lot of opportunities for Congress to act like that to him. State of the Union addresses were often short notes sent by the President to be read by a third party to the Congress, rather than personally read by him. I CAN think of a few separate instances where random people in public crowds have heckled presidents during what passed for campaign stops and/or public speeches back then. And lord knows the press loved to maul presidents back then.
The last 20 years or so of politics have been a comparative golden age of civility, we just don't realize it because few people really realize just how cutthroat and awful they were to each other way back when, and that the stereotypes of antebellum (or even post pre-colonial post bellum) gentility in politics couldn't have been further from the truth. And that isn't, near as I can tell, coming to an end any time soon.
Civility generally isn't the issue these days, it's the slow dissolution of the divide between perception and reality.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If you're argument is Limbaugh and O'Reilly reach more people with their factually challenged rants than Moore and Olbermann do with theirs I think you're wrong
Your opinion is irrelevant. As of last thursday, the top three rated cable news shows were O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity. Olbermann drew roughly 1/3rd the viewers that O'Reilly and Beck drew. Check the facts.
O'Reilly avaerages of 3 million views a night, roughly equivalent to the number that see any Michael Moore documentary.
Michael Moore's TV new show lasted less than one full seasons. A total of 17 episodes were broadcast in the US.
If you want to look at influence, look at specific issues and events. Most recently, consider Van Jones resignation, the conservative pundits targeted him and got forced him out. They have power. Now look at the other side, did Bowling for Columbine result in tougher gun laws, did Fahrenheit 911 result in a more thorough investigation of Saudia Arabia's roll in the terror attacks? Did Olbermann's rants about Hilary Clinton force her to suspend her campaign? I can't think of one single where Moore, Olbermann or any liberal media figure has played a substantial roll in any political outcome.
And furthermore, I don't think its fair to compare these personalities on style either. Take for example O'Reilly and Olbermann. O'Reilly comes across as the playground bully. Olbermann seems more like the kid whose smart mouth got him constantly beat up by the playground bully. O'Reilly shouts at his guest down, accuses them of liars, talks over them while leans over them jabbing a finger at there chest. Olbermann on the other hand makes pithy comments and get apoplectic over minutia that even other liberals don't care about it.
And that difference does matter because I'm not talking about whether both sides are equally represented in the debate. I'm talking about style and the republican style has become wholesale hate mongering and is very close to incitement to violence. The liberals may be rude and insulting, but I've never seen them do anything I feared might lead to violence.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:'m sure if I went back over the books and lecture notes I have from the 19th century, I could come up with dozens of examples of such behavior, but you also have to consider that, for the president anyway, there weren't really a lot of opportunities for Congress to act like that to him. State of the Union addresses were often short notes sent by the President to be read by a third party to the Congress, rather than personally read by him.
Everyone is sure there are dozens of exmples, but no one has come up with even one. I'm waiting. Campaign stops and town meetings are not an equivalent venue to an address on the House floor.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The big reason there wasn't a previous outburst like that at a presidential speech is, presidents didn't give speeches to Congress for over a hundred of the most controversial years of American politics.
However, violating the decorum of one or the other of the chambers has happened numerous times. For instance, there was a large brawl (on the floor of the House, during an open session) over whether or not to allow Kansas in as a state. We even have a picture ( http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=February&Date=20 )
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The big reason there wasn't a previous outburst like that at a presidential speech is, presidents didn't give speeches to Congress for over a hundred of the most controversial years of American politics.
That may make the distinction of being the first time in history less significant, but it certainly doesn't make it invalid as Tom and others have implied. It also still leaves a hundred years in which it could have happened but didn't.
I also don't find it consoling that politics in the nation was more violent and contentious in the lead up to the civil war, particularly not when people like Glen Beck are talking about revolution on prime time TV.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Your opinion is irrelevant. As of last thursday, the top three rated cable news shows were O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity. Olbermann drew roughly 1/3rd the viewers that O'Reilly and Beck drew. Check the facts.
O'Reilly avaerages of 3 million views a night, roughly equivalent to the number that see any Michael Moore documentary.
Michael Moore's TV new show lasted less than one full seasons. A total of 17 episodes were broadcast in the US.
Your facts are cherry-picked, IMO. I could as easily say, "Look at the audience for liberal documentaries (and flights of fantasy like Stone's "W."). Farenheit 9/11 made $221 million dollars (not counting rental revenue). The closest conservative documentary made less than 1/40 of that."
As for Steele's apology to Rush Limbaugh, can you imagine what would have happened during the run-up to the 2008 election if any Democratic leader had gain-said MoveOn.org? I imagine the exact same thing. Unfortunately we can't know for sure, since none of them were willing to break ranks.
Look, we can go back and forth on this all day. You find my arguments weak, I think you're not giving them sufficient consideration. Whatever, I don't think it'll be productive. But maybe I can suggest a slightly different conversation: how do we decrease the influence of blowhards on either side? One thing that I think isn't helpful is feeding the trolls' egos, which is what I think this "Limbaugh is the Republican leader" meme does. While it may be politically advantageous to focus on the most extreme of your opponents' voices, I don't think it's in the best interest of the overall dialogue.
Personally I don't listen to Limbaugh or Olbermann. I don't watch Michael Moore movies and I don't read Ann Coulter's books. I don't read Daily Kos or Drudge Report. And inasmuch as possible I try not to caricature those with whom I politically disagree.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"One thing that I think isn't helpful is feeding the trolls' egos, which is what I think this "Limbaugh is the Republican leader" meme does. "
THe problem here is that this is a meme that the Republican leadership seems to, at least to a noticeable extent, consider Limbaugh to be a Republican leader.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Have we also considered that democratic and left leaning views probably vastly prefer to watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report? Which probably have higher ratings.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The whole thing reminded me of this little event, somehow our politicians have gotten more civil over the years.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Have we also considered that democratic and left leaning views probably vastly prefer to watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report? Which probably have higher ratings.
Atleast Jon Stewart can laugh at how paper thin and catty so much of our government is. Saying that your fair and balanced is one thing (not attacking Fox at the moment, simply cant think of another line to explain myself) but actually calling a hypocritical senator a hypocrit is worth a hell of alot more than flag lapelle pins and graphics.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sterling, I wasn't equating Olbermann with Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter, I was skeptically questioning Rabbit's claim that she's never even met someone on the left who didn't think Olbermann was a crackpot.
Your comparison only serves to strengthen my skepticism, actually.
I don't exchange opinions on Olbermann with everyone I meet so I may very well have met someone who thinks he's spot on. I have, however, never heard anyone express that opinion. Let me be more specific in my choice of words, I have rarely heard Olbermann even mentioned by my liberal friends. When his name comes up among the liberals with whom I associate, it is has always been accompanied with a certain amount of eye rolling or dismissive snorts by everyone present.
In contrast, I've been in many conservative gatherings where O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are quoted at length. I've had students quote them in my classes. I know people who never miss a show. I know several people who are official dues paying "Dittoheads". One guy I know wears ties from the Rush Limbaugh collection to church. Another flew cross country to join a Rush Limbaugh bake sale.
As a liberal college professor activist and active Mormon who until recently lived in Utah, I've socialized with people from both sides of the aisle alot more than most. My experienced isn't a controlled scientific study, it may be biased, but it is at least consistent with the data that is out there.
If you are interested in hearing the voices of the far left, you have to go to indi-media because they simply don't get air time in the main stream the way people like Glen Beck (please don't tell me Beck isn't far right) do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Your facts are cherry-picked, IMO. I could as easily say, "Look at the audience for liberal documentaries (and flights of fantasy like Stone's "W."). Farenheit 9/11 made $221 million dollars (not counting rental revenue). The closest conservative documentary made less than 1/40 of that."
No, your facts are the ones that are cherry picked to make a point. You are the one who compared Michael Moore with Sean Hannity. You are grasping at straws to find examples that support your point. Sean Hannity draws a crowd of over 3 million listeners every day. Michael Moore puts out a documentary every couple of years. There is no comparison there. Documentaries aren't even roughly comparable to TV new shows in their accessibility and popularity or the resources they command. I've have not been able to find specific figures on advertising costs for shows like O'Reilly's, but the average for nationally broadcast advertisements is over $300,000 for 30 seconds. Typical shows contain 6 minutes of national advertisements and 2 minutes of local advertisement every half hour. Say the O'Reilly show gets only 1/3 of the average, that still $2.4 million in national advertising revenue, every day. In a week, that's several times what Moore has spent producing his latest documentary. In half a year, that outstrips the gross receipts on all Michael Moore's films combined. These guys are even playing the same game let alone playing in the same league. Apples and Oranges.
You compare Rush Limbaugh, a belligerent entertainer with national broadcast television and radio shows to a MoveOn.org, a web based democratic PAC. Why? Apples and Oranges again. Aside from the fact that both have some influence, how is MoveOn even relevant to the discussion? Is MoveOn.org noted for dissing polite discourse? Is MoveOn.org belligerent, rude or crude? Does MoveOn make politically incorrect jokes? Does MoveOn shout insults at people? Does MoveOn encourage people to bring weapons to public meetings? Does MoveOn instruct its members on how to harass opponents? If so, I must not be on that mailing list.
What was your point again? No ones been arguing that the right wing is more influential than the left. Afterall, the democrats crushed the right wing in the last election. I haven't been arguing that the left wing has less access to media or fewer avenues through which to pursue its agenda. My concern is about style, civility and tactics that are used by people with influence and power. I'm not concerned about what insults being thrown about by fringe people on the blog with no power or influence, from either side.
Everything example you give, indirectly supports my point. There are a long list of conservatives who've made a name for themselves and a living in the [u]big time mainstream media[/u] by being rude, obnoxious hate mongers. And these people are very influential, as evidenced by the money they garner, their success in taking down political leaders, the audiences they draw and their ability to mobilize people.
Yes, the left wing is winning the blogs. But are you actually pretending that blogs writers are anywhere near as influential in America today broadcast television. But even if they were, the question we are debating isn't whether pundits have influence, its about whether a particular style of punditry, the angry, crude, rude, belligerent style, is more dominant and influential in the right wing than it is in the left wing.
Have the DNC leaders ever even referred to "Counter Punch" or "The Daily KOS"? Has any republican party leader ever acknowledge Olbermann? Can you point to an example where any of these people recognized by democratic leaders, have had influence on an appointment? influenced passage of a piece of legislation? influenced voter turnout? influenced campaign fund raising? By any of those standards, the republican are apples and democrats you seek to compare them to, oranges.
Compare apples to apples.
[ September 12, 2009, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's also worth noting that membership at places like the Drudge Report and the Free Republic is definitely not an order of magnitude lower than membership at Kos.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:'m sure if I went back over the books and lecture notes I have from the 19th century, I could come up with dozens of examples of such behavior, but you also have to consider that, for the president anyway, there weren't really a lot of opportunities for Congress to act like that to him. State of the Union addresses were often short notes sent by the President to be read by a third party to the Congress, rather than personally read by him.
Everyone is sure there are dozens of exmples, but no one has come up with even one. I'm waiting. Campaign stops and town meetings are not an equivalent venue to an address on the House floor.
Probably because that's somewhat obscure information. Personally I don't have the time to really go looking for it, but I know it exists.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Such as the fifty person brawl on the house floor I gave a reference for, above
More minor acts of violence on the floor of a house of Congress were moderately regular in the nineteenth century; perhaps every few years. You can find lots of references to them with a little digging.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Look, we can go back and forth on this all day. You find my arguments weak, I think you're not giving them sufficient consideration. Whatever, I don't think it'll be productive. But maybe I can suggest a slightly different conversation: how do we decrease the influence of blowhards on either side?
That suggestion implies you've never actually understoon my concern. I'm not all that concerned about blowhards having influence. I'd rather they don't but I don't see it as a major problem. My complaint isn't about blowhards, its about bullies and hatemongers. I guess that's why we aren't even on the same page. I think blowhard is a fair description of Olbermann and O'Reilly, Moore and Hannity. If that is the way you see the all, then I guess the comparison is fair. But Moore and Olbermann are not bullies or hate mongers, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh are.
My big concern isn't about blowhards and whether they have undo influence, its about those who have gained influence by appealing to people's baser instincts, like fear and hatred. My concern is about those who see their opponents as enemies to be defeated by any means available rather than as fellow citizens with legitimate interests and concerns. My worries are about those who think insults, shouting and intimidation are valuable and appropriate political tactics. My concern is about those who think perpetuating scary lies like Obama's "friendship with terrorists" or proposed "death panels" are legitimate political discourse. My concern is about those who are stoking racial tensions with accusations that Obama "hates white people". I think they are dangerous.
If you see Joe Wilson's outburst as an isolated incident, then it really is a minor thing barely worthy of historical note. But if you view it in the context of what has been happening, particularly since the last election then it takes on much more importance. There is a pattern developing where the right wing is becoming increasingly scared, angry and belligerent. You hear it In the voices of influential blowhards like Beck and O'Reilly. You see it in phrases like "death panels" and "socialism" which have no basis in truth but are intended specifically to cause fear and anger. You see it in the people who show up armed to town hall meetings. You see it in the organizers who circulate instructions on how to effectively disrupt town-hall meetings by yelling, shouting and heckling the presenter. You hear it in the offhand jokes about assassinating Obama or praying for his death. You see it when O'Reilly leans across the table, waving his finger and shouting in his guests faces. You see it in the mock lynchings and tomb stones carried by protestors and death threats against democratic leaders. The secret service confirms that death threats against the president are up 400 percent over the the Bush administration.
Joe Wilson's outburst, was a move directly out of the "Tea-Party" handbook for disrupting meetings. That may be solely a coincidence but I think it is naive to brush it off so lightly. I think its a sign that the rude and bullying tactics, the fear and hatred the right wing pundits have been popularizing for years, the same tactics they've taught the right wing "grassroots" to use to effectively shut down public discourse are becoming acceptable tactics at the highest levels of the republican party.
I guess time will tell, but I'm pretty confident that unless the Republican party can find a charismatic leader (or leaders) who are able to take control of the party and unequivocally denounce stoking fear, hate monger, and bullying and stand firmly against those who do it, we are in for some very rough times.
I'm not currently living in the US, I know only what I read in the media. I haven't been to any of the town hall meetings or seen any of the Tea Parties, but reports I've read give the impression far right activists are only a hair away from the kind of violence we haven't seen since the revival of the KKK in the civil rights movement. And I find it very troubling that these same people seem to be gaining influence at the highest levels of the republican party. That may be solely an impression created by a sensationalistic media. (Although I will note that people like Beck and O'Reilly and comments I've read on facebook from right wing friends of friends have contributed as much as to my impression as more neutral or liberal sources). I don't know what's really going on but I think when the same incivility you see on the fringes, starts showing up on the floor of the House during a Presidential address, its time to get concerned.
And you are right, we can go back and forth all day, but I have yet to see any compelling evidence that people on the left who promote hatred and fear, see republicans as enemies of the state and use bullying and intimidation to control public discourse have any significant influence in the democratic party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Such as the fifty person brawl on the house floor I gave a reference for, above
More minor acts of violence on the floor of a house of Congress were moderately regular in the nineteenth century; perhaps every few years. You can find lots of references to them with a little digging.
I can think off the top of my head of several such incidents, and I'm sure a little digging would actually yield a LOT of results.
But Rabbit is specifically referring to Congressional interruptions of a Presidential speech. That's going to be harder to come by with a cursory search, especially in the 19th century.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Impossible for the nineteenth century, in fact, since the only State of the Union (the only Presidential address to Congress) given in the nineteenth century involved no such disruptions.
And by the time resumption of the speeches in the early twentieth century rolled around, the sensibilities of Congress had changed, and for substantial numbers of Presidential addresses we were in a state of war or crisis. Additionally, they became successively more public, and thus riskier to be rowdy at.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But Rabbit is specifically referring to Congressional interruptions of a Presidential speech. That's going to be harder to come by with a cursory search, especially in the 19th century.
I also think its essentially irrelevant whether or not it happened in the 19th century. We had major devision and contention during the early years of this country, much of that contention lead to a a civil war that cost the lives of millions and has had enduring effects. We had era's where thugs like the KKK controlled the political climate or gang leaders like Al Capone ran regions of the country. We've had scum like McCarthy use their office to promote fear, squelch free speech, harass innocent Americans and smear honorable men. All low points in our countries history. All certainly lower than we are right now.
The relevant question isn't whether or not Joe Wilson hit some kind of all time low. He didn't, not even close. The relevant question is whether or not this was a significant breach of the standards we have come to (or should come to) expect of our elected officials. The relevant question is whether this is an isolated incident of no real importance, or part of a trend toward more belligerence, bullying, fear mongering, and obstructionism rather than respectful debate of the issues and diligent work to solve the nations problems. The relevant question is whether we think belligerence, fear mongering, and obstructionism (and Joe Wilson's outburst was to some degree all of these) have any place in the highest levels of government. The relevant question is whether this kind of belligerence raises the level of debate or lowers it, focuses us on the important issues or distracts us from them, helps us find workable solutions to problems, or simply reinforces the divisions and leads to bitterness and stalemate.
The relevant question is whether we think Joe Wilson's behavior is what we want to see in government, and if not, what steps we should be taking to make sure it doesn't become the norm.
[ September 12, 2009, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I do indeed want our Senators calling out our Presidents for perceived lies during their speeches. The Republican Party has a lot of sins to answer for, but interrupting the President isn't one of them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, if you ARE going to do it, it had better be an actual lie. I think our government, and the people, would be much better off if the president had to answer to Congress like the PM of Britain does to their Parliament. McCain suggested a monthly session with Congress where just that would happen, and I've said before that if I knew with 100% certainty that he'd actually do that, it might have pushed me towards voting for him quite seriously, despite the mass of policy disagreements I had with him.
I too am okay with congressmen (Wilson IS a congressman, not a senator) and senators calling out the president when it's warranted, but heckling for the sake of heckling, for showmanship, to score points, to advance your own career or prospects; those things I could never support and I think should be swatted down.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Impossible for the nineteenth century, in fact, since the only State of the Union (the only Presidential address to Congress) given in the nineteenth century involved no such disruptions.
And by the time resumption of the speeches in the early twentieth century rolled around, the sensibilities of Congress had changed, and for substantial numbers of Presidential addresses we were in a state of war or crisis. Additionally, they became successively more public, and thus riskier to be rowdy at.
You mean the only State of the Union actually delivered by a sitting president, since there were many such addresses, usually delivered by proxy, during the 19th century. Who was it? Off the top of my head I can't think of it. I'd guess Lincoln, but I can think of several Lincoln SotUs that he wrote but didn't deliver personally, so it's not like there's precedent, but he's still the obvious guess. His most famous congressional address, the one that I think most people would recognize ("the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present"), was technically a state of the union, but was delivered by proxy. It was also, in typical Lincoln fashion, quite short, eloquent, and to the point. If only modern presidents could master such oratorical skills.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I do indeed want our Senators calling out our Presidents for perceived lies during their speeches. The Republican Party has a lot of sins to answer for, but interrupting the President isn't one of them.
I don't think we can expect politicians to act with restraint when it comes to calling out one of their number for intentionally deceiving the American people during a speech.
Ideally it would be nice if we had such stalwart men and woman that that could happen. Instead we have congress, and so I'd rather the opposition party simply put up and shut up, and hold press conferences afterwards if they want to bring attention to a misstatement of fact.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The only state of the union delivered by a President in the nineteenth century was in 1900. Every other one was delivered by proxy and/or note (sometimes not even as a cohesive speech, just as a series of notes).
And yes, I mean by a President; the President could hardly be heckled if he wasn't at least there. And as far as I know, there were no non-SotU addresses to joint sessions of Congress, either.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I do indeed want our Senators calling out our Presidents for perceived lies during their speeches. The Republican Party has a lot of sins to answer for, but interrupting the President isn't one of them.
I agree that senators and congressman should call out the President for factual error or inaccurate statements. Our elected officials have a right to dispute what the president says and a president should be required to defend what he says with verifiable facts. I just don't think shouting epithets during an address is a productive way to do that. If it happened on a regular basis it would serve only to disrupt rather than further real discussion. I've sat in many audiences, I've given many lectures and I've moderated many discussion and debates. There are ways to allow audience participation that further debate and there are those that simply disrupt. Shouting thing like "You Lie" serves only to disrupt. Once the shouting starts, the possibility for rational discourse no longer exists.
And given all the references to how well this works in the British Parliament, it should be mentioned that there are rather strict standards of conduct in Parliament even if they are different from ours. Accusing an opponent of lying is strictly banned and warrants immediate dismissal. This ban was established because it is understood that productive discourse requires an assumption of good faith on the part of all parties. To shout "You Lie" is not simply disputing facts or even rebutting an assertion. By shouting "You lie", you have openly accused the opposition of deliberate deception. You have abandoned even the pretense that your opponents are acting in good faith. Unlike disputing facts or rebutting an argument, calling someone a liar changes the nature of the debate. It is no longer a disagreement on facts, values or principles, it has no become a debate about the character and sincerity of the opposition. Shouting "You Lie" is a declaration that you no longer consider rational deliberation possible because the other side is not acting in good faith. It closes down the possibility for meaningful discussion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Actually, if I look at the situation in American politics today, I'm fairly confident that much of what I see as incivility on the part of republicans stems precisely from the fact that so much of the right wing abandoned the possibility for rational discourse with democrats long ago. They see liberals as enemies of the state, who must be defeated to protect all that is right and good. Once you have adopted that stance, discourse becomes solely a route surrender and not a means toward progress.
Ideally, democracy needs to work through a commitment to discourse. It's fundamental virtue lies in the fact that better decisions are made when more voices are heard and more ideas considered. Without a willingness to converse with the opposition, democracy can rapidly deteriorate into the tyranny. To believe in democracy, is to believe that the overwhelming majority of people are willing to accommodate the reasonable needs and desires of others once they clearly understand those needs and desires. It is to believe in the value of discourse and the necessity of compromise.
When people like Rush Limbaugh declare 'they hope Obama fails', they are declaring unwillingness to seek common ground. They have rejected the possibility of rational discourse and are simply digging in for an all or nothing fight. They value democracy solely when it works to maximize their personal power and have no appreciation for its potential to generate better solutions through discourse and compromise.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
And yes, I guess I am saying that I lost confidence in the idea that republicans are willing to work in good faith with democrats. I just don't see any evidence that republican leaders are working in good faith to improve the country right now. They are just blocking everything they can and posturing for the next round of elections. They have never given Obama's efforts at bipartisanship the slightest chance. Within minutes after loosing the election , they locked step in support of an agenda that's only real goal is to obstruct the democrats until they regain power. They seem to be banking on the prediction that things will get worse before the 2010 elections and maneuvering to blame the democrats. They seem utterly unconcerned with helping to fix the serious problems America is facing, it almost seems like they want things to get worse to spite the democrats.
I don't see any willingness on the part of republican leaders to compromise or cooperate. I didn't see them working trying to improve the stimulus package or engaging productively in the health care debate. Rather than accepting that they are the minority and working in good faith to get democrats to listen to their biggest concerns and trying to improve the proposals the democrats put forth, they've chosen to simply posture, heckel and obstruct. Its very disappointing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The only state of the union delivered by a President in the nineteenth century was in 1900. Every other one was delivered by proxy and/or note (sometimes not even as a cohesive speech, just as a series of notes).
And yes, I mean by a President; the President could hardly be heckled if he wasn't at least there. And as far as I know, there were no non-SotU addresses to joint sessions of Congress, either.
Your original statement was somewhat broad, I was just double checking what you meant to say.
I'll have to check on that. I thought Lincoln made at least one statement to a JSC. And for that matter, I'd want to double check every inaugural. I'd doubt that many or even any were done before a JSC, but I bet most of Congress was there for each one. Still I'd be even more surprised at heckling during that speech than at a random address.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: I don't see any willingness on the part of republican leaders to compromise or cooperate. I didn't see them working trying to improve the stimulus package or engaging productively in the health care debate. Rather than accepting that they are the minority and working in good faith to get democrats to listen to their biggest concerns and trying to improve the proposals the democrats put forth, they've chosen to simply posture, heckel and obstruct. Its very disappointing.
Being told repeatedly by the democratic leadership, in essence, "You lost, your ideas are going to be ignored. Live with it and vote for what we tell you to." doesn't exactly lead to a willingness to cooperate. Every time I've seen a republican *try* to put in two cents on a subject, they get shot down with impunity.
You can only kick a dog so many times before he turns around and bites you. The democratic leadership needs to get off its "We won, you lost" high-horse and start listening for a change.
Bipartisanship doesn't come from the bottom of the pile. It comes from the top. The democrats need to *prove* that they are willing to listen to the issues that republicans have. They haven't even come *close* to doing that yet.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I remember when the word first sunk in that there were no WMD in Iraq. A lot of talk on this board condemned President Bush. Yet the first time someone called him "Bush" there was a second firestorm. "How dare we use the Presidents name without his title. That disrespects the country."
Yet none of the conservative press ever calls him President Obama. Its always, "Obama this" or "Obama that."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: I don't see any willingness on the part of republican leaders to compromise or cooperate. I didn't see them working trying to improve the stimulus package or engaging productively in the health care debate. Rather than accepting that they are the minority and working in good faith to get democrats to listen to their biggest concerns and trying to improve the proposals the democrats put forth, they've chosen to simply posture, heckel and obstruct. Its very disappointing.
Being told repeatedly by the democratic leadership, in essence, "You lost, your ideas are going to be ignored. Live with it and vote for what we tell you to." doesn't exactly lead to a willingness to cooperate. Every time I've seen a republican *try* to put in two cents on a subject, they get shot down with impunity.
You can only kick a dog so many times before he turns around and bites you. The democratic leadership needs to get off its "We won, you lost" high-horse and start listening for a change.
Bipartisanship doesn't come from the bottom of the pile. It comes from the top. The democrats need to *prove* that they are willing to listen to the issues that republicans have. They haven't even come *close* to doing that yet.
Can you come up with some sort of list of bi-partisan ideas that the Republicans have come up with? Other than simply yelling for the same things they've always yelled for, and expecting the Democrats to simply give in in the name of bi-partisanship, I haven't seen any compromise measures coming from Republicans. I've seen a lot of "no" from them. I've seen plenty of centrist Democrats willing to work with the centrist Republicans.
What did they get in return? Even Chuck Grassley, a close ally of Democrats on health care, went from being actively involved in the reform process to saying Obama wants to pull the plug on grandma. He was reeled in by the GOP leadership when they decided their new order of business was to stymie Democrats rather than cooperate on legislation.
Here's the thing though: Republicans were voted out of power, and the Democrats were voted in. Bi-partisanship doesn't mean doing things the Republican way, it means a certain amount of compromise in order to gain broader support, but to suggest that both Democrats need to sacrifice large swaths of their plan to placate the Republicans sort of ignores the democratic process. The GOP LOST the election; they don't get to dictate policy or terms. They've been offered a voice, and they've chosen to use it as a violent opposition rather than a cooperative one, frankly, in a similar but even worse fashion than Democrats did when they were the minority.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
We see things very different. What I saw was Obama actively reaching out and trying to draw republicans into the discussion. What I saw, was republicans presenting plans so radically different from those of the Obama's proposals that they left absolutely zero room for common ground. The republicans plans have been so radically opposite of those set forth by the majority they never had the slightest chance of passing and the republicans know that. They aren't making serious suggestions, they are grandstanding. And their first order of business was to bully every moderate republican who might have tried to work for compromises into locking step.
The very first thing the republicans did this year was to present a recovery plan that had absolutely no common ground with the Presidents plan. That's not the way you proceed if you have the slightest interest in cooperation and bipartisanship.
The first rule of political compromise is recognizing that you can't set the agenda if you've lost the election. If a minority is actually interested in contributing to the formation of policy and not just grandstanding, they have to accept that they will have to work within the limits established by the majority. Knowing they won't get everything they want, a minority has to set priorities, they need to pick a few battles on which to focus their energy and work for small gains. They have to seek common ground.
The democrats don't have to "prove" anything to the Republicans. They won the election. They are the majority. They have reached out to the republicans and asked for input. The republicans have not responded in good faith.
If there are examples where the republican leaders have made reasonable proposals that show a willingness to work with Obama and a respect for the fact that the majority of Americans voted for him and his agenda, please point them out. I'd really like to know. It really does please me to see the better nature or the republican party. It gives me hope.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Being told repeatedly by the democratic leadership, in essence, "You lost, your ideas are going to be ignored. Live with it and vote for what we tell you to." doesn't exactly lead to a willingness to cooperate.
Who's been saying that, exactly? Obama's been bending over backwards to cooperate with the other side of the aisle; he's actually crippled a number of his programs and required several of his aides to fall on their swords just to keep conservatives happy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh, a couple things specific to health care that I forgot to mention: If anyone (Boris) watched the address on health care, Obama named several ideas that the Republicans loudly cheered, including an insurance exchange and tort reform. Instead of realizing that they aren't the party in power and working with the Democrats on the ideas they DO agree on, they've decided to vote down anything that doesn't line up perfectly with what they want.
That's not compromise, and the Democrats don't even have to offer them that much. But Obama is a pragmatist, and wants to do what he think will work, but he also wants to try to work with Republicans (and he's offered plenty of olive branches, e.g., the major speech he gave to Congress the other night). There will never be bi-partisan consensus until Republicans learn that bi-partisanship does NOT mean "Democrats have to give in to our demands."
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Being told repeatedly by the democratic leadership, in essence, "You lost, your ideas are going to be ignored. Live with it and vote for what we tell you to." doesn't exactly lead to a willingness to cooperate.
That does not resemble the Democrats approach to the Republicans at all.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Boris' statement is just further evidence that the world Republicans live in is an entirely different plane of existence than the one everyone else lives in.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I remember when the word first sunk in that there were no WMD in Iraq. A lot of talk on this board condemned President Bush. Yet the first time someone called him "Bush" there was a second firestorm. "How dare we use the Presidents name without his title. That disrespects the country."
Can you dig that up and provide a link to that discussion? I ask for a couple of reasons. It's only partially because I'd be surprised if it were true -- and that's not a condemnation of you, by the way. It's not that I specifically distrust you -- it's just that it doesn't sound very believable to me. The much larger interest I have in reading that discussion is that, in general, I happen to think that there was a deterioration in the media during President Bush's administration, in terms of demonstrating a degree of respect for the office, and it had a great deal to do with calling him "Bush" instead of "President Bush...." ...And I'd be curious to read other takes on the topic. I've mentioned it on Hatrack before, and I don't recall (although that might just be my bad memory) having heard anyone else discuss it on Hatrack, so I'm also now wondering if the comments you're referring to were my comments. Although I would assume that any such discussion must have pre-dated my membership here. And of course, since I already know my thoughts on the subject, if there was an actual discussion here, it would be great to read it and see some other takes on it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I think there HAS been a deterioration in respect for the office of the president, but I think that trend has been steadily downwards since Watergate. THis is, of course, based off of historical readings, since I wasn't born until the Carter Administration Posted by JWAAL (Member # 12182) on :
this interesting article popped up on CNN. Someone here was asking for examples of when this precise thing happened in our history, which I don't think has happened. However, this article shares many stories of similar happenings.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
( http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=February&Date=20 )
![[Wink]](wink.gif)