A) because who the person is and what his reasoning was influences the material that is leaked and the context around it
B)"From what you can see" is rather the point here. The video is edited. No one has excused this guy's actions, but it's fair to say you're probably NOT getting the full story.

And C) Wouldn't be insulting to me.

He should never have yelled at them or laid a hand on them; obviously he was in the wrong. But I also think it is rude to shove cameras in people's faces and ambush them on the street. I don't like it when Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly engage in that sort of behavior, and I don't like it when these unidentified "students working on a project" do it, either.

Because of what ThetaDancer said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer (Post 1943170) He should never have yelled at them or laid a hand on them; obviously he was in the wrong. But I also think it is rude to shove cameras in people's faces and ambush them on the street. I don't like it when Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly engage in that sort of behavior, and I don't like it when these unidentified "students working on a project" do it, either.

I think it matters because it's an example of the lows of current public discourse.

Have you missed the multiple times I said that there is no excuse for what he did?

Really? So you've never overreacted to a situation? Ever? I'm impressed.

People who are not bullies or whack jobs can have bad days. Once again, this doesn't excuse it, but unless you have something showing that this is part of a pattern of behavior rather than an isolated incident, give the bully and whack job accusations a rest.

I consider sticking a camera in someone's face without first identifying yourself and asking permission very rude.

Come on, you can't have it both ways. Saying he may have had a bad day and overreacted is an excuse. No excuses means no excuses.

I am not the one on camera "overreacting". I have never assaulted a person. I am also not a public figure.

I don't understand why would you care what I call Rep. Etheridge unless he is he a member of your immediate family. I don't believe bully or whack job is too far off. Got to call them as you see them.

Taking this admittedly to the extreme, but if a person has a perfect history but one day gets pissed off and shoots their spouse should it be considered an isolated incident? Even if you believe so, do you not also believe that there still should be some penalty for the "incident" and the person should be held accountable by society? Unless the person could successfully plead self defense there is no justification for the assault. I do not see self defense here.

I have had a camera stuck in my face and asked questions by an unannounced AP reporter and I didn't smack her around. She didn't tell me who she was but only said she was an AP reporter. I asked her if she would promise to portray my answers accurately and then answered her questions. I am not a publc figure but we all know that public figures are, and must be, held to a higher standard.

Ummm, no it's not. An excuse is not the same thing as an explanation. An explanation is simply the answer to "Why did this happen? Why did he behave this way?" An excuse, according to the dictionary, is an explanation that gives justification for forgiveness, pardon or overlooking the offense. Saying he had may have been having a bad day, like saying he's a bully or whack job, is a possible explanation, not an excuse.

I care because I care about the quality of political discourse in this country and the degree to which it has been eroded.

If it's not part of a pattern of behavior, even an intermittent pattern, then yes it's an isolated incident. And yes, there should be a penalty. Where in the world are you getting the idea that I'm saying isolated incidents don't require punishment?

And I haven't disagreed with that. I have disagreed, I believe, with four things you've said:

• I have disagreed with your assertions that Etheridge must be either a bully or a whack job. I believe that there are other possible explanations, and I believe it is irresponsible and does not serve public discourse well to accuse people of such things based on one incident. If you have other examples of bullying or whack job behavior, that's one thing. But if you don't, the accusations do nothing but reduce the discourse to name calling.
• I have disagreed with your suggestion that questions about who made the video or why are irrelevant. If it's part of the public record, then let it all be part of the public record.
• I have disagreed with your statement that the kids were not being rude. I believe they were being rude by not introducing themselves (at the least when they were asked who they were) and by videoing without permission. Within their rights, sure. But still rude.
• I took some issue with the John Baynor comparison and the "he-should-resign" claim, not because I'm excusing what he did but because I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I think it reasonable to let the voters decide what to do about this; the partisan finger pointing is, I think, a slippery slope.

Meanwhile, I've stated repeatedly that there is no excuse (justification) what he did. So please stop suggesting that I do excuse his conduct.

I agree.

I look for a pattern of behavior before I assume people are crazy or unable to contain themselves. The only exception is if they do something that is sooooo over the top and the closest Etheridge got to that is grabbing the man around the neck. That was inappropriate but almost looked like a father scolding his son. Other than that, I consider this an isolated incident for which he has apologized.

I just hope he doesn't claim to be seeking anger management or some kind of treatment. Enough of public figure apologies followed by treatment programs.

I am glad we can count on you to defend Sarah Palin, George Bush, Dick Cheney, George Allen, Mitch McConnell et al when they are hammered by other poster's here on GC. I guess all this depends on whose ox is being gored.

That would be an utter failure of an argument.

Try again. I can enjoy a good joke at a politician's expense (including a politician I support) as much as the next guy. But I think a number of people around here would back me up when I say I have defended here at GC Palin, Bush, Cheney and others for whom I wouldn't vote, as well as tried to avoid broadbrush, soundbite slams on them.

I'll confirm that, Mr. Cat! For a long time, I wasn't sure which side you buttered your bread. :D

MysticCat and other GC users aren't the subject of this criticism, but sometimes it is pretty rich to hear a lot of about the tone of public discourse when all that really seems to have changed recently is the party of those being attacked.

Had the same folks been complaining back in the "Bush = Hitler" era, it would be different.

Which is not to say that I wouldn't enjoy more politeness generally, but there just seems to be a sense when some folks make the comment that they only regard their own political "side" as worthy of respect.

I know I'm not the only person who heard people complain (and was one of the people complaining--but this isn't about GCers :)).

I think that people (in general) are simply selective observers which matches how people (in general) are selective complainers.

Sure, and there's probably another group of people who enjoy the shoe being on the other foot more than they really ever cared about the level of discourse.

I do think it's interesting that in this thread the "level of discourse stuff" seems to allow the guy who took it physical a partial defense. I'm not tempted to go there myself and maybe it's a party affiliation bias. Or in MysticCat's case, a much more developed sense who the guys is as a person from having him represent his state for so long.

The bolded probably is part of the equation in this instance for me. And I agree completely that whose foot the shoe is on often enters into the pleas for civil discourse.

But for me, at least, it's not really about the "level of discourse" offering a partial defense. It's about avoiding the cheap shots whether they are "what an obvious bully" or "Bush = Hitler/the village's missing idiot/the worst President ever." To my mind, cheap shots like that do nothing but fuel a game of political gotcha. I'd rather invest a little effort in understanding what's really going on and debating the real merits of a situation (or policy) than play the political gotcha game. As entertaining as that game can be at times, it can also be very polarizing, not to mention childish, and I'm not comfortable with that polarization or childishness.

If there's one thing that frustrates me no end in political or similar discussions, it's hearing someone say "I just can't understand how someone could be for/against ______." I may not agree with someone, but I'll try as hard as I can to understand respectfully and not make a caricature of why they think as they do. That seems to me to be the mature approach -- and one that I need to take with others if I want them to take it with me.

I agree with what you expressed here generally and think that you certainly conduct yourself according to your beliefs here.

But it's also hard for anyone who has been on the receiving end of cheap shot kind of comments or email forwards or whatever to completely turn the other cheek when there's little evidence of authentic good will from the other side of the issue.

I think not stooping to cheap shots is probably the only way to actually convince anyone likely to be persuaded, certainly, but at some point individuals may have pretty much established themselves as gotcha playing partisans, and when rather suddenly, they're all interested in why things have become so hostile or hateful and/or express concern about a lack of respect for the office of President, as I said, it's pretty rich.