Congressman Bob Etheridge Caught on Tape
 

Here is the CBS News report on Congressman Bob Etheridge and his response to questions on the street.

He is our Congressman here in the Raleigh, NC area. Looks a little drunk to me.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...04-503544.html

I think the word I'm looking for is screwed.

We can only hope!

This is who he is running against.

http://www.reneeforcongress.com/Port...tor/image3.png

Renee Ellmers who is a registered nurse.

Not my district, but I certainly am not numbered among the "we" who would want to see Ellmers representing any part of North Carolina in Congress.

BTW, Etheridge is one of three congressmen representing Raleigh and the Raleigh area.

She has a heck of a good chance to take this seat now. She needs to get a commercial out with The Who singing "Who Are You" in the backgound with this idiot doing his best to immitate a wrestler on WWE.

Etheridge is supposed to be the moderate Dem in this area. He seems more like Himmler and the SS to me!

Wow. Only 5 posts into the thread and Godwin's Rule comes into play. That has to be some kind of record.

I'm not excusing him at all, especially without knowing more, though I know I'd be wary of someone pointing a camera in my face and asking me if I "support the Obama agenda." I do want to know more, because I'm willing to bet there is more to know.

Meanwhile, even if this does mean he shouldn't be in Congress, it sure doesn't mean Ellmers should be.

I preface everything I say with, there is no excuse for assaulting people that approach you in the street.

Our public discourse has become so angry and heated that this is what comes of it. Incumbents everywhere feel attacked. Etheridge sounds paranoid on the transcripts of the video (I can't access the video from work.) People on both sides are losing perspective.

I don't think Etheridge is a bad man out to attack people who question him, but I bet he's under a lot of pressure and it's gotten to him. His career is over.

Its find to be wary and even makes sense but there is no need to put your hands on someone.

In all fairness, we are only seeing the edited portions that this student chooses to show us. We have no way of knowing whether anything else was said. The way the student approached was confrontational and his unwillingness to say who he is was confrontation as well. Had he said "My name is John Smith and I'm a student at ...", he may have had a different reaction. We don't know whether the student followed him and badgered him for blocks or whether we're seeing the whole interaction.

I'm not excusing his behavior, but I don't feel like we're seeing everything that occurred either.

Which is one reason why I specifically said I wasn't excusing him.

I don't think we are either.

I amend my statement to Robespiere and the Jacobin's then.;)

^^^I believe we are. Etheridge is apologizing right and left or is it left and left.

That doesn't mean at all that we know the whole story or that we know what was or wasn't edited out.

And nice save on Robespiere and the Jacobins.

Meanwhile, Etheridge is hardly left and left. More like middle and middle.

I believe he would have said something if there really was anything left out. Looks more like a bully got caught. If this had been John Baynor the hue and cry would be for him to resign his seat. I would have joined in and would be one of them calling for it. Time for the Dems to stand up and do the right thing and dump him.

Not necessarily. All I can say is that, as a lawyer, I would be very hesitant to introduce or offer a partial anything -- video, transcript. It begs the question: What was left out and why?

His "excuse" was that it had been a long day. I put "excuse" in quotes because he said there was no excuse for his behavior, and I agree. Maybe there was nothing more in what was edited out, but maybe he chose not to mention anything else because he decided not to make excuses or dilute the apology. He was asked the question specifically about what might have been edited out and said "I'm not getting into that today, I'm here to apologize."

If anyone is interested, here's his public statement.

Here's my question: who made this video and why? Who's the guy who was willing to make the video for a "school project" (here's your assignment: take a video camera and ask members of Congress if they fully support the Obama agenda) and willing to make sure it got to the internet, but not willing to take to credit for it? These were guys hoping for embarrasing reactions. Etheridge took the bait.


Nah, he's not a bully.

Of course, Baynor wouldn't have resigned his seat. I wouldn't be too fast on the "time for the Dems to do the right thing." As AOII Angel said, we live in a time where public discourse has gotten completely out of hand. Donations pour in to a Congressman who calls the President a liar during a joint session of Congress; he writes fundraising letters for Republicans in other states. This is definitely a glass houses scenario.

Let the voters decide. I have to give credit for class, though, to Ellmers' response that she feels bad for Etheridge and that she wants voters to vote for her because they agree with her and want her to represent them, not for something like this.

Why in the world would that matter?

He is a public figure who grabbed a person who was asking him a question. I can think of tons of answers and reactions by Etheridge that would not have included slapping and grabbing. I am sorry but you have to call this guy out for his actions. If he can't handle the pressure of kids asking questions he needs to leave the Congress and spend some time at home in peace and quiet.

If not a bully then he is must be a whack job. You just don't grab and push people around because you don't want to answer their question. Just keep walking and smiling.

From what I see the kids were not being rude or insulting. Unless you call saying "Sir, please let go of me" insulting. Oh, I guess the question about "fully suporting the Obama agenda" would be insulting to most anyone.;)

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.

If the response is "well he was a dick so now I get to be a dick as much as I want" we're screwed as a society.

There is something from factcheck.org about the sheer number of things they've had to debunk about this president compared to previous ones. It's staggering and I'm not sure if it's because of people's reactions to Obama or a sense of "it's my turn"

No doubt about your first point, but we appeared equally as screwed to me when people were accusing Bush of being responsible for Katrina in hyperbolic terms. It's not really a new problem or even necessarily a worse problem.

I don't think we're particularly getting anywhere by having this sensibility, certainly, but maybe it makes more sense to individually file one's concern about public discourse away until one personally feels tempted to indulge in cheap shots, rather than to express even more contempt or superiority about other people's cheap shots, not that you are personally doing that Drolefille.

It will be interesting to see what happens with other Presidents. Obama had a relatively short period of time on the national stage so there may just have been a sense that people felt like they didn't know him well so that crazy things seems more plausible. It may be a reflection of more gullible people using the internet as a political forum when previously network news vetted more stuff for them. It may just be the way things are now and it's not particularly Obamacentric. I think the craziness about Palin is comparable in a lot ways. Where do you think that comes from?

I want to know why it's so "rich" that the people in this thread have expressed concern about the level of disrespect in the discourse in this country. I don't know that any of us have been disrespectful to others with differing opinions. Yes, there are rude people who have taunted President Bush from the left of the aisle, but I personally have shown respect towards President Bush in the past, despite whole heartedly disagreeing with him, because he was the president. I didn't vote for him, but he was my President because I am an American.

I honestly don't agree that the level of civility is the same. President Bush was supported by both sides of the aisle at several points in his presidency, but President Obama has gotten nothing but jeering and disrespect for everything he has put forward, even if it aligns with what the Republicans want.

I am sick of the tit for tat claims. Is it really more important to bash everything that Obama does than to consider that maybe something he says might be right?

When I started out commenting, I was careful to say that I wasn't really talking about GCers. I'm not seeing it in this thread really.

I think when Bush got general support, it tended to be when the country felt a sense of external threat and I think Obama would experience similar support if he elected to approach things in this area as Bush did. That isn't how he wants to be perceived, though.

What domestic issues do you feel like Bush got bipartisan support for that Obama isn't getting?

I don't tend to think Obama's policies represent good government, so I don't want to see him get political support for them and I don't think he's owed political support out of politeness.

I don't think he's personally evil* or anything and would like to see him treated with respect and politeness by his opponents, though. ETA: some of my desire to see this is because the office deserves it and some if it is because I think not doing so makes his opponents look terrible.

*as political forum GCers know, he's never really given me warm fuzzies or a thrill up my leg, but I don't believe that my not liking him personally means that it's helpful politically to disparage him as a human being, if my interests really are political improvement.

Agreed.

There's a difference between objecting on political grounds and objecting because Obama said it though. The M.O. of the republicans as a minority party has been "why aren't you making changes to make this bipartisan?" *changes are made, not always big ones, but ones that take ideas into consideration* "We all vote no and will still try and filibuster"

It's not about support "of Obama" but refusing to pass laws that they supported until the Democrats did.

And there is some craziness around Sarah Palin. But she's also utterly unqualified to be president and says some really ridiculous things. And I'm unaware of anyone suspecting her of being secretly born in Russia and therefore a quasi-manchurian candidate and essentially a traitor. I think she became the easy target because, well she is one. But the stupid "boob job" and attacks on her family cross a line.

Particularly I'd like to get rid of the "I'm just raising the question" style bullshit. I'm not saying he's racist, but I'm just saying (that he's something racist)."

Sounds similar to our current occupant in the WH. Totally unqualified.

Drolefille, I just may not be following things as closely as I should. Which policies do you think Republicans supported until Obama embraced them?

I'm not accusing you of anything I don't regard myself as also guilty of, but I think your perception that Palin gets she deserves because she's unqualified is probably at least partially a reflection of your own political bias. While today, I wish she'd just go away quietly, with the emphasis on quietly (and so I do blame her for the continued bs she gets), throughout the race I think she was subject to way beyond anything justified by her public record. There were no born in Russia rumors but there were she's not actually the mother of her child rumors.

Anyway, I'm not that interested in talking about Palin, but my point was just that a comparable level of craziness is/was present directed at the right. We can also look at the Bush Rathergate silliness for examples of relatively relentless interest in stuff that turned out not to be true.

Again, I think we'd be better off without this stuff, but I don't think that we're going to get there with comments from the side in power about what their guy should be entitled too. This is going to have be a lead by example kind of thing.

Back during the 08 election, I said quite a few times here at GC that this was what baffled me about McCain's selection of Palin. Obama's lack of experience was one of the best arrows if not the best arrow in the McCain campaign's quiver. After selecting Palin, he couldn't use that arrow effectively anymore.

UGAalum, I think we're seeing things much the same way.

By pure experience he's now more qualified than most people alive ;). And as MC said, McCain could have owned that angle, and poof that went away when he picked Palin. And it's hard to counter his education on any grounds short of the people who don't believe he really went to school.
Many of the policies in the healthcare bill. The Jobs bill. Voting against the stimulus but writing letters to get money/projects for their districts.

It's why I like Scott Brown, he doesn't seem inclined to be as caught in the "say no, no matter what" game and instead is voting for what he and his constituents want and would benefit from.

I didn't say Palin gets what she deserves, I said I personally would make fun of the really really silly things she said. I had forgotton about the whole "it's not her kid" thing. But yeah that way crossed the line.

For me it's more, I know Obama didn't have a ton of experience. Being from Illinois I'd gotten to know him, and he convinced me he was capable. Palin never could do that, and I didn't like that she was the posterchild for female politicians either.
I don't disagree that it's been there on both sides and that it's gone back for quite a while the Swift Boat people personally offend me as there were people wearing purple heart bandaids. I have no love lost for John Kerry, but you're going to insult every wounded soldier just to make a political point?

I still can't find the graphic but essentially the claim was that within the first 1.5 years they'd debunked way more rumors/myths/etc from either Bush term. Which just makes me wonder whether it's because of this president or because of the internet, or because the opposition has encouraged and sometimes outright said the same things.

But then, I remember yelling at an anti-war protester that no matter what you think Bush is still your president. Do you think I would be wrong in saying that a lot of the opposition to Bush was over what he'd done, while perhaps an uneven proportion of the opposition to Obama is over who he is or what they think he will do? WMDs vs "taking our guns"?

I'm not a fan of ideological "purity." The idea that no democrat could support Bush or any other republican candidate or idea is as silly as saying no republican can support something Obama does or supports. (or support libertarian/green/or i don't know anarchist ideas) Same with "internal" criticism, I like Obama but I think he's screwed things up.

I agree though that we need to get away from the idea that everything we disagree with is destroying America in someway or another. Unfortunately I think it takes more than leading by example. I don't really know what it will take though.