Congressman Bob Etheridge Caught on Tape

[Ghostwriter]

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

[Animate]

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

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Animate

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

We can only hope!

This is who he is running against.



Renee Ellmers who is a registered nurse.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

We can only hope!

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

[AGDee]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Animate

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

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

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

I don't think we are either.

[Drolefille]

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"

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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?

[Drolefille]

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)."

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And there is some craziness around Sarah Palin. But she's also utterly unqualified to be president and says some really ridiculous things.

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

[UGAalum94]

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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

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.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

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'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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

I think there's a perception that Obama is much further left than most people are comfortable with. I don't know how rational that perception is, particularly when you look at most of what he's actually done, but I think it makes it hard for anyone from a purple to red district to support his policies and remain viable. I don't know that I read these politicians behavior as a desire simply to undermine or resist Obama personally, but more because they think they know what their constituents will tolerate. If they don't get the concessions that they think they need or if they get them but the public backlash is still too great, they aren't willing to sacrifice their careers for it.

Brown's position is solid because he's from a pretty liberal state. He has a luxury that most Republicans don't when it comes to moving to the center or moving from the center to the left.

I favor ideological purity on some level, but I don't support pure party loyalty at all. A lot of what Republicans have done when they've been the majority party is pretty indefensible by conservative or small government standards.

I think you may have interpreted something I wrote more broadly than I intended or maybe you weren't really responding to me, but my leading by example comment was really only intended to be about the public discourse stuff. I think complaining about how bad the other side treats people just feeds the problem, but it's hard to resist too. You know I was outraged about how Palin was treated during the election, but I'm pretty sure my outrage didn't contribute anything.