Congressman Bob Etheridge Caught on Tape

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Come on, you can't have it both ways. Saying he may have had a bad day and overreacted is an excuse.

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 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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

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.

[AOII Angel]

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

[UGAalum94]

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.