Congressman Bob Etheridge Caught on Tape

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.