Congressman Bob Etheridge Caught on Tape

[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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think there's a perception that Obama is much further left than most people are comfortable with.

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.

He is as far to the left as we have ever seen in the WH. The only person happy with his performance has to be Jimmy Carter. Now Carter will no longer be considered the worst President in history.

Amen on the Republican's blowing it. I am a registered Republican and we got what we deserved. Hence the Tea Party which is libertarian at it's core.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Now Carter will no longer be considered the worst President in history.

I thought that was Bush? Or wait a minute, wasn't it Reagan? Or the other Bush? Or Clinton? Or Hoover? Or . . . do we count William Henry Harrison?

I kid . . . mainly because I think claims of "worst president in history" are so subjective and get tossed around so often for recent residents of the White House as to be meaningless.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

John McCain had zero chance of being elected. The people of the U.S. were tired of Bush in the WH and they were going to elect any member of the opposing party that won their respective nomination. McCain was probably the worst candidate the Republicans could put forth but in the end it really wouldn't have mattered.

We have effectively stated, as a nation, that qualifications do not matter. You just need to be clean, articulate and bright. Whatever the hell that means.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

John McCain had zero chance of being elected. The people of the U.S. were tired of Bush in the WH and they were going to elect any member of the opposing party that won their respective nomination. McCain was probably the worst candidate the Republicans could put forth but in the end it really wouldn't have mattered.

We have effectively stated, as a nation, that qualifications do not matter. You just need to be clean, articulate and bright. Whatever the hell that means.

This isn't a new thing, you know. "The most inexperienced president ever" is part of that hyperbolic rhetoric thing we've been talking about.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...lcrHI0f3zAUzYg

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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 think there's always hysteria over what someone is going to do from the fringes one either side.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

John McCain had zero chance of being elected. The people of the U.S. were tired of Bush in the WH and they were going to elect any member of the opposing party that won their respective nomination. McCain was probably the worst candidate the Republicans could put forth but in the end it really wouldn't have mattered.

I used to refer to the selection of Palin as McCain's Hail Mary pass.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think there's always hysteria over what someone is going to do from the fringes one either side.

I used to refer to the selection of Palin as McCain's Hail Mary pass.

While I agree, in general, I'm just trying to place what is different, because it does feel like there is something different. Perhaps it's as simple, and disappointing, as the whole birther crap. Once you have a group that pretty much says not only isn't he legally president, but he never could be, they have free reign to say anything about him... I don't know.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

While I agree, in general, I'm just trying to place what is different, because it does feel like there is something different.

Ah, youth.

I grew up in the land of Jesse Helms -- I remember when he did editorials on the local news, before he got into politics. He was bringing out heaps of crazy from the far right and the far left long before Bush or Obama came along.

FWIW, I think the main thing that's different is the internet, which makes it much easier to dissiminate the crazy. Twenty-five years ago, people pretty much had to rely on print media, radio or word of mouth to get the crazy ideas out there. TV wasn't going to cover it too much. But now you can email the latest absurdity to all your contacts as a WARNING of SOMETHING WE CAN'T LET HAPPEN. There are websites upon websites chock-full of ABSOLUTELY TRUE inanities. The internet has no filter, and it makes it much easier to spread the crazy around.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

John McCain had zero chance of being elected. The people of the U.S. were tired of Bush in the WH and they were going to elect any member of the opposing party that won their respective nomination. McCain was probably the worst candidate the Republicans could put forth but in the end it really wouldn't have mattered.

We have effectively stated, as a nation, that qualifications do not matter. You just need to be clean, articulate and bright. Whatever the hell that means.

I don't know - McCain lost me when he selected Palin.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by agzg

I don't know - McCain lost me when he selected Palin.

The GOP lost me when they selected McCain, as well as the Dems when they chose Obama. Obama would have made a good president 8-12 years from now, he's just too green for me and I think the shoes he's filling are just a little too big for him. Just my personal opinion.