Both sides are correct, but which is worse: lying, or being rude?
Instapundit nails it with this comment:
I’m finding it hard to get excited about this. It was a breach of decorum and civility. But someone who says “get in their face” and “punch back twice as hard” has little standing to bring that up. If you want to benefit from traditions of civility, you should respect them, and that has hardly been a hallmark of this administration, which has gone out of its way to try to demonize and shout down opponents.
He also links to video of Democrats' booing President Bush during a State of the Union speech, and during the Obama inauguration.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Perhaps the left's chickens are coming home to roost. I don't like it, but I'm not going to surrender the field to them, either.
Update, 9/12/09: Oxblog has interesting thoughts, as well as some facts, on the "you lie", "no, you lie" debate.
Update #2, 9/14/09: The Las Vegas Review-Journal has an opinion piece with which I agree--the President is violating every tenet of leadership there is, and the results show.
24 comments:
Congressman only blurted out loud what many of us have been thinking last night since we can read the actual proposed legislation (HR3200).
Yeah, well, let the left go sit in a corner and boo hoo their little eyes out. I've had it! Obama stood up there and threatened to call people out who disagreed with this bill. Let him. I hope we have some conservatives in Congress who have some courage to stand up to this failure of an administration. He called Sarah Palin a liar (but didn't call her by name). He dissed Americans who want to see reform, but not his type of reform, and exercise their right to protest. Let 'em boo hoo when they hopefully get voted out in the 2010 elections.
This speech was supposed to make things clear. I watched and listened with an open mind. I endured watching the Dem idiots make fools of themselves bobbing up and down every time Obama finished a sentence. I endured looking at Pelosi's smug mug behind Obama. Was ANYTHING at all made clear? NO! There was the threat. A couple of hard luck stories (PSYCH 101 stuff) to tug at the heart strings. Criticism of the "previous administration". Blah, blah, blah, blech. He was 15minutes LATE. He droned on and on for 48 minutes and said absolutely NOTHING!
Darren, I wish you had a "share" button on your blog. It would make it easier to post something to Facebook, Blogger and other sites.
I'm not persuaded by the idea that "they started it." It never worked with my mother, so I fail to see why schoolyard-level "logic" should apply here.
I'm not happy about the "punch back" comments, or the way the left, in general, demonizes conservatives (did you read comments on e.g. CNN when Tony Snow died?) But that doesn't allow me to act at that level- in fact, quite the opposite: I am unhappy because they behave in a manner I consider improper.
Present clear, well-reasoned alternatives. Educate students to be able to distinguish rhetoric from reasoned argument.
I seem to recall a time, in the not too distant and dim past (ie 9 months ago) when it was honorable to "speak truth to power."
Huh. Wonder what changed.
Both sides are correct, but which is worse: lying, or being rude?
In my experience the left has never shrunk from either.
"Wonder what changed."
The definition of "change".
I can understand Wilson's outrage because Obama WAS lying. He gave pale support for tort reform, continued to promote varying numbers of uninsured (last night it was thirty million so I guess 17 million left...or went home...or?)The creation of fifty plus organizations is a budget buster alone. Letting Democrats handle the creation and implementation of the programs is an invitation to graft and failure.
I think it's a sign of my growing maturity that I sent you my joke, instead of posting here.
Keep it up, Republicans! Heckle on, I say. We'll do the governing and wait for you to grow up. Joe Wilson shouted two words that brought $350,000 to his opponent's coffers. Die by the sword, indeed!
I'm loving it!
Chump change when it comes to campaign money, Pia. He was just voicing what most Americans were thinking. We'll see how much you're lovin' it when Republicans start taking back Congressional seats in 2010 and when we take back the Presidency in 2012.
Nope. I gotta go with respect for the sanctity of the office and the chamber.
After living abroad for years, and watching fistfights in the Taiwanese parliament, I hold honor and respect to be paramount in our society. I realize Dems are schmucks, too. And if any member wants to rant to the news on Hannity later, that's fine.
But there was a time not too long ago, where the other side was saying, we have to respect the office and the title. And, the "he did it, too" defense is childish. I thought it was bad enough when Cheney cheapened the chamber with profanity.
Respect for the Head of State and the Chamber should be non-negotiable.
That should stand.
Assume Republicans do, in fact, take back congressional seats and the presidency . . .why and/or how would that make anything better?
Wilson was on Hannity's radio program yesterday afternoon. Though he apologizes for his rudeness, he stands by his opinion.
Good on 'em.
someone listens to Sean Hannity?
Maxutils, I hate to disappoint you, but Hannity has just under 15 million weekly listeners.
That's more than the population of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Seattle, Berkeley, and San Diego combined.
I kid. But, I do hate Hannity . . .
to me, he is nothing more than a Republican puppet, and not a particularly bright one. I always get the impression, when I hear him, that everything has been written down for him to read. As right wing extremists go, I infinitely prefer Michael Savage.
So, Erica, about five percent of the country listens to/watches him. And, of course, those are the people watching three hours of fox commentary each night, which of course means they're not reading books during that time. Note: all the information "heard" in an hour of television could be found on one page of a newspaper. Not a lot of critical thinking happening there.
Of course that's just the opinion of an moderate independent who votes based on the issue and the man, not the ideology or the party.
Michael Savage is a little too nutty for me, personally.
I'll match my reading list with anyone's. I read on the average two books a week. And not just my beloved mysteries, but anthropology, history, political thought and news. So bring it on....
Oh, and I also blog on five different blogs, write several comments on national newspapers and I listen to some talk radio. But most of my "marching orders" are internally derived from reading the absolute travesty that the Obama Administration has imposed on Americans.
Heh heh Mazenko. I'll join Ellen's ranks here and challenge a match to my literary interests.
I own more than 300 books, and those are just the ones I've read and like enough to keep. I read 1-2 books on various topics a week, and make my political decisions by reading the legislation. Something that our politicians can't be bothered by, apparently. I haven't owned a TV for five years.
My job involves a substantial amount of driving, up to 20 hours a week when I'm busy. I listen to talk radio in the car. I'm sure you would approve my listening to radio, rather than reading the newspaper, while driving down busy roads.
I was just being snarky, Erica, as I'm with Max on the worthlessness of Hannity. Though that doesn't mean I don't vote conservatively on many issues.
You don't need to justify yourself to me - if you don't even own a TV, then my comments don't really apply. And, I listen to Hannity in the car as well, though not often as I walk to work.
My criticism of Hannity's insignificance stands, and the same goes for his (and Rush's) ditto-heads. That sort of mindlessness, which pays Hannity well to "preach to the choir," is not very impressive, nor good for a country that depends upon an educated electorate.
For some perspective on just one bit of Hannity nonsense, you might be interested in this:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10071568
Again, I'm sure you are well informed, and I know from numerous comments that Ellen is. I'd just assert that Hannity contributes to that not at all.
“After nine months, Americans have begun to make up their minds about this president, and the growing conclusion is this: On the menu of competency, this leader of the free world is one taco short of a full combination plate. He's undisciplined, snooty and less gifted than initially thought, making him ill-prepared to grasp greatness, even when history offers it.”
Actually, IMHO, he’s a few fries short of a Happy Meal…not that he would know it because he’s not qualified to run the MacDonald’s.
This shows a major failure of the 4th Estate last year. They have a responsibility to vet candidates for office, especially the highest office in the land (what a radical concept). But they were just so enamored with B Hussein, the smooth way he reads TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States…remember there is no POTUS without TOTUS) and the way he made people think he knows what he’s doing. E.G. Chris Matthew comment of “It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often." They did not examine the man, the American people bought the show and now he have this unqualified man in office for the next 3 ½ years. Maybe if someone had asked him “Why are you associating with radicals like the Wrong Reverend Wright…the CBO says your plans will double, triple the deficit, can you explain/defend that…”
Exercising these responsibilities and using judgment before you vote makes things much better.
Savage is totally a nut -- but, he's original, honest, and can tell a story. Hannity always sounds like he's reading someone else's note cards.
Post a Comment