Yesssss, that’s exactly what I said. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
“Being a giant douche” is totally non-partisan.
I completely agree, as I am sure you would agree that it isn’t limited to politicians from certain states.
Off topic, but I don’t give a flying frog…
Right there is precisely what is wrong with this country in a nutshell. Addison “Joe” Wilson is not 'an important person" while Frank os ‘anb insignificant anonymous loser’
He’s a Congressman, yes. But that means he is supposed to be representing his district, his constituents, and the country at large. The most recent redistrictings were by and large incumbents defining their districts to maximize their chances of getting re-elected. It’s not supposed to be that Congressmen are entitled to choose their constituents, but that the constituents are entitled to choose a Congressman. Wilson is a public servant, not an August Personage before whom the rest of us should kowtow. And apparently his parents never taught him how to behave in public – so maybe someone should take him over their knee and explain it to him – physically.
Perhaps this failure to recognize that governance is public service and success calls for noblesse oblige is precisely what’s wrong with most of the Republicans these days. Aside from having the moral compass of a child’s top.
This one took me a long time, but very well done!
As for the OP, I think Wilson’s a douche, I think he embarassed the only party that can keep the Dems balanced and represented them in a very poor light, and I think The President is a big boy who can stand up for himself. The admonition or whatever is just partisan games and demonstrates a wasted opportunity for the Dems to take the high road. They had this chance to show that they were better than the sow-humping nutjobs from the ridiculous right and they chose instead to wait in line for the sow-humping gang-bang.
There is nothing left to do but hope that the US in general wakes up and demands better–from both parties–come election time.
Yes. That kind of makes him significant. Whereas Franks’s significance is…?
A child’s top is utterly consistent and rational in its behavior.
Sure. But posting here doesn’t require that we agree with Ed. It just requires that we follow Ed’s rules.
As sitting in Congress and listening to a President doesn’t mean you have to agree with the rules. They just have to be followed.
Right. Don’t bother with the content of my post. Frank is a U.S. citizen, one of “We tje people” whom these “significant people” claim to be elected to serve.
And yes, a top spins in circles and teeters – just like the Republicans’ moral sense. For far too many Republicans (and unfortunately not a few Democrats), the rules are: “Winning is the most important thing… Lie, cheat, and steal to do it – just don’t get caught.”
Yeah, yeah, but how does that make him significant?
And that’s what I just don’t get. The Republicans moral sense, oh, and "not a few Democrats. You paint Republicans with a broad brush, and only grudgingly concede that “not a few Democrats” have the same issue, as if you somehow measured the sins of Republican politicians and those of Democrats, and found the Republicans wanting by comparison.
To me, the conceit of such a viewpoint is astounding. I think a more accurate and evolved view is that politicians suck. But, even that’s not it.
The conceit that when you say “Winning is the most important thing… Lie, cheat, and steal to do it – just don’t get caught” you think you are describing anything other than the failings of humanity in general is hard to understand.
Why is it that most people feel compelled to separate out the good and bad of human nature and attribute the good to groups they identify with and the bad with ones they don’t?
It happens with Steelers vs. Eagles fans, Yankees vs. mets, Republicans vs. Democrats, Springfield vs. Shelbyville.
I think we are genetically programmed to take the the us versus them stance, that anybody that differs posesses all that is ill, while anybody similar posesses all that is good.
provincialism, tribalism? It’s ubiquitous, but one never sees it oneself, does one?
“One never knows, do one?”
Yeah…I see what you did there. ‘Ain’t misbehavin’ and all that.
Agreed. But that doesn’t imply that the sins of 21st century Republicans are mirror images of those of Democrats.
Fact is, from the 1990s onwards, Republicans were sleaze innovators. Look at the K St project. Contrast the piddling Democratic scandals (Acorn, sort of) with the rather larger Republican ones (eg Norton in the Dept of Interior).*
I’m perfectly willing to consider the possibility that in other eras the roles were reversed. Heck, I’m guessing that the Dems practiced more public corruption throughout the bulk of the 20th century.
All that said, I’m going to evade direct assessment Polycarp’s “Winning is the most important thing…” characterization.
- “Cold Cash” Jefferson’s scandal wasn’t piddling of course. But I’m arguing for a sense of overall proportion here.
Consistent and predictable, perhaps. It would need to be sentient for its behavior to rise to the level of “rational”.
And for it to have a moral compass. 
Exactly. It’s simply not possible that one side is in actuality more corrupt and greedy than the other side: everyone claiming otherwise is my enemy, driven surely by blind partisanship!
To be totally fair, it is a valid point that not every Republican is corrupt, supporting big business in its effort to get all that the traffic will bear, supporting religious nutjobs in their wrong-headed effort to force others by law to conform to their opinions of what is proper behavior, ready to jump to the defense of those accused of waging aggressive war for invalid or venal reasons, of justifying torture, of subrogating justice to partisan ends. And there have been left-wiing extremists guilty of as severe, if different, crimes. But by and large, not all Democrats have leapt to the defense of such people, and rarely if ever the party leaders and national office-holders. Contrariwise, the majority of Republicans, incuding most of the party leadership, is prepared to jump to partisan defense of their extremist wing. And not a few officials have been extremists.
I can remember a day when the reverse was true – the Democrats were the party of bosses, of corrupt deals and bigotry (against which the left wing fought in vain). And the G.O.P. was the party of people with integrity, who sought prudence, limited government, and freedom. The Southern Strategy began this role reversal, Karl Rove finished it.
And any Republican with integrity should be able to admit it.
Really? So the Dems are equally corrupt using the Dept of Justice to press bogus indictments to affect elections? Leading the nation into a ruinously expensive and futile war? Directly causing the deaths of a hundred thousand innocent people?
A classic false equivalence: you can’t bring yourself to place the blame squarely where it belongs, so you try to pretend that all involved are equally corrupt, its simply a matter of opportunity. Trouble with that is, the last eight years have shown that in one instance, your case is firmly founded, but in the other, its theoretical.
Its a proven fact that the Bushivik Admin was a free-range disaster, everything it touched turned to shit, and the shit was too toxic for fertilizer. That the other team would do as badly is pure supposition on your part.
And when one team has proven itself so badly suited for governance, how is it that partisanship opposing them is somehow wrong, not to be trusted? My posse and me have been talking this stuff for the whole eight years, speaking the unvarnished truth. Does that make us “extremist”? Would a somewhat smaller portion of truth have been more moderate?
“Tell the truth, sure, but not too loud, and don’t say mean things about The Leader, because that’s blind partisanship.”
Any chance that, next time, you might actually listen to us, give us a fair hearing, seeing as we’ve been right pretty much the whole time?
Today’s lefties simply believe in self policing more than Republicans do. So the wackos who claimed that Bush planned 911 were either ignored or laughed at – and they gained little traction. Contrast this with the crazies who claim without evidence that Obama was born in Kenya or those invoking death panels: they get support from radio, tv and Congressional reps – and condemnation from precious few on the right.
It is said that if Islam is to renounce terrorism, that the main impetuous must be from within Islam: others can only provide encouragement at best. I encourage modern American conservatives to renounce both crazies and cranks.
Why are Democrats superior in this respect? I maintain that this is a happy accident of history, specifically the 1980s. In 1984 Mondale attempted to construct a big coalition of minorities, women, labor, etc etc – and he got trounced. For the sake of self preservation, the politicos then attempted to seriously retool. The DLC pushed hardest for this – repelling the strident and moving towards the center – but that was only one manifestation. Those who liked discussing policy found themselves emboldened and ready to take on the cheap shot artists.
The funny thing is, Mondale wasn’t a bad candidate once you control for the state of the economy as Ray Fair did. His electoral strategy got a bum rap IMHO. (Dukkakis, OTOH, truly was an awful candidate.) Since I have wonkish sensibilities, I’m pretty happy with the outcome. But it didn’t have to be this way.
There are long term trends to consider of course. The unionized workforce has been in decline for 30+ years. But I also think that the Democrats pro-Science leanings have attracted a lot of the Professional class. New Jersey is a good example: much of its population is made up of people who ran from the blight of New York or Philadelphia. Moderate Republicans can do well there. But that strand of the GOP is in cardiac arrest, so New Jersey just trends bluer and bluer.
So it’s not that Democrats naturally have greater sanity: it’s just a fortuitous circumstance.
I’m sure you’ll chalk it up to early-onset Budweisers, but I think you just got yourself whooshed.
P.S. Measure for Measure
I think the word you’re looking for is impetus.
Goddam post-modernist irony.
Unless he speaks of the impetuous of love?
He’s not that pompous.