Suppose he worked for UC Santa Barbara?
Well, look, I’ll own it – but, like you were just saying, I don’t want it snarkily implied (or flatly stated) that I don’t care if he assaults people. I do care; if he assaults someone, I want him to face trial, maybe spend time behind bars and pay a fine. Do they still have guys in orange jumpsuits do chain-gang work while shotgun-toting guards watch over them from behind heir mirrored sunglasses? Because, if so, I’d maybe okay that, too, given that I in fact care whether someone commits assault.
But, to me, a Congressman is basically just a shrug. Like, we prize democracy, but it often seems inconvenient to have direct democracy – maybe a small town that only casts a small number of yes-or-no votes on legislation each year can swing it, but it’s usually kind of difficult – and so we periodically vote for a guy to cast votes the way we want, instead of all of us casting each vote each time. But, in effect, that’s all he is: the minor convenience of using a letter carrier to play go-between.
And so I figure, if you catch that guy committing a misdemeanor, punish him; but don’t swap him for someone who casts votes the way you don’t want, since that defeats the whole purpose of sending a guy to cast votes you’re too busy to cast.
My guess is we probably wouldn’t care that much if a) he hadn’t decked a reporter just doing his job and b) it weren’t part of a much larger trend among the far right to attack the press and even the concept of factual truth.
If this were just a guy having a confrontation with a reporter that had escalated and if this sort of thing were out of character for him and his party, people might have a different interpretation of what his behavior and the reaction from his party represents.
As it is, however, we have an administration that is openly at war with reporters, to the point of actually trying to imprison reporters for doing their constitutional duty. We have a president that held some of the most violent-filled campaign events in recent memory. And we have a party that seems committed to defending this behavior. And now, on top of it all, they even seem to be engaging in it themselves. It portends something very ominous for the future.
Why, yes, let’s do change the subject!
Oh, I remember that incident! Thuggish, idiotic behavior. I think that Miller-Young and Gianforte should share a cell. They deserve each other!
It certainly does indicated an acceptance of insulting, bullying, berating, and now even assaulting the media if they persist in asking questions that the GOP does not like. As I said before, this comes from the very top of the Republican political leadership. This is pushing what is considered “normal” or “acceptable”. And you are helping them move this into the realm of “new normal”. All because you hope this press-assaulting candidate will help you with your single issue.
I don’t thing the ends justify the means. I think a free press is important. YMMV.
It’s frustrating to me that you recast my statements about relative support in absolute terms.
I changed a tire at night during a sleet storm. I did so because a judged it was better to do that than remain stranded. But if you heard the story and started telling people how much I enjoy changing tires in freezing rain at night, I hope you see how you’d be mistaken.
So, again: it IS a problem, but a single occurrence is not ENOUGH of a problem to have moved my hypothetical vote away from him, given the other choices in the race.
Oddly, when I described my decision to vote for Hillary Clinton, not one liberal poster here made similar leaps. Everyone understood that I did not support Secretary Clinton as a general matter, but was choosing her over what was in my opinion an even worse policy choice. No one (except, I think, another conservative!) tried to recast my vote for Clinton as an unfettered endorsement.
Why, in this case, is my hypothetical decision to vote for Gianforte over Quist seen as something more absolute, and not a similar weighing of equities?
Why, in other words, do you ask, “That’s not a problem?” when I’ve already said it is a problem?
I don’t have any particular concern with politicians insulting or berating the media. I think the media is reaping what it has sown for its clear bias.
But I agree assault is not permissible, and I support the criminal justice system taking its course.
Friendly reminder: this guy considers an “unwise” weakening of the difference between state and federal power - not an unconstitutional one, just an “unwise” one - to be worth the tradeoff of stripping tens of millions of Americans of their health care coverage.
Nah. But the way the Trump has called the media “the enemy” on numerous occasions? The way one rep from California said “unless he deserved it” with regards to this assault? The increasingly nasty rhetoric coming out of the heads on FOX News regarding cases like this?
It’s not clear to me that the best description of the reporter is, “Just doing his job.” For example, if a reporter asks a question and a politician replies, “No comment,” I’d say that repeating the question immediately is not “doing his job.” It’s badgering.
This is an example, not a claim that this actually happened here. But do you agree with the example?
So far as I am aware, it is out of character for him. Has he assaulted others?
Where to begin?
Reporters have no “constitutional duty.” They have a job, which is generally constitutional. I’m not aware of any reporters jailed for acts that are constitutionally permissible.
The article describes ONE misdemeanor-level assault. The other charges were theft and vandalism.
For the record, I would not hire, nor vote for, Professor Miller-Young. Can we leave the “LIBERAL HYPOCRISY!!!” cries alone when the GOP just ELECTED a blatant criminal?
How about, instead of defending Gianforte with hypotheticals, we deal with what actually happened, as described by other reporters in the room and an audio recording of the incident?
I would refuse to answer this question because it’s an irrelevant broadening of the issue.
This should be the baseline rule — A person who has physically assaulted (or encouraged others to do so or has made veiled or explicit threats in that vein) a reporter or other member of the public for questioning or protesting him or her while he or she is campaigning for office should be disqualified immediately from that particular race. If he or she is nevertheless the winner in a congressional race, the house should deny him or her a seat.
Not jailed, just assaulted by a candidate for Congress. Do you really view criminal assault as such a ho-hum occurrence? What kind of person assaults another? Ever? A fucking jerk, that’s who. And now we have Congressman Jerk.
No, because the thrust of the argument here is a pious-sounding proclamation that misdemeanor assault is per se unacceptable.
But when Miller-Young’s case was discussed here on the SDMB, the reactions to her crime were muted.
I am therefore arguing that the real issue is not the pious rejection of all assault that’s on display here. I’m arguing that when the assault is committed against a disfavored target by a favored target, many commentators here don’t have particularly strong reactions. The unarmed neo-Nazi that was physically assaulted at a demonstrated drew praise from commentators here for the assaulter.
The arguments here should be about balancing the equities. Anthony Weiner had ardent defenders here even after it became clear he had lied to the FBI by falsely claiming his account was hacked. That made him a “blatant criminal,” which did not damage his SDMB credibility greatly, either during his Congressional career or his later run for mayor.
I’m asking you (pronoun used in the general, not the specific, sense) to be honest about how your horror at a crime waxes and wanes according to the perpetrator and how much you favor his politics.
I’d be surprised if this were true. I am also surprised that you don’t think the context of physically assaulting a reporter is a relevant distinction, given the larger attacks on the press and freedom of the press coming from the GOP.
Ho hum.
Well strong arm tactics against the press by GOP officials do seem to be happening fairly regularly recently.
So including this one that’s four times in the last month.
Of course, there will always be some of that. You, for example (You, as in Bricker), might have a bit more condemnation of Bernie Sanders assaulting a police officer, then you have of this Montana asshole assaulting a “liberal journalist.”
But, I would hope that we can all agree that some conduct crosses the line no matter who did it and who the victim is. Perhaps we can even agree that any criminal assault by anyone is wrong, and that if someone does it, they should forfeit our support in their effort to serve in the United States Congress.
Have we really sunk so low that we can overlook physical assault as long as it’s “just one time?” Some things should be “never events.” You (pronoun used in the general, not the specific, sense) don’t get one free assault before I judge you harshly.
Should have been pistols at dawn, but thanks for bringing another shitty person to our attention. Too bad the rule about insulting others is only in the Senate, when McConnell doesn’t like it.
Keep fucking that hypocritical liberal pig from last century.