I previously wrote about Republican insensitivity to the health of children, among other things, in Why Are Republicans So Mean?, but two displays in recent weeks have gone well beyond even that level of meanness, and so require brief, special condemnation:
1. In February, when Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned to work after being operated upon for pancreatic cancer, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) opined that she'd be dead within nine months. "Even though she was operated on, usually, nine months is the longest that anybody would live after (being diagnosed) with pancreatic cancer," Bunning told a group at the Hardin County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner. He apologized two days later (but misspelled her name).
2. And just yesterday - Friday, March 6 - Rush Limbaugh remarked about Obama's health care legislation initiative, ""Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy memorial health care bill."
What is wrong with these people?
Have they no souls, no common decency?
I can understand - though I strongly disagree with - Republican tics like saying FDR made the Great Depression worse, or Obama is leading us into socialism. Those points are very wrong, but they're not making the mortality of a devoted public servant a sleazy talking point.
Is this where the GOP is heading? America deserves an opposition party that can do better.
31 comments:
Why do democrats enslave entire classes of people, denying them the means to make their own living and telling them they are incapable of caring for themselves?
Answer: To harvest their votes. Moral Bankruptcy with a purpose.
Paul,
I agree, a more fitting tribute to your "devoted public servant" would be to call the plan to destroy health care in this nation and increase the scope of the government's power something like "The Mary Jo Kopekne Health Plan."
Both parties are the same.
the Dems spent the entire election saying McCain had one foot in the grave and wouldn't survive his first term.
The Gop does the same per your examples. Neither party is correct.
Sam - I never said that Ted Kennedy was above serious criticism for some of the things he did in his life. I said that using his serious health problem - his mortality - to score cheap political points was vile. It's not clear to me whether you agree, or think Limbaugh's statement was ok.
Ben - Talking about the age of a candidate running for office is not the same as attacking a Senator already in office, or a Supreme Court justice, on their serious health problems.
foutsc: "Democrats enslave entire classes of people"? snap out of it
Paul,
I agree wholeheartedly... with Limbaugh's statement and Bunning's assessment.
I don't believe Kennedy or Ginsburg was "attacked", but both certainly deserve any verbal criticism that comes their way.
Out of what is foutsc supposed to snap? His or her grounding in reality and become an Obamabot?
foutsc,
What do you mean by "entire classes of people"? Can you list the classes that have been affected in their entirety by enslavement?
Sam - you agree wholeheartedly with with Bunning's and Limbaugh's use of a serious health issue to score political points? Sad... Basic decency in civil discourse is either something that you or have not...
And as for what Foutsc should snap out of - it's her or his delusion that the Democrats are enslaving anyone.
As Tvindy asks - who, exactly, has been enslaved?
Paul,
Your ilk has been in the process of enslaving several groups for years. There are the various classes of victims you create and teach that they cannot succeed or even survive without your government benevolence and special programs (affirmative action, etc.) There are the productive, whom you demand labor and give their intellectual property up as sacrifice to the "people." Now, your president and the libtards in power are putting as many people as possible out of private sector employment via the worsening of the economic situation to expand their control and thus enslave as many citizens as possible. What else could their attempt to force citizens into total government dependence be called?
I agree that these are some idiotic remarks, professor.
As for this idea of enslavement that foutsc brought up, it reminds me of an interesting article that I have bookmarked:
"Is the Income Tax a Form of Slavery?"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/1abortp.jpg&imgrefurl=http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/12/crush-the-obamedia-narrative-look-whos-gripped-by-insane-rage/comment-page-3/&usg=__9EPgoinm4XSIDGGXuOx7v_egJUY=&h=300&w=400&sz=69&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=xDcTTPTxDw0thM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAbort%2Bpalin%2Bprotestors%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DG
Paul, I'm starting to think you ONLY ever watch TV & view liberal media sites. Have you ever listened to Nancy Pelosi or Hilary Clinton????? You have got to be kidding me.
Sam - typically, you provide no real answers, no evidence ... just more paranoid nonsense and insults.
But I'm happy to have your comments here, because they provide a good record of the moral level of some of Obama's opponents.
You think wrong, GJ - I watch several hours of Fox evening programming, at least 4-5 times per week.
And, if you bothered to do just a little research, and looked at the index to his blog, on the right, you'd see that I take issue with Olbermann about as often as I do with O'Reilly.
Paul,
I would think you would not want to draw attention to "the moral level of some of Obama's opponents." Barack Obama's lack of moral character is tenderly swept aside by the bulk of the media outlets and apparently by his blogger fan club.
His actions opposing the protection of babies that survived late term abortions while in the Illinois Senate alone disqualify him as a moral human being. Even though his supporters either lie or are misinformed about those actions, the transcript is on-line so those that are curious can learn the truth.
His association with Bill Ayers speaks incredibly ill of the man's character. Oh, I forgot... he was only 8 years old... no wait, he thought Ayers had repented....
His reference to his own future grandchild as a punishment says so much about the man.
His goal of wealth redistribution from those that earn to those that will vote Democrat as long as they can nurse at the breast of the government certainly could not be construed as moral.
If in your opinion, morality consists of acting as a presidential Robin Hood or champion of unlimited abortions, then you can indeed consider a moral argument on behalf of your president.
While I might agree with you on some points, Sam, I hope you realize that the republicans are just as morally repugnant as the democrats.
Snap out of it, Sam - the sum total of Obama's relationship with Ayers is that they sat on a school board together (upon which, guess what, Republicans sat)...
As for my view of morality, as it relates to the topic of this blog post, I think it is immoral to viciously talk about the health problems of public servants whose political opinions you oppose.
Paul,
I found your site recently when I typed in something to do with impossible economic growth for an undergrad econ class paper, and one of your articles on "Why are Republican's So Mean" popped up. I thought maybe you were genuinely asking, but as I've continued to read over the past 2 weeks(partially because I'm a fan of Lost & partially because I'm interested in other points of view), I realize you are no better than any of the other partisans (left or right) dominating the blogosphere - minds made up, logic cast aside, and full elitist/superior condescention on display - the same crap that is tearing us apart as a country. I was really hoping that your site promoted true, humble, intellectual & philisophical debate - even for us mere mortals.
I'd hardly consider O'Reilly or Fox News representative of Republicans. Mostly, I think he's a sensationalist money-collector for Fox, not so much mean & I don't watch his show as nothing meaningful is gained. Fox News does a relatively poor job of relaying the news altogether and a sad statement about our society when the news with the most sensationalism gets the ratings.
As far as doing research, I'm merely commenting on your ridiculous assertion that Republicans are mean because Senator Bunning made a non-PC statement that you took out of context. Where were you w/ Biden/Pelosi/Reed/Clinton etc. made "mean" comments? Don't you like Indians or do you only defend little old ladies? Regardless of the rest of your posts, the statement, on its face, does not stand.
GJ, you earlier wrote, "Paul, I'm starting to think you ONLY ever watch TV & view liberal media sites".
I give you evidence that I watch Fox (not a liberal TV operation), and you respond that Fox and O'Reilly are not representative of Republicans.
That's called shifting the grounds of your argument, when someone presents evidence that refutes your argument.
You could use a little study of logic, as well as some research.
GJ,
I have the opposite take on Dr. Levinson. I see no evidence at all that he is elitist or has cast aside logic. He seems quite willing to partake in intelligent conversation with people who have different views.
Did you not notice the word "some" in the title? He never made the "ridiculous assertion that Republicans are mean", just that some of them have recently made remarks that crossed the line.
He concludes by saying, "Is this where the GOP is heading? America deserves an opposition party that can do better." I took this to mean not that he is anti-Republican, but that he is rooting for the GOP to pull itself together and come back as a strong positive force (which IMHO it hasn't been for quite awhile).
Also, are you aware that Levinson, although very pro Obama, identifies as a progressive libertarian?
Paul- Point is, I'd hardly call Fox a fair representation & doesn't qualify you as watching other than liberal points of view. Watching garbage doesn't qualify. And again with the condescention?
Tvindy- yes, I'm aware he's a "Progressive Libertarian," but that doesn't change the that he shows bias against Republicans at least. I did check out what he said about Olberman. Not liking Olberman's views on 24 hardly qualifies as the kind of character assasination he has perpetrated on Rebuplicans in general over the last few weeks. Saying they have "no souls" and no "common decency" over a sound bite? See the link above for examples of some liberal decency.
Paul,
I would go further than that. I think the GOP in general has been morally bankrupt for a long time now. They don't seem to have any policy positions of their own, besides outlawing abortions and cutting taxes, and they seem to spent 90% of their time telling everyone how awful democrats and liberals are. I was so glad Obama won in '08. For once, for once in a long time, the good guys won one.
If the GOP were still the party of guys like Gerry Ford, or even Dick Nixon (!), I might be a Republican today. But it has become the party of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, the party of people who will say anything bad about someone who disagrees with them, the party that accepts lies and denies science. When someone like Rush Limbaugh has been exposed as a liar time and time again, and Republicans simply choose to go on believing him, I think it says a lot about where they are coming from.
M. Scott Peck referred to evil people as "People of the Lie." He pointed out that they lie even when they don't have to; that lying becomes a way of life for them. As far as I'm concerned, that's the modern-day GOP, and especially such GOP representatives as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck.
I'm a former Libertarian Party member -- I quit in 1990 when the Party came out against Desert Storm. I now consider myself a liberal Democrat. And at this point, I think I probably always will.
GJ: Again, you need to do a little more research. My criticism of Olbermann went far beyond disagreeing with his attack on 24 - see, for example, Decline and Fall of Keith Olbermann. And your blanket denunciation of Fox as "garbage" - as well as being untrue - doesn't change the fact that major Repubicans from Karl Rove to Newt Gingrich are regular commentators on its shows.
The reason I keep emphasizing that you need to do more research is that this is a problem with lots of right-wing commentary - talking points and insults, rather than facts and research. Dealing with facts, using logic, is another way that the Republican Party could do a better job of presented its views.
And, yes, I think any politician makes political points on a public servant's deadly cancer has no soul. And, if you find no problem with that - with what Bunning said - well, then, draw your own conclusions.
Tvindy, thank you, and Barton Paul (no relation, but also a science fiction writer), well said...
Barton- care to list some sample lies/sources here? I am genuinely curious. I have no party affiliation if that requires you believe 100% of the party platform, but I try to go out of my way to hear other points of view- it keeps me in check. But, I do get very tired of the unsubstantiated accusations from both sides. Most recently, I cringed at the behavior of the Democrats during the process of passing the ARRA- ok, fine, they won, they have a near supermajority, etc. I don't blame them for trying to push their policy adgenda, but why the attitude? It reminded me of high school, except with no excuse for immaturity. Even if you don't agree with the policies of the Republicans, why would you begrudge them their right to disagree?
You'll have to enlighten me on the Limbaugh lies. I have listened to him, on occassion, and while I have never known him tell a lie, I can't take very much of his show. He does tell things from a perspective you don't get on TV, but you have to listen to all kinds of blathering before he gets to his point- which is no better than these news-talk shows which seem to be so popular. I also read part of one of Coulter's books, but I couldn't verify if things she states are lies; I'll grant you she is inflamatory, but whenever I'm in a bookstore, there are 20 anti-bush or Republican books for every one apologist- and they're all inflamatory too! Neither of them are elected officials . . . so are you concerned about Michael Moore, Maddow or Huffington being the spokespeople for the Democrats? Internet or TV, it seems to me that Democrats & liberals are much more likely to make unsubstantiated attacks. I actually signed up on a liberal blog years ago, but had to bow out when the commentary of the election centered around which canditates children you'd rather "f**K" or railed about us all being a bunch of greedy war war mongers, with no clear understanding of the real, historical background behind the present situation. I know smart people on both sides of the debate and all just want to do the right thing. No one's going to win the abortion debate, but is it so hard to see that both sides just want to do the right thing? Why must you label the people who believe abortion is killing a child, evil?
Paul, Did you read the whole article- in context, of what he said? I'm not saying it was smart, but he clearly wasn't trying to be evil or insensitive to Justice Ginsburg. People speculate all the time about when the next supreme court justice will leave the bench- I remember hearing an article about this, even before she was diagnosed, and she had stated she has no intention of retiring- which I took to mean she'd be there until her dying day or she was forced out. This has been part of media speculation from day one & people are concerned that Obama hasn't even had time to come up with more than a cursory list (I guessing it's become a much higher priority since then, and not just because of JG).
Your post sounds very much like a talking point/insult- taking exception to what was clearly a mistake; you takin' lessons from Rahmbo? Again, did you crucify Biden & all the Democrats for his insensitive remarks, or maybe this is really back to one of your central themes- health care?
I did read the complete transcript of Bunning's remarks, and I prominently noted in my blog post that he apologized (and I even put in a video clip about his apology).
But that doesn't mean I think his remark was not very deliberate, and a mistake from Bunning's perspective only insofar as he didn't expect such a huge, negative public reaction.
He was clearly saying to the Republicans gathered, look, we have to rally in support of appointment of conservatives justices, and that's going to be in play soon on the Supreme Court, because Ruth Bader Ginsburg has only nine months to live.
Anyone with any decency wouldn't use a person's life-threatening illness as a political rallying point.
I'm surprised you don't see that.
I guess I'm just not schooled in the art of political attack. You must be right. He's evil. And Limbaugh, too. Proceed with the crucifixion.
Rahm is really the good guy here:
I mean, with sound policy grounding like this:
"I think we have to go back to Social Security and Medicare, to turn out older voters." and this:
Once "you have succinctly spelled out your own program, you can start dredging up dirt on your opponent." or:
"never waste a good crisis"
I suppose it doesn't matter how you get there; good must be defined as "the winner."
None of those are making political hay about a specific public servant's life-threatening illness, are they.
But they are intentional.
and sleazy.
HJ,
I certainly find many Republicans to be morally repugnant. I long for a day (although I don't expect to see it) when there is the possibility of electing a principled conservative to office and not having to choose between Democrat and in too many cases Democrat-lite (Republican.)
Paul,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/13/senate-lion-kennedy-roars-national-healthcare/
Do you take issue with the soul deficiencies of these Democrats who sought to name the healthcare reform fiasco after the senior swimmer from Massachusetts?
I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about, Sam. I know of no health care fiasco - only a long overdue program to give every American access to quality health care, whatever their income or lack of.
Somebody did me the favor of collecting a bunch of Limbaugh lies in one place. Please check out:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006
Post a Comment