The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    William K. Wolfrum's picture

    Alan Grayson must apologize now! Democrats must always stay above the fray

    By William K. Wolfrum on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 8:23am | Politics, Humor & Satire

    Every morning I wake up, look at myself in the mirror and ask myself this question: Am I a good guy? Now, it’s a purely hypothetical question, as there is no doubt that I’m a good guy who has high standards of politeness and decorum.

    The same, however, cannot be said for Democratic Representative Alan Grayson. In the past few weeks, Grayson has stated that the Republican plan for health care reform is to have U.S. citizens “die quickly,” and referred to Republicans as “knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.”

    Such behavior is abhorrent to me, as it should be to all liberals. For someone in the Democratic party to show such venom and passion is not just uncalled for, but it goes against everything that liberals and Democrats believe. It is behavior that puts us all on the same level of Republicans.

    Rep. Grayson must apologize to each and every Republican in this nation - individually, if possible - for his reckless words and behavior. The U.S. is a nation of just two major political parties, and it’s the Republicans job to be venomous attack dogs. It is the job, nay, duty of Democrats to take Republican venom.

    As of now, Republicans have been doing their job beautifully. They question President Barack Obama’s citizenship, his character, and his loyalty to the nation. This is what they are supposed to do. Grayson, however, is leading the Democratic Party astray by refusing to rise above this angry name-calling. It has been a shocking episode in this nation’s history.

    We do not have to look far back to see that Democrats have not always been this way. They allowed Republicans hurl endless invectives at then-President Bill Clinton. And because of the high standards of Democrats, Clinton managed to get impeached, and Al Gore somehow lost to George W. Bush, despite the fact that Clinton left office with a budgetary surplus, low unemployment and high standing around the globe. Things were as they should be, basically.

    When Rep. Grayson fights back against Republican smears and lies, he goes against the natural order of things. Democrats need to allow Republicans free reign. They must allow Republicans to practice their nasty, angry politics without so much as a whisper. Because then Democrats will be above the fray.

    Democrats must allow Republicans to dominate the message and media and call them anti-American, Hitlerite, socialist, troop haters without response. For this, Americans will respect them. Because that respect will shine through in 2024 - after Obama loses re-election and Republicans spend 12 years in charge. Then, the fair-playing Democrats will possibly regain power and have their chance to bring their goodness to this nation, which will then likely be known as “WalMart Presents the United States of America.” Then - and only then - will Democrats be able to salvage the economy, and get American troops out of harms way in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Mexico, and whoever else Democrats allow neo-conservatives to attack.

    Grayson must apologize to all Republicans because Democrats must always take the moral high ground and stay above the fray. It worked during the Clinton years, and it will work again.

    –WKW

    Topics: 
    Politics
    Humor & Satire

    Comments

    (getting up) Venom from either the right or left is still venom and the stuff that political talk radio is made out of. Both sides of the aisle have been guilty of acting like Rush Limbaughs or Stephanie Millers and should be scorned for such. A radio show host's job is to make scurrilous incendiary comments, politicians are supposed to be busy figuring out how to fix the country. The level of debate needs to rise. (getting down off my soapbox)

    by Larry Jankens on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 11:45pm

    You know, your comparison here puts the lie to the tired "both sides do it" refrain.  Stephanie Miller equals Rush Limbaugh?  How does that work exactly?


    by DF on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 1:44pm

    Stephanie and Rush are both radio show hosts whose job it is not to report the facts in an unbaised nature, rather it's how to report the facts that will translate into ratings.  Don't get me wrong, Miller is more tolerable than Limbaugh, but she can still sound like a partisan twit who says stupid things that don't increase the level of discourse but increase her ratings.

    Example:  In March of this year on her show she said - "NewsBusters, as you recall, Chris, they are the right wing dopes that got me all the publicity on my [execute-Rush] comment on Larry King....So the test of the Moron Alert System is going splendidly."

    Dopes, moron alert system, execute Limbaugh?  Do you still think she's less at fault than Limbaugh when it comes to spewing vitriolic partisan crap?


    by Larry Jankens on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 2:24pm

    I think she made a satirical comment in passing that was targeting a specific person for a specific behavior.  That's a far cry from the open bigotry and rank hypocrisy that Limbaugh deals in.  If Miller is the best example you can find on the left of how "both sides do it", then I don't find the charge very convincing.


    by DF on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 2:36pm

    The satirical defense? Really?  When Ann Coulter called Edwards a "fag" (or something offensive like that) she also claimed it was satirical.  The satirical card is always played when somebody says something indefensible and inflamatory and they have no other recourse.  I thought it was lame of Ann Coulter and it's lame of Stephanie Miller.

    You can't demand to be viewed as a serious bipartisan reporter of the facts (i.e. the opposite of Rush) on the radio if you are are calling for executions of your colleagues.  Again, I don't think she is as bad as Rush, but don't tell me Miller shouldn't be viewed in the same light as Limbaugh when she consistently makes fun of people instead of making logical arguments - just like Limbaugh.


    by Larry Jankens on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 2:48pm

    If you find the remark Miller made to be analagous with calling someone a fag, then I don't think we're going to see eye to eye here.  Coulter can walk back what she said by saying it was satire.  Satire of what exactly?  Watch the clip of Miller on King again.  Do you honestly think she is seriously proposing that Limbaugh be executued?  Satire isn't a defense; it's a definition.

    Since when does Miller represent herself as "serious bipartisan reporter of the facts"?  I thought she was pretty much an unapolgetic lefty.  And, yes, like Limbaugh her job is to entertain.  However, there is one very important piece of context that your analysis overlooks, which is this: When Miller says jump, the Democratic leadership do not respond, "How high?"


    by DF on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 2:53pm

    The two remarks are analogous in that they were both flippant and inappropriate.  It's okay to joke in private about horrible things (executing people and calling them fags) if it is indeed a joke, but in public? Really? I don't think Coulter honestly thinks Edwards is a fag, but she still said it. 

    Miller never represents herself as a "serious bipartisan reporter of the facts," that was my point:  Just as Rush is an unapoligetic righty, she's an unapoligetic lefty and consequently they both say some ridiculous things.  Again, I'm not saying she is as bad as Rush, but don't tell me she doesn't deserve to be compared to him.


    by Larry Jankens on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 3:08pm

    She deserves it as much as the comparison is apt, but not as an exercise in false equivalence.  You want to compare someone to Coulter?  How about Don Imus?  Calling someone a "nappy-headed ho" is far more analagous to calling someone a fag.  What your comparison lacks is any sense of proportion.  Miller gets Limbaugh'd for being flip, whereas Coulter's open bigotry gets a pass under the same label.

    And is there no place for being flip?  Sarcastic?  Even acerbic?  I watched a clip this morning of Miller, again on King, asking Penn Jillette if he could make Rush Limbaugh disappear.  It was about as serious as her suggestion that he be executed, which is not at all.


    by DF on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 3:32pm

    I see your point with this specific comparison.  But what about Stephanie calling republicans morons, or dopes?  Isn't that Limbaugh/O'Reilly-esque?  Have you ever listened to Mike Malloy (I think that's his name)?  He's pretty out there shock-jocky-ish. 

    My basic point was that while the left may do it more infrequently, they also degrade the national discourse and they can't cry foul just because the right does a better job at being dickheads than they do. 

    I love Penn Jillette, btw, I don't always agree with his politics, but at least he's entertaining.  His show Bullshit is amazing!


    by Larry Jankens on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 4:17pm

    I'm a big fan of Bullshit! and was glad to hear that they got signed for another season.  I would pretty much be a libertarian if their economic stances made any sense, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax as it were.

    I really don't follow Miller myself, but rather know of her pretty much through clips on the 'net.  I used to listen to a local Air America affiliate years ago, which syndicated acts like Malloy and Randi Rhodes.  I don't really care for the style no matter what the point of view is, but many people apparently dig it.

    However, that brings me back to my point about Limbaugh.  No one in the Democratic leadership is making public apologies at the altar of Stephanie Miller.  Simply trying to make this seem like an apples to apples comparison misses real differences like this.  Sure, there are partisans with radio shows on both sides, but the comparisons between the two don't seem to go much further.

    More to the point of the thread that we've sort of hijacked here is Alan Grayson.  Now, we can probably agree that the stuff about Neanderthals and knuckle-dragging is just name-calling, though I would point out that there are some prominent members of GOP congressional leadership that believe the planet is only about 6,000 years old.  So, maybe Neanderthal is a bit much, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to categorize someone who holds such beliefs as primitive.

    However, what Grayson says about the GOP's prescription for America's healthcare woes is just the truth.  It's not an issue for the GOP that the system is broken.  In fact, the only real criticism I have for Grayson's assessment is that he left out the five ostensibly Democratic Senators who are enabling the party of "no".

    Now, we can decry Grayson for supposedly sullying the discourse, but I want to know how exactly we're supposed to transcend to this new plane of discussion.  I don't think it's going to happen because people don't really think and decide in purely rational lines.  Emotional response is powerful.  It drives the process.

    That, I think, is William's point here.  You don't turn the other cheek when there's a wolf at your door.  What Grayson is doing is re-framing the debate in terms that are visceral.  If it's true that emotional response is a necessary component of the decision making process, then it's necessary to do this.


    by DF on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 4:56pm

    Whether or not Miller has the ear of the dems is not salient to my point, which is why I avoided it.  Malloy says some salacious sh*t, perhaps he would have been a better comparison to begin with, but my point remains, the left does it too.  So when you are hating on the rightwingnuts who do it, hate on the leftwingnuts too.

    I agree you don't turn the other cheek when the wolf is at your door, you are supposed to use your superior intelect and figure out a way to get rid of the wolf.  Call animal control, shoot it, or sick your pack of dogs on it.  What you don't do is send a wolf to somebody else's door, because that doesn't solve your problem.

    You trancend to a new plane of discussion by addressing the "wolves" head on and debasing them.  Unlike the the dems who usually just wimper or ignore the problem, if you can sucessfully deconstruct your opposition people will eventually learn that the opposition is full of crap and next time the opposition starts to hoot and holler ridiculous accusations people will just think that they are crying "wolf."*

    *extra point for using the wolf metaphore in two different concepts relating to the same point. 


    by Larry Jankens on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 5:46pm

    It absolutely is salient.  Look, this is no different than the discussion about people who go violent.  It's not really informative or meaningful to dwell in this realm of false equivalence.  Can you find someone you're comfortable with labeling as a "wingnut" on "both sides" of the political spectrum?  Sure, but so what?  It's essentially a non sequitur.

    Why?  If I don't turn on Mike Malloy, I don't hear about him.  Your mention of him is the first I've heard of him in years.  Meanwhile, Limbaugh makes headlines weekly.  Does Tim Kaine have to ask Mike Malloy's permission to do and say?  No, I don't think so.

    That's the trouble with the "both sides do it" analysis.  It's a reduction so extreme as to be meaningless.  The left and right are not structurally equal monolithic entities.  In fact, it's really all that much better if we generalize even further and simply say "people do it".

    Meanwhile, it's not Stephanie Miller on the cover of Time magazine.


    by DF on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 6:13pm

    If I may interject, in order for Larry's argument to be in the realm of false equivalence, he has to be saying they're equivalent. As far as I can tell, he's not. He's just saying they're both bad. Killing an abortion doctor is not the same as slaughtering millions of Jews (*nods to A-man*), but the fact that they're not equivalent doesn't make killing an abortion doctor OK.


    by Nebton on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 8:11pm

    I disagree.  There's clearly a need to incriminate "both sides".  The dichotomy is false on its face, but without any sort of qualitative judgment it's simply a non sequitur.  I could also say that an umbrella is not a piece of furniture.  It isn't.  So what?

    Equating acts that are obviously different in degree, if not in kind, is an exercise in false equivalence.  Comparing Miller's flip remark about executing Limbaugh on the grounds of treason to Rush's comment about wanting America to fail is such an exercise.  They aren't equivalent, but the need to make them seem equivalent is pervasive.


    by DF on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 8:22pm

    Where you see equating, I merely see comparing. I don't see these as the same thing.

    If it's wrong for Limbaugh to do it all the time, it's probably wrong for Miller to do it occasionally. I don't follow Miller, but from the discussion here my impression is that Miller is someone who is usually rational, but occasionally goes to the Limbaugh well. Limbaugh, on the other hand, I'm familiar with as someone who not only says outrageous things, but also can never seem to make a true factual statement, even about things that don't matter.


    by Nebton on Wed, 10/07/2009 - 9:09am

    I hate to break with all of the Bullshit love, but this is about all I've heard about it, so don't include me in the fan list.


    by Nebton on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 5:09pm

    That's definitely not one of their best episodes.  They tend to rely too much on stock libertarian stances and frequently have people from Cato on the show.  IIRC, there is a very funny bit in that episode where they trick well-meaning folks into signing a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide.  The stuff they do that relies on a libertarian economic perspective generally falls flat with me, but the show has plenty of other redeeming qualities.


    by DF on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 5:17pm

    Neb, don't judge a show by one episode.  There are so many other good shows that will rock your socks.  There's one on immigration, the drug war, astrology, and so many more you would dig.  I promise.  check: www.tvshack.net under "Penn and Teller's Bullshit"


    by Larry Jankens on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 5:48pm