Redstate

...which is to say, with a required public apology for making comments that had been wholeheartedly approved of by the netroots.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

This "apology" was no apology. He merely apologized for being a distraction from the Democrat's surrender machinations. Where is his admission of wrongdoing, of guilt? Where is his retraction? He even tries to make an excuse for apologizing, no doubt to satisfy the nutroots who think he was all too right.

"For this reason: I think that we have a very serious issue before us. The issue of providing medical care to children. The issue of what we do about a war, that we're divided about how to end."

Like I said before, he basically said "I'm going to apologize, though I was not wrong, because we have all these children to save from Mr. Bush." He basically reinforced his first statement, he didn't retract it.

absentee

Nancy and her boyz probably yelled at him for being a distraction on an issue where they believed they had the GOP on the ropes, and he is sorry that he stole their thunder.

For my part, I don't care if it were an apology. I know what he thinks and says, and it makes no difference to me.

He apologized for his shrill wording and sharp tone, which is right. He didn't apologize for his opinion to prioritize the provision of health care to children over (increasing) funding of the war in Iraq, which is also right I think.

So he was right that the President sends people to Iraq in order to watch their heads get blown off for their own amusement. Nice.

Random thoughts? Or none?
absentee

I don't think so. You said this was not an apology but I think it was one. His remarks where way out of line an insult etc. so he apologized to everyone who could have felt offended.

Then he said he still thinks it is wrong to cut this health care project for children in times were billions are spend in the war in Iraq. This statement in itself is nothing to be ashamed about and surely doesn't need an apology. It seems he was so angry about Bushs decision to cut the program that he talked this nonsense about Bushs amusement instead of saying: "I think Mr. Bush is too much concerned with the war in Iraq, which I oppose and does not care about this vital health care program for children."

This is a statement one can disagree with but it is by no means objectionable, is it?

You're just being an apologist. He said "heads blown off for the President's amusement", and he neither retracted that nor apologized for it. He apologized ONLY for distracting from the democrat agenda.

Obviously you agree with him on both counts.

absentee

He apologized for his shrill wording and harsh tone, which I think is right. He didn't apologize for his opinion that the provision of health care to children shouldn't be cut the same time Bush increases funding of the war in Iraq, which I think is also right.

1) If you make $83,000 and "can't afford" health insurance for your offspring, you have a priorities issue, not an income issue.

2) A twenty-five year-old can drive, marry, legally drink, join the Army, and establish his own legal residence apart from his parents. No one should have children's health insurance who isn't seeing a pediatrician.

3) Whether or not the War needs more funding is a non-sequitor vis-a-vis S-CHIP. S-CHIP is a budgeted expenditure. Unless the country was so totally bankrupt that the Federal Government couldn't afford to turn on its electricity tommorrow, S-CHIP and the DOD Supplemental are not substitutable goods under Congressional Budgetary Rules.

Otherwise, it would also be unconscionable that we were funding Social Security before S-CHIP as well. How could we rob the future to pay for the past?

“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."

When Congressman accuse Presidents of conducting war for entertainment, an apology is in order, if not much more.

Chalking it up to nothing more than media outrage-a-thons is what is absurd and naive.

Grow up? Indeed.

absentee

...it's your choice. obviously. i for one don't care about name calling inside the beltway.

what i do care about are issues that affect the long term future of this country. if i'm naive in your eyes because of that, then, i'm naive in your eyes. i can live with that.

Why not try to rise above name-calling yourself, and objectively state your case. I'm referring to both "absurd" and "naive".

We'd all be better of if we stuck to reasoned arguments, and dispensed with: "You're wrong because you're naive, absurd, x or y."

Even if you're right, which is impossible to prove, all you've done is shown that "IndyCon is X", which is not very important to the rest of the world. Meanwhile, whatever claim IndyCon was making remains unchallenged, which I'll infer was not your goal in making the claim.

I say this with complete respect, and with the hope that our dialog will continue on this and other issued.

Grow up? Soap Opera? Don't ignore the beam in your own eye.

absentee

You're right about "Grow Up". Thanks for pointing that out. That was a mistake on my part.

Politics as Soap Opera, though, I think is a valid comparison. The OUTRAGE! industry is predicated on 'he said, she said' ephemera that serves no one but themselves.

I'm not saying their wrong to do that. God bless them. I'm saying I don't find it a good use of time to feed the fire when there are real life, pressing issues going on the world.

That's all.

You are still incorrectly lumping this situation in with Rosie O'Donnell type outrage. This is different, by a country mile. When one of our elected officials makes a charge that is, for all intents and purposes, tantamount to murder, against the President of the United States, there is a duty for the administration to respond.

It is similarly a more than reasonable use of time for outside supporters to express their contempt for the accusation, to publicly express their disagreement, and to demand retraction or action.

This is not Britney calling Paris a prostitute. This is a legitimate issue.

absentee

I said "inside the beltway" name calling. Not Paris, not Rosie.

Perhaps I was unclear on that point.

Whether some guy who said something stupid apologizes for his gaffe to me is a trifle when we've got very serious issues on our hands. That's all I'm trying to say.

I don't care to spend more time defending that point. If you disagree, then I respectfully accept your disagreement and suggest that we move on.

But it isn't a gaffe, it's a gross accusation. Just because you trivialize it as name-calling, (and yes you DID put it in the same arena as Rosie with your above comments about Soap Operas and Al Franken, who is a comedian talk show host like Rosie if you weren't clear) doesn't mean that's actually all it is.

Your "we're bigger than that" sentimentality is misplaced. We shouldn't be afraid to object to lies by Congressman broadcast internationally, and playing this little above the fray attitude doesn't help anyone but yourself. I've checked your post history, and you seem to rely quite heavily on this theme for your content. In fact I'd say the whole "aren't we above this" thing is pretty much your whole act.

Sometimes words go too far, and outrage is therefore justified. Sometimes you can't simply chalk it up to name-calling and skip along your merry way. Sometimes you have to grow a pair and object.

In other words, at least in this case, you're just flat wrong.

absentee

it's not an act. i don't say that you don't write from conviction. please don't say that about me.

i've never called you personally into question about anything.

for the record, i'd like to add that i do have testicles. just want to be clear on that.

That is not what I mean by act. I mean your schtick. Your spiel, your raison d'être.

absentee

...and agree that while our means diverge, our common end is what's best for the country.

there's something to be said for the fact that we're both spending time huddled at the keyboard having this conversation at all. it means we both care deeply about our beliefs. once that accord can be reached, the rest is just negotiation.

at the core of the conversation should be the trust that the other guy cares about the country as much as you do. otherwise you wouldn't be having the debate.

therefore: i've changed my mind. i think you're right. when an elected official makes outlandish comments intended to assassinate the character of our president, that action is worthy of censure.

if i'm going to argue against a debate predicated on personal attacks, then i have to argue against stark, too. he should be officially rebuked.

you've convinced me that your position is correct.

usually agree. This is a bit different than the Coulter/Garafalo /etc. outrage of the week. This is an elected official proclaiming on the floor of congress that the President is a war criminal.

In past years this would be unthinkable. No matter what sort of cold, calculating, and evil jackass Lyndon Bains Johnson was he would never have done something like that. Hubert Humphrey, and Daniel Moynahan would never have said that about Nixon.

This is part of the coarsening of the culture and pollution of public discourse that I have been very saddened by. We have to find a way to get past this. I don't know how except to utterly shame those who indulge in it.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

It's a silly argument. As if some precious time is being wasted. I've got ample time to "feel" things in addition to doing things. It's a red herring to suggest that being angry over such a horrific claim is somehow stealing precious time from more important things.

That you don't care what outrageous accusations are leveled against a President by a government official making a public announcement during an official government hearing is your choice obviously. You're welcome to it.

But don't come on this thread with pompous pronouncements of the mature thing to do, particularly if you are going to use weak reasoning and unrelated examples from the media to back it up.

absentee

Absentee: I'm not insulting you. I'm just disagreeing with you.

Insulting me because I disagree with you is not an effective form of debate.

Onward:

You're right that there's a difference between a public official and private citizens making remarks about the President. However, in terms of air time, they tend to occupy the same space.

What dismays me is that I feel like these kinds of issues take up room in the popular conscious at the expense of less sexy issues that aren't explicitly partisan. Example: a discussion of how we actually win the GWOT. Namely: what does the endstate look like?

This discussion seems to always bog down into OUTRAGE! proxies on both sides.

Also, you're right that it's a red herring to say that discussion of these 2 clusters of issues is an all or nothing proposition. I wasn't saying that, though. I was just saying that one is more important than the other and that this unending series of OUTRAGES! are a frustrating distraction.

indycon, that post was like, five hours ago. I've, like, grown since then?

I have realized it was not pomposity but seems to be a personal crusade. I still think you're wrong though.

absentee

thanks, absentee.

i think an interesting project would be to try to fix the way we argue politics in this country.

ignore the content and concentrate on the form. if we can fix debate itself, then we can solve any issue.

that's the reason i think politics is broken these days. because debate itself is broken.

here's an example: right now Josh Marshal is going nuts making fun of "Islamofacist Awareness Week". Why? What's the point? How does that help our kids grow up in a world where they can prosper?

Josh Marshal is obviously a smart guy, but he's bogged down in insulting the other guy instead of coming up with solutions. That's an abdication of his responsibility as an intellectual leader of the left. It's sad.

We need to set differences aside and begin to have a more serious conversation, or we're liable to lose the GWOT. I will not see that happen.

If it is a distraction, tell Stark to keep his mouth shut.

You're totally right about that. He's the guy who flew off the handle in the first place.

In fact, he's an exemplar of the invective that I'm calling into question.

Not pointing that out was an over site on my part.

I didn't think Stark Raving Mad was ever in the dreaded private sector.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

btw, I still support some type of intelligence test for new members, it may help us with two problems.

Molon Labe!

Gee, that's a darn shame.

Now please, run along and roll in your own crap somewhere else, 'K?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Refreshing.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.