More Signs of GOP’s Increasingly Ugly Political Tone

A few Republicans will find excuses for this kind of conduct. Fewer will rationalize or condone such. And even fewer will applaud it.

Fortunately, most Republicans will find this kind of conduct an aberration to the spirit of the Republican Party.

The question arises, however, how many more of these aberrations before they begin to define what used to be the Grand Old Party?

i wonder if the new health care proposals will have mental health care, chaplain care, or pastoral care for the lost of soul? If not we need a care package for the American soul. . .

Democrats seem to forget what they were saying when Republican Bush was in office. Both parties represent the extremes of European political philosophy, nationalism and socialism. Party politicians have emulated Europeans for so long that they have no beliefs of their own and only know how to insult each other.

This kind of "game" with words (or with names of politicals) sounds similar to the discourses of the extreme right leader in France ( JM Le Pen), with this state of mind : "we 're going to try this and see how far we could go". I found it very violent, what would be the next step ? Obama instead of Obamacare ? (that's the mistake I've done first).

Go here and look at the photos for perspective:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

This is nothing new, Republicans and Democrats have been doing this sort of thing fro sometime now.

This is a non news right up there with the breaking announcement that water is wet..

I wonder how many of those carrying signs wishing for Bush's death are among those outraged by people carrying sign's wishing for Obama's death, and vice versa. Silly hypocritical idiots the whole lot on both sides.

Dear Leonidas,
I totally disagree with your comment.
This message plays dangerously with limits, and, in my opinion, it is thinked to stay just near the border between freedom of speech ("just a bad joke") and violence.
The fact that other people have made the same thing, as you said, doesn't justify it.

No idea what in the world your talking about.

I merely point out that Liberals are condemning Conservatives for the very same type of things they did and this is nothing new. The pictures of the Liberals during the Bush error are a clear illustration of this. I never said either actions were acceptable, they are not, I merely say this is not breaking news but more of the same stuff we have been seeing for a long time and its not just conservatives. If the truth disturbs you I suggest you to also come out and denounce all those who made such displays as well, not just those who do it on one side of the political spectrum. Well if you don't condemn past acts of liberals can't say its because you didn't know , now that you do know, will you condemn them? I just don't find this anymore alarming than when the same thing has happened in the past with other Presidents.

The pictures pretty much make it clear that this is nothing new, and this isn't some new type of conspiracy, no matter how much the liberal demagouges have their panties in a bunch.

But hey, your entitled to your own opinion, and to decide for yourself what your own standards and whether you apply them equally or not. As for me I condemn Right-wingers when they insisted anti-war demonstrators were traitors and unpatriotic (although I agreed they were often tasteless) and I'm not about to be hypocritical and call Conservative anti-government spending demonstrators that either (although again, some had tasteless displays). Guess I'm guilty of being rational instead of hysterical, so sue me.

It's a sad commentary when the only excuse for bad behavior is, "Well, the other side does it, or did it, too"

t's a sad commentary when the only excuse for bad behavior is, "Well, the other side does it, or did it, too"

I think you are in error of the nature of my commentary, I ask you to read it once again. I do not defend such actions, I have called them tasteless on both sides, I merely point to the lack of such an equal application of standards by folks on both sides. I find it a sad commentary when excuses are made for one side when condemning the other. My position applied equally to both, something made clear in all my posting in this thread.

Read my comments on this thread again and note I do not single out one side and only ask for equal application of standards. I would think on a blog called "The Moderate Voice" such a moderate comment would be welcomed.

Again, reread my comments and let me know if you see them differently.

Yes, because a handmade sign is the same as a professionally and organizationally produced and distributed one. Sweet Jesus, the false equivalences just pour from you daily. Just man (or woman) up and say it is wrong, as I do about those signs from the fools with sharpies and cardboard. The order of magnitude shown by the fact that these are slickly made items should embarrass you from comparing the two.

Dear Leonidas,
I condemn every kind of violence. As I'm not an American citizen (I don't have to choose Democrat/ Republican), I don't have any problem to condemn what the Democrats could have done or said by the past.
I disagree with the fact that for you, it's a "non-new", because I'm shocked by this message about Obamacare.
I don't believe in any conspiracy : I wanteds to say that, for me, everything which is written or printed by a party is thinked, has a goal.
I was making a link with a story that happened in France years ago. A leader had made an awful joke, "game of words " with the name of a politician. Later, journalists had showed that it was not spontaneous, but "thinked", calculated :to be on the headlines, to gain votes, and to see people's reaction.
(This leader was condemned for these word)

I guess I'm in the minority here, because I don't find this sign particularly offensive. Maybe I'm missing something.

What I find disturbing is not that there are a few kooks pushing this stuff, that always happens, but that this constitutes the bulk of the Republican response. The leaders of the party seem to be following the kooks rather than leading.

Dear Leonidas,
I condemn every kind of violence. As I'm not an American citizen (I don't have to choose Democrat/ Republican), I don't have any problem to condemn what the Democrats could have done or said by the past.
I disagree with the fact that for you, it's a "non-new", because I'm shocked by this message about Obamacare.
I don't believe in any conspiracy : I wanteds to say that, for me, everything which is written or printed by a party is thinked, has a goal.
I was making a link with a story that happened in France years ago. A leader had made an awful joke, "game of words " with the name of a politician. Later, journalists had showed that it was not spontaneous, but "thinked", calculated :to be on the headlines, to gain votes, and to see people's reaction.
(This leader was condemned for these word)

Ahh ok, I got you know, I thought you were referring to my link when you responded to me rather than Le Pen. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm also glad you condemn advocation of violence on both sides, as I do. I think you just take these sign wavers a lot more serious than I do. Maybe its because your not an American. I tend to look at most of it the same way I would at someone yelling "Kill them" at a football game, just over enthusiasm without any real threat behind it. yes its distasteful but not particularly new nor alarming, its something that goes back further than my grandfather's day. Be nice if we could end it, but I'm not going to freak out over it and go into hysterics. I find the best thing to do is simply show your disapproval.calmly and dismissively and not try to get in someone's face over it which might escalate.

but that this constitutes the bulk of the Republican response

I seriously doubt that, what it constitutes is the coverage of most republican response. Calm and measured responses don't sell papers or drive ratings, being able to locate and interview and film the more outrageous people does. Its media sensationalism trumping journalism.

Thanks for this post, Joe - I tweeted pretty much the exact same sentiments yesterday about the sign.

Leonidas

DER: "t's a sad commentary when the only excuse for bad behavior is, 'Well, the other side does it, or did it, too'"

Leonidas: "I think you are in error of the nature of my commentary, I ask you to read it once again. I do not defend such actions, I have called them tasteless on both sides, I merely point to the lack of such an equal application of standards by folks on both sides."

DER: " I find it a sad commentary when excuses are made for one side when condemning the other."

Leonidas: " My position applied equally to both, something made clear in all my posting in this thread.

Read my comments on this thread again and note I do not single out one side and only ask for equal application of standards. I would think on a blog called "The Moderate Voice" such a moderate comment would be welcomed."

Again, reread my comments and let me know if you see them differently."

DER: I have re-read them. My point is that condemning heineous acts or behaviour would carry more impact and credibility if such condemnations or disapprovals weren't incessantly and invariably accompanied or followed by a "but the other side does it, or did it, too" Just a personal opinion--nothing to write home about..

My point is that condemning heineous acts or behaviour would carry more impact and credibility if such condemnations or disapprovals weren't incessantly and invariably accompanied or followed by a "but the other side does it, or did it, too" Just a personal opinion--nothing to write home about..

And my point is when someone condemns such acts they should look at their own side first and condemn such actions universally instead of trying to attribute them to just one side. When they do not do this and both sides are guilty then the person should be reminded that they are not and that such efforts to attribute to only one side will be called out for the farce they are.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say " Both parties represent the extremes of European political philsosphy."

As someone living in Scandinavia, Obama would be thought of as a bland middle of the road conservative politician with Bush being the more extreme of the two, particularly as it relates to embracing the fundamentalists, war on false pretenses, trashing of regulations, and secrecy.

I guess my difficulty with Leonidas's post has to do with the comparison of both sides. I suppose you can go to history and find examples of each party's wrongdoing, but I don't think that is the issue.

Comparing the People's reaction (not the liberal's reaction) to Bush's extreme right wing agenda to Obama's middle of the road policies just don't add up. For a progressive, Obama is far from perfect, and hardly left enough.

And it is a mystery to me, worthy of journalistic exploration, why the republicans put forth an agenda that appears to hurt their supporters. I mean of coarse the middle and lower middle classes. I think it is clear if you believe in unbridled capitalism, fundamentalism, anti-equality, deregulation, government small enough to drown in a bathtub, anti-social programs, uber-individualism, etc. The Repubs are your party of choice.

Under the aforementioned conditions, anyone with enough money to invest should in American manufacturers of Guns and weaponry of war. We have changed the laws to allow people to attend group events with automatic weapons hanging off their shoulders. We sell weaponry to whoever wants it, cheaply, and with the least amount of regulation. And we sell to both sides of any conflict. And if we think the competition is too touch we ban the sale of weapons to a country we disprove of..............it is a laughable riot, unless you follow the money trail............step right up folks you too can become an instant millionaire....

Comparing the People's reaction (not the liberal's reaction) to Bush's extreme right wing agenda to Obama's middle of the road policies just don't add up. For a progressive, Obama is far from perfect, and hardly left enough.

It doesn't surprise me that someone living in Scandanavia would view the US political spectrum this way.

List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...

Denmark 50.0%
Sweden 49.7%
Finland 43.6%
Norway 43.6%
Iceland 40.4%

compare those with the US

United States 28.2%

Given that, it is small wonder that a Scandinavian perspective would think Obama's big government policies as moderate. Most taxpaying Americans would probably not be happy if the US government took another 12.2% - 22.2% out of their paychecks.

As the Beatles sang

Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I"m the taxman.

Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

BTW in case your interested:

United Kingdom 39.0%

There were two extremes of European political philosophy which arose under
European monarchy. Scandinavian countries had monarchs, as did all other
European countries. The two extremes were nationalism and socialism. A
political party which arose under European politics always went in the
direction of one of these two extremes. During the 1800's, the time when
European political parties were becoming powerful, two countries that had
strong nationalistic parties were Germany and Italy. At the same time, the
Communist movement in Europe commissioned Marx and Engels to write the
Communist Manifesto, which was the start of modern day socialism. During
the first part of the twentieth century, nationalistic parties were the
strong parties of Europe, the Fascists in Italy and Spain, the Nazi Party in
Germany, and the Conservatives in Britain and other countries. As an
example, when the Depression was at its height in Germany, there were two
huge political parties in Germany, the Nazi Party and the Communist Party.
The Nazi Party took over the government, and the Communists of Germany
became enlisted soldiers in the German army fighting against their fellow
Communists in the Russian army. After World War II nationalistic
parties were no longer as popular in Europe since they had caused a war with
40 million civilian casualties. This gave rise to the popularity of
European socialism that has been trendy in Europe ever since. So if party
members in Norway are more socialistic than Democrats in the United States,
that does not surprise me because Norwegians are not supporting a war in
Afghanistan. What I was saying was that Democrats do not really think for
themselves, but watch what Norwegians and other European socialists say
about them and then try to catch up in the world of socialist philosophy
with their anachronistic American socialist party. Neither do Republicans,
the nationalistic party of the United States, think for themselves. They
watch what Conservatives in Europe say and then try to apply European
nationalistic philosophy to the United States.
American political parties have no direction of their own because
they are afraid to take any direction not already proven. Before the Civil
War, the Democrats were the nationalistic party of the United States, while
the Whigs, later the Republicans, were the party of moderation. By taking
its own direction, the Democratic Party took the United States right into
the Civil War. That was a lesson for both parties in the United States.
They are cautious about political change within their parties. With regard
to any new idea, they will wait and see what happens in Europe. If
something becomes popular there, it can become popular here. Democracy is
popular government.
Robert B. Winn

Where is Arnold Schwarzaneggar speaking out on his wife's behalf and his own about the denigrating of Ted Kennedy less than a month after his was buried? I can't believe the Kennedy-Shrivers are sitting around on this one.

Right here:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009...