Skip to main content

View Diary: It's not the disagreement. It's the disrepect. (249 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Only invective is from the administration? (3+ / 0-)

    They started it? Or were they responding?

    Who started it is in the end irrelevant, but we are the only ones who can control our own language.

    We cannot expect respect when we don't act with respect.

    Anger does not and should not, in and of itself, preclude respect.

    At least I try to stand by that guideline in my comments here and in other arenas.

    Don't always succeed, but always try.

    •  Don't forget the asymmetry (7+ / 0-)

      When the administration reacts with invective over criticism of policy by progressives, they act in a thin-skinned, glass jaw manner. They are in office to serve us. Invective aimed at the base of the party is foolish. I cannot imagine Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43 mocking the professional right, calling religious conservatives fucking retards, or like comments. For that matter, even Clinton did not do that.

      Anger does not preclude respect, but anger is poorly modulated in a comment forum because people do not step back, reread, and consider the ramifications. Some are better than others. However, the moral of the story is that the administration needs to be very concerned when there are this much discontent in the base.

      Be radical in your compassion.

      by DWG on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 10:37:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  DWG, I see your point, however . . . (0+ / 0-)

        many of the things you are crediting to the President he never said.

        And the things that he did say, when placed in the context in which they were presented, hardly rise to the level of the ascerbic rhetoric that I see here on the daily.

        It just doesn't.

        •  High ranking members of his administration did (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Salo

          We are talking about his press secretary, chief of staff, and senior advisor. Many of the comments came in public forums, including pressers and Sunday talkies. There was never any public attempt by the president to distance himself from those comments nor any attempt to mend fences.

          Rahm talking about progressives as "fucking retarded" does not rise to the level of acerbic rhetoric we have here?

          It is fine to question how things are phrased here or on other forums. However, just understand that the tone and acerbic comments coming out of the president's inner circle are politically stupid. And when he comes to hostage taking or pawn using, the invective from the president needs to be directed at the malignant Teapublicans. Playing hardball with the base and paddy-cake with conservatives is not helpful.

          Be radical in your compassion.

          by DWG on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 12:42:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Methinks you cite inaccurately and I suspect (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nashville fan, lightshine

            there is a reason for that. Rahm said 'this is fucking retarded', not 'You are a fucking retard', which is quite a difference. You chose to miscite in order to feel more offended. Why the victim pose?

            He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

            by Sophie Amrain on Sun Dec 12, 2010 at 04:25:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site