Showing posts with label Politics of Outrage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics of Outrage. Show all posts

The Politics of Outrage: Bonding Bill Edition
Comments
At the Capitol, on Wednesday, legislators sent Governor Pawlenty a bonding bill with upwards of $925 million in projects. Over at the St. Cloud Times, Larry Schumacher has a good examination of the bill and its contents. I would add, however, that Tom Stinson who is the Minnesota State Economist advocated for a quick bonding bill that would be focused primarily on upkeep of buildings rather than the creation of new buildings which is precisely what this bill attempts to accomplish.

Immediately following this development the right wing blogosphere in Minnesota decried the bill as unnecessary and filled with too much pork. Amongst the most vocal is my good friend Gary Gross over at Let Freedom Ring.

However, it appears as though Mr. Gross has a bit of a sticky wicket on his hands given that his "adopted representative", Steve Gottwalt, voted FOR the bill. Gary makes this statement at the end of his post:

Either way, one thing should be clear. This November, it’s time that voters told the DFL that they reject their unsustainable spending habits and their outrageous tax increases.

I offer a revision to his outrage: "Either way, one should be clear. This November, it's time that voters told Steve Gottwalt that they reject his unsustainable spending habits and his outrageous alliance with the evil DFL."

The outrage expressed by Mr. Gross and others on the right might be a bit more effective if they directed that outrage in a little more bipartisan manner. Perhaps with some more Seifert style demotions.

One has to wonder if voting against the party on this bill will garner a similar action as the actions taken after the Transportation Bill. Can you take away power from a Freshman Representative in the minority party?
Category: , ,
��

Politics of Outrage (UPDATE)
Comments
9:21 AM | Posted in
Last week I wrote about something in politics today that I referred to as "The Politics of Outrage" in which members of a political party are incensed by actions or comments from the other side while strangely silent when similar comments are made from their side. The recent vote in the United States Senate to condemn the MoveOn.org ad portraying General Patraeus as General "Betray Us" has prompted me to create an update (and perhaps a weekly Politics of Outrage post).

What do all of the following have in common?
  1. At a concert, Ted Nugent threatened the lives of Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and Senator Boxer as he told them to "suck on this" while holding a machine gun.
  2. Peter King, in an interview recently, declared that there are "too many mosques in this country".
  3. John Boehner, in an interview, proclaimed that troop deaths in Iraq were "A small price to pay".
  4. Michael Graham, in response to the Clinton Sopranos spoof, said "didn't you at one point want to see, like, Paulie Walnuts or someone come in and just whack them both right there? Wouldn't that have been great?"
  5. Columnist Anne Coulter, in an interview remarked "I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using 'hijack' and 'religion' in the same sentence" in an attempt to portray Barack Obama as a terrorist.
  6. On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity was asked to disavow the statements made by Ted Nugent. His response, "No, I like Ted Nugent. He's a friend of mine."
  7. In January, Rush Limbaugh had this to say about Vietnam Veteran Chuck Hagel, "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betrayus. New name for Senator Hagel."
  8. Michael Savage, in July, remarked "You know, of all of the dictators in the past, you know the one Al Gore strikes me as [being] closest [to] is Mussolini".
Answer: Theses are but a handful, most within the last few months, of remarks and recorded statements made by Republican politicians and personalities. Did they get smacked down by the right for their "outrageous" behavior? Absolutely NOT! Did they have Senate Resolutions brought against them for their comments? NOPE! What did they get? silence. THAT is the Politics of Outrage, the constant attacking of another while being "offended" that they might possibly strike back using the same techniques!

Sorry guys, I don't buy the faux outrage when the tactics you use are every bit as virulent and every bit as outrageous as those you purport to be outraged at!
Category:
��

The Politics of Outrage!
Comments
9:16 AM | Posted in
The world of politics and political belief is filled with variation, strategy, and above all the sense of outrage. What is the sense of outrage? It is the constant shocked feelings that people of ALL political stripes display when their side is raked over the coals in a manner they find offensive or over the top. As a liberal I look out and proclaim my outrage that people such as John Gibson would take the grief of Jon Stewart after 9/11 and mock it not once, but twice with increasing glee each time he did. Where are the conservatives demanding an apology? They are silent! Conservatives look out and proclaim their outrage that MoveOn.org would have the audacity to question the patriotism of General Patraeus. Where are the liberals demanding an apology? They are silent!

Let us take Psymeistr, Leo Pusateri, as an example (partially because he revealed himself as a reader, thanks Leo!).

  • In a recent post, Psycmeistr is "outraged" that a group of self proclaimed communists disrupted a 9/11 observance. Granted, the video clearly states that College Democrats as well as College Republicans support the 9/11 victims. That does not matter for the 'Politics of Outrage'. It is simply because they are on the ideological "left" that Psycmeistr needs to label the whole lot of Democrats as OUTRAGEOUS.
  • Yet, no more than THREE posts later, Psycmeistr displays his latest photoshop sensations. One of them being a large picture of Osama bin Laden with the words "Support My Troops, Vote Democrat". There is no longer outrage, but pride in the writing of Psymeistr at the creation of a poster blanket labeling Democrats as supporters of a mass murderer. The 'Politics of Outrage' dictate that Psycmeistr, and all conservative supporters, will defend these actions as legitimate while heaping on more OUTRAGE that Democrats would do similar things.

Other Examples:

The 'Politics of Outrage' go right to the top where there is a masterful game constantly being played between demanding an apology for THEIR outrageous behavior and defending YOUR outrageous behavior! Ron Carey, Chairman of the Minnesota GOP, recently sent out a press release of outrage over the actions of MoveOn.org due to a recent picture of General Patraeus.

"With their refusal to repudiate MoveOn.org's venomous attack ad against General David Petraeus, Al Franken and Tim Walz again put the interests of the far-left wing fringe above common decency. By not speaking out against this mean-spirited and vicious smear, it's clear that Franken and Walz lack the kind of leadership Minnesotans demand." - Ron Carey, Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman

Yet, when House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the soldiers we were losing in Iraq were a "small price to pay", the Minnesota GOP remained equally as silent as the Democrats they were so outraged at for the MoveOn poster.

So, what is the point? My point is NOT that Republicans do outrageous things any more than Democrats. My point is NOT that the 'Politics of Outrage' is more used and abused by any one party. I, for one, have been known to add some outrageous (possibly beyond the pail) items and comments here so I cannot say that the actions of these people is any worse than mine.
  • THAT is my point: If you are going to find enjoyment and glee from making posters that depict the other side in some bad form, don't feign outrage when the other side decides to get in on the action. If you are going to be outraged by things like portraying an honorable General as dishonorable you should not be turning around and portraying a vast number of honorable people in a given party as dishonorable. STOP being outraged at the actions of others if you are not prepared to STOP your own outrageous behavior.
    • Don't be outraged at a group of communists for dishonoring the memory of 9/11 when you yourself proudly claim that anyone in America who is a Democrat is part of the army of Osama.
    • Don't be outraged that two Democrats will not speak out forcefully against MoveOn.org when you yourself remain silent about the comments made by your very own leadership.
    • Don't be outraged at a perceived lack of support for our troops from Democrats when you remain remarkably silent about this administrations shoddy treatment of our returning Vets.
    • It cuts both ways as Democrats must stop being outraged that someone like Leo would make them out to be bin Laden supporters when they will not come out and vehemently defend the patriotism of General Patraeus.
The list goes on and on with examples of one side being outraged while the other side is silent. I can't say that I always remain above the 'Politics of Outrage', but perhaps if we can quit calling each other traitors, loonies, fascists, and any number of other names we could come to some real discussions and share some real outrage against whomever brings these unnecessary attacks into the political arena no matter which side they are on.
Category:
��