Do as I say

[Jim Hand]

One of the great things about being a member of Congress is that you never have to live up to the expectations you have for others.
Take for example U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers, R-Washington.
She is vice chair of the Republican task force studying ways to eliminate the nasty earmarks in the budget that the GOP loved when it was in charge of Congress, but has been so upset about since Democrats took over.
Rogers, despite her campaign against earmarks, has requested a ton of them herself in this year's budget.
Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Congress, reports:
"But she nonetheless requested 35 earmarks worth more than $120 million — including $1 million for potato breeding research, $25 million to dredge the Columbia River and $3 million for military experiments with “anti-matter positrons.”
And then there is U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-California..
She thought warrantless wire taps on U.S. citizens were a great idea until she found out that a wire tap caught her conspiring to try to get charges dropped against two men accused of spying for Israel.
Now she is outraged that the government would easedrop on one of its own citizens - and a member of Congress no less.

[Steve]

I'll reiterate my point about the president's blatant lies regarding, not only his agendas, but his promise of open government. He is a dictator, or as close as you can get to being one in our nation. Why didn't this make the list of offenders? Not one job will be created by the government. It's not their job...but now he (Obama) owns the banks insurance companies, and auto makers, and will soon take over Health Care. As long as we have flowery adjectives, and proper grammar, we can spend another $3.4T on top of what we've already spent this year. As long as we don't show any passion about our beliefs, everything will be fine; right?

[Steve]

I would think that Mr. Hand would respond, but he will not. I'll ask again, what your post has to do with the subject. You've acknowledged your undying worship for the guy, but it has nothing to do with his original blog.
Now I'll mindfully exhale...but I still don't feel dreamy about the guy. Sorry.

[Anne]

Steve, regarding I don't know what any of your comments have to do with the subject "Do As I Say..."

Take a mindful breath ... read again: I am a huge fan of Jim Hand and the following is not directed at him; however (...and here it is, Steve...), this is the main political blog of the paper and perhaps the place to seed this observation. It relates to the comment by Steve "If you don't accept debate, don't blog."

Steve, get it now? It's in reply to your post. Comprehend?

[Steve]

Anne, I don't know what any of your comments have to do with the subject "Do As I Say". I also don't understand why, this only applies in "Jim's World" to those who are not the president, currently setting the agenda. We're the ones that are constantly insulted by this media. There are some satirists on the right who may offend some folks, but conservatives are attacked by News Anchors, in the most vulgar terms. Thankfully folks are realizing the bias by these hard reporters. Give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves. It's already too late to avoid times like we've never seen, but hopefully the American spirit and Capitalism will eventually win out.

[Anne]

Matt, I believe you're missing the point, which I may not have articulated clearly enough.

In fact, I never once mentioned partisan attack, just attacks generally, with the NBC and Obama love fest an example of why media has lost credence. I feel the same about Fox and Palin.

EVERYONE calls names and ridicules, both major parties do it, commentators, late-night comics. It distills down to the fact that most people are incapable of discussing issues without getting furious, petty, cute, without parody, without name calling, without fist shaking, without derision, without cutting people down.

All quite immature.

Jim mentioned socialist, facist -- terms which are bandied about by Conservatives when speaking of Obama. I was trying, ineptly it appears, to also point out that redneck, Rethuglican are used by liberals. Just examples.

Why use any of these labels?

I was fortunate enough to be raised in a lively, bright household where dinnertable discussion encompassed all sorts of topics, and everyone -- even the kids -- had a voice with no dismissiveness.

I do note, despite my attempt to be thoughtful, that your closing salvo sounds (maybe it's the Internet translation without intonation) peeved: "I'm sure you'll consider this a partisan reply. That's fine. I'm right, too."

Why the edge, Matt?

Of course you're right too. That's the whole point. Discussion, not whining and arguing and berating.

[Matthew Gannon]

It's interesting, Anne, that you can offer such a serious and concise analysis but still overlook a major cause of the current coarseness of political discourse. You're right that blogs and more salacious media coverage - it's FOX, too, and not just MSNBC - does contribute to it.

Jon Stewart is clearly liberal. He is also quite critical of liberals and the so-called liberal media, and is NOT just a partisan attacker. Check out how tough he is on Chris Matthews and how chummy he is with Bill Kristol.

Same for SNL, whose political humor is superior to the rest of the show. They go after everyone. Their Biden skits paint him as a buffoon.

You overlooked the role of Republicans, of course, in this. Bush41's '88 campaign was nasty and based on name-calling directed at Dukakis. Bush43's habit of attacking war heroes when campaigning is highly devisive, not to mention hypocritical given his constant "support" of the troops. The Bush/Atwater/Rove of attack politics changed political debate.

Obviously, the Clinton machine is/was also very skilled at negative campaigning. But, I'm sure a "liberal" like you knows about them already.

I'm sure you'll consider this a partisan reply. That's fine. I'm right, too.

[Anne]

Hi Jim.

We could also do without phrases such as redneck, Bible-thumper, Rethuglican etc.

If only, if only we all would simply stick to issues rather than name calling.

I believe that hatred has grown up for several reasons: The birth of Internet blogs and posts, especially those that are hateful AND anonymous, the growth of talk radio and the Jon Stewarts (no matter how talented), the blurring of the edges between news and entertainment (ie, SNL) and the dumbing-down of so many people.

Plus, it's easier to get rageful and rude than it is to get smart.

NBC, which masquerades as voice of reason, was so over the top in support of Obama (including sales of commemorative household items) that no one with another viewpoint had a chance to get a word in edgewise. Complain and there was someone sure to step forward to call out the R word as a shut-up tactic.

How exhausting it all has become. Truly sad. Maybe you should also teach a course in middle school about how to run a discussion with opposing viewpoints, without hurling invectives.

[Jim Hand]

Anne:
You hit the nail on the head. In my 24 years doing this I have never observed so much hatred in politics.
Words like socialist, facist and war criminal get thrown around so casually they have lost their true meaning so that they now really mean someone you disagree with.
MSNBC and Fox have targeted narrow audiences that agree with them and make no effort to give an honest account of the other side of an issue.
In Congress, we are told, the two sides barely talk to each other so most big issues are passed on nearly party-line votes.
I don't get it.

[Anne]

I am a huge fan of Jim Hand and the following is not directed at him; however, this is the main political blog of the paper and perhaps the place to seed this observation. it relates to the comment by Steve "I you don't accept debate, don't blog."

There is a difference between debate and cordial, respectful discourse. It's a pitfall for many of us.

Across the board with major MSM I see one-sided coverage as anethema that is truly discouraging. Until all issues are vetted and vented fully, with all opinions welcomed, people of this country will never be able to have real discourse -- we will, instead, be shouting at one another across the chasm or shutting one another off.

As a liberal I've also become a listener to certain conservative talk shows because "the other side" gets time.

There's nothing less illuminating nor instructive for anyone than only listening to your own views confirmed by people just like you. Conservatives, too, would be wise to consider other viewpoints without screaming and deriding as all too often happens. Labels, labels, labels .. that's what attached to all of us.

I very much dislike the way that some conservatives deliver their views, with hatred and put-downs. But there are kernels of valid comment sometimes delivered within all the spewing. Liberals, too, put down what they don't like.

The result of all of this: Few have rational, respectful discussions over issues that instead turn nasty and ugly.

Consider embryonic stem cell research. If you're against it, you're backward, a simple Bible-thumper. If you're for it, you're a baby killer. Can we somewhere in the middle discuss the opposing considerations and concerns without name calling and fire? Probably not. But this inability is and will contine to be our downfall as a nation.

Illegal immigration: If you're against immigrants here illegally getting healthcare etc., you're racist and close-minded. No thought given to the possibility that illegals suffer greatly by being underpaid, potentially misused and abused by employers, and unable to report any crimes for fear of police discovering their status.

If you're for rights for immigrants here illegally, you' re nothing but a bleeding heart who does not care about your fellow citizens having to pick up the tab in a country already taxed to the hilt with health care costs out of sight. Perhaps, instead, you're soft-hearted and understand why people are fleeing their country of origin.

But we as a nation will never have these discussions with respect and openness. That's a real shame.

[Steve]

Jim, I don't know what to tell you...If you don't accept debate, don't blog.