This thread has become wildly schizophrenic and needs to focus on the topic with laserbeam precision or else it's getting locked.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
In a new ad, Grayson accuses his Republican opponent Daniel Webster of being a religious fanatic and dubs him "Taliban Dan." But to make his case, Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible. Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own. The unedited quote is: "Don’t pick the ones [Bible verses] that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ "
Yeah, FactCheck is peddling bullshit there. While Webster seems to be saying that men should not force their wives into submission, its only because he believes they should do it themselves, hence his later comment that wives can "take" that verse as their own.
It's being so focused on the letter of the matter that the spirit is lost, combined with a bit of Beltway style vapors.
I'm not a fan of Dan Webster or his ideas, but honestly, after watching both the ad and the original speech, Grayson manipulated what the man was saying. All of the other stuff was fine (Even though mudslinging, from anybody, is bad form), but that was blatantly out of context and manipulative on Grayson's part.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Webster: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands.’ She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it.
Someone's owed an apology, I think.
Beyond somewhat exaggerating his opponent's stance, I don't really see the problem, especially in context with other shit he's on record supporting.
Grayson doesn't need to apologize, he needs to keep hammering this guy until election day.
I'm mostly annoyed by the ludicrous double standard. Republicans do this in essentially every election cycle to almost every Democratic candidate. The media sort of vaguely tut tuts about it and no gives a shit.
But my God, when a Democrat does it...
So part of the Strategic Incompetence of Democrats is wildly different standards that are applied to them when they try to politic. Part of it is presumably because they're not as confident with it, but still.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.
No, Webster said wives could pray about that passage, if they wanted to.
My 'should' there was an attempt to emphasize the subject of the phrase, i.e., that Webster thinks it's appropriate for women to do that rather than men. He did not, indeed, in that excerpt, say that wives should pray about that. However, given his other actions, it's pretty clear that he does think that way.
Should be easy for you to provide some evidence then.
Webster also wants to make divorce illegal unless one partner cheats on the other (and only one - if a woman cheats on her abusing husband to get a divorce, and he's already had an affair, she must remain married to him), and he's against abortion in all cases. Does him wanting wives to submit to their husbands really seem implausible?
Yeah, I'm pretty much beyond giving a shit about the high road. You can't argue with results, and the GOP admittedly gets results off of the high road.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
Hell, look at Alex Sink versus Rick Scott in my state's governor race. Sink's running a clean ad campaign while Scott's done nothing but throw money and mud at people and he's still trailing in the polls. Maybe the GOP's base and the kneejerk crowd want to hear all the negative shit, but I'm going to be damn disappointed if that's the direction the Dems are heading.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
No, but the Democrats should be out on TV calling out their lies every. single. night.
What are they doing instead? Going on TV and saying Stephen Colbert is an embarrassment and not holding votes on the middle-class tax cuts. Brilliant job, you morons.
Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.
No, Webster said wives could pray about that passage, if they wanted to.
My 'should' there was an attempt to emphasize the subject of the phrase, i.e., that Webster thinks it's appropriate for women to do that rather than men. He did not, indeed, in that excerpt, say that wives should pray about that. However, given his other actions, it's pretty clear that he does think that way.
Should be easy for you to provide some evidence then.
Webster also wants to make divorce illegal unless one partner cheats on the other (and only one - if a woman cheats on her abusing husband to get a divorce, and he's already had an affair, she must remain married to him), and he's against abortion in all cases. Does him wanting wives to submit to their husbands really seem implausible?
What Webster said was that men should not force their wives to submit...because they should be submitting of their own volition.
Which is more or less what Grayson said in his ad.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
No, but the Democrats should be out on TV calling out their lies every. single. night.
What are they doing instead? Going on TV and saying Stephen Colbert is an embarrassment and not holding votes on the middle-class tax cuts. Brilliant job, you morons.
Why did those idiots even have him testify. They should have known that would be a disaster.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
No, but the Democrats should be out on TV calling out their lies every. single. night.
What are they doing instead? Going on TV and saying Stephen Colbert is an embarrassment and not holding votes on the middle-class tax cuts. Brilliant job, you morons.
Why did those idiots even have him testify. They should have known that would be a disaster.
It wasn't a disaster at all, actually. It should have brought light to an actual problem. Instead, the media is focusing on the wrong thing as usual and Democrats are yet again hitting themselves.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
Hell, look at Alex Sink versus Rick Scott in my state's governor race. Sink's running a clean ad campaign while Scott's done nothing but throw money and mud at people and he's still trailing in the polls. Maybe the GOP's base and the kneejerk crowd want to hear all the negative shit, but I'm going to be damn disappointed if that's the direction the Dems are heading.
Yes, because, again, the high road has really helped in shaping the message and controlling the narrative. We play defense so much because we hamstring ourselves constantly. Politics is a full contact, no holds barred sport. We need to stop act like it's a gentleman's game.
Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.
No, Webster said wives could pray about that passage, if they wanted to.
My 'should' there was an attempt to emphasize the subject of the phrase, i.e., that Webster thinks it's appropriate for women to do that rather than men. He did not, indeed, in that excerpt, say that wives should pray about that. However, given his other actions, it's pretty clear that he does think that way.
Should be easy for you to provide some evidence then.
Webster also wants to make divorce illegal unless one partner cheats on the other (and only one - if a woman cheats on her abusing husband to get a divorce, and he's already had an affair, she must remain married to him), and he's against abortion in all cases. Does him wanting wives to submit to their husbands really seem implausible?
That's a stretch. He wants to make 'covenant marriage' an option, not make divorce illegal. A few states have done this (Louisiana, Arkansas, Arizona), with differing requirements on divorce. Grayson's proposal was indeed more restrictive than the later proposals that were passed, with only a mention of adultery as a reasonable cause, and no mentions of alimony restrictions being paid to the male.
I think it's plausible that he favors a culture where women submit to men, but that's not the same thing as 'pretty clear.' He had an opportunity to suggest that, and purposefully told the men in the audience not to ask for it.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
When we have multiple studies showing people don't listen to facts then we have to take a different tact. I would prefer that we take the high road and argue based on policy merits, but the MSM and the public is not setup to take in that sort of information. It also assumes that the other side is playing fair. We could play fair and we can lose and hold our heads high knowing we "did the right thing" while the republicans fuck the country up more. I would rather play a little dirty on the campaign side so we can get at least a modicum of our platform passed when congress is in session.
I understand this is a little bit hypocritical because during '08 a lot of us here were about 'good politics' and not being like the other guys.
So if Grayson takes some guys words out of context but they still match his voting record, I am a-ok with that.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
Hell, look at Alex Sink versus Rick Scott in my state's governor race. Sink's running a clean ad campaign while Scott's done nothing but throw money and mud at people and he's still trailing in the polls. Maybe the GOP's base and the kneejerk crowd want to hear all the negative shit, but I'm going to be damn disappointed if that's the direction the Dems are heading.
Yes, because, again, the high road has really helped in shaping the message and controlling the narrative. We play defense so much because we hamstring ourselves constantly. Politics is a full contact, no holds barred sport. We need to stop act like it's a gentleman's game.
There's a rather strong possibility that the high road cost us the Bush v Gore Florida situation. The dems refused to rally protestors and bus in supporters, the Republicans happily did and threw a monkey wrench into the works
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
Hell, look at Alex Sink versus Rick Scott in my state's governor race. Sink's running a clean ad campaign while Scott's done nothing but throw money and mud at people and he's still trailing in the polls. Maybe the GOP's base and the kneejerk crowd want to hear all the negative shit, but I'm going to be damn disappointed if that's the direction the Dems are heading.
Yes, because, again, the high road has really helped in shaping the message and controlling the narrative. We play defense so much because we hamstring ourselves constantly. Politics is a full contact, no holds barred sport. We need to stop act like it's a gentleman's game.
More to the point, I'm glad Grayson is doing this so when he wins in a Republican district in a terrible climate for Democrats, we can point to him and say "Hey! Look at that!" and push for a more full throated liberal Democratic Party. You know, instead of one that's afraid of its own fucking shadow.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
There's also a bit of false equivalency. The message about the man's beliefs wasn't very far off.
Things like death panels, Acorn, Bill Ayers, birth certificates, this shit is fucking manufactured out of thin air. The right routinely makes up fake issues to stall things up
Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.
No, Webster said wives could pray about that passage, if they wanted to.
My 'should' there was an attempt to emphasize the subject of the phrase, i.e., that Webster thinks it's appropriate for women to do that rather than men. He did not, indeed, in that excerpt, say that wives should pray about that. However, given his other actions, it's pretty clear that he does think that way.
Should be easy for you to provide some evidence then.
Webster also wants to make divorce illegal unless one partner cheats on the other (and only one - if a woman cheats on her abusing husband to get a divorce, and he's already had an affair, she must remain married to him), and he's against abortion in all cases. Does him wanting wives to submit to their husbands really seem implausible?
What Webster said was that men should not force their wives to submit...because they should be submitting of their own volition.
Which is more or less what Grayson said in his ad.
No, it wasn't. Did you watch the original speech? He specifically says men should not look for those verses. You can try to spin it any way you want, but the guy was trying to tell men that they should respect their wives. He never said he expects his wife to submit. If the wife chooses to do that, then that's her issue and hers alone. This isn't a religious debate; it's about politics. What people choose to do behind closed doors is their own business.
Like I said, I'm against what this guy stands for. And if Grayson wanted to pull from a speech about how he thinks divorce should be illegal, then fine. But, manipulating what someone says is wrong. Period. Again, I genuinely like the Dems because they genuinely do want to help people, the exact reason why I think the GOP are a bunch of hypocrites. But, this shows me that that is changing and it's a shame.
You do understand the concept of a dog whistle in politics, lase?
This side of the FLDS, its not acceptable to say that men should demand women to submit. So, instead he says that women should submit of their own accord.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
Hell, look at Alex Sink versus Rick Scott in my state's governor race. Sink's running a clean ad campaign while Scott's done nothing but throw money and mud at people and he's still trailing in the polls. Maybe the GOP's base and the kneejerk crowd want to hear all the negative shit, but I'm going to be damn disappointed if that's the direction the Dems are heading.
Yes, because, again, the high road has really helped in shaping the message and controlling the narrative. We play defense so much because we hamstring ourselves constantly. Politics is a full contact, no holds barred sport. We need to stop act like it's a gentleman's game.
Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.
No, Webster said wives could pray about that passage, if they wanted to.
My 'should' there was an attempt to emphasize the subject of the phrase, i.e., that Webster thinks it's appropriate for women to do that rather than men. He did not, indeed, in that excerpt, say that wives should pray about that. However, given his other actions, it's pretty clear that he does think that way.
Should be easy for you to provide some evidence then.
Webster also wants to make divorce illegal unless one partner cheats on the other (and only one - if a woman cheats on her abusing husband to get a divorce, and he's already had an affair, she must remain married to him), and he's against abortion in all cases. Does him wanting wives to submit to their husbands really seem implausible?
What Webster said was that men should not force their wives to submit...because they should be submitting of their own volition.
Which is more or less what Grayson said in his ad.
No, it wasn't. Did you watch the original speech? He specifically says men should not look for those verses. You can try to spin it any way you want, but the guy was trying to tell men that they should respect their wives. He never said he expects his wife to submit. If the wife chooses to do that, then that's her issue and hers alone. This isn't a religious debate; it's about politics. What people choose to do behind closed doors is their own business.
Like I said, I'm against what this guy stands for. And if Grayson wanted to pull from a speech about how he thinks divorce should be illegal, then fine. But, manipulating what someone says is wrong. Period. Again, I genuinely like the Dems because they genuinely do want to help people, the exact reason why I think the GOP are a bunch of hypocrites. But, this shows me that that is changing and it's a shame.
Yeah, I'm... believe me, not happy that the Dems thus far have been ceding ground to an opponent who considers the ends to justify any means whatsoever. But I like to feel represented and proud of my representatives, and if I can't have leaders who do the right thing and win, I'd rather they lose. America would get the leaders she deserves.
I might grind my teeth into my head and die of an ulcer before long, but still.
There's also a bit of false equivalency. The message about the man's beliefs wasn't very far off.
Things like death panels, Acorn, Bill Ayers, birth certificates, this shit is fucking manufactured out of thin air. The right routinely makes up fake issues to stall things up
I was about to post something similar. We don't have to outright lie like the GOP does to make them look bad.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
Hell, look at Alex Sink versus Rick Scott in my state's governor race. Sink's running a clean ad campaign while Scott's done nothing but throw money and mud at people and he's still trailing in the polls. Maybe the GOP's base and the kneejerk crowd want to hear all the negative shit, but I'm going to be damn disappointed if that's the direction the Dems are heading.
Yes, because, again, the high road has really helped in shaping the message and controlling the narrative. We play defense so much because we hamstring ourselves constantly. Politics is a full contact, no holds barred sport. We need to stop act like it's a gentleman's game.
More to the point, I'm glad Grayson is doing this so when he wins in a Republican district in a terrible climate for Democrats, we can point to him and say "Hey! Look at that!" and push for a more full throated liberal Democratic Party. You know, instead of one that's afraid of its own fucking shadow.
You do understand the concept of a dog whistle in politics, lase?
This side of the FLDS, its not acceptable to say that men should demand women to submit. So, instead he says that women should submit of their own accord.
I am familiar with the concept of a dog whistle in politics. It's more apt to say he was being subtle about encouraging this kind of behavior, as a dog whistle is more about code words that mean something else. The terminology doesn't really matter though.
I read it as him not wanting to say 'the Bible is wrong' here, so instead he said: don't focus on this part, but that doesn't mean it's wrong if that's what you believe.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
Hell, look at Alex Sink versus Rick Scott in my state's governor race. Sink's running a clean ad campaign while Scott's done nothing but throw money and mud at people and he's still trailing in the polls. Maybe the GOP's base and the kneejerk crowd want to hear all the negative shit, but I'm going to be damn disappointed if that's the direction the Dems are heading.
Yes, because, again, the high road has really helped in shaping the message and controlling the narrative. We play defense so much because we hamstring ourselves constantly. Politics is a full contact, no holds barred sport. We need to stop act like it's a gentleman's game.
More to the point, I'm glad Grayson is doing this so when he wins in a Republican district in a terrible climate for Democrats, we can point to him and say "Hey! Look at that!" and push for a more full throated liberal Democratic Party. You know, instead of one that's afraid of its own fucking shadow.
As an outside bystander, my current hope is that the inevitable damage will somehow be centered on the people who voted republican.
You mean if the GOP wins Congress in November?
It really depends what happens in the next two years. But if they flub like the 94-96 Congress did, Obama's going to take his Presidency into a second term. All eyes are going to be watching this Congress closely.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
Hell, look at Alex Sink versus Rick Scott in my state's governor race. Sink's running a clean ad campaign while Scott's done nothing but throw money and mud at people and he's still trailing in the polls. Maybe the GOP's base and the kneejerk crowd want to hear all the negative shit, but I'm going to be damn disappointed if that's the direction the Dems are heading.
Yes, because, again, the high road has really helped in shaping the message and controlling the narrative. We play defense so much because we hamstring ourselves constantly. Politics is a full contact, no holds barred sport. We need to stop act like it's a gentleman's game.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
Hell, look at Alex Sink versus Rick Scott in my state's governor race. Sink's running a clean ad campaign while Scott's done nothing but throw money and mud at people and he's still trailing in the polls. Maybe the GOP's base and the kneejerk crowd want to hear all the negative shit, but I'm going to be damn disappointed if that's the direction the Dems are heading.
Yes, because, again, the high road has really helped in shaping the message and controlling the narrative. We play defense so much because we hamstring ourselves constantly. Politics is a full contact, no holds barred sport. We need to stop act like it's a gentleman's game.
Politics is not touch football. Politics is winner take all. It always has been, and it always will be.
I look forward to having more youtube clips of crazy people espousing this kind of political philosophy, it doesn't matter which side it's from.
I'm sorry that your idealism doesn't match up with reality, but that doesn't mean the rest of us want to or should pretend along with you. There is this big, rose-tinted lie about politics being civil in "the past", when the truth is that politics has always been this way because it fucking works. I'm tired of our side hamstringing itself and putting our issues on the backburner so that we can lose with a good conscience.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
The dems are already regarded as worse than the GOP, just because they allow the GOP to frame the discussion. The high road doesn't work with these assclowns. If they need to be driven under our heels and utterly annihilated in order to stop them from driving this country straight off of a cliff, so be it.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
The dems are already regarded as worse than the GOP, just because they allow the GOP to frame the discussion. The high road doesn't work with these assclowns. If they need to be driven under our heels and utterly annihilated in order to stop them from driving this country straight off of a cliff, so be it.
Democrats are actually more popular than Republicans, in the abstract. It's kind of depressing.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
The dems are already regarded as worse than the GOP, just because they allow the GOP to frame the discussion. The high road doesn't work with these assclowns. If they need to be driven under our heels and utterly annihilated in order to stop them from driving this country straight off of a cliff, so be it.
Democrats are actually more popular than Republicans, in the abstract. It's kind of depressing.
Oh yeah, like the polls that show Congressional Democrats with a 30+ approval rating, with the headline "Public Disapproves of Democrats!!!1"
Never mind the fact that the same poll shows the Republicans with a 10+ approval rating.
I'm sorry that your idealism doesn't match up with reality, but that doesn't mean the rest of us want to or should pretend along with you. There is this big, rose-tinted lie about politics being civil in "the past", when the truth is that politics has always been this way because it fucking works. I'm tired of our side hamstringing itself and putting our issues on the backburner so that we can lose with a good conscience.
Maybe it's easier to be an idealist when it comes to political civility if you're independent. I have voted against candidates in general elections in large part because of their attempts to lie and manipulate through their campaigns. This usually works in favor of the democrats, but you're advocating a strategy that would alienate me from the candidates you want me to vote for.
I'm sorry that your idealism doesn't match up with reality, but that doesn't mean the rest of us want to or should pretend along with you. There is this big, rose-tinted lie about politics being civil in "the past", when the truth is that politics has always been this way because it fucking works. I'm tired of our side hamstringing itself and putting our issues on the backburner so that we can lose with a good conscience.
Maybe it's easier to be an idealist when it comes to political civility if you're independent. I have voted against candidates in general elections in large part because of their attempts to lie and manipulate through their campaigns. This usually works in favor of the democrats, but you're advocating a strategy that would alienate me from the candidates you want me to vote for.
Fortunately for us, we have a lot of excellent data as to the effectiveness of negative campaigning. It's quite effective, if soul sucking.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm sorry that your idealism doesn't match up with reality, but that doesn't mean the rest of us want to or should pretend along with you. There is this big, rose-tinted lie about politics being civil in "the past", when the truth is that politics has always been this way because it fucking works. I'm tired of our side hamstringing itself and putting our issues on the backburner so that we can lose with a good conscience.
Maybe it's easier to be an idealist when it comes to political civility if you're independent. I have voted against candidates in general elections in large part because of their attempts to lie and manipulate through their campaigns. This usually works in favor of the democrats, but you're advocating a strategy that would alienate me from the candidates you want me to vote for.
When it stops working, I'll stop advocating for it. I want results, and losing because you're afraid to get dirty isn't a good result.
I'm sorry that your idealism doesn't match up with reality, but that doesn't mean the rest of us want to or should pretend along with you. There is this big, rose-tinted lie about politics being civil in "the past", when the truth is that politics has always been this way because it fucking works. I'm tired of our side hamstringing itself and putting our issues on the backburner so that we can lose with a good conscience.
Maybe it's easier to be an idealist when it comes to political civility if you're independent. I have voted against candidates in general elections in large part because of their attempts to lie and manipulate through their campaigns. This usually works in favor of the democrats, but you're advocating a strategy that would alienate me from the candidates you want me to vote for.
You know what also probably helps? Not being gay.
Or any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, for that matter. But if you're just sort of hanging out in America and aren't exactly happy with the state of the economy but would generally rather see Democrats remain in control, I can totally see how you'd like to maintain the moral high ground. If, on the other hand, you have a personal stake in what happens if the people who agitated for a national Defense of Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and filibustered a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell regain control of Congress, I think the rest of us can personally find it in ourselves to forgive you for thinking that winning dirty is better than losing clean.
Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.
No, Webster said wives could pray about that passage, if they wanted to.
My 'should' there was an attempt to emphasize the subject of the phrase, i.e., that Webster thinks it's appropriate for women to do that rather than men. He did not, indeed, in that excerpt, say that wives should pray about that. However, given his other actions, it's pretty clear that he does think that way.
Should be easy for you to provide some evidence then.
Webster also wants to make divorce illegal unless one partner cheats on the other (and only one - if a woman cheats on her abusing husband to get a divorce, and he's already had an affair, she must remain married to him), and he's against abortion in all cases. Does him wanting wives to submit to their husbands really seem implausible?
Webster supported a form of covenant marriage that would have made divorce more difficult, except in cases of adultery. However, that type of marriage would have been purely voluntary. No one would be forced to enter into a covenant marriage and the standard no-fault divorce regime would have remained the default.
People seem to be reading into Webster what they want him to say and believe.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Posts
So what. We need to stop trying to take the high road.
I'm mostly annoyed by the ludicrous double standard. Republicans do this in essentially every election cycle to almost every Democratic candidate. The media sort of vaguely tut tuts about it and no gives a shit.
But my God, when a Democrat does it...
So part of the Strategic Incompetence of Democrats is wildly different standards that are applied to them when they try to politic. Part of it is presumably because they're not as confident with it, but still.
Webster also wants to make divorce illegal unless one partner cheats on the other (and only one - if a woman cheats on her abusing husband to get a divorce, and he's already had an affair, she must remain married to him), and he's against abortion in all cases. Does him wanting wives to submit to their husbands really seem implausible?
Yes, sinking to their level is the right way to go. :x
Grayson's already trouncing this guy in the polls. Was it really necessary just to show that Grayson can be just as dirty as the GOP? Is that what you all want? For the Dems to be looked at as just as bad as the GOP?
Hell, look at Alex Sink versus Rick Scott in my state's governor race. Sink's running a clean ad campaign while Scott's done nothing but throw money and mud at people and he's still trailing in the polls. Maybe the GOP's base and the kneejerk crowd want to hear all the negative shit, but I'm going to be damn disappointed if that's the direction the Dems are heading.
No, but the Democrats should be out on TV calling out their lies every. single. night.
What are they doing instead? Going on TV and saying Stephen Colbert is an embarrassment and not holding votes on the middle-class tax cuts. Brilliant job, you morons.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
What Webster said was that men should not force their wives to submit...because they should be submitting of their own volition.
Which is more or less what Grayson said in his ad.
Why did those idiots even have him testify. They should have known that would be a disaster.
It wasn't a disaster at all, actually. It should have brought light to an actual problem. Instead, the media is focusing on the wrong thing as usual and Democrats are yet again hitting themselves.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Yes, because, again, the high road has really helped in shaping the message and controlling the narrative. We play defense so much because we hamstring ourselves constantly. Politics is a full contact, no holds barred sport. We need to stop act like it's a gentleman's game.
That's a stretch. He wants to make 'covenant marriage' an option, not make divorce illegal. A few states have done this (Louisiana, Arkansas, Arizona), with differing requirements on divorce. Grayson's proposal was indeed more restrictive than the later proposals that were passed, with only a mention of adultery as a reasonable cause, and no mentions of alimony restrictions being paid to the male.
I think it's plausible that he favors a culture where women submit to men, but that's not the same thing as 'pretty clear.' He had an opportunity to suggest that, and purposefully told the men in the audience not to ask for it.
When we have multiple studies showing people don't listen to facts then we have to take a different tact. I would prefer that we take the high road and argue based on policy merits, but the MSM and the public is not setup to take in that sort of information. It also assumes that the other side is playing fair. We could play fair and we can lose and hold our heads high knowing we "did the right thing" while the republicans fuck the country up more. I would rather play a little dirty on the campaign side so we can get at least a modicum of our platform passed when congress is in session.
I understand this is a little bit hypocritical because during '08 a lot of us here were about 'good politics' and not being like the other guys.
So if Grayson takes some guys words out of context but they still match his voting record, I am a-ok with that.
There's a rather strong possibility that the high road cost us the Bush v Gore Florida situation. The dems refused to rally protestors and bus in supporters, the Republicans happily did and threw a monkey wrench into the works
More to the point, I'm glad Grayson is doing this so when he wins in a Republican district in a terrible climate for Democrats, we can point to him and say "Hey! Look at that!" and push for a more full throated liberal Democratic Party. You know, instead of one that's afraid of its own fucking shadow.
Things like death panels, Acorn, Bill Ayers, birth certificates, this shit is fucking manufactured out of thin air. The right routinely makes up fake issues to stall things up
No, it wasn't. Did you watch the original speech? He specifically says men should not look for those verses. You can try to spin it any way you want, but the guy was trying to tell men that they should respect their wives. He never said he expects his wife to submit. If the wife chooses to do that, then that's her issue and hers alone. This isn't a religious debate; it's about politics. What people choose to do behind closed doors is their own business.
Like I said, I'm against what this guy stands for. And if Grayson wanted to pull from a speech about how he thinks divorce should be illegal, then fine. But, manipulating what someone says is wrong. Period. Again, I genuinely like the Dems because they genuinely do want to help people, the exact reason why I think the GOP are a bunch of hypocrites. But, this shows me that that is changing and it's a shame.
This side of the FLDS, its not acceptable to say that men should demand women to submit. So, instead he says that women should submit of their own accord.
You're in good company.
I look forward to having more youtube clips of crazy people espousing this kind of political philosophy, it doesn't matter which side it's from.
Yeah, I'm... believe me, not happy that the Dems thus far have been ceding ground to an opponent who considers the ends to justify any means whatsoever. But I like to feel represented and proud of my representatives, and if I can't have leaders who do the right thing and win, I'd rather they lose. America would get the leaders she deserves.
I might grind my teeth into my head and die of an ulcer before long, but still.
I was about to post something similar. We don't have to outright lie like the GOP does to make them look bad.
First poll of the race has him down 7
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I am familiar with the concept of a dog whistle in politics. It's more apt to say he was being subtle about encouraging this kind of behavior, as a dog whistle is more about code words that mean something else. The terminology doesn't really matter though.
I read it as him not wanting to say 'the Bible is wrong' here, so instead he said: don't focus on this part, but that doesn't mean it's wrong if that's what you believe.
Bah. Not a great pollster though, so we can hope!
You mean if the GOP wins Congress in November?
It really depends what happens in the next two years. But if they flub like the 94-96 Congress did, Obama's going to take his Presidency into a second term. All eyes are going to be watching this Congress closely.
James Carville can get you some great ones.
I'm sorry that your idealism doesn't match up with reality, but that doesn't mean the rest of us want to or should pretend along with you. There is this big, rose-tinted lie about politics being civil in "the past", when the truth is that politics has always been this way because it fucking works. I'm tired of our side hamstringing itself and putting our issues on the backburner so that we can lose with a good conscience.
The dems are already regarded as worse than the GOP, just because they allow the GOP to frame the discussion. The high road doesn't work with these assclowns. If they need to be driven under our heels and utterly annihilated in order to stop them from driving this country straight off of a cliff, so be it.
Democrats are actually more popular than Republicans, in the abstract. It's kind of depressing.
Oh yeah, like the polls that show Congressional Democrats with a 30+ approval rating, with the headline "Public Disapproves of Democrats!!!1"
Never mind the fact that the same poll shows the Republicans with a 10+ approval rating.
He might be loud and opinionated, but he's never struck me as the type that would advocate dirty politics.
Maybe it's easier to be an idealist when it comes to political civility if you're independent. I have voted against candidates in general elections in large part because of their attempts to lie and manipulate through their campaigns. This usually works in favor of the democrats, but you're advocating a strategy that would alienate me from the candidates you want me to vote for.
Fortunately for us, we have a lot of excellent data as to the effectiveness of negative campaigning. It's quite effective, if soul sucking.
When it stops working, I'll stop advocating for it. I want results, and losing because you're afraid to get dirty isn't a good result.
You know what also probably helps? Not being gay.
Or any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, for that matter. But if you're just sort of hanging out in America and aren't exactly happy with the state of the economy but would generally rather see Democrats remain in control, I can totally see how you'd like to maintain the moral high ground. If, on the other hand, you have a personal stake in what happens if the people who agitated for a national Defense of Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and filibustered a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell regain control of Congress, I think the rest of us can personally find it in ourselves to forgive you for thinking that winning dirty is better than losing clean.
Just as an example.
People seem to be reading into Webster what they want him to say and believe.
Rigorous Scholarship