This is not a political site. This is an anti-political site. We agree with the goals of individual liberty, free markets, and peace.


Three Cheers for Rudeness

A mini fire storm has erupted in the media in regards to the rudeness of a congressman who lost track of where he was when he audibly blurted out his opinion of a whopper the President of the United States had just uttered to a joint session of congress.
As if it was a real news story, it is being covered by just about everyone with a keyboard or a TV camera pointed at them.
But the truth is, the rudeness "story" is a purposeful distraction designed by clever spin meisters and then parroted by the dim bulb "reporters",  in a media which seems enamored with changing the subject from the truth (or lack thereof) of what the president said, to how he was called on it.
The story they want you to focus on is all about the loss of civility,  in a society that has been anything but civil since the very beginning of our republic. A check of history yields so many rude attacks on the veracity of various presidents that they are too numerous to cite in this space. And even the arena of the insult isn't particularly rare. The former president, George Bush, was actually booed in that same venue by the very same folks who are righteously indignant this time around.

The (hopefully) soon to be deposed, and ever so polite senate majority leader, Harry Reid, called George Bush "a liar" way back in 2002 in a dispute about moving nuclear waste to his state's Yucca Mountain. And according to a web search, former President Harry Truman, once described Richard Nixon as "a shifty-eyed goddamn liar . . . He's one of the few in the history of this country to run for high office talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both sides."
So much for civility in the past. Now, what about the current president?

He has been calling so many people liars lately, (not to mention other names) that I doubt if it even fazed him when the tables were turned, although the congressional joint session "outing" probably caught him a tad off guard. He hadn't planned on it and it wasn't on the teleprompter. I guess he ignored it, but I admit I wasn't watching.
Maybe his earlier call to have liberal operatives report the identity of any fellow citizens who say anything "fishy" about his government run health insurance scheme was merely a way to call them liars to their faces. If so, damn sporting of him I'd say!
In lieu of that, he has settled for saying (ad-nausem) that unnamed people were "lying" about his plan. Which is particularly difficult to do since he says there is no specific plan yet. And that is darn convenient as well if you are trying to get people to agree with something (in a hurry, as usual) which no one can describe in detail. As we all know, Lucifer hides in the details of grandiose plans.

Regular readers of my essays will remember that the Cato Institute ran some very respectful ads in many large newspapers across America which started with the line, "With all due respect Mr. President".
Those ads were a paragon of civility as they called the President on his lies. With the exception of you folks and a few others, no one much noticed. Those challenges to his integrity surely weren't the "news" stories that the recent crude approach has become.

The real story isn't news to anyone I know.  Birds fly and Politicians lie.
Republicans, Democrats and all the rest. They think, "you just can't handle the truth".

So what is the President's record on telling the truth? I'm afraid it is abysmal.
More importantly, does he lie on the so called "health-care" issue and did he lie about the issue in question regarding the inclusion of illegal aliens in accessing health-care insurance under a new law?  The answers are, yes and yes.
In various bills in various committees of congress, amendments have been proposed (that the president knows about) which would specifically exclude illegal aliens from participation and they have been voted down each time. (by Democrats by the way, which is beside the point)
And THAT is the real issue, not the rudeness of the person who exposed it in an inappropriate manner.

From my perspective, that is the truth about lying.  So, three cheers for bad manners when it comes to focusing attention on matters of this importance.


Marissa said...

Did you catch that after the "rude" comment, the politician in question was interviewed as saying that he apologized to the White House . . . but pretty much admitted that it was because the Republicans told him to. So I guess he wasn't that sorry about it either. I think Obama went on in an interview about it the next day saying that the guy called and apologized "swiftly and sincerely" (at least I'm pretty sure that's what he said). I have 2 words: DOUBT IT (about the "sincerely" part, not the "swiftly" part).

Grant Davies said...

I doubt it as well if his apology was directed towards WHAT he said. My understanding is that he apologised for his inability to control himself in that particular setting and the speaking out of turn problem. It's possible he was sincere about that part, but even then, I also have my doubts.
I mean, people should speak when it's their turn. It was my turn in this essay, so I am calling it a lie now.

Sara said...

A bit of a side here, but when Obama called Kanye West a jackass, I thought: We agree on something!!!
I can now go back to my regularly scheduled disagreement with him on almost everything else.

Grant Davies said...

When it comes to socializing the country, ignorance is a bad thing. But when it comes to knowledge of certain aspects of the "social scene", it can be truly bliss. Blissfully, I had/have no idea who Kayne West is.
Some other the good news is, at least on that one issue, you are not a racist.