David Obey Caught On Tape Lashing Out At Activists

[red states rule]

David Obey (D) lashed out at a mother when pressured on whether he would vote to cut off funding

The women has a wounded son in a VA Hospital and he was not exactly respectful toward the women. The liberal media has been ignoring this story but as a public service I am bringing this to you.

I wonder how the liberal media would be reporting this if a Republican had done this

The tape is a bit long but it is worth watching

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/03/must_see_obey_tv.html

 

[Bern80]

I'm not sure if that is supposed to be an indictment or what. I don't find particularily damning to democrats. it was representative basically speaking progamatically to a couple euphorian know it alls.

 

[red states rule]

I'm not sure if that is supposed to be an indictment or what. I don't find particularily damning to democrats. it was representative basically speaking progamatically to a couple euphorian know it alls.

Lets see.... a mother of a wounded Iraq war vet, and he curses at her, yells ar at her, and calls her (and the guy) idiots - and that is not damning?

 

[Bern80]

Is Cindy Sheehan an idiot?

 

[red states rule]

Is Cindy Sheehan an idiot?

Cindy Crackpot is a joke. She has bellowed out and out lies and her husband has divorced her, and her children have left her

These two people were respcetful and polite. Obey melted down and allowed his temper and arrogrance to take over

 

[Bern80]

Cindy Crackpot is a joke. She has bellowed out and out lies and her husband has divorced her, and her children have left her

These two people were respcetful and polite. Obey melted down and allowed his temper and arrogrance to take over

I guess I didn't see much difference, especially with the guy. They both (the woman and Cindy) both seem to be using their children to advance an agenda.

Rare is it for me to defend a democrat, but these people basically cornered him. He had every right to be frustrated with him because those two are basically the message of liberals as it pertains to the war and they have no understanding of how the political system works.

 

[red states rule]

I guess I didn't see much difference, especially with the guy. They both (the woman and Cindy) both seem to be using their children to advance an agenda.

Rare is it for me to defend a democrat, but these people basically cornered him. He had every right to be frustrated with him because those two are basically the message of liberals as it pertains to the war and they have no understanding of how the political system works.

Those two people were very polite (Cindy Crackpot screams alot) they listened and did not try to shout Obey down (Ms Crackpot does) no Republican would ever call them idiots (Ms Crackpot does) They were asking questions is a calm and rational tone (Ms Crackpot is usually nearly foaming at the mouth)

Does the name Sen Allen mean anything to you? He made a one word joke and has savaged for nearly three months in a daily basis

 

[Annie]

I guess I didn't see much difference, especially with the guy. They both (the woman and Cindy) both seem to be using their children to advance an agenda.

Rare is it for me to defend a democrat, but these people basically cornered him. He had every right to be frustrated with him because those two are basically the message of liberals as it pertains to the war and they have no understanding of how the political system works.

Noonan addressed the problems with the base awhile ago, regarding both parties, just the Dems have a harder time of it:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008547

Off Base
Washington Democrats think their core voters are barking mad.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:01 a.m.

It has occurred to me that both parties increasingly dislike their bases, but for different reasons and to different degrees. By both parties I mean the leaders and representatives of the Democrats and Republicans in Washington. I believe I correctly observe that they feel an increasing intellectual estrangement from and impatience with the activists who people their base of support.

And this is something new.

In the past, Republican leaders in Washington bowed either symbolically or practically to the presumed moral leadership and cleanness of vision of the people back home. They understood the base wanted tax cuts and spending cuts, and for serious reasons. The base had deep qualms about abortion. The base intuitively recoiled from big government: They knew the best arrangement was maximum possible power to the individual and limited, policed, heavily checked power to the state. Or, as some back home might have put it, Don't put your faith in governments, which are made by men; put your faith in individuals, who are made by God.

Republican leaders in the capital bowed to this wisdom--if not in their actions, at least quite often in their hearts.

Now they seem to bow less. They know the higher wisdom on such issues as immigration. They feel less fealty to the insights of the base. They know more than the base, are more experienced than the base, have a more nuanced sense of reality. And as for conservative social issues groups, the politicians resent those nagging, whining pushers-for-the-impossible who are always threatening to stay home or go elsewhere. (Where?)

...

...On the Democratic side, it is not just as bad but worse. They don't only think they're more sophisticated than their base, more informed and aware of the complexities. I believe they think their base is mad.

You can see their problem in their inability to get a slogan. Which, believe me, is how they think of it: a slogan. "Together for a Better Future." "A Future With Better Togetherness." Today for a better tomorrow, tomorrow for a better today.

A party has a hard time saying what it stands for only when it doesn't know what it stands for. It has trouble getting a compelling slogan only when it has no idea what compels its base. Or when it fears what compels it.

I got a sense of the distance between Democratic leaders and the base a few years ago when I met up with a Democrat who was weighing a run for the party's 2004 nomination. He hadn't announced but was starting to test the waters, campaigning out of state.

I mentioned to him that the press gives a great deal of attention to the problems of Republican leaders and their putative supporters on the ground in America, but I was interested in the particular problems a D.C. Democrat has with his party's base.

His eyebrows went up in the way people's eyebrows go up when they're interested in what they're about to say. He said--I write from memory; it was not an interview but a conversation--that he was getting an education in that area. He said when he spoke before local Democratic groups they were wildly against the war in Iraq and sometimes booed him when he spoke of it. It left him startled. He had supported the president for serious reasons: He thought Saddam a bad actor who likely had weapons of mass destruction. He wanted to talk about it, but they didn't want to hear him. They were immovable.

But there was something else. He didn't say it, but something in his manner suggested he thought they were . . . just a little crazy....

...This struck me as essentially sane, and as I watched I wondered if these Democrats would take major hits from the base because of it. Or if John Kerry, who is pushing for a declared date certain for withdrawal, would greatly benefit.

Here is my read on a lot of Democratic senators: They think they know more than their base and they think they're more--how to put it?--stable in their view of the world than their base. In their hearts, in fact, they don't really like their base. (They like--they love--the old base: old union guys who drink Schlitz and voted for FDR and JFK. But today those old union guys are mostly dead, dying or Republican.)

Democratic leaders in Washington are in a worse position than Republican leaders in Washington. Neither likes their base, really, and both think they are smarter. But the Democrats think, deep down, that their base is barking mad. The Republicans don't. They just think their base is a bore.

 

[red states rule]

Of course, I have to ask, how would the Dems and liberal media be actingif a Republican had done this?

Well, here is another examples of how the liberal media favors the Dems

Time to Play WIARHSI: Hillary Says 'I Like to See Women in Charge'
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 11, 2007 - 06:38.
Without a lot of breaking news out there this morning, why not pass some of today's 23 hours with an exhilirating session of one of our favorite games, WIARSHI, which as regular readers know stands for "What if a Republican Had Said It?"

Check out this paragraph from a Newsday article that reports on a Hillary campaign event in Nashua, New Hampsire:

"The former first lady, referring to New Hampshire's roster of female Democratic officials, quipped, 'I don't know about you, but I like seeing women in charge.'"
For purposes of WIARSHI, let's imagine that a Republican had made the mirror-image comment: "I don't know about you, but I like seeing men in charge." Fair to say that the feminist howls of outrage would soon be echoing from sea to shining sea? But what are the odds that Hillary's blatant appeal to sexist solidarity will cause even the smallest ripple in the MSM?

Note by the way how Newsday tries to do Hillary a favor, casting her comment as merely a "quip." Real side-splitter!

An additional note: Obama is frequently compared to another young, charismatic Democrat -- JFK. At the same Nashua event where she got off her "woman in charge" line, Hillary tried to cloak herself in JFK's mantle. She told the crowd:

"New Hampshire came together to offer their support to a presidential candidate who came from just south of here; he was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring, he was Catholic. A lot of people back then said, you know, America will never elect a Catholic as a president, but those who gathered here a half century ago knew better. Some people tell me . . . 'I don't think a woman can be elected president,' I say we'll never know unless we try."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11339

 

[CSM]

Noonan addressed the problems with the base awhile ago, regarding both parties, just the Dems have a harder time of it:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008547

I think both parties are way out of touch. The pols are so far removed from the US middle class its not even funny. Perhaps its because both parties tend to cater to the extremes and the more moderate folks get drowned out by the shrill harpy calls of those at either end of the spectrum. The media (thriving on the continuing farce) eggs them both on and reaps the benefits.

 

[Annie]

I think both parties are way out of touch. The pols are so far removed from the US middle class its not even funny. Perhaps its because both parties tend to cater to the extremes and the more moderate folks get drowned out by the shrill harpy calls of those at either end of the spectrum. The media (thriving on the continuing farce) eggs them both on and reaps the benefits.

I agree, though to the extent of 'first facts' on new stories. The 'influentials', those engaged and willing to discuss in various forums, are starting to actually make their own memes on issues. I just posted an interesting article on that:

http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=47573

 

[red states rule]

I think both parties are way out of touch. The pols are so far removed from the US middle class its not even funny. Perhaps its because both parties tend to cater to the extremes and the more moderate folks get drowned out by the shrill harpy calls of those at either end of the spectrum. The media (thriving on the continuing farce) eggs them both on and reaps the benefits.

I think Republicans learned their lesson in the last mid trerm. Republicans walked away from what brought them into power - Reagan conservitism

Right now CSM, Dems are imploding, They are allowing thier arrogrance to ooze to the surface and guide them in their actions.

Obey was a perfect example. He wants to cut off funding, He wants the US military to run anway from the fight in Iraq. He wants to hane Iraq over to the terrorists - but he does not have the political guts to come out and make it so by voting for it