alan grayson joe wilson and the democrats culture of hypocrisy

Alan Grayson, Joe Wilson, and the Democrats’ Culture of Hypocrisy

Alan_GraysonHurray!  Alan Wilson finally apologized to the Republicans!

Haha, gotcha!  No, he apologized to the Anti-Defamation League for calling the healthcare situation a “holocaust in America.”  However, he remains unwilling to apologize to Republicans for saying their healthcare plan tells people to “die quickly.”

You can see the hypocrisy of the Democrats on this issue.  When Rep. Joe Wilson told Barack Obama “You Lie!” he was hounded for weeks, and is still being hounded for it.  He had to apologize (which was supported fairly bipartisanly) AND face a “resolution of disapproval” (which was almost exclusively pushed by the majority Democrats).  When Alan Grayson insults every Republican by calling them killers, he apparently has to do nothing.

If you look at it fairly, “die quickly” is really the Democrats’ response to “death panels.”  However, I don’t recall a member of Congress saying such things, though I’m sure someone will let me know if I’m wrong.  Yes, Sarah Palin started that ball rolling, but she’s a private citizen again, isn’t she?  Quite a bit different than an elected official, who should be expected to hold higher standards, though no doubt it will come back to bite her if she throws her hat into the 2012 ring for one office or another.  Grayson should not expect to be held to different standards, even if his intended target wasn’t necessarily a personal attack.

On a final note (since I can anticipate some of the counter arguments), I understand that Wilson was held up as a hero by many Republicans.  But Grayson is a hero to a lot of Democrats now, too.  I don’t like this attitude from either side.  The problem is that the Democrats are the hypocritical ones here because they’re the ones who started the game of hounding a Congressman for being disrespectful.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine


  1. ashok

    October 3rd, 2009 at 10:03

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #1

    I really like your point here:

    “…I understand that Wilson was held up as a hero by many Republicans. But Grayson is a hero to a lot of Democrats now, too. I don’t like this attitude from either side.”

    I do not want to excuse Wilson, not one bit, and I feel the right-wing fringe has to be shamed and quieted first. But I do know that 8 years of saying Bush was the same person as Hitler is the cause of what we’re seeing now: that’s not to say “so and so started it,” but to keep in mind that the extremism of the Left must be challenged also. Trying to bring people like Van Jones into the administration was an affront for many Democrats, let alone Republicans.


  2. rick386

    October 3rd, 2009 at 20:45

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #2

    ’saying their healthcare plan tells people to “die quickly.” ‘ is by no means calling someone a killer. Although I would say it to reps, he did not. The hypocrisy lies with reps after talking death panel bs and then condemning grayson. It is by no means like shouting ‘you lie’ to the president interupting a speech.

    All I see is the fact that Republicans can dish it out, but they just can’t take it. whaaaaaaaa

    Finally I get to root for a dem with a sac.


  3. Jul Paddy

    October 4th, 2009 at 00:15

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #3

    I realise this is not a moderate site. Did you guys chastise Sarah Palin for making up the story of Bureaucratic death panels? What about when chuck Grassley said it? or when Michelle Bachman said it. Did you attack Joe Wilson when he refused to apologise to Congress? Did you question the motive behind the so called Tea Party express which were filled with epithets of the US president as a witch doctor, calling him an arrogant bloodsucking muslim? Did realise that on the official tea party website, they call Obama an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug?

    No, but you are outraged at Grayson. NRCC called him and unstable personality. You guys can never argue substance and that is why you divert attention with name calling and stubbornness. Why the president is making this bipartisan is even a mystery to me. It really is. He should just let the democrats pass this bill.

    And Grayson is right. The fact that you guys keep insisting that we ditch the healthcare process means that you want sick people to die quickly. And you call yourselves christians. Please


  4. Doomed

    October 4th, 2009 at 01:28

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #4

    I know Jul Paddy.

    I just dont have any idea why Obama is bothering to ask the country what they want to do. I mean he got 53 percent of the vote he should just be able to do anything he wants. I mean after all this is a republic which practices democracy for cryin out loud.

    As far as Grayson. Your right. Everyone knows that Republicans hate everyone except the top 1 percent richest people in the country. We all set up nights wondering how we can make Bill Gates, and John Kerry and the Kennedy Family and Al Gore, and Michael Moore happy. I know lets cut their taxes some more. The other 99.9 percent of us Republicans exist to please those guys.

    As for those tea parties. Doesnt it just suck that America lets people call other people names that arent true….You know Like Bush is a Nazi…Bush is Hitler…Heil Bush….Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot…..dang this country. I just hate this place.

    I know. Lets vote Obama dictator. Then you could round up everyone you dont agree with and just put them in jail.

    There now that solves everything.


  5. Interested

    October 4th, 2009 at 05:16

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #5

    lol Doomed. Well like they say – 99 % of Liberals give the other 1 a bad name.


  6. liberalpinko

    October 4th, 2009 at 05:21

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #6

    When Republicans lie, as Wilson did, Democrats become angry. When Democrats tell the truth, as Grayson did, Republicans go mad. That so many can’t tell the difference is a tragedy.


  7. Interested

    October 4th, 2009 at 05:23

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #7

    see what I mean?


  8. liberalpinko

    October 4th, 2009 at 05:30

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #8

    Dear Interested, thank you for underscoring my observation.


  9. Doomed

    October 4th, 2009 at 05:31

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #9

    Just remember the SIN principal, Conservatives.

    You can only save the savable. Some Liberals just arent savable.

    When your talking to a liberal do they commit sin?

    S…..Switch. When you talk to a liberal do they switch the subject. You know like you say….Polls show that only 43 percent Favor Obama care and they Respond…Bush is Hitler…Then you know your talking to a liberal.

    I….Ignore the Facts…..When you point out that every poll in America says that Obama care is at 43 percent favorable…they find a poll conducted by three kindergarteners that show 66 percent favor Obama care. They simply ignore your facts and keep on spouting talking points. Then you know your talking to a liberal.

    N….Name Call. When they run out of talking points and your still there….they just start calling you names….Then you know your talking to a liberal.


  10. liberalpinko

    October 4th, 2009 at 05:36

    “While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.” John Stuart Mill


  11. Interested

    October 4th, 2009 at 05:52

    John Stuart Mill – influential liberal thinker

    Oxymoron if there ever was one.

    So your great counter Mr/Ms Pinko is an European born over 100 years ago.

    Who had this little gem

    he also made the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favour of a co-operative wage system

    Really? That’s your shining example ?


  12. Interested

    October 4th, 2009 at 06:01

    I hear ya on that one Doomed. One of my – fairly far right friends sent this.

    If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

    If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

    If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

    If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco deCuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May(Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

    If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

    If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

    If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

    If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

    If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major 20 corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

    So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

    Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 5 months

    – so you’ll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.—

    Naturally things have only added to the list in the months that followed those 5 months. lately add on to the worst unemployment in 26 years, his spending of millions of dollars to secure an Olympic bid (failure) for his crony’s in Chicago, spending of thousands of US Taxpayers dollars on his date nights, the beer summit, the snubbing of traditional allies in favor of traditional foes.

    ahhhh too many to list. Empty Suit indeed.


  13. Michael Merritt

    October 4th, 2009 at 11:25

    @ashok

    that’s not to say “so and so started it,” but to keep in mind that the extremism of the Left must be challenged also

    I don’t disagree, though I think Republicans need to craft their plans of attack carefully. Also, I mention in that article that all this “Alinsky” stuff is the right’s response to 8-years of “It’s gotta be Rove behind it!” from the left (though Rovism and Alinskyism are not without common features). So I get it.

    @Jul Paddy

    Did you guys chastise Sarah Palin for making up the story of Bureaucratic death panels?

    Yes, actually. Nice try on the drive-by criticism, though.

    Did you attack Joe Wilson when he refused to apologise to Congress?

    Wilson was out of line and apologized for it, and the request for it was quite bipartisan.

    Did you question the motive behind the so called Tea Party express which were filled with epithets of the US president as a witch doctor, calling him an arrogant bloodsucking muslim? Did realise that on the official tea party website, they call Obama an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug?

    Many times, but we’re not going to get behind a keyboard every time the Birther express goes crazy.

    Hey, did you know the owner of this site is a Muslim? No? Well, maybe start commenting regularly and you’ll find out more about this site, instead of making your opinions based on one article.

    Why the president is making this bipartisan is even a mystery to me. It really is. He should just let the democrats pass this bill.

    You’ll find conservatives have a very different take on this assetion. It’s not very bi-partisan at all at the moment (unless the recent Finance Committee votes hold, then it gets somewhat better).

    @Interested

    spending of thousands of US Taxpayers dollars on his date nights

    Because I’m sure George W. Bush never had a social life. Of course he did; it’s just that the Obamedia didn’t cover every second of it.

    the snubbing of traditional allies in favor of traditional foes

    I still remain fairly comfortable. Even I was a little uneasy on policy toward Israel (and I don’t think Israel can do no wrong), though Obama seems to be learning some lessons. Case in point: their pressure on Palestine to not support the war crimes resolution.

    And, you know, the missile defense system plans to continue pointing at Iran, to the chagrin of their Supreme Leader.


  14. Interested

    October 4th, 2009 at 12:46

    Why the president is making this bipartisan is even a mystery to me. It really is. He should just let the democrats pass this bill.

    I think he should. I think he should stand with Pelosi and Reid and announce that very decision. And I think it should be very public – endless coverage.

    …. endless amounts of campaign material for the GOP for decades to come.

    Because I’m sure George W. Bush never had a social life. Of course he did; it’s just that the Obamedia didn’t cover every second of it.

    They never covered a minute, hour or time.

    Championing of empty suit. And they wonder why their industry is failing.

    I still remain fairly comfortable. Even I was a little uneasy on policy toward Israel (and I don’t think Israel can do no wrong), though Obama seems to be learning some lessons. Case in point: their pressure on Palestine to not support the war crimes resolution.

    And, you know, the missile defense system plans to continue pointing at Iran, to the chagrin of their Supreme Leader.

    You may – but it’s standard hypocrisy of the left to cry about the world ending when Bush called it as he saw it with so-called Allies, and the cheering of the traditional allies by Obama.


  15. Jeb

    October 5th, 2009 at 23:31

    Also, I mention in that article that all this “Alinsky” stuff is the right’s response to 8-years of “It’s gotta be Rove behind it!”

    I thought I was the one who brought out the Rove parallel.

    Many times, but we’re not going to get behind a keyboard every time the Birther express goes crazy.

    The question was about this sites treatment of Tea Parties not birthers (though there is overlap). This site as been near unanimous in its positive coverage of Tea Party protesters with some outright cheer leading.

    Hey, did you know the owner of this site is a Muslim? No? Well, maybe start commenting regularly and you’ll find out more about this site, instead of making your opinions based on one article.

    The owner of this site is also one of its most unabashedly partisan contributors and definitely the most unabashedly partisan of its editorial staff. He has still failed to correct the horrible lie he told about Kevin Jennings and none here have bothered to correct him on it.


  16. Michael Merritt

    October 6th, 2009 at 05:50

    @Interested

    They never covered a minute, hour or time.

    Championing of empty suit. And they wonder why their industry is failing.

    Your criticism was Obama “spending of thousands of US Taxpayers dollars on his date nights”, not the media coverage surrounding it. My point was that George Bush too used Air Force One to get to and from his ranch in Texas, and probably other outings as well.

    You may – but it’s standard hypocrisy of the left to cry about the world ending when Bush called it as he saw it with so-called Allies, and the cheering of the traditional allies by Obama.

    People tend to criticize what they don’t like, whether it was Bush’s or is Obama’s “Our way or the highway” approaches” I am comfortable now, but have some serious criticisms as well.

    @Jeb

    I thought I was the one who brought out the Rove parallel.

    You’re right, actually. Sorry about that. It wasn’t far from my mind when I was writing the article, though. Fortunately, it seems that at least some people on the right (the ones who don’t let partisanship overwhelmingly blind them, anyway), seem to get this.

    The question was about this sites treatment of Tea Parties not birthers (though there is overlap). This site as been near unanimous in its positive coverage of Tea Party protesters with some outright cheer leading.

    As you point out, there is some overlap, but there is also a large attempt by many on the left to conflate the two groups as if they were one in the same.

    As for our coverage of the protesters, I don’t see this as a bad thing. They have a right to protest. The bailout bills had a lot of pork, and the healthcare bill overwhelmingly supported by Democrats is appalling, in my opinion.

    There certainly are some wackos out there in the Tea Party movement (and for those people, “teabagger” is an apt term), but I reject the idea that the movement in of itself is bad. Most people are just fed up by what they consider bad policies, but don’t personally dislike Obama. They may even lend support to some of his policies.

    I know of one such person in my state, who is now running for Congress against Rep. Joe Courtney. I may be slightly biased (she’s a former professor of mine), but there is nothing bad I can say about her character.

    I cannot speak for anyone else who writes here, but if the places were switched, and this was an anti-war movement, I’d also support their protests, too.

    He has still failed to correct the horrible lie he told about Kevin Jennings and none here have bothered to correct him on it.

    I don’t support the spin on it, but Jennings did fail to report the incident.


  17. Interested

    October 8th, 2009 at 04:02

    Your criticism was Obama “spending of thousands of US Taxpayers dollars on his date nights”, not the media coverage surrounding it. My point was that George Bush too used Air Force One to get to and from his ranch in Texas, and probably other outings as well.

    You brought up the Media Coverage – not I, I responded to it. If you didn’t want to discuss it – Don’t bring it up.

    People tend to criticize what they don’t like, whether it was Bush’s or is Obama’s “Our way or the highway” approaches” I am comfortable now, but have some serious criticisms as well.

    I imagine as time goes on that comfort level will be more fully realized


  18. Michael Merritt

    October 9th, 2009 at 08:53

    You brought up the Media Coverage – not I, I responded to it. If you didn’t want to discuss it – Don’t bring it up.

    I was saying that George Bush surely also must have used tax payer money to go on personal trips (I believe the President has an allocation for travel).

    You original criticism was that this is part of what makes Obama an empty suit. Yet, you don’t seem to have a problem with Bush doing this same thing, and when pressed on the matter (that I described as a difference in coverage of the activities), you focused on the media coverage and ignored what I said about Bush.

    I think that’s cutting it close to changing the subject, which we usually only see here from the liberal commenters.

    Just sayin’…

    I agree with you on the Obama-loving media seeking to cover his every fracking movement, by the way.


  19. Interested

    October 9th, 2009 at 10:22

    Just sayin’ the original subject changing was by you MM, then you didn’t like it when I responded to it?

    I said.

    Naturally things have only added to the list in the months that followed those 5 months. lately add on to the worst unemployment in 26 years, his spending of millions of dollars to secure an Olympic bid (failure) for his crony’s in Chicago, spending of thousands of US Taxpayers dollars on his date nights, the beer summit, the snubbing of traditional allies in favor of traditional foes.

    You said

    Because I’m sure George W. Bush never had a social life. Of course he did; it’s just that the Obamedia didn’t cover every second of it.

    I continued your thread.

    They never covered a minute, hour or time.

    Championing of empty suit. And they wonder why their industry is failing.

    And you then didn’t like the media bit

    Your criticism was Obama “spending of thousands of US Taxpayers dollars on his date nights”, not the media coverage surrounding it.

    Your right MM – that’s what we see from the Liberals. – usually.

    If you would like to pick a topic that you will stick to – I’m more than happy to respond to it.

Comments are closed.