Name Calling

Hey, I thought the political discourse was going to be "more civil." I thought the President asked everyone to "dial down" the rhetoric. After all, it was the nastiness of the Tea Partiers and other conservatives who, for instance, caused the shooting in Tucson, AZ.

Again, the hypocrisy of the Dems and libs is apparent, even glaring, to anyone willing to open half an eye. Rush Limbaugh (hardly my favorite) and other conservatives have created an atmosphere of hate and violence. But nothing the liberals do ever causes anything bad.

So, how do we treat Jimmy Hoffa's comments on Labor Day? Let's see, first he called, specifically, the Tea Partiers "son of b*tches." (I'll overlook the grammatical error.) Then, he said something about "taking them out." This, of course, is because his union members will be the Presidents "soldiers." Hmmmm.... Now, I heard Hoffa on the radio this AM, trying to backpedal his way out of this. He claimed, today, that "taking them out" referred to the next election. Gee, why wasn't he very convincing? What about the name-calling? To what did he refer with that? I suppose that's in line with the Vice President (I'm becoming convinced that his former colleague in the US Senate was right, that Biden was "the dumbest" guy in the Senate. And the media fell all over itself ripping on Dan Quayle. At least the media could play fair.) calling the Tea Partiers "barbarians." How about the recent referrals by Maxine Waters, I believe, of the TPs as "terrorists?" Well, I suppose that's toning down the rhetoric.

And the President says nothing, sitting on his thumb and spinning. Why doesn't he condemn such language? Why doesn't he tone down the rhetoric? Does he not know what others at his programs are going to say? If he does, then is he condoning the language? If he doesn't, I guess the question is why not? Do others not respect him or his views, do not give a hoot what he thinks or says?

Why does the media rip on the Tea Partiers, but I've seen nothing on the op-ed pages criticizing Hoffa, Biden, Waters, and the others?

I guess had Hoffa been on my radio show this AM I'd have asked him how he thinks the Tea Partiers are any different from his Teamster members who picket, protest, or go on strike. How are the TPs any different from the teachers who went to Lansing or Ann Arbor? I think I'd also ask Hoffa how much money he makes and what the average Teamster wage is. Yep, to me that is very relevant.

And don't Hoffa and his Teamsters think that Obama's policies have been harmful to them. So, why are they still supporting him? C'mon, can anyone argue Obama's policies have been of any benefit to workers? I suppose someone who is delusional, but an objective person couldn't say that, at least not honestly. (And I'm not blaming him solely. I just say he's been of no use to workers trying to get their jobs back, trying to protect their jobs, trying to earn more money. But I think I could make a strong argument that those policies have been detrimental. I just won't here.) So, if Obama's policies have hurt workers, why are union leaders so steadfastly supporting him? It sure makes one wonder why, doesn't it?

Yeah, how are the Tea Partiers any different from those protesting teachers, public sector workers, etc.? Why can some groups gather to protest, but not others?

What is disturbing to me is how, instead of debating, Tea Party opponents merely call names. All we hear is that "Tea Partiers are bigots, racists, terrorists, barbarians, even SOBs." Do any of the critics ever say, "The Tea Partiers are wrong! The gov't isn't spending too much money. People aren't taxed too much." and so on? Nope, never. They just call names. (Boy, isn't that one familiar!) It tells me a lot about, if not the Tea Party, at least the opponents--and none of it is flattering.