She Who Must Obey! "Idiot Liberal"s Soldier Son's Poetry & Hallway Transcript

[omega minimo]

The fallout from the Richards/Obey hallway meeting is obscuring the need for more citizen action and grassroots democracy, not less. U.S. citizens have the right to lobby legislators directly.

Legislators may have a reasonable expectation that constituents will be well informed. Constituents may have a reasonable expectation that legislators will have professional manners.

And soldiers may have a reasonable expectation that we are on the same side, trying to end this illegal war and bring them home safely.


Survivor’s Guilt

By Corporal Cloy Richards

I stare at this paper and don’t know what to say
I don’t feel right saying “happy memorial day”
I don’t find anything happy in the price you’ve paid
We’re both just pawns when this game called war gets played
My body came home but my spirit just stayed
That hot Iraqi day when you were slayed
Watching my back so I could sleep unafraid
I heard the explosion from where I laid
And instantly I watched the skies go grey
I watched my life just float away
How could things go this way
You were my brother in arms and you took my place
But not like the way that car bomb took your face
And blew off your limbs
When I think about it my head starts to spin
I get noxious when I think of your family
I want to tell them I truly am sorry
I’m sorry your son died protecting me
This isn’t the way things were meant to be
You see that day your son took my duty
Your brother sacrificed four 4 hours of sleep
So he could go guard a gate for me
Your fiancée took my fate from me
I’m sorry your father took my place for me
I’m sorry I can spend memorial day with my family
Today should have been a memorial for me
At least then the survivor could have lived guilt-free  

http://democracyrising.us/content/view/813/164/


"We Don't Have the Votes" 

As I've been walking the halls of congress these last few weeks, I have been shocked at the arrogance, the finger shaking, and statements such as Rep. Obey (D-WS), "It's time these idiot liberals understand...." (Watch the video GrassrootsAmerica4us.org) Or Russ Carnahan's chief-of-staff, "you can't trust those activists."  As the mother of an Iraq War Veteran who has seen what this war has done to her son, her family and many others, I have become an activist and a liberal which apparently is anyone working to end the war.
  
So each day I am creating opportunities to discuss with our lawmakers how to help our troops by bringing them home.  Many of the staffers I meet start with handing me their latest press release about being against the surge. "That is not what I am there to discuss," I respond.  "I do not understand how anyone can be against the escalation while leaving 144,000 soldiers and Marines stranded in Iraq without a way home."
 
One hundred and twenty-three soldiers and Marines have died since I left Missouri – 123 families who will receive their husband, wife, son, daughter home in a flag draped coffin.  Tens of thousands will come home to families that will wonder what happened to their son or daughter, because who returned is barely human.  Struggling everyday to keep them alive while their Commanding Officers ignores their cries for help, while the VA leaves the signs of PTSD untreated, while their families weep for needless suicidal deaths.   
 
So I am not here to discuss being against the surge. For me, it is unconscionable to be against the surge and leave abandoned our sons and daughters that are still in Iraq. I did not leave the comforts of my home, forgoing the last few months before my sons possible third deployment to Iraq, to discuss what is obvious and politically easy to do.   
 
But what I came to do cannot be done in Missouri.  In Missouri, you cannot walk down a hallway and run into the author of the supplemental.  You cannot get to know the schedulers and then have them call you when their boss just walked in so you can come up and meet them.  You cannot go to a hearing and as you are waiting to get in, ask senators and congressman for an appointment. You cannot ask them to look you in the eyes as they explain why they will continue this war.  So I am staying as long as I get donations to stay. 
 
As our lawmakers tell us, "we don't have the votes to end the war,"  they continue to take large donations from the war profiteers.  As the Democratic leadership echoes the Republicans, "We support the troops, we are voting for the supplemental," I have to wonder just how much support they are showing the troops. Rep. Chet Edwards said if the Republicans vote it down and the anti-war representatives join with them, they will reintroduce it with nothing but funding for the war and join with the Republicans.  The argument the troops won't have body armor or bullets goes in direct opposition of testimony from the generals who stated they would have to drawn down some of their forward operations as the consequences of not getting their funding. So I have to wonder why the Democratic leadership says, "we don't have the votes," if they don't even try to get the votes?  Not even try, but actively work against it. 
 
Us lobbying for peace are out-numbered a thousand to one, though, in these halls. I see lobbyist from all the defense contractors by the hundreds.   I have always wondered why we have a war department but not a department of peace.  It is no wonder when our representatives are talking with the profiteers of war a thousand more times then they talk with those who see diplomacy as a noble goal.  I was recently at a dinner with Garrett Reppenhagen of Iraq Vets Against the War, where he related his meeting with Senator Kerry.  "Senator Kerry told me, 'I have met with five hundreds people this week, and you are the only one here talking of peace,'" said Garrett.  Until those numbers change, each generation will see war enter their lives.  No matter how hard we work to protect our children,  mothers will suffer as we send our children off to war. 

Tina Richards
c/o
Institute Policy Studies
1112 16th St. NW, Ste 600
Washington DC, 20036

Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.--John Adams

Tina Richards is the mother of Corporal Cloy Richards who is facing his third tour of duty in Iraq. 


Transcript of Tina Richards Encounter with Rep. David Obey
 
Rep. David Obey (DO):   Chair of Appropriations Committee, US House of Representatives
 
Tina Richards (TR):  Mother of Iraq war Marine, soon to be deployed for a third time
 
Peter Perry (PP), citizen activist, Derwood, MD. 
  
TR:   Hi, I’m Tina Richards.  I had left a poem that my son had written I was wondering if he ever got it to you?  He’s a United States Marine, he’s done two tours in Iraq… he’s going to be deployed for a third tour.
 
DO:  I honestly don’t know, I’m so buried in appropriations bills, I only get back over here for about 10 minutes a day.  I’ve seen very little in my office…
 
TR:  OK, because my son is suffering from PTSD, he’s had several suicide attempts…
 
DO:  I’m sorry to hear that…
 
TR:  … he tried to get help through the VA, and it took us six months to get his first appointment with the VA, in ten minutes they told him, “It sounds like you’ve got childhood issues.”  But he was able to do four years in the Marines, two deployments to Iraq, honorable discharge, presidential unit citation, and he was just fine for that, and now that he needs help from the VA, he’s been told that he’s got childhood issues.
 
DO:  … we’re holding hearings today and Wednesday …they’re continually screwing those guys… the Washington Post is full of it…
 
TR:  Well I’ve been talking about this for over a year now, and nobody seems to be paying much attention
 
DO:  Well, I guarantee what’s happening at Walter Reed... …whole damn thing…
 
TR:  Well what about the, umm, are you going to be voting against the supplemental?
 
DO:   Absolutely not, I’m the sponsor of it for heaven sakes.
 
TR:  For the …uhh.. to continue the war?
 
DO:   It doesn’t.  The President wants to continue the war.  We’re trying to use the supplemental to end the war, but you can’t end the war by going against the supplemental.  It’s time these idiot liberals understand that.   There’s a big difference between funding the troops and ending the war.  I’m not gonna deny body armor.  I’m not gonna deny funding for veterans hospitals, defense hospitals, so you can help people with medical problems,  that’s what you’re gonna do if you’re going against that bill.  
 
TR:  There should be enough money already in the regular defense bills…
 
DO:   (interrupting)  Well there isn’t.
 
TR:  … without continuing the funding for the war.
 
DO:  There isn’t.  There isn’t.  That’s not the way it works.  The money in the defense bill, it pays for a standing army, but it doesn’t pay for these recurring costs.  We’re gonna add over a billion dollars more to what the President was asking for in that bill, so we can deal with exactly the type of problems you’re talking about.  How the hell do you get money to the hospitals if you don’t provide the funding?
 
TR:  Are you going to be in support of….
 
DO:  I hate the war.   I voted against it to start with.  I was the first guy in Congress to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation, but we don’t have the votes to defund the war we shouldn’t because that also means defunding everything in that bill to help the guys who are the victims of war.
 
TR:  Well there’s an amendment to the supplemental that’s being proposed to fully fund the withdrawal of the troops
 
DO:   That makes no sense.   It doesn’t work that way.  The language we have in the resolution ends the authority for the war, it makes it illegal to proceed with the war.  You don’t have to defund something if the war doesn’t exist.
 
TR:  Oh, I didn’t know that was in the supplemental (DO talking over her)
 
DO:  That’s the problem, that’s the problem. (emphatic right arm gesturing)  The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill!  You don’t have to cut off the funding for an activity that no longer is legal!  
 
TR:  Oh, and then approach it from that way….
 
DO:  we’re shutting it off
 
PP: (who had been standing back, listening, now approaches TR and DO)..  What about the Church amendment that helped end the Vietnam war back in ’72, ’73?
 
DO: (Emphatically, voice raised) It took us 31 different efforts to get there, I was here for that. 
 
PP: ok.  (started to say something… PP and DO start talking over each other)
 
DO:  I know what the hell I’m talking about.
 
PP: Did that end the ground war in Vietnam?
 
 DO:  No it didn’t.  The political pressure on the administration ended the war. The amendment that finally ended the funding was the amendment, I was the sponsor of that amendment…
 
PP: But if you pass the resolution, isn’t he still the Commander in Chief?  Then…
 
DO:  (voice raised, leaning in towards PP)  We don’t have the votes to pass it! We couldn’t even get the votes to pass a nonbinding resolution one week ago! How the hell do you think we’re gonna get the votes to cut off the war?
 
PP:  By stopping the funding.
 
DO:  How, if you don’t have the votes? It takes two hundred ….
 
PP:  With a filibuster his supplemental request.
 
DO:  There is no filibuster in the House.
 
PP:  In the Senate they could do it and all they need is 41votes.
 
DO:    I’m sorry…. No I’m not gonna vote for it ….. I’m the sponsor of the bill that’s gonna be on the floor, and that bill ends the war….. if that isn’t good enough for you, then you’re smoking something that ain’t legal!
 
PP:  No I’m not, sir, no I’m not.
 
DO:  You got your facts screwed up.
 
TR:  (started to say something)
 
PP:  It’s non-binding].  How would it affect what he’s doing on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
 
DO:  We don’t have the votes!   (he then opens right side of suit jacket)  Do you see a magic wand in my pocket?
 
PP:  No.
 
DO:    How the hell are we gonna got the votes for it?  We ain’t got the votes!  We do have the votes if you guys quit screwin’ it up.  We do have the votes to end the legal authority to end the war, that’s the same as defunding it.  (at this point a female staffer approaches Rep. Obey and taps him on the arm)..
 
PP:  Tell us how we can help..... 
 
DO: I’m not going to debate it, you’ve got your facts wrong…
 
(DO then turns and walks away with his staffer to enter his office.)
 
TR: The last question is ‘how can we help’ so we can talk together?
 
Staffer:  (escorting DO away from the scene)
 
DO:  Good bye!  Goodbye!
   

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Cloy on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18QOjXgLM_E

And thank you for this thread. Tina is a good friend. I am so proud of her and so disgusted by the attacks from DUers.

K&R

[saracat]

3. I still say your friend needs to do some due diligence before she sails forth.

Obey is one of the gret anti war heros who has puteverything on the line.He does not deserve to be mocked.He tried to explain to your friend but she doesn't seem capable of understanding.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. No one is mocking him

He was incredibly rude to her.

And she understands. More than any of us do. She understands what it is like to have a son fighting in an illegal war that is killing 3 or 4 of our soldiers a day. She understands what it is like for your son to call you on the phone when he is 3000 miles away and tell you that the gun is in his mouth and he is about to pull the trigger. She understands what it is like to wait and wait and wait for the VA to help her son who is suicidal from severe PTSD and then when he finally gets an appointment, they tell him he has "childhood issues" and dismiss him with no treatment. She understands plenty.

She also understands that Dems who refuse to stop this insane war in Iraq are no more worthy of our support than Republics who refuse to stop the war.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

48. You don't explain squat with the term "idiot liberal"

Obey now thinks "liberal" is a dirty word. :eyes: Time for him to resign or be voted out at his next Democratic Primary.

[omega minimo]

4. Thanks for the link.

I heard her interviewed on the radio before it hit big media.

I thought some information might help-- so many HUGH!!!11 threads with more opinions than facts.

:toast:

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. I appreciate this so much

THANK YOU!

I talked to Tina for a long time today. She is discouraged but determined to stay in DC to keep lobbying.

[Tsiyu]

41. Please tell her that this iraq vet's mom is with her

all the way.

Obey was dismissive and rude, and I don't give a flying f**k how much others on this board worship Obey. HE does not have a suicidal kid facing a third mission. And he was WAY out of line in his comments and should be ashamed, even if he apologized after he realized what an insufferable ass he is.

Many on this board applaud her and are sending light her way. So give her one of these :grouphug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. Thanks I will tell her

[Jim Sagle]

5. How can our elected Democrats continue to do such excellent work as they've done the last six

years if we keep pestering them to be accountable?:sarcasm:

[nosmokes]

2. so this is the democratic party in power huh? those idiot liberals. and obey

was one of the good guys i thought.

[saracat]

6. Apparently no one is good enough for some.Obey authored the legislation that ended Vietnam and voted

aginst the Iraq War.He is trying to end this war and knows how to do it ,but his opinion and method isn't "good enough" for some who have never done anything.I am sorry but I really resent these people who think they are of equal parity in ability with those who have made concrete contributions to the peace effort.

[omega minimo]

9. if you don't mind

you don't seem to understand the spirit of this OP and you have your own to spread your venom in.

I don't see this in black and white and think a lot of the unnecessary fighting on DU is in pretending that it is.

[Bluebear]

7. Obey has been on the right side of this from the beginning.

I think it's a shame that he is considered a "bad guy" now. He handled this poorly; it was also poor to put it on YouTube. He has apologized, I don't know what else we can do but grind broken glass in his hand.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Funding the war is not the right side.

[Bluebear]

12. Then you must work for his ouster next election.

If he is a failure as a Congressman on this issue, by all means work to get him out of there.


=====
“Mr. Speaker, Four years ago, this Congress voted to authorize the President to engage in a preemptive attack on Iraq, a country that had not attacked the United States. “I supported military action against Afghanistan because they gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and those who attacked us on 9/11. But I opposed the President's unilateral and preemptive attack on Iraq, because I believed that action would destabilize the Middle East, isolate us in world opinion, and weaken our influence in the world.

“Our opposition was vilified, our patriotism was questioned, and that continues today. We’re told that if we oppose the President's intensification of the war, we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

“Well, I for one am tired of those who have been consistently wrong about this war lecturing those of us who have been right from the start. I’m tired of the manipulation of intelligence by this Administration. I’m tired of the stubbornness of an administration that didn't have a clue about the Middle East realities when they got us into this mess, and don't have a clue now about how to get us out.

“Sadly, there will be no happy endings to this war. The President’s policy has done so much damage that there is no good way for us to get out whether it happens in six months, or a year, or five years.

“Our troops won the war, God bless them, but the problem with the President's plan is that it calls upon our troops to do something they do not have the power to do, and that is to convince the Iraqi factions to stop killing each other and work together on a political compromise.

“Instead of the President's surge, in my view, we should set a rough target for repositioning our troops out of the area. We should recognize that Sunni, Shiites and Kurds will never join together in a strong central government. We should tell the Iraqis that if they do not amend their constitution to allow for a loose confederation - with an oil-sharing agreement between the Sunnis and the Shiites - then we will leave them to each other’s tender mercies. We should participate in regional discussions with all parties including Syria and Iran. We should resume aggressive leadership to resurrect a meaningful Middle East peace process. And Congress should pass legislation prohibiting an attack on Iran without authorization by this Congress.

“Given the chaos that the Administration's policies have produced, none of these suggestions may work, but all of them would be better than continuing to be stuck in another five-year period in an endless war with endless promises to the American people and with endless failures on the ground.” -2/14/07

http://obey.house.gov/HoR/WI07/Newsroom/Press+Releases/StatementonResolutionOpposingIraqWarEscalation.htm

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I could never vote for a man who calls liberals idiots

The war is bad enough. He can say he is against it, and he can say he is trying to end it. But every single congress critter who votes to fund this illegal war is guilty of supporting it. And I don't vote for congress reps who support this war. The idiots thing is just another reason to oppose this guy.

End the damn war. Support our troops by bringing them home. Impeach the bastards who started the war.

[noamnety]

19. That's it right there. "a man who calls liberals idiots"

The people who want to reduce this to "he was rude too that particular woman" aren't getting that it revealed something else - a complete disdain for MFSO, Veterans for Peace, IVAW, Code Pink, etc - those uppity anti-war activists who won't just shut up and sit down while the people who know "better" do their jobs in peace, without those annoying constituents who think the way to end a war is to END it.

And we, the annoying constituents who are too uppity to sit down and shut up, are not stupid enough to fall for "we don't have enough votes to end the war, so I'm forced to vote to continue the war - but see this isn't really continuing the war, it's ending the war by funding the war and letting Bush end it on his terms by stating progress toward unachievable goals, and I have enough votes for that."

[glitch]

20. It certainly is. The assumption that it's ok to slur liberals is probably rampant

inside the beltway and this outburst highlights that mentality. It's also another mistake: it's not just liberals who want to end the war.

[noamnety]

24. "rampant inside the beltway"

That caught me up a bit, but yes, now that you say it, of course that would be true. A buncha idiot liberals who they can exploit during elections and then mock behind their backs cause they aren't smart enough to understand all the intricacies of how "real" politicians get things done is probably a good summary. At some point, all those idiot liberals are going to start challenging the status quo, and digging away at the militarism that's REQUIRED to keep us on this economic path.

I imagine they feel much the same way as when a high school teacher is dealing with a student who is pointing out the errors in a teacher's lecture in front of the rest of the class. The teacher will write them up, try to embarrass them, call them disruptive, say that they don't understand how authority is supposed to work in a classroom in order to maintain "order" - but sometimes, you know, the kids aren't wrong. They may be upsetting the order of things, but they aren't wrong.

[glitch]

26. Good analogy. If only so-called authority figures realized, like teaching

authority is a two-way street - people are given authority by the consent of the governed. There is a lot they could learn, and everyone would benefit.

I am glad he apologized and I hope he and Richardson talk more to each other. But I also hope he looks deeper into the style of his outburst.

[MH1]

23. "Constituent"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but she isn't from Wisconsin, right?

Who is HER representative?

Has that rep already agreed to her terms?

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. Oh so you are saying we can only lobby the reps elected in OUR area?

First time I have heard that. And that's interesting since many here on DU were all over Nancy Boyda from Kansas when she flipped her opinion on Iraq. Just think - I could have ended all those flame wars by only allowing Kansans to participate. Too bad I didn't know about your rule.

[proud2BlibKansan]

62. Her rep is Jo Ann Emerson

a republic who supports bush and his war.

[MH1]

22. If you're in Obey's district then, enjoy your next republican representative.

Or, are you running for Congress yourself?

If not, why not?

[noamnety]

25. If you are a mom with a son who has PTSD

I imagine it doesn't make a spot of difference whether the person funding the war is a democrat or a republican.

That's something that the Veterans for Peace understand, the IVAW understands, MFSO understands ... and I don't expect the majority of congress to understand that point, or even the majority of DUers.

[MH1]

47. That mom should check out who is funding assistance to vets with PTSD,

and who is defunding it.

The situation with her son may be awful, but there is a difference in the parties on how veterans are treated, and it is wholly separate from the war itself.

Also, democrats have proposals on the table to prevent vets who have PTSD from being sent back into the war. The Republicans don't care. So, we should continue to torpedo Democrats who are trying to get veterans the proper care. Because there is "no difference" if they don't defund the war right now (and I mean right now dammit!!!)

Right.

There is a history in this country of cynical manipulation of the emotionally distraught for purposes that might not be best for them. Just sayin.

[omega minimo]

30. There's also the possibility

that from The Hill, a lot of the American people are considered "idiots." Maybe it's in one conversation for what we put up with and in another, for what we refuse to put up with.


:hi:

[omega minimo]

13. "He handled this poorly"

That's a fair statement. "He handled this poorly." Legislators do that sometimes. Maybe there's some healthy catharsis in the unintentional breaking through the "decorum" on the Hill and the very public reality check that yes, "good guy" Democrats sometimes refer to the public as "these idiot liberals."

[Bluebear]

14. As I mentioned to the other poster, he is now dead to you & you must work for his ouster.

You've used up all the snarky quotation marks for this post, so I can't use any, but do work to replace him in '08. I'm sure that in his usually Republican area there is someone ready to take over that seat.

[omega minimo]

29. Calm down Bluebear. You're not seeing clearly.

"As I mentioned to the other poster, he is now dead to you & you must work for his ouster."

You are presuming too much. This OP was intentionally simple and intended to provide some info and an opportunity for balance in this mess. I refuse in any discussion here to have someone else's opinions or posts applied to me, as if we all have to choose black or white, one "side" or the other and then fling shit at each other. I would ask you to read what I've posted calmly and not project too much.

"You've used up all the snarky quotation marks for this post...."

"snarky quotation marks" ??!!!!!! :rofl: :spray:


Is it "snarky" to use the quote "these idiot liberals"? Did you think I was being snarky in posting that to you? Not at all. Do you know what "catharsis" is?

lwfern's posts are addressing that possibility. I can read them and look at different POV and not be THREATENED by that; I can see her point and think of this in new ways-- without feeling like I have to either COMPLETELY agree or ATTACK her POV.



Like watrwefitinfor points out, if we limit the discussion by insisting on choosing "sides" and assuming we know everything the other side "thinks" and just act pissed off-- it is a ripe opportunity for those who want us divided.

[watrwefitinfor]

15. We are ALL suffering from PTSD.

Not just the young man.

His mother is trying to save him, and is apparently near hysteria from fighting this uphill battle for her son. Apparently, new to the game, she doesn't have a clue who Obey is.

Obey has been fighting the machine since Viet Nam.
Jesus, he has to have PTSD by now.

Neither of them made good decisions in the hallway encounter.

Even so, with many of us. Some of us have been fighting this battle alongside Obey since the 1960s. Even those of us who are new to the battle rapidly get used up emotionally.

But Jesus, people, we are all on the same side here, except for the trolls among us who have found another opening. It's getting to be a regular habit here. Seize the time now means: Here's another opportunity for all the trolls to come out and turn the DUers (and hopefully the larger movement) against each other.

Go back and look at some of the frenzied threads on DU, from Cynthia McKinney to Rove's indictment; from the right of a brain dead woman to die to the size of John Edwards' home. In another time and place the shit stirrers weren't called trolls, they were called agents provocateur. The purpose was the same, to turn us against each other, tempt us to do and say stupid shit, and try to destroy our movement.

GO BACK AND READ THE POEM in the beginning of the OP. Read the WHOLE THING and see what this mother is fighting for.

GO BACK AND READ WHAT OBEY said toward the end of the OP about his efforts in Viet Nam - and again, now - and see what he is fighting for. Notice how THEY ARE BOTH ON THE SAME SIDE.

Then for god's sake, GET A GRIP and figure out which side are you on.

Wat.

[omega minimo]

27. Yes, that's why I thought some info might help. Maybe we could find a balance here.

[noamnety]

28. Don't be condescending and sexist

"near hysteria" ???

:puke:

She looked pretty damn calm to me.

[watrwefitinfor]

37. Not condescending nor sexist, and after reading through your posts on this thread

I am not surprised that you did not take the time to read my post before insulting me about it. Heaving vomit at me because I said the woman is near hysteria? Honey, if she's not near hysteria, she's not paying attention.

I am a mother and grandmother and great grandmother. If one of my sons or grandsons had been through what hers did, I would be near hysteria. I did not say she was acting hysterically. I think my post made it clear I was not attacking her in any way shape or form.

You and your ilk are why I rarely post on DU. You always come out to bash the shy ones who sincerely try to participate, even when we feel we have something honest and important to offer.

Wat

[noamnety]

40. I've rarely heard a man called "hysterical" here

Which is part of the reason I sometimes take a break from DU. I get tired of the way language is used to demean groups of people, and I speak out against it, but also I am fed up with it, and sometimes I have left for periods of time because of it. We've lost a fair amount of women from DU for exactly that reason. So it goes both ways - seems we each have our "ilks" that turn people off of online discussions.

It seems to me this is also a reasonable part of the discussion, because we are talking about how congressmen use language to demean and dismiss entire groups of people, and then within the discussion of it, I see more examples of the same - using language in a specific way that is designed to send the message that certainly groups of people aren't capable of thinking rationally. That's not the beginnings of an honest debate, imho.

And I am not your "honey."

[omega minimo]

44. I appreciate what both of you have to say

and I appreciate strong voice that isn't driven away and a "shy" voice that spoke up.

I read through watrwefitinfor's post twice before I replied, to make sure I understood that the overall point was underlining what the OP was trying for.

The word "hysterical" may be especially charged in this discussion because whether it is sexist or condescending-- is it accurate? If referencing how she presented herself to the congressman, no.

The big point watrwefitinfor made is we're on the same side. :thumbsup:

[patrice]

55. Thank You watrwefitinfor! God Bless You.

I for one hope to see you around more.

Hare Krsna! Hare Rama!

[Cameron27]

57. Don't let anyone silence your voice watrwefitinfor...

you did reply honestly and sincerely. Shy voices are sometimes more valuable than the loud ones, and are always more welcome than the rude ones.:thumbsup:

[patrice]

56. Thank You. You are wonderful. n/t

[bluedog]

17. did Tina ever get GOP reps on tape

the way Obey was filmed?.......She has been in DC for months and the Democratic Party just took over control........just wondering if after months of lobbting......what did the GOP party say to her?......what was their reasoning and what did they tell her their plan was to get the troops home.............

[KingofNewOrleans]

34. I've asked for Tina supporters to provide links

but they haven't provided any yet. I searched YouTube and the Obey video is the only one by Tina I can find.

[omega minimo]

35. And what are YOU doing to end this war?

:popcorn:

[KingofNewOrleans]

43. So, you don't have any links either

[omega minimo]

45. I don't buy that strawman game

:thumbsdown:

[kikiek]

18. This situation doesn't need to be exploited any further. Here are two people who are ultimately

fighting for the same thing. One is a Rep who is working very hard to find a way to stop this war, and trying to come up with ways to do it. As he tries to explain what he is doing he is continuously cut off. His answers aren't being heard and are not understood because of it. The other is a mother who is desperate to stop her son from going back a third time because he won't ever return. Physically, emotionally, most likely both. She is understandably doing anything to stop her son from going back, and no one is listening that can help him. They are on the same side. They are both frustrated about how little they are able to do themselves. I think it is time to let this rest. No doubt this unfortunate encounter has taken a a toll on both of them. Let them be, and let the Representative do his job in the way he knows will be the most effective. Things aren't as black and white as we would like when it comes to this war. Whether we like it or not they have to figure out a way to end it for a multitude of reasons.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. God My Heart Goes Out To Obey. That He Has To Be Smeared Like This Now When He's One Of Our Best.

Way I see it, when someone starts going after one of our most consistently liberal over a long career; when you set out to embarrass and demonize one of our absolute strongest, then the only explanation for that behavior would have to be idiocy. There's just no other rational explanation for doing such things to a rep whose career has been as worthy of respect as his. I feel for Tina too, for what she's going through, but I cannot stand the hidden camera bullshit and how now she is trying to ruin the career of one of our brightest. To me that is idiocy; sorry.

[omega minimo]

31. This is not a thread for smearing anybody.

This is a thread with some info provided for those who want to see beyond black and white.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Sorry If That Wasn't Clear. I'm Not Referencing This Thread. I Meant The Overall Online Campaign

from her and her video. This thread was benign.

[omega minimo]

36. Well then by all means, go tilt at the windmills of the "Overall Online Campaign"

which must be the new term for Youtube. :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Not Sure What Your Problem Is Or Why The Attitude. I Answered Politely.

I just simply feel bad for him that he has to now put up with this effort from the far left to smear him and attack him. He's one of our best and he doesn't deserve this. And this isn't youtube I'm talking about. I'm talking about actual people who are using that ill gotten video to attack him.

[omega minimo]

42. You post "smeared like this" but acknowledge "I'm not referencing this thread"

You've appeared in most of the other threads on this topic, so there's no need for you to post in a thread where you are not "referencing this thread" and complain about "this effort from the far left to smear him and attack him" (which is a smear) which is not relevant here.

There are other places you can go battle the Vast Online Conspiracy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. Yes, And Politely Explained What I Meant. He Is Absolutely Being Smeared By Many.

I didn't say this OP and even further clarified that I didn't mean this OP. But I can post my feelings on the matter in any fucking thread I want on the subject. Furthermore, how you can say it's irrelevant is monumentally mindboggling. This is an OP referencing the incident. It is absolutely germane to the incident to offer sympathy for how one of the parties involved in the incident is being treated. You may think as an author of the OP you have the right to dictate what someone can or can't post or what terms they can post under, but you don't. It's a community message board.

This is a thread about the Obey incident and it is perfectly acceptable that within this thread I expressed my sympathies for him having to go through the now growing campaigns against him. He's a good man, a good rep and he doesn't deserve it. You can disagree with that sentiment if you wish and it appears that you do. But you have no right to attack me for posting such sentiments, as long as they are done so respectfully and appropriately; which they were.

[omega minimo]

51. Don't confuse what was "irrelevant"

This OP presented some information-- there were plenty of others about “feelings”

“But I can post my feelings on the matter in any fucking thread I want on the subject.”

And you did post your feelings on many of the threads on the topic. Yet here you came and made multiple statements that can’t be backed up as factual. You may “feel” that way. It doesn’t make it true. There was enough of that already on numerous threads here. Opinions on what people “feel” happened rather than what happened. You acknowledged that your comments “weren’t referencing this thread” and yet you felt the need to post your feelings again.

“....That He Has To Be Smeared Like This Now When He's One Of Our Best.
“....someone starts going after one of our most consistently liberal over a long career;
“.....when you set out to embarrass and demonize one of our absolute strongest,
“....then the only explanation for that behavior would have to be idiocy.
“....There's just no other rational explanation for doing such things
"....how now she is trying to ruin the career of one of our brightest.
“....I Meant The Overall Online Campaign from her and her video.
“....I just simply feel bad for him that he has to now put up with this effort from the far left to smear him and attack him.
“....I'm talking about actual people who are using that ill gotten video to attack him.



Those comments are smearing the so-called “far left” and Tina and her son. Those comments “set out to embarrass and demonize” her and this supposed “Overall Online Campaign.” All of those statements are unproven and perpetuate the confusion and divisiveness that this thread provided an alternative to.


What part of ”This is not a thread for smearing anybody” don’t you understand? or " ....there's no need for you to post in a thread where you are not "referencing this thread" and complain about "this effort from the far left to smear him and attack him" (which is a smear) which is not relevant here.”


The reason the complaint about "this effort from the far left to smear him and attack him" is irrelevant here is that is a smear in itself, it is innuendo, it is “feelings,” not fact.

Also unwelcome is the fact that no matter how “polite” you claim to be, you falsely claim that you have been “attacked,” when someone replies to your posts.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Get Over It. It's Called An Opinion. Hopefully Ya Realize That People On Message Boards Post Them.

You obviously disagree with what I had to say. Tough. It's known to happen.

But the fact still remains that I had every right to post such sentiment and did so appropriately and respectfully. You do not have the power nor the right to dictate what one can or can't post in a thread. I know you'd like to and lord knows many of us would, but you don't.

Furthermore, to say that it is not fact that some on the far left are using the incident to smear and attack him is unbelievably false. That much is fact and it would take someone all of 10 seconds to learn that it is fact. Do you really want to try and put forth a premise that it is not fact that some online are using this incident as fodder to attack him? Do you really want to try and convince others that saying so is mere opinion, when in fact there are multiple threads on DU alone that prove it to be fact?

Sorry, but my feelings on Rep. Obey and Tina in this incident are absolutely of personal opinion, but the reality of the incident being used to attack Rep. Obey is not. That much is fact.

[omega minimo]

58. Yes and this OP gave some info that might help more informed opinions

"Furthermore, to say that it is not fact that some on the far left are using the incident to smear and attack him is unbelievably false."

"Do you really want to try and put forth a premise that it is not fact that some online are using this incident as fodder to attack him?"


The fact that some people are doing whatever is not how you presented it before.

The invective toward "the far left" (as if that exists) and "The Overall Online Campaign from her and her video" and "this effort from the far left to smear him and attack him" is absurd. The video ended up on Youtube. You "get over it."

Claiming that "Tina Richards is trying to ruin the career of one of our brightest" is beyond absurd. :puke:

This doesn't have to be black and white, it doesn't have to be divisive amongst Democrats and DU did not need another thread with inflammatory claims about the "far left" and Tina Richard's motives.

[frazzledmom]

39. So he's one of our best?

Have you seen his voting record? While I think this incident has gone overboard, he apologized and that should have been that, I also bothered to go to Vote Smart and take a look at this guys voting record. He's a moderate at best. Pro-life, anti gay marriage, plus many other questionable votes on his record. Especially the one in Oct of 2001 voting for the Patriot Act, like many others who hadn't bothered to read the bill. Now what was it he was calling people idiots for? Oh yeah, not knowing what was in a bill.. Yeah he's a real stand up guy.

[ShortnFiery]

49. and IMO, Obey used the term "liberal" as a slur.

That's 100% Un-Sat. These guys have been in Congress so long that they think they RULE. Time to show Obey that he's not essential in his next democratic primary. :thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

50. "Idiots" should understand "You don’t have to defund something if the war doesn’t exist"?

DO:  I hate the war.   I voted against it to start with.  I was the first guy in Congress to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation, but we don’t have the votes to defund the war we shouldn’t because that also means defunding everything in that bill to help the guys who are the victims of war.
 
TR:  Well there’s an amendment to the supplemental that’s being proposed to fully fund the withdrawal of the troops
 
DO:   That makes no sense.   It doesn’t work that way.  The language we have in the resolution ends the authority for the war, it makes it illegal to proceed with the war.  You don’t have to defund something if the war doesn’t exist.
 
TR:  Oh, I didn’t know that was in the supplemental (DO talking over her)
 
DO:  That’s the problem, that’s the problem. (emphatic right arm gesturing)  The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill!  You don’t have to cut off the funding for an activity that no longer is legal!  


*********
"You don’t have to defund something if the war doesn’t exist"

"You don’t have to cut off the funding for an activity that no longer is legal!"  


That convoluted way of going about it is interesting, isn't it? This "idiot liberal"s question would be why do they have to pass a resolution that "makes it illegal to proceed with the war" when it was NEVER LEGAL in the first place?

[ecstatic]

52. Sometimes I wonder, is the Dem. party playing us (liberals) for fools

Much like the repubs played the "christian right?" That's been on my mind since hearing about Obey's outburst, coupled with the fact that not much has been done about immediately ending this war for profit.

[demrabble]

54. Playing Us For Fools???!! WTF??!!

Surely you can't be serious.

We just need to trust our leaders.

After all, they know so much more than we do.

They know how the government operates.

They know how to get things done.

We are all just idiots who think they should NOT vote for more funds for the war.

But, hey, what do we know??

:sarcasm:

[omega minimo]

59. and some are the same

"idiots" who told them FOUR YEARS AGO to stop this war before it started because we "idiots" somehow figured out -- even tho they couldn't -- that the sales pitch for war on Iraq was a bunch of bullshit.