Was Perdue joking (re:suspending Congressional elections)? You decide.

[FBaggins]

UPDATED: Gov. Bev Perdue's off-the-cuff remark about suspending Congressional elections to focus on the economy went viral. Her aides tried to walk it back, calling it "hyperbole" and suggesting she was joking.

Was she? You decide. Listen to the audio file here.

http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2011/09/28/10/28/11veHD.So.156.mp3

As background, her remarks came during a Q&A at the Cary Rotary Club meeting. A man in the audience asked Perdue what she can do to turn around the economy. (The question is not included on the tape because I didn't flick my recorder on quickly enough.)

It led to a rambling 2-minute-and-25 second answer she surely now regrets

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/was_perdue_joking_you_decide_listen_here

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[former9thward]

3. When speakers tell a joke they laugh as they tell it.

She did not laugh and no one in the crowd laughed. It was no joke.

[blm]

4. Horsepoo. Who believes she'd CANCEL congressional elections? This is a case of FeignFeign overdose

plain and simple.

[FBaggins]

5. The spin here is all yours blm.

With respect, nobody has accused her of actually trying to cancel elections. So why do you keep acting as if that's the problem?

[blm]

6. Not a damn one of you BELIEVES she WOULD or even COULD cancel elections. You're FEIGNING outrage

over something that you know is impossible and that you know SHE knows is impossible.

That's FEIGNING OUTRAGE. Typical RW tactic.

[FBaggins]

7. You keep missing the point.

YES... nobody believes she could cancel an election. We know it's impossible and we know that SHE knows that it's impossible.

That isn't why she's drawing heat.

The problem is not that she would advocate for it... it's that she thinks it would solve the problem. That the country really would be better off if politicians didn't have to face the voters.

So could you kindly drop the strawman and deal with the actual point? This is DemocraticUnderground. We don not think that the world would be better off without the democratic process.

[blm]

10. That GOP congress might do their JOBS for the people instead of playing POLITICS to get elected.

MOST Democrats here on Democratic Underground KNOW the GOP is doing exactly that. They'd rather play political games to win their primary elections within the GOP than work on jobs for Americans. Who DOESN'T agree with Perdue about that?

Why pretend she meant to cancel democratic process? And you know you DO have to pretend she meant it.

What you're doing is FEIGNING OUTRAGE.

[FBaggins]

12. There's no question that one of us is "FEIGNING OUTRAGE"

I think the reader can tell which of us that is. :rofl:

That GOP congress might do their JOBS for the people instead of playing POLITICS to get elected.

Because the GOP is more likely to listen to the people when the people are muzzled, right? Yeah... that makes sense. :sarcasm:


I think you'll look less foolish if you shift back from defending the position to pretending she didn't really mean it.

[blm]

14. Why don't you post this on the NC forum and see how many who worked to get Dems elected here

believe that Perdue wishes to cancel democratic process.

I can see your sense of humor doesn't exist, and that you don't even get the FeignFeign bit.

[FBaggins]

16. I'm from "here" and worked to get her elected.

I also donated to her campaign and made calls for her... and I'll do it again if we don't find someone better in a primary.

That doesn't make me blind to reality.

I can see your sense of humor doesn't exist

Nonsense. I'm getting quite the kick out of your squirming. :)

There is no way to spin her statement as humor. Sorry.

[blm]

23. HAHAH....squirming? I think you all are acting RIDICULOUS, way out of proportion to what transpired

and you are stepping all over yourselves to try to make a case out of an awkward joke.

Get REAL.

And, if you ARE feeling so much 'legitimate' outrage about this, then repost this at NC forum. I'm pretty sure most of us here in NC have the sense to know the difference between a poor joke and real voter disenfranchisement.

[FBaggins]

37. Yes. Squirming.

A bit frothy at the mouth too it seems.

I think you all are acting RIDICULOUS, way out of proportion to what transpired

Has someone called for her removal? Censure? Anything?

Nope. All you've seen is a few people (correctly) pointing out that it's a pretty stupid thing to say. And it was.

And, if you ARE feeling so much 'legitimate' outrage about this

So I point out that I'm not "feigning outrage" and you assume that it must be a claim of legitimate outrage? You don't see another possibility?

then repost this at NC forum.

You've made more replies to this thread than the NC forum has had in the last month combined... and it's national news. But let's hold that one for a moment.

I'm pretty sure most of us here in NC have the sense to know the difference between a poor joke and real voter disenfranchisement.

It was neither a joke nor "real voter disenfranchisement".

But it's telling that you would want to limit it to the NC forum. Is it because we're smarter here in NC? More progressive than other states? Better senses of humor?

Of course not. It's because only someone with a local supporter's blinders on would drink the coolaid and try to accept that nonsense spin as truth. Republicans in the rest of the country could tell that George Allen's "Maccacca" moment was a boneheaded thing to say. Republicans in VA who had voted for him for years were able to convince themselves that his spin was the truth.

But tell me. What do those of us who "have the sense to know the difference" think of this? Another joke right? What a coincidence that her "joke" comes right after this was published. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94940/peter-orszag-democracy

[blm]

39. you need to panic over this on your own....and don't forget your 'feignfeign'

heheh

[FBaggins]

40. Panic?

You really don't need anyone else for the conversation, do you?

Just imagine the entire thing on your own.

She screwed up. There's no way around that... And the harder you try the more ridiculous you look. Like a Palin supporter trying to explain her latest flub.

[blm]

47. Big deal...a little awkward joke doesn't mean she's anti-democratic.

You're blowing this up....just like a Palin supporter would.

[FBaggins]

48. You really don't get it, do you? It isn't the "joke", it's what is behind it.

She obviously thinks (and you obviously agree) that the reason Congress can't get anything done is because even though they know what needs to be done, they're unwilling to do it because of perceived voter backlash. Even if the "joke" solution is thrown out, her very assumption of what the problem is... is fundamentally undemocratic. She assumes that the "voice of the people" is harming the process.

There are lots of politicians who think this way. Not usually on our side of the aisle, but it isn't uncommon at all. The voters are an inconvenience that must be overcome before they can run things.

Her problem is that she fundamentally misunderstand that the foundation of our system of government is the consent of the governed. That if she feels that it's hard to do what she wants to do because the voters don't agree... then she doesn't need to tune out the voters. She needs to listen to them.

[Ter]

19. If Bush had said the same thing in 2007 or so, you would be enraged and you know it

With me, I don't do any double standards. You shouldn't either.

[blm]

25. oh please...Bush WAS wielding executive power. In context Perdue's remark was obviously

in a reply about HOW to get congress to FOCUS on creating jobs. You can't see a difference? That's YOUR perception problem.

[former9thward]

9. You apparently didn't listen to her comments.

She never said SHE would cancel elections, she said it would be nice if ALL elections for Congress in the U.S. could be canceled for a couple years. I am not outraged at all no matter if she was serious or joking. I think it would help this country to break out of the non-stop election cycle we have created in this country. It is killing the economy. You are the only one who is overdosing.

[blm]

11. Feign. Feign. "My pills are in the roundhouse." "Fetch me my vapors."

.

[former9thward]

15. Such intellectual replies. Take two pills of something and see if it helps.

[blm]

24. You don't get it...why am I not surprised?

[former9thward]

28. I am not surpised at your content free replies either.

[tblue37]

41. I kinda feel the same way, frankly. nt

[blm]

8. Baloney. I had an 11yr relationship with one of the greatest humorists of the century

and he and many of his colleagues could rift without breaking into laughter.

She was answering a SERIOUS question and the brief bit of levity she employed didn't deserve a laugh.

[JoePhilly]

20. +100

It is CRITICAL when you make a joke or tell a funny story, that you NOT be the first person amused by the joke or the story. As the person making the joke, or telling the story, you already know where the funny parts are.

And so, as you tell the joke, or the story, you PAUSE at the points that are supposed to be funny. And you let everyone else laugh long before you might join them.

The idea that the first person to laugh at a joke is also the person who is telling that joke, is a ridiculous fabrication, probably made by a person who has never been accused of telling a funny joke.

[JoePhilly]

17. Wrong. I tease my wife about this all the time.

When you make a statement that is a joke, you should NEVER laugh first or worse during the joke.

Being funny is not just about having something to say, it is about TIMING. And if you make a joke, and laugh first, you kill the joke, and the audience response, because the audience never gets to process the joke on their own.

If the speaker laughs during, or even "first", the joke DIES, because the people trying to process the joke don't get the time to process it. The speaker said something, and laughed, the laugh of the speaker screws things up. The audience goes from processing what you said and into why you are laughing, with no break, thus killing their opportunity to "get the joke".

[blm]

22. THANK YOU!

I can't even believe this thread exists here.

[former9thward]

27. Wrong. No one laughed at her "joke".

Did you even listen to the tape?

[blm]

29. OK...you're right. OMG!!! Perdue's gonna cancel elections in NC!!! OMG!!!! She's serious!!!

FO

[former9thward]

31. She never said that. You didn't listen to the tape. Why not just admit it?

[blm]

33. She didn't say that..the OP wants us to believe that was her intention, though. And you think she

was being serious. I think you're both offbase.

[JoePhilly]

30. You miss the point of my post.

The post I responded to claims that one who is telling the joke is usually the first to laugh. That is simply wrong.

And here ... You are arguing that Bev did not laugh, and since no one else did either, clearly she was not joking.

Those are different debates. The fact that no one laughed, or that the TELLER of the story did not laugh, tells you nothing about the intent of the person speaking.

What I said stands. When you tell a joke, you are NEVER the first to laugh. If you laugh first, you screw up the joke for sure.

Now, if you tell a joke, with-hold your own laugh, and then no one else laughs after, that is not an indication of the intent of the person who told the joke or story was not to make a joke.

Sometimes when a person tries to make a joke, they fail. No one laughs. The fact that no one laughs is irrelevant to the INTENT of the speaker.

[former9thward]

32. In politics when a speaker is called on something they say it was just a joke.

Have you never heard politicians speak?

[blm]

34. OK...so YOU believe she might be serious and would consider cancelling elections?

sorry, but, YOU'RE the one who couldn't have listened to the tape or understood the context of the remarks.

[JoePhilly]

35. Many times ... but clearly you have not ... or you believe that Bev plans

to suspend elections.

You should run with that. See where it goes.

[former9thward]

36. She never said that or implied it.

You didn't listen to the tape or else you would not have made such an ignorant statement. She never said SHE planed or wanted to cancel anything. She said it would be good if the COUNTRY would cancel them for a couple years so people could work on the economy instead of their own re-election. Next time try and listen before you foolishly comment.

[blm]

38. so what???? she wasn't SERIOUS....why does it BOTHER you so much that she said what MANY of us

could have said? Congress IS acting only for political gamesmanship and NOT acting responsibly. The only mystery, imo, is that YOU and a few others are taking it seriously as if SHE is seriously ADVOCATING for cancelling elections.

[former9thward]

44. You can't point to a post where I said it bothered me.

Because it didn't. I just know when someone in a public setting is joking and when they are not. You don't. When you say "YOU and a few others" you should look in the mirror. YOU alone are responsible for over half the posts here. Are you her speechwriter?

[FBaggins]

45. It's desperation

First it was a joke... then it was hyperbole (which, for the record, is not the same thing). Now they say is was sarcasm and it's really not worth discussing. You can expect the coolaid contingent to shift right over to believing that she sounds sarcastic.

All because they (and more importantly, she) can't just face up to the fact that it was a stupid thing to say.

I won't say that it cost her reelection because her chances looked pretty bleak before she opened her mouth... but it sure didn't help any.

[kctim]

13. No, she was not

[Viking12]

18. Context is key

It is pretty clear to any reasonable person that she was offer a hypothetical in the context of partisan bickering and re-election pressures that keep Congress Critters from doing the right thing. When someone says, "If I were King, I'd do..." nobody thinks they want to institute a monarchy.

[littlewolf]

21. I don't know what she was thinking .. or if she was thinking ...

but I bet she wishes she hadn't said it ...... and I bet she hears it again during the primary (if anyone runs against her)
and general election .....

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. While her idea (serious or otherwise) is terrible, the motivation behind it isn't.

The two-year term for Representatives means that in this era of long, long election campaigns and 24/7 obsession with politics, a Rep spends at least as much time campaigning for office as they do performing that office's actual work. The term is too short for this day and age.

[tblue37]

42. Hell, 4-year presidential terms mean nonstop campaigning, too! nt

[FBaggins]

43. So do six year Senate terms.

There isn't a way to avoid it.

Nor should there be. If anything they should be MORE answerable to the voters and districts should be more competitive.

The real problem is that too many in Congress already DON'T feel accountable to the voters because their seats are so safe that they would have to tweet naughty photos of themselves to lose it. Wouldn't hurt to limit the influence if big dollars while we're at it.

And wow! We could do all of that without violating the Constitution or undermining our form of government!

[kudzu22]

46. My problem with her remarks

is that she implies that "the right thing" is something other than what the voters want.