Comments on The 7-10: Palmer on Politics: Lame Political Discourse: The Politics of Small

From the facebook comment I made on 1/21:I was jus...

2009-01-26T15:28:00.000-05:00

From the facebook comment I made on 1/21:

I was just about to ask you if you'd heard about the booing. That was very disheartening to me. And I'm afraid to think about what that says about those who were gathered there.

I can't even imagine myself doing something so crass. Do civility and class mean nothing in 21st century America? ( I suppose a quick scan through the TV channels would answer that question.) Are we getting old, Mr. Palmer? Is the social zeitgeist moving in what WE consider to be appropriate behavior? In Victorian times, the appropriate term to refer to chicken breast was "white meat". And thighs were, of course, "dark meat". The Victorian idea of decency wouldn't allow them to use the words "breast" and "thigh". And I'm sure they would be appalled at our usage of the words, and of the "breast cancer awareness" logos emblazoned on every product at the grocery store. Is this example a difference of kind or of degree (in relation to the booing)?

I can't even fathom how an *adult* American citizen could think that it's OK to boo the outgoing president, even if you didn't like him. That's what's making this so difficult for me. Would they do the same at a company banquet when an unpopular executive was introduced? Maybe it was the anonymity of being so far away from the podium. I fear that quite a few of them probably would have booed even if he was right in front of them. And what would THAT say? Self-control and emotional reservation ARE in order in certain situations, right? And if our answer is yes... then I guess we have to ask why?

In other words, I am disgusted by the booing incident, but I'm aware that some of my own behaviors might be looked down upon by people who were alive 200 years ago. So is this kind of behavior becoming acceptable? Should it?

In retrospect, I'm conflicted on the booing, espec...

2009-01-24T11:08:00.000-05:00

In retrospect, I'm conflicted on the booing, especially after reading SWA's post. Bush did go to great lengths to avoid being confronted by criticism. So a lot of the anger voters felt towards him was pent up and they viewed his goodbye as their only chance to get it out. Still, I think it detracted from the inauguration and seemed to contradict the tone Obama wanted to set.

I did not watch Bush's inauguration, so I don't know if people were booing Clinton or not. But I do believe hyperpartisanship was ushered in during his administration. I'm not saying Clinton is responsible for it, but I am saying that the 80s did not seem as politically divided as the 90s were with the Gingrich Revolution. I don't know.

Given that the Republican Party has spent the past...

2009-01-24T10:14:00.000-05:00

Given that the Republican Party has spent the past year or so distancing themselves from Bush, I don't believe that anyone within the party has any grounds to conflate booing Bush with booing the party.

Somebody got booed. Somebody else flubbed a line. Somebody didn't touch the magic words while reciting a line, somebody is angry about it. Business as usual, all. Democracy is inherently messy.

To echo S.W.'s comments, Bush & Cheney gave the pu...

2009-01-21T12:49:00.000-05:00

To echo S.W.'s comments, Bush & Cheney gave the public very few opportunities to address them. Nonetheless, it is disrespectful. In reality, Americans showed their disapproval of Bush in the '06 and '08 elections.

And if people can get this through their thick hea...

2009-01-21T09:29:00.000-05:00

And if people can get this through their thick heads....

Whatever one side accuses the other of... that side has done the same...

Clinton was booed when he left by the crowd. Its only fitting.

When the Republicans are accused of pandering the fabulously wealthy. Democrats pander to the fabulously famous. (Which is the same thing in my book)

Some things will simply never change.

2009-01-21T09:24:00.000-05:00

Some things will simply never change.

I'm torn on the booing. Usually, I deplore that ki...

2009-01-21T04:34:00.000-05:00

I'm torn on the booing. Usually, I deplore that kind of thing as immature and foolish, telling more about the people who do it than whatever those people are protesting about.

However, where Bush and Cheney are concerned, I can begin to understand and sympathize. That's because they and their administration went to outlandish lengths to avoid contact with anyone who might disagree with them, their policies and their ways.

Things like having a middle-aged woman, a teacher, removed from a Bush appearance because she wore a T-shirt with the words, "Support Public Schools" printed on it. Things like seeing to it that for the '04 inauguration, protesters were consigned to cattle pens so far removed from anywhere Bush was going to be that there was no chance he would see or hear them. Things like doing his long, arduous 2005 tour trying to privatize Social Security, speaking only to audiences of carefully selected Republican voters wherever he went.

From day 1 of their administration, Bush and Cheney were the most secretive and aloof president and vice president in U.S. history. They didn't want public input, feedback, questioning or criticism, and they avoided it like the plague.

So, on the final day, when confronted by an unappreciative public, they were subjected to some long pent-up resentment.

Yes, it was unseemly. But it was also overdue and mild when one considers how thoroughly bad a job Bush and Cheney did. For eight years they couldn't stand the heat, but wouldn't leave the kitchen. Tuesday, no longer in control of their situation for a couple of hours, they finally got some.

To be honest, the people who booed Bush and those ...

2009-01-20T23:12:00.000-05:00

To be honest, the people who booed Bush and those who are trashing Obama over the oath are, from what I can tell, in the minority of people. Unfortunately, individuals too often over power the majority.