The Rats cannot argue the truth of the financial disaster before us - it's mostly their fault. So, their only option is to talk trash & hope their opponents will slither on down to their level, & be perceived as being as vile as the Rats. They have been doing this forever. IT IS THEIR GAME PLAN.
If the Allen Wests of this country lower themselves to the level of empty discourse favored by the Rats, then honorable Pubs become no better than Rats. This is exactly what the Rats want: To be indistinguishable from honorable patriots.
Congressman West can spend his limited air time arguing the facts, or he can get into a p$ssing contest with a slug, for all the world to see. The former looks presidential, the latter looks reactionary & juvenile.
DWS must be pleased. She got the reaction she wanted. She made West angry, which caused him to lower himself to her level. She was not challenged for the obvious lies she told & tells every day. She's not the least phased by West's tirade - no doubt she laughed.
So, now the main story here is the tiff between AW & DWS, not, as it should be, the disastrous policies of the Rats & DWS. The MSM is loving it. The Rats will win in 2012 if we get sucked into this game time after time. All they have to do is regularly insult a Pub, wait for the lame “She's said ugly things about me, mommy” reaction from the Pubs, & one more day/week is lost to successful Rat redirection. Instead of concentrating on the incredibly important debt ceiling, West is now distracted by a woman he would normally not even associate with.
All the voters see is squabbling pols. Nothing to see here folks but cheap drama, no substance. Pubs lose if this is the voter perception.
Finally, I ask you this: If, by all the insults we have made about DWS here, we could distract DWS into a back & forth insult contest, would that be good for us, or good for her?
West called out the head of DNC...and that was a good move IMO. There are times when you have to get on the same level as your opponet in order for them to understand you for they cannot rise to your level...it goes right over their head. West made a point of calling her out....and she understood.
Libs are never gonna jump over to West, so it doesn’t really matter. Independents will appreciate a real man who isn’t afraid of anything. It’s about time republicans stood up to people like her. They are like terrorists. All they understand is strenght. Show any weakness and you’re dead.
Not only are the 60s over, FRiend, but so are the notions of honorable behavior from the 18th century. Then, it was honorable to line up in rows and take a direct shot at the enemies lines. Then the men in the rear stepped over the bodies in the front to take their shot. This is an outmoded form of honor. So is pandering to the screeching hypocrisy of the leftist's games of emotional blackmail.
"Honorable" Republicans have been cowering themselves right out of power or effectiveness. Even Jesus turned over the tables of the moneylenders and used a bullwhip on them.
Quit fainting at the sight of blood. West has seen plenty of it spilled by braver men than the spineless, polite RINOs sucking up taxpayer and lobbyist money in DC. Let him continue exercising his oath to defend our Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Let me step back, a moment, and begin by saying that I do agree with your overarching point: honorable people debase themselves if they descend to the mud-slinging tactics of their detractors.
That stated, I disagree as to your assessment of the nature of West’s communiqué. I do not agree that he was participating in name-calling. In fact, it seems to me that he was calling Schultz out over her name-calling on the House floor, and letting her know in no uncertain terms that he would neither be party to it, nor tolerate it. That he employed strong descriptives of her low character, and behavior does not, to my mind, equate to name-calling on his part. When I call Charles Manson a murderer; am I name-calling? When I call Barack Obama a liar; am I name-calling? When I call a spade a spade; am I name calling? In all cases the answer is clearly, “No.”
Now, in Rep. West’s case, the exact accusation was, “You are the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives.” It may be hyperbole to say she is “the most”; there could be one or more who are worse, but is it name-calling? Not in my estimation, because the specific terms are accurate descriptions of Shultz’ reprehensible behavior and manifest low-brow character.
If this subjective assessment affords us any ground for an accusation against Col. West, it can only be that he declared that Schultz is “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member” instead of covering the possibility that there may be someone worse by declaring her to be “one of the most vile...members.” Even here, though, I believe that this is excusable, because his language kept the matter confined to the conflict between him and Schultz.
Had West used language that allowed for some other House member to be proven more vile, unprofessional, and despicable,” that would have thrown open the doors for the entire Rat cabal to jump into the fray. Of course, it may be the case that West’s choice of language is actually the exact truth; Schultz may actually be “the most vile, unprofessional and despicable member of the U.S. house of Representatives.” But whether it is or is not precisely true in that regard, the language employed by Col. West in his missive does not descend to the level of mere mud-slinging or name-calling because it is true in its description of her character, and behavior.
Saying that what is, is, cannot be cause for reprimand.
As to his challenge to her, “...you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige”; it has been my experience that when West goes to-to-toe with an opponent, he does it with facts. So, West’s dare the Schultz to throw down her gauntlet amounts to him saying, “You know as well as I do that if it came to an open debate between us, there would be no contest. If you insist, I’ll be happy to destroy every argument you cough up, but I advise that you are better served to simply keep quiet, get back to your own District, and eat your peas.”
We will see whether Schultz is enough the gutter snipe to bite on that hook, but I don’t find any basis, here, for faulting West.